Religion necessary for morality?

So much to my enjoyment, I've been engaging in AU-style discussion and debate with my friends at lunch lately.

This discussion was prompted by the claim by a friend of mind (an atheist) that following religion is necessary for morality because nothing but a 100% guaranteed threat of punishment (i.e. a sentence in Hell) will keep people from acting immorally. The police can't (and shouldn't) track our every move, and our legal system won't punish all the guilty and sometimes punishes the innocent. I can't quite remember what my response was to that, but I think it was something along the lines of the existence of working secular systems or morality. The rest of us said that the problem with this is that you have to pick an objective system for everyone to follow, otherwise people will just continue to follow whatever they believe is right according to their god.

Today, he said that people are inherently bad (selfish) due to the nature of all animals to promote their own survival over everything and anything else. Any action to help another only occurs if it is in one's benefit. I tried to explain that altruism was instinctual (though those words didn't come to mind and I just said "we're programmed to be cooperative" or something), a claim that was simply blown off as being "not true, why don't we observe that in other animals then?" Again, I forgot where the conversation went from there. I think the bell rang at that point.

This second conversation was prompted by his saying that he agreed with statement from some book (the name of which escapes me) that religion is more beneficial to society than science because, regardless of its factuality or lack thereof, religion keeps people in line and ensures peace, and that people will eventually figure out the most essential technologies anyway. To this I responded that A) religion and science are completely different schools of thought, and aren't mutually exclusive, B) anything close to an advanced, modern, high-tech society wouldn't be possible without the scientific method. I should have also stated that wouldn't be a free society at all, I'm not sure how that escaped me at the time. Now that I see it written out, he was basically suggesting a tyrrany ruling over a nation of sheep. I guess I should have gotten that when he said that "dictatorships aren't that bad."

Sorry that it's such a long read. Thoughts?

Well, given that the argument really seems more to be that a guaranteed threat of punishment for wrongdoing is necessary for morality, I'll address that by saying...

...if the only thing preventing you from going out and murdering your neighbors, raping their wives, and stealing their possessions is the idea that someone will torture you forever if you do, then your moral compass has come rather unhinged, and quite frankly saying that this is true of everyone is rather likely to be a classic case of Freudean projection.  I've heard once that there are largely two stages of personal morality: first, we escape punishment; then, we do it because we want to.  I think that's largely true, and some people take a lot longer than others to reach step two.

Perhaps this is a good indication, though, of why the idea that Christianity does not preach eternal damnation is so difficult to stomach for a lot of people, though - they are afraid of what such a concept might do to them since they have not yet reached the state where they can act out of love rather than fear.

Kinda sad to think about, really.

As for actually empirically refuting the assertion, though, all I really need to do is present this picture:

That's the percentage of people responding in the affirmative in each country to the question of whether they believe in a personal God, the other options being whether they believe there exists some form of spirit or life force or whether they believe in neither concept.  Note that this very likely provides a good gauge on the percentage of people who believe that there is a punishment for wrongdoings after death, as one who does not believe in a personal God is rather unlikely to believe that this God they do not believe in will punish sinners after death.

That's only 19% in the Czech Republic in 2005 who believe in God, compared with the 82% of people in the US in 2006 who believe in God.  And compare this with their relative crime rates - 0.080 crimes per capita in the US, compared to only 0.038 in the Czech Republic.

Something's holding those people back from going on a rampage, and it certainly doesn't seem to be belief in an eternal torture chamber.

Gabuex's answer nailed it, but I'll add something from nature's perspective. Religions were made by humans and are followed exclusively by humans, which means that animals other than humans have no concept of what a religion is. Thunderf00t made a great point in this video about piranhas; that they have a concept of what's right and what's wrong, despite the fact that they follow no religion.

If the notion of a religion being necessary for morality were true, you would see the piranhas in mass hysteria; they would be eating each other. They'd be eating each other because they would be unaware of the fact that by resorting to cannibalism, it would hurt the school that they live with. (the school of piranhas would not be able to hunt as effectively)

I really dislike it when people connect religioun with morality, a person's morality should come from one's conscience. Your ability to disgtinguish right from wrong is the thing that should tell you whether or not you should do something. Religioun has nothing to do with it.

following religion is necessary for morality because nothing but a 100% guaranteed threat of punishment (i.e. a sentence in Hell) will keep people from acting immorallyAlternatingCaps

This guy's an atheist right. If he has ever acted morally then he just pretty much contradicted himself. Now I agree with him insofar as religion and the threat of hell is very helpful for morality, but not that it's necessary. Heck if you're not so much of a jerk that you don't need threats of violence to make you act morally (like the fine people of this union) then religion is outright unneccesary.

Some people do need religion though, it helps as a good fictionalist supplement to our natural conscience.

Today, he said that people are inherently bad (selfish) due to the nature of all animals to promote their own survival over everything and anything else.AlternatingCaps

Your friend is equivocating terms here. We absolutely are selfish creatures but selfishness in this sense does not serve as a synonym for "bad". If altruistic behaviour leads to an increase in fitness (which it does in human society) then altruism is a selfish act. Selfish here refers only to behaviour that increases fitness not to behaviour that is intrinsically bad like your friend is suggesting. Ask him if altruism is in the self interests of a social animal and when he agrees that it is tell him that we therefore must have a natural tendency to act morally.

a claim that was simply blown off as being "not true, why don't we observe that in other animals then?".AlternatingCaps

Your friend needs to watch some animal planet or national geographic. Point him towards a pack of dogs or a crowd of penguins huddling for warmth.

This second conversation was prompted by his saying that he agreed with statement from some book (the name of which escapes me) that religion is more beneficial to society than science

AlternatingCaps

Religion is beneficial sure but nowhere near to the extent that science is. Religion helps with morality but it's not necessary for it. Science helps us out with our day to day survival and it is necessary for it, at least to the extent that we are men rather than beasts.

That's only 19% in the Czech Republic in 2005 who believe in God, compared with the 82% of people in the US in 2006 who believe in God.  And compare this with their relative crime rates - 0.080 crimes per capita in the US, compared to only 0.038 in the Czech Republic.

Something's holding those people back from going on a rampage, and it certainly doesn't seem to be belief in an eternal torture chamber.

GabuEx

Your argument's flawed. The Czech Republic was under a totalitarian government -- so organized crime was highly restricted because of strong police and social control. Recently, however, the country's been much freer and the crime rates reflect it - i.e. there's been a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That's only 19% in the Czech Republic in 2005 who believe in God, compared with the 82% of people in the US in 2006 who believe in God.  And compare this with their relative crime rates - 0.080 crimes per capita in the US, compared to only 0.038 in the Czech Republic.

