Have you ever found a single bug in Islam?

[technomage]

I'm impressed by the lack of atomic sarcasm in this thread. I've been a member of several forums where the OP would be savaged.

Tom

Agreed! However, the forum has specific rules against attacking the _person_ while debating the ideas. It's one of the reasons I joined this forum: being able to disagree, but requiring standards of amity and respect, is a huge plus to a forum in my understanding.

 

[Penumbra]

Ah! It sounded like part of your objection to Islam was your evaluation that Islam was shallow and uninteresting, therefore it could not possibly be true. I apologize for misunderstanding your views.

Well that wording there changed things- yes part of my objection to Islam is evaluation of its philosophy, consistency, and applied ethics. Truth is another, only partially related matter. The main thing is I don't think it's true of course, and nearly as importantly, I think it's good that it's not true. The ethical problems of a religion only directly matter for determining its truth or not when the religion makes ethical conclusions based on facts that are later shown to be inaccurate. Usually truth determination is a fairly separate matter.

I generally don't bother debating Muslims on whether Islam is true, nor do I spend much time debating conservative Christians about whether their religion is true. On occasions where I've tried, I've found that often their views