Something's holding those people back from going on a rampage, and it certainly doesn't seem to be belief in an eternal torture chamber.

Lansdowne5

Your argument's flawed. The Czech Republic was under a totalitarian government -- so organized crime was highly restricted because of strong police and social control. Recently, however, the country's been much freer and the crime rates reflect it - i.e. there's been a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

An atheist can be the most moral person alive.  However, I do not believe he has any true basis for his morals without borrowing ideas from religion even if it be unknowingly.  Even Scripture supports this view in Romans 2:14, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law."

And as far as religious people being moral, often times when a person is told not to do something all it does is cause him to want to go against that moral ethic.  Tell a child not to do something and the child will want to do so all the more.  The moral law within religion is imperfect for that reason but is still good. Scripture even supports this view when it says in Romans 5:20, "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more."

Romans 3:20 states, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."  This religious law is impossible to follow but shows us our need for Christ.  True righteousness "comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" (Rom. 3:22).

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law" (Rom. 3:31).  Does this mean we do not follow this moral religious law? By no means.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That's only 19% in the Czech Republic in 2005 who believe in God, compared with the 82% of people in the US in 2006 who believe in God.  And compare this with their relative crime rates - 0.080 crimes per capita in the US, compared to only 0.038 in the Czech Republic.

Something's holding those people back from going on a rampage, and it certainly doesn't seem to be belief in an eternal torture chamber.

Lansdowne5

Your argument's flawed. The Czech Republic was under a totalitarian government -- so organized crime was highly restricted because of strong police and social control. Recently, however, the country's been much freer and the crime rates reflect it - i.e. there's been a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

Your argument's flawed. The Czech Republic was under a totalitarian government -- so organized crime was highly restricted because of strong police and social control. Recently, however, the country's been much freer and the crime rates reflect it - i.e. there's been a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

Lansdowne5

Not only is that number for the Czech Republic a very recent one - its crime rate per capita is still half what the US' is - you can also pick pretty much any other European nation; whichever you choose, it's highly likely to have a lower rate of belief in God and a lower crime rate per capita than the US.  And that link I provided is being generous to the US, since it includes property crime as well as violent crime - if you restrict it only to violent crime, the US fares even worse.  If it was indeed the case that anyone who didn't believe in God has no moral compass and is thus unable to resist murdering and stealing like there's no tomorrow - the ultimate assertion of those who say that only a fear of punishment after death can prevent people from acting immorally - none of this should be the case.

Your argument that my argument is flawed is flawed. :P

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Your argument's flawed. The Czech Republic was under a totalitarian government -- so organized crime was highly restricted because of strong police and social control. Recently, however, the country's been much freer and the crime rates reflect it - i.e. there's been a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

GabuEx

Not only is that number for the Czech Republic a very recent one - its crime rate per capita is still half what the US' is - you can also pick pretty much any other European nation; whichever you choose, it's highly likely to have a lower rate of belief in God and a lower crime rate per capita than the US.  And that link I provided is being generous to the US, since it includes property crime as well as violent crime - if you restrict it only to violent crime, the US fares even worse.  If it was indeed the case that anyone who didn't believe in God has no moral compass and is thus unable to resist murdering and stealing like there's no tomorrow - the ultimate assertion of those who say that only a fear of punishment after death can prevent people from acting immorally - none of this should be the case.

Your argument that my argument is flawed is flawed. :P

For you to come to that conclusion, you would have to know who is commiting the crimes. Obviously you don't have that information, but for all you know, the people of faith are commiting absolutely zero and the non-believers are committing them all.

Just to say the Bible belt has a higher crime rate means nothing. Who is commiting the crimes, believers or non-believers? In addition to this, poverty levels, per capita income, living standards, education, marital status, age, law enforcement budgets, etc. all must be considered.  

The numbers per capita are irrelevant without knowing who is comitting the crimes.

PS. And do bear in mind that government law doesn't necessarily equate to God's moral law.

In addition to this, poverty levels, per capita income, living standards, education, marital status, age, law enforcement budgets, etc. all must be considered.Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Your argument's flawed. The Czech Republic was under a totalitarian government -- so organized crime was highly restricted because of strong police and social control. Recently, however, the country's been much freer and the crime rates reflect it - i.e. there's been a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

Lansdowne5

Not only is that number for the Czech Republic a very recent one - its crime rate per capita is still half what the US' is - you can also pick pretty much any other European nation; whichever you choose, it's highly likely to have a lower rate of belief in God and a lower crime rate per capita than the US. And that link I provided is being generous to the US, since it includes property crime as well as violent crime - if you restrict it only to violent crime, the US fares even worse. If it was indeed the case that anyone who didn't believe in God has no moral compass and is thus unable to resist murdering and stealing like there's no tomorrow - the ultimate assertion of those who say that only a fear of punishment after death can prevent people from acting immorally - none of this should be the case.

Your argument that my argument is flawed is flawed. :P

For you to come to that conclusion, you would have to know who is commiting the crimes. Obviously you don't have that information, but for all you know, the people of faith are commiting absolutely zero and the non-believers are committing them all.

Just to say the Bible belt has a higher crime rate means nothing. Who is commiting the crimes, believers or non-believers? In addition to this, poverty levels, per capita income, living standards, education, marital status, age, law enforcement budgets, etc. all must be considered.

The numbers per capita are irrelevant without knowing who is comitting the crimes.

PS. And do bear in mind that government law doesn't necessarily equate to God's moral law.

Why do you persist in arguing with facts? No, because taking the contrary position will never, ever serve you well.

In my opinion, religion is just the frame through which morality was systematised, "organised" and recorded.

Such a thing was necessarily in order to "lock on" to a moral state and save society from possible turbulances that could have interrupted peace and order. So it was important for these morals to be aknowledged by being recorded and of course attributed to a deity in order for them to gain prestige, power and validity that transcends time or conditions.

So, religion did not create morality, but instead sought to elevate human morals from the inevitable relative level to a more absolute and objective level, by making them common for large masses and also by attributing them to a deity which makes people accountable for what they do, and a deity is especially efficient in this if we view it as a manifestation/visualisation of our super-ego. The externalisation of it through the imagery of a deity makes it easily bearable (yes I believe that self criticism is much harsher than ciritcism by a notion of a deity) and easily detectable, understood and pleasable.

Now as for if religion is needed to maintain morality of course I believe that its not necessary any more. It was necessary though in the course of human history and I view religion as a normal stage for humans in the process of life.

EDIT: And sorry if my post may go into science fields that I dont know so much about than someone who has studied them in depth (which would make me someone who professes to know stuff he doesnt), but thats just my thoughts.

Unless you'd somehow like to suggest that the atheists are in general now more affluent, and better educated than theists in general.MetalGear_Ninty

For you to come to that conclusion, you would have to know who is commiting the crimes. Obviously you don't have that information, but for all you know, the people of faith are commiting absolutely zero and the non-believers are committing them all.

Just to say the Bible belt has a higher crime rate means nothing. Who is commiting the crimes, believers or non-believers?

Lansdowne5

Actually, we do have that information, at least in the US.  In 1997, a study was done of the prison population that found approximately 70% of the population was Christian.

The precise scope of conclusions that may be drawn from this study are not that clear - atheists have sometimes attempted to use the 0.2% figure for atheists to claim that this proves atheists are more moral than theists, but as that site explains such a conclusion is rather debatable.  But certainly it seems to me that one conclusion we definitely can make is that people who are at the very least self-identified as Christian are going to jail, and the percentages do not look terribly divergent from the national numbers of adherence.

In addition to this, poverty levels, per capita income, living standards, education, marital status, age, law enforcement budgets, etc. all must be considered.

Lansdowne5

Wait, why must those be considered?  The question is whether the lack of religion induces a lack of a moral compass.  If that statement is true, then those things shouldn't matter; what should matter is whether or not a person believes in punishment after death for wrongdoing.  I don't know if you were aware of this, but by saying that you have effectively admitted that there are much stronger factors than religion (or a lack thereof) contributing to those who do wrong in life.

The numbers per capita are irrelevant without knowing who is comitting the crimes.

Lansdowne5

As I have shown, the percentages of religious adherence of those in jail in the US is not wildly divergent from the percentages of the population at large.  If you wish to assert that the same is not true for European countries, and that there everyone who commits a crime is a non-believer, I think the ball is firmly in your court to prove as much, given that I cannot imagine any reason to think that to be so.

PS. And do bear in mind that government law doesn't necessarily equate to God's moral law.

Lansdowne5

I'm fairly sure that you would agree that murder, rape, theft, et cetera are all immoral acts, and such things are the standard sort of crime for which someone is jailed.  If you wish to prove that non-believers are the only ones getting jailed for things that are against God's moral law, then I think that is firmly on you to prove.  No matter how much evidence I give, there will always be a way for you to invent a story in which all true believers are exonerated, so it should be fairly obvious that simply coming up with such a story is rather insufficient for actually proving your point.

Unless you'd somehow like to suggest that the atheists are in general now more affluent, and better educated than theists in general.

MetalGear_Ninty

Well... actually, they are.  Kind of.

Of course, I'm highly suspicious that the causation is in the opposite direction - being highly successful causes one to believe he or she does not need God.

As I have shown, the percentages of religious adherence of those in jail in the US is not wildly divergent from the percentages of the population at large. If you wish to assert that the same is not true for European countries, and that there everyone who commits a crime is a non-believer, I think the ball is firmly in your court to prove as much, given that I cannot imagine any reason to think that to be so.GabuEx

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Unless you'd somehow like to suggest that the atheists are in general now more affluent, and better educated than theists in general.GabuEx

Well... actually, they are. Kind of.

GabuEx

OK, so you're telling me that data showing that 77% of post-graduates (US I presume) have very little dount about the exstence of God is somehow evidence for how atheists are on general better educated than theists in the US. Also, just because one may have doubt that god exists, does not make them an atheist. :wink:

Of course, I'm highly suspicious that the causation is in the opposite direction - being highly successful causes one to believe he or she does not need God.

GabuEx

MetalGear_Ninty

Hence the "kind of". :P It may be the case that in the realm of the highly educated and financially successful you still have percentages in the high 70s of belief in God, but on the other end it's into the 90s.  There is definitely a connection between education and financial success and a weaker faith in God.  Statistically speaking, a randomly chosen atheist is more likely to be well-educated and financially successful than a randomly chosen theist.  And that's basically what I was intending to show - those at home may make their own conclusions as to why that is, of course.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]GabuEx

Hence the "kind of". :P It may be the case that in the realm of the highly educated and financially successful you still have percentages in the high 70s of belief in God, but on the other end it's into the 90s. There is definitely a connection between education and financial success and a weaker faith in God. Statistically speaking, a randomly chosen atheist is more likely to be well-educated and financially successful than a randomly chosen theist. And that's basically what I was intending to show - those at home may make their own conclusions as to why that is, of course.

The statisitics that you presented don't show that though. :?MetalGear_Ninty

Well, let's just look at the third graph for now.

From 2006 exit polls (which probably underestimate the percentage of those who are poor), we know that those making under $50K make up about 42% of the population, that those making $50K-$74K make up 22% of the population, that those making $75K-$99K make up about 16% of the population, that those making $100K-$149K make up about 13% of the population, and that those making $150K or more make up about 10% of the population.

Combining these two sets of data, we find that:

- 38.2% of the population has at most little doubt God exists and makes less than $50K.

- 19.8% of the population has at most little doubt God exists and makes between $50K and $74K.

- 14.1% of the population has at most little doubt God exists and makes between $75K and $99K.

- 10.3% of the population has at most little doubt God exists and makes between $100K and $149K.

- 7.5% of the population has at most little doubt God exists and makes $150K or more.

- 3.8% of the population has at least some doubt God exists and makes less than $50K.

- 2.2% of the population has at least some doubt God exists and makes between $50K and $74K.

- 1.9% of the population has at least some doubt God exists and makes between $75K and $99K.

- 2.7% of the population has at least some doubt God exists and makes between $100K and $149K.

- 2.5% of the population has at least some doubt God exists and makes $150K or more.

In other words:

Of those with at most little doubt God exists, 35.4% make more than $75K, and 42.5% make less than $50K.

Of those with at least some doubt God exists, 54.5% make more than $75K, and 28.8% make less than $50K.

And since 2006 exit polls, as noted, are probably an underestimation of the percentage of people who are poor in America, the true numbers, if different than this, are likely to just be sent further in the direction in which they are already going, which changes nothing in this analysis.

Therefore, it is clear to see that if you randomly select one person from each group, you are statistically likely to have the one with at least some doubt God exists to be wealthier than the one with at most little doubt - there are more wealthy people as a percentage in the former group than in the latter group.

Granted, as you said, having some doubt that God exists is not the same as being an atheist, but I see no reason not to assume that those who are atheist are just a subset of each group of those with at least some doubt.  In order for this not to work for atheists compared to theists as well, one would have to show that atheists are statistically more likely to be poor than those with some doubt in God's existence but who still think he exists - and I do not see any obvious reason why this would be the case.

The argument for the second graph is basically identical, so I won't waste time making it as well.

All animals have learned morality due to livign in groups with social structures. If a group didn't have a moral code that group would die out due to other groups with moral code attacking it to extinction. In areas of small groups of wanderers they need to survive within that group and each person needs to assist the group in order for the group to stay alive. This moral code has been passed down from generation to generation since human ancestors began travelling in these groups.BumFluff122

This is basically how I see it. It seems to make sense that we would evolve some sort of moral code. For example, if we went around killing each other, that would only be harmful to our group and provide no benefit. So, no, I don't think religion is necessary for morality at all.

Granted, as you said, having some doubt that God exists is not the same as being an atheist, but I see no reason not to assume that those who are atheist are just a subset of each group of those with at least some doubt. In order for this not to work for atheists compared to theists as well, one would have to show that atheists are statistically more likely to be poor than those with some doubt in God's existence but who still think he exists - and I do not see any obvious reason why this would be the case.

GabuEx

I relate atheists with people that sleep without a blanket. They know how to sleep but they don't have anything else.

Similarly, atheists do have morals, just not religious morals. 

I relate atheists with people that sleep without a blanket. They know how to sleep but they don't have anything else.

Similarly, atheists do have morals, just not religious morals. 

ghoklebutter

We don't have a warm comfy divine justification to enshroud ourself in when we act moral? That sounds about right actually but at least without the blanket the atheist can still sleep. Would a theist refuse to sleep without one?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I relate atheists with people that sleep without a blanket. They know how to sleep but they don't have anything else.

Similarly, atheists do have morals, just not religious morals. 

domatron23

We don't have a warm comfy divine justification to enshroud ourself in when we act moral? That sounds about right actually but at least without the blanket the atheist can still sleep. Would a theist refuse to sleep without one?

No, blankets make you feel comfy.

The whole religious purpose behind morals makes people feel good because they are serving God.

While atheists feel good with morals based on society.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I relate atheists with people that sleep without a blanket. They know how to sleep but they don't have anything else.

Similarly, atheists do have morals, just not religious morals. 

ghoklebutter

We don't have a warm comfy divine justification to enshroud ourself in when we act moral? That sounds about right actually but at least without the blanket the atheist can still sleep. Would a theist refuse to sleep without one?

No, blankets make you feel comfy.

The whole religious purpose behind morals makes people feel good because they are serving God.

While atheists feel good with morals based on society.

Yeah I agree. This kind of relates to my "argument from the utility of religion" thread but doesn't the very fact that religion is useful in this manner make you think that it is a fabrication contrived for that purpose.

Theists who talk about God as a better moral controller for humans should realise that there is no evidence out there that is going to make a rational person be 100% certain that a personal God, hell and heaven exist. Whether a belief in God improves the moral state of society or not doesnt matter cuz the base is so weak, not everyone is dumb enough to fall for it.

The whole problem is the amount of different religions and sects that are there. The amount of hatred between contradicting belief systems can be phenomenal, all that for "respecting" invisible beings ARGGG!!:x

My brother wasnt able to marry her love cuz we were a different sect and God would be unhappy so both parties(parents) refused to accept the marriage. I mean WTF!! Religion is so powerful that it can seemingly make a parent indifferent to the heartbreak of their child cuz "God is more important".:x 

The amount of hatred between pakistani muslims and indian hindus is all because of the hate prophet muhammad soewd of idol worshippers. We have the same culture, same language, we look similar but "God hates idol worshippers".:roll::roll:

And then there's the thing of "forgiveness" that God forgives all your sins if you sincerely repent. That doctrine pretty much kills tha argument of superior morality cuz if someone wants to do bad then there they have the ticket to.

My brother wasnt able to marry her love cuz we were a different sect and God would be unhappy so both parties(parents) refused to accept the marriage. I mean WTF!! Religion is so powerful that it can seemingly make a parent indifferent to the heartbreak of their child cuz "God is more important".:x 

The amount of hatred between pakistani muslims and indian hindus is all because of the hate prophet muhammad soewd of idol worshippers. We have the same culture, same language, we look similar but "God hates idol worshippers".:roll::roll:

And then there's the thing of "forgiveness" that God forgives all your sins if you sincerely repent. That doctrine pretty much kills tha argument of superior morality cuz if someone wants to do bad then there they have the ticket to.

Gambler_3

1. That's not why you are forbidden to (or strongly discouraged to)  marry people of different religions in Islam. The law ensures that there is a harmony between the husband and wife, without religious conflicts.

2. Muhammad didn't hate idol worshippers, he hated idoltary.

3. Not in Islam. If you think it's okay to do something forbidden because you can repent afterwards, you are making excuses.

I don't care if you are an apostate. You should at least know about Islam before you talk about it.

And then there's the thing of "forgiveness" that God forgives all your sins if you sincerely repent. That doctrine pretty much kills tha argument of superior morality cuz if someone wants to do bad then there they have the ticket to.

Gambler_3

If you sincerely repented, then you would feel sincere remorse for what you did and would not want to do it anymore.  Repentance isn't just vacuously saying "oh, I did a bad thing, forgiveness plzkthx?" with every intention to do it again in the future.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

1. That's not why you are forbidden to (or strongly discouraged to)  marry people of different religions in Islam. The law ensures that there is a harmony between the husband and wife, without religious conflicts.

2. Muhammad didn't hate idol worshippers, he hated idoltary.

3. Not in Islam. If you think it's okay to do something forbidden because you can repent afterwards, you are making excuses.

I don't care if you are an apostate. You should at least know about Islam before you talk about it.

ghoklebutter

Do you think that's a good thing - to seperate yourselves based on your faith?

There are many hundreds denegrating views about infidles in the Quran. What's the difference between idol worshippers and people committing idolatory?

As a Muslim, surely you concede that you will definately sin. Doesn't Islam include forgiveness?

Isn't an apostate someone who, by definition, knows of the religion they rejected?

1. That's not why you are forbidden to (or strongly discouraged to)  marry people of different religions in Islam. The law ensures that there is a harmony between the husband and wife, without religious conflicts.

2. Muhammad didn't hate idol worshippers, he hated idoltary.

3. Not in Islam. If you think it's okay to do something forbidden because you can repent afterwards, you are making excuses.

I don't care if you are an apostate. You should at least know about Islam before you talk about it.

ghoklebutter

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
5:51

That sort of backwards thinking is just as worse as racism. You have any non-muslim friends? If yes why so?

This is the sort of thinking prophet muhammad supported, that it's totally ok to discriminate based on religion to the extent that you are going to refuse to be friends with someone because of their faith.:|

People admire him for treating black muslims as equal when they were treated as dirt in those days but you know what? The black poor slaves were the one who initially supported him in his claim, very few rich people accepted him as a prophet. Who was he to turn his back on the blacks when they helped him so much and without them he wouldnt have succeeded? Even if we still admire him for that all the good work is wasted when you so thouroughly discriminate on religion.

Havent you read his sayings where he ordered any apostate to be killed? Really the prophet of God would do that?

I CANT frikkin talk about atheism in my country to other people cuz there is death penalty for an apostate to do that. This is what happens when you pass yourself as an "absolute model for all of humanity".

Oh please prophet muhammad literally destroyed all the idols in the kabba and everyone was forced to convert to Islam. Is this how you respect other people's beliefs? If he setted such an example how would his followers react looking at hindus worshipping their idols? Will there be piece when life's purpose for those muslims is to follow the example of muhammad?

Hadith - Bukhari 8.800B, Narrated Ikrima from Ibn Abbas

Allah's Apostle said, "When a slave (of Allah) commits illegal sexual intercourse, he is not a believer at the time of committing it; and if he steals, he is not a believer at the time of stealing; and if he drinks an alcoholic drink, when he is not a believer at the time of drinking it; and he is not a believer when he commits a murder." 'Ikrima said: I asked Ibn Abbas, "How is faith taken away from him?" He said, Like this," by clasping his hands and then separating them, and added, "But if he repents, faith returns to him like this," by clasping his hands again.

Do they not know that Allah accepts repentance from His servants and takes the alms, and that Allah is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful?

You can have your sins forgiven by giving charity.:roll:

So what did I not know about Islam? You think that being a very devout Muslim that I was, I just decided to abandon my religion for the lulz?:|

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

And then there's the thing of "forgiveness" that God forgives all your sins if you sincerely repent. That doctrine pretty much kills tha argument of superior morality cuz if someone wants to do bad then there they have the ticket to.

GabuEx

If you sincerely repented, then you would feel sincere remorse for what you did and would not want to do it anymore.  Repentance isn't just vacuously saying "oh, I did a bad thing, forgiveness plzkthx?" with every intention to do it again in the future.

Forgiveness is a very comforting thing, any time you start feeling very guility and scared of what you have done in life, there is always a way back...there is no such thing as "too much sin" as long as you arent on the verge of death.

I have seen this plenty of times where people in their adulthood werent really all that religious but then in old age they are always found praying...

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
5:51

That sort of backwards thinking is just as worse as racism. You have any non-muslim friends? If yes why so?

This is the sort of thinking prophet muhammad supported, that it's totally ok to discriminate based on religion to the extent that you are going to refuse to be friends with someone because of their faith.:|

Havent you read his sayings where he ordered any apostate to be killed? Really the prophet of God would do that?

Oh please prophet muhammad literally destroyed all the idols in the kabba and everyone was forced to convert to Islam. Is this how you respect other people's beliefs? If he setted such an example how would his followers react looking at hindus worshipping their idols? Will there be piece when life's purpose for those muslims is to follow the example of muhammad?

So what did I not know about Islam? You think that being a very devout Muslim that I was, I just decided to abandon my religion for the lulz?:|

 

Gambler_3

That verse is often mistranslated; it means don't make alliances with the kuffar. You certainly can be friends with the kuffar, Muhammad was friends with them.

That is a law invented from the Salafyyians and Wahabbis. Not an Islamic law here.

He destroyed the idols because the Mushriks were not moving them and prevented Muslims from worshipping at the Kaaba. Keep in mind that the Jews thought this was totally fine. No one is forced to convert.

You left Islam because of lack of information. I am not trying to revert you, I am just clearing up some misconceptions.

That verse is often mistranslated; it means don't make alliances with the kuffar. You certainly can be friends with the kuffar, Muhammad was friends with them.

That is a law invented from the Salafyyians and Wahabbis. Not an Islamic law here.

He destroyed the idols because the Mushriks were not moving them and prevented Muslims from worshipping at the Kaaba. Keep in mind that the Jews thought this was totally fine. No one is forced to convert.

You left Islam because of lack of information. I am not trying to revert you, I am just clearing up some misconceptions.

 

ghoklebutter

I also used to think that this law is some fabrication of Islam but I was wrong. There are sayings of the prophet "himself" asking apostates to be beheaded. Dont think all those scholars defending the issue are fools and cant interpret Islam, they simply have this preconcieved notion that muhammad = divine perfection and their delusion makes them defend this. Seems like you arent really aware of the true picture of Islam...

Hmm no as soon as he won the war against the quraish, the first thing he did was to clear the house of God. And really why should they remove them from there? They had been worshipping them for years, how can you ask them to take them somewhere else if they dont agree to accept Islam?? How would you feel if america conquered saudi arabia and asked to have a cross in the kabah and that we worship jesus and stop with this tawaaf thing?? As richard dawkins said, "Do you really think that an omnipotent God would get so desperate and jealous of false Gods??"

Why does God have to use humans to fight for himself against his own creation?

I left Islam because there is no evidence of God, furthurmore the character of Allah just doesnt seem all that caring and loving. Islam has caused so much destruction and continues to, Islam likes to poke into other's personal matters. Islam is by far the most arrogant religion in the world, you cant utter a bad word for prophet muhammad in a book or your whole life will be ruined. I cannot support such utter nonsense even if Allah actually existed. Prophet muhammad said that Allah says that the whole universe was made for muhammad, are you frikken kidding me? A universe which has been there for 13 billion years was made for someone who only lasted some 60 years of it?

Furthurmore a critical study of the quran reveals scientific errros and very clearly shows that the author is almost certainly not omniscient. A study of the sayings of muhammad reveals so many contradictions that it means we can either not trust any of his sayings or that he simply used to say random things without really developing a fixed ideology of what he is preaching.

Muhammad had sex with a 10 year old, he kept slaves and some contradictory traditions say that he even had sex with one of his slaves and later married her. There's no doubt that he married one of his slaves but there is contradictory reports on whether he had sex with her as a slave or not.

I am not attacking muhammad as things were much much different back then and it is impposible for us to really understand those times. It's not easy to fully comprehend relativty. However muhammad claimed to be the "best role model of all time", someone who should be looked up to for the rest of time. Many of his actions are now severelly condemned in todays world, the modern moral zietgest has gone far ahead of muhammad. You dont need any more evidence to know his "undivineness"...

And how exactly do YOU know that it means alliances? Which non-muslim friends did muhammad have apart from family members ofcourse? But anyways why cant you make alliance with them? What's wrong with it?

I also used to think that this law is some fabrication of Islam but I was wrong. There are sayings of the prophet "himself" asking apostates to be beheaded. Dont think all those scholars defending the issue are fools and cant interpret Islam, they simply have this preconcieved notion that muhammad = divine perfection and their delusion makes them defend this. Seems like you arent really aware of the true picture of Islam...

Hmm no as soon as he won the war against the quraish, the first thing he did was to clear the house of God. And really why should they remove them from there? They had been worshipping them for years, how can you ask them to take them somewhere else if they dont agree to accept Islam?? How would you feel if america conquered saudi arabia and asked to have a cross in the kabah and that we worship jesus and stop with this tawaaf thing?? As richard dawkins said, "Do you really think that an omnipotent God would get so desperate and jealous of false Gods??"

Why does God have to use humans to fight for himself against his own creation?

I left Islam because there is no evidence of God, furthurmore the character of Allah just doesnt seem all that caring and loving. Islam has caused so much destruction and continues to, Islam likes to poke into other's personal matters. Islam is by far the most arrogant religion in the world, you cant utter a bad word for prophet muhammad in a book or your whole life will be ruined. I cannot support such utter nonsense even if Allah actually existed. Prophet muhammad said that Allah says that the whole universe was made for muhammad, are you frikken kidding me? A universe which has been there for 13 billion years was made for someone who only lasted some 60 years of it?

Furthurmore a critical study of the quran reveals scientific errros and very clearly shows that the author is almost certainly not omniscient. A study of the sayings of muhammad reveals so many contradictions that it means we can either not trust any of his sayings or that he simply used to say random things without really developing a fixed ideology of what he is preaching.

Muhammad had sex with a 10 year old, he kept slaves and some contradictory traditions say that he even had sex with one of his slaves and later married her. There's no doubt that he married one of his slaves but there is contradictory reports on whether he had sex with her as a slave or not.

I am not attacking muhammad as things were much much different back then and it is impposible for us to really understand those times. It's not easy to fully comprehend relativty. However muhammad claimed to be the "best role model of all time", someone who should be looked up to for the rest of time. Many of his actions are now severelly condemned in todays world, the modern moral zietgest has gone far ahead of muhammad. You dont need any more evidence to know his "undivineness"...

Gambler_3

Aliances like armies, etc. A Muslim, for example, should never join the US army. There are very clear rules about war in Islam. Like you cannot dehumanize the enemy, nor attack people that appear suspicious, but aren't fighting. Armies with Jews and Christians often break those rules in Islam.

Let me tell you something about myself. I used to be just as critical on Islam as you. I almost converted to Judiasm because I thought that Islam was a violent, scientifically inaccurate, unpeaceful and sexist religion. Then I realized I was wrong. Why? Because I read a tafsir of the Qur'an. Everything that anti-Muslims say about Islam is pretty much refuted in the tafsir. Let me clarify some things you said:

1. Don't you remember that the Muslims used to pray towards the Dome of Rock? That was because there were hundreds of idols around the Kaaba, so if they prostrated towards it, they would be worshipping the idols. At one point, Muhammad decided to destroy the idols. Not to intimidate nor disrespect the Mushrikun. He did not do it in anger, either. After that he left the Mushrikun alone and Surah Kafirun was revealed to him. Who knows why God doesn't like polytheism? We will never know, so why bother asking?

2. Who knows? We will never know the motives behind his actions, why bother asking?

3. The morality of God is irrelevant right now. 

Destruction? Lol where did you hear that from? Muhammad defending his ummah from persecution? He obviously a warlord now! :roll:

You are from Pakistan, no? Most people I know from Pakistan are very fundamentalist Muslims. They can't listen to music or draw pictures. They also believe that apostacy is punishable by crime.

Muhammad does NOT own the universe, he's just a human being! Any hadith that contradicts the Quran is invalid, PERIOD.

4. Scientific errors? Pfft. This proves that you know very little about Islam. There is not a single error in the Quran. I might sound arrogant, but I honestly have not found any inconsistencies in it. And I concluded this from a critical review of the Quran. 

The hadiths are not THAT inaccurate. The only hadiths are are inaccurate are the ones that contradict the Quran and have a broken line of transmission from person to person.

5. You actually believe that? He did NOT have sex with a ten-year-old. There is concrete evidence that she was 18 before she was married. 

Slavery was slowly abolish in Islam. But if you happened to have slaves, there were laws made for it. It was so watered down that it became servantude instead of slavery. You had to treat them as members of your family. And you coundn't force them to do ANYTHING at all.

6. Just because he is the best role model, does not mean you have to do EVERYTHING he says. You don't have to do sunnah prayers or even grow a beard. He was very truthful and honest.

Keep in mind that I did research about Islam. I'm not reguritating what the Ulama say.

PM me if you want to continue this discussion.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

1. That's not why you are forbidden to (or strongly discouraged to)  marry people of different religions in Islam. The law ensures that there is a harmony between the husband and wife, without religious conflicts.

2. Muhammad didn't hate idol worshippers, he hated idoltary.

3. Not in Islam. If you think it's okay to do something forbidden because you can repent afterwards, you are making excuses.

I don't care if you are an apostate. You should at least know about Islam before you talk about it.

RationalAtheist

Do you think that's a good thing - to seperate yourselves based on your faith?

There are many hundreds denegrating views about infidles in the Quran. What's the difference between idol worshippers and people committing idolatory?

As a Muslim, surely you concede that you will definately sin. Doesn't Islam include forgiveness?

Isn't an apostate someone who, by definition, knows of the religion they rejected?

1. No it's not. Islam doesn't command you to do that anyways. 

2. The infidels are the ones who not only reject Islam, but take away the rights of Muslims away as well.

3. Yes it does.

4. Yes, but he clearly is misinformed, however much he thinks he knows everything.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Do you think that's a good thing - to seperate yourselves based on your faith?

There are many hundreds denegrating views about infidles in the Quran. What's the difference between idol worshippers and people committing idolatory?

As a Muslim, surely you concede that you will definately sin. Doesn't Islam include forgiveness?

Isn't an apostate someone who, by definition, knows of the religion they rejected?

 

ghoklebutter

1. No it's not. Islam doesn't command you to do that anyways. 

2. The infidels are the ones who not only reject Islam, but take away the rights of Muslims away as well.

3. Yes it does.

4. Yes, but he clearly is misinformed, however much he thinks he knows everything.

1. But you just said it was.

2. Why re-define infidels? Do you believe you have a right to Sharia law, while living in a democracy?

3. If there is forgiveness is Islam, its surely based on the same forgiveness as Christianity. You are being contrary now, after saying people who knowingly sin can not be forgiven.

4. Suppose its you who are mis-informed? I've never heard him say he thinks he knows everything. His situation seems so much more real, since he has to face Islam every day, knowing that he does not accept it as truth. I think that is a respectable and difficult position to take, which must have taken much study and courage. How can you be sure you have the right impression of Islam, when there are so many competing versions of it?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Do you think that's a good thing - to seperate yourselves based on your faith?

There are many hundreds denegrating views about infidles in the Quran. What's the difference between idol worshippers and people committing idolatory?

As a Muslim, surely you concede that you will definately sin. Doesn't Islam include forgiveness?

Isn't an apostate someone who, by definition, knows of the religion they rejected?

 

RationalAtheist

1. No it's not. Islam doesn't command you to do that anyways. 

2. The infidels are the ones who not only reject Islam, but take away the rights of Muslims away as well.

3. Yes it does.

4. Yes, but he clearly is misinformed, however much he thinks he knows everything.

1. But you just said it was.

2. Why re-define infidels? Do you believe you have a right to Sharia law, while living in a democracy?

3. If there is forgiveness is Islam, its surely based on the same forgiveness as Christianity. You are being contrary now, after saying people who knowingly sin can not be forgiven.

4. Suppose its you who are mis-informed? I've never heard him say he thinks he knows everything. His situation seems so much more real, since he has to face Islam every day, knowing that he does not accept it as truth. I think that is a respectable and difficult position to take, which must have taken much study and courage. How can you be sure you have the right impression of Islam, when there are so many competing versions of it?

1. Only in marriage. In Islam, there should be mutual support. When one person is conflicting the other person's religion, the marriage becomes unstable. That why it's discouraged or even prohibited. But not because Islam hates non-Muslims.

2. Not in that sense. I'm talking about situations where Muslims are denied BASIC rights, like the right to vote, for example. I live in Amercia so obviously I don't follow Shari'ah law completely.

3. I must have been confused by some posts. You CAN repent for a sin you have knowingly done. But repentance is useless when you do something forbidden because you can repent afterwards. Same thing what GabuEx said.

4.I don't know everything either. I appreciate his courage too. And unfortunately this is what they have to deal with, while thinking is from Islam. But it is not. I have a lot to learn, but I analyze things in my religion with utmost criticism. People try to deny it, but sunni Islam is in fact the true Islam. Now, there are quite a few sunnis who are fundamentalist, but they don't represent sunnism. Why am I saying that sunni Islam is correct? Because the Qur'an says so. But people try to dodge the verses that say so. I am certain I am following mostly orthodox Islam.

Aliances like armies, etc. A Muslim, for example, should never join the US army. There are very clear rules about war in Islam. Like you cannot dehumanize the enemy, nor attack people that appear suspicious, but aren't fighting. Armies with Jews and Christians often break those rules in Islam.

ghoklebutter

Let me tell you something about myself. I used to be just as critical on Islam as you. I almost converted to Judiasm because I thought that Islam was a violent, scientifically inaccurate, unpeaceful and sexist religion. Then I realized I was wrong. Why? Because I read a tafsir of the Qur'an. Everything that anti-Muslims say about Islam is pretty much refuted in the tafsir.

ghoklebutter

Realise that and then read the "translation" not some biased explanation of the quran and form your own interpretation. Man I have read many tafsirs and I can tell you that they are so biased it's not even funny. And they also try to twist things in a way that will shake the reader and he may just fall for it. Dr. zakir naik is a very prominent muslim scholar who believes in the big bang cuz he has found a verse accepting it(which is not even true) and yet he literally says "evolution is just a theory" because it contradicts quran. Are you really going to follow such people's opinions??

 

Let me clarify some things you said:

1. Don't you remember that the Muslims used to pray towards the Dome of Rock? That was because there were hundreds of idols around the Kaaba, so if they prostrated towards it, they would be worshipping the idols. At one point, Muhammad decided to destroy the idols. Not to intimidate nor disrespect the Mushrikun. He did not do it in anger, either. After that he left the Mushrikun alone and Surah Kafirun was revealed to him. Who knows why God doesn't like polytheism? We will never know, so why bother asking?

2. Who knows? We will never know the motives behind his actions, why bother asking?

3. The morality of God is irrelevant right now. 

Destruction? Lol where did you hear that from? Muhammad defending his ummah from persecution? He obviously a warlord now! :roll:

You are from Pakistan, no? Most people I know from Pakistan are very fundamentalist Muslims. They can't listen to music or draw pictures. They also believe that apostacy is punishable by crime.

Muhammad does NOT own the universe, he's just a human being! Any hadith that contradicts the Quran is invalid, PERIOD.

ghoklebutter

1. Maybe it's muhammad who had big problems with polytheism and God doesnt exist? Ever thought about that?

2. Maybe because we have to devout our whole life on his teachings? Not enough a reason to "bother asking"??:|

3. Why?

The ummah brought it to itself. they could have just privately followed their religion.

Ah which part of pakistan are you talking? The large majority listen to music and take pictures, the pakistan music industry is one of the best in asia. As for apostasy it's not just pakistan but the majority of the muslim scholars think that apostasy is punishable by death. However many individuals dont agree with this and in pakistani law there is no punishment for apostasy but there is for blasphemy. You are not much aware of pakistan at all...

Why is it invalid? Isnt muhammad the author of quran? Which makes his hadith as valid as the quran, why do you keep on assuming that God exists?

 4. Scientific errors? Pfft. This proves that you know very little about Islam. There is not a single error in the Quran. I might sound arrogant, but I honestly have not found any inconsistencies in it. And I concluded this from a critical review of the Quran. 

The hadiths are not THAT inaccurate. The only hadiths are are inaccurate are the ones that contradict the Quran and have a broken line of transmission from person to person.

ghoklebutter

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Geocentric_Quran

Do they not look at the camels how they are made.
And the sky how it is raised high.
And the mountains how they are fixed firm.
And the earth how it is spread out?
(Wa ilal'ardi kayfa sutihat.)
-- Sura 88:17-20 

Mountains arent fixed and earth isnt spread out.

And man wasnt made by clay and left to dry for 20 days and then God breached his spirit. It didnt happen that way, we have proof in evolution.

5. You actually believe that? He did NOT have sex with a ten-year-old. There is concrete evidence that she was 18 before she was married. 

ghoklebutter

I'll like to see this concrete evidence.

Slavery was slowly abolish in Islam. But if you happened to have slaves, there were laws made for it. It was so watered down that it became servantude instead of slavery. You had to treat them as members of your family. And you coundn't force them to do ANYTHING at all.

ghoklebutter

Surah 23. Al-Muminun (The Believers)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



1. The believers must (eventually) win through,-

2. Those who humble themselves in their prayers;

3. Who avoid vain talk;

4. Who are active in deeds of charity;

5. Who abstain from sex,

6. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

Yes quran allows you to rape your slaves. Ofcourse we rape our families as well so no big deal.:)

6. Just because he is the best role model, does not mean you have to do EVERYTHING he says. You don't have to do sunnah prayers or even grow a beard. He was very truthful and honest.

Keep in mind that I did research about Islam. I'm not reguritating what the Ulama say.

PM me if you want to continue this discussion.

ghoklebutter

Ah no I want public discussion to remain public, if you want to end then end it here. And sorry to say but you are very biased with the same old apologetic explanations.

People try to deny it, but sunni Islam is in fact the true Islam. Now, there are quite a few sunnis who are fundamentalist, but they don't represent sunnism. Why am I saying that sunni Islam is correct? Because the Qur'an says so. But people try to dodge the verses that say so. I am certain I am following mostly orthodox Islam.

ghoklebutter

The shia's believe that the wrong version was actually the right one. How do you know that the wrong version was burnt and not the true word of God?

The quran says that the quran is complete and final, is that your evidence againt tha shias? They believe that this quran is not the complete word of God so how are they dodging anything?

Islam's basic belief is that a God who doesnt show Himself will "severely" punish you if you dont believe in Him. Try to think about the ridiculousness of this...

There are countries in europe where the sun stays for as much as 22 HOURS IN A DAY and then there are 22 hour long nights...then there are parts where the sun never goes away for months and in winter never rises for months...

So in those countries you cannot practice the 2 pillars of Islam, prayer and fasting. You have to "mould" the rules laid out in the "book for all times and regions" Quran in order to practice these things there.

They use the watch and have set up their own timings. If Islam was a universal religion then why did the quran and hadith avoid such a huge issue? Infact why does the Quran order prayer and fasting through the motions of sun and moon and not in a way applicable througout the earth??

The only answer that comes to mind is that the Holy Prophet was prolly not divine and hence didnt know that there are such places on earth...

*super long post*

Gambler_3

You need to calm down. Am I offending you? If so, then don't reply back.

1. No, I didn't say that at all. You aren't a Muslim so you might've been confused when you read that. I said that  the Jews and Christians do not fight the way Muslims should. And if a Muslim joins that army, who can blame him for not fighting like a Muslim?

2. I know that tafsirs can be biased. That's why I studied the Quran myself. I am NOT twisting words to my desire. This is how I interpet the Quran;

a. Think about what a particular part means,

b. Try to prove myself wrong,

and c. Conclude.

I have read books by Muslim and anti-Muslim scholars too. I'm not trying to boast here, but I have analyzed the Quran A LOT. Maybe I am a disillusioned lunatic, and you know everything about Islam. But I am sure I at least have some sense. I don't blindly follow Islam; if there is something of my concern I study it until I reach a realistic conclusion. These conclusions I make are NOT based on what I think is right or not, but by the context and text itself. I try to be as unbiased as possible. I read the translation WAY MORE OFTEN than the tafsir. The tafsir (which is written by a non-Muslim BTW) only (mostly) confirms what I conclude. I am not trying to make you believe in God, I am talking about Islam itself. God is irrelevant right now. I also frown at the tafsirs that try to persuade the reader into crying because of it's beauty. (I'm sure you've seen that! :P) Those verses that talk about the big bang and evolution are very vague in context, they shouldn't even try to say such words. I don't follow Zakir Naik, I trust other scholars like Yusuf Estes, Nuh Keller, Suhaib Webb, and Qaradawi. (although I disagree with him often)

Before considering Judaism, I basically became an agnostic like you. I was a closet Muslim as well. I read the Quran when I was an agnostic.

4. a. You don't believe in God, why does it matter? This is why God is not important right now.

b. Same as 'a'

c. Same as 'b'

Well Muhammad told his followers to spread Islam if possible. So that's why they didn't follow it privately.

My apologies, I haven't even been to Pakistan. I just happen to know very fundamentalist people. I saddens me that people order the apostates to be killed. I'd say you leave Pakistan for your own safety. Have a big generic pakistani marriage party and fly to the US. Simple yet awesome. :P (Of course I was joking on the last two sentences.)

Well obviously if you are a typical non-Muslim, according to you he was the author. Har har? :?

5. It could also be an expression how static and firm the mountains are. The mountains do have "roots" of some sort deep into the Earth. And the Earth is spread out does not mean that the Earth is flat. It's just wide and vast. Yet another viewpoint from a typical human being displayed in this verse. And note that clay here is not referring to a ball of modeling clay. And EXTRACT of clay. Or clay syrup :P. Who knows what the Quran says about evolution? Most verses both refutingand supporting it are vague in this context.

6. I'll rephrase that. Strong evidence. Asma, Ayisha's older sister, was 10 years older according to authentic Hadiths. Asma died in 73AH when she was 100 years old. Ayisha was married in 2AH. Therefore she was 18 or so at the time. This, combined with authentic Hadith that mention other people were prusuing her in marriage, is strong evidence that she was mature and marriageble. Also, the Hadiths that portray her as a little kid lack a valid chain of transmission from person to person.

7. You must have got me wrong there. Islam permitted (notice the past tense there) marriage with slaves if one could not find a free spouse. Nowhere is it even implied that you can rape slaves/servants. Also, if you were married, you had to get equal consent with your wife/husband. Oh and did I forget to mention that women also had male slaves? So they could have sex with male slaves too. 

8. He was not perfect at all. He scolded a deaf man who kept interrupting him in a conversation. He didn't know he was deaf though. He is not "ABSOLUTE," because if he was we would have to clean ourselves with stones like he and everyone else did in his era. Muslims don't need to clone the Prophet's actions, just follow in his footsteps when it comes to certain descisions, like inheretence laws and what not.

If you wish to argue more, go ahead. Public is fine for me.

Islam's basic belief is that a God who doesnt show Himself will "severely" punish you if you dont believe in Him. Try to think about the ridiculousness of this...

There are countries in europe where the sun stays for as much as 22 HOURS IN A DAY and then there are 22 hour long nights...then there are parts where the sun never goes away for months and in winter never rises for months...

So in those countries you cannot practice the 2 pillars of Islam, prayer and fasting. You have to "mould" the rules laid out in the "book for all times and regions" Quran in order to practice these things there.

They use the watch and have set up their own timings. If Islam was a universal religion then why did the quran and hadith avoid such a huge issue? Infact why does the Quran order prayer and fasting through the motions of sun and moon and not in a way applicable througout the earth??

The only answer that comes to mind is that the Holy Prophet was prolly not divine and hence didnt know that there are such places on earth...

Gambler_3

1. If you have no knowledge of God or Islam, you are accountable for your deeds based on your own knowledge. For example, a tribe in South America with naked people will be judged based on their moral knowledge.

2. In those times and places Mecca timing is used. Like Alaska.

3. You can. What, we can't use Mecca timing in those areas?

4. Because the lunar calendar is very precise and accurate. And Muslims are not the only ones who use it.

5. He was not divine, he was a prophet. Shows how much you know about him. Do you think he knew where America was? :roll:

I don't care if you believe in God or not. I am just criticizing your mis-informed views on Islam. I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not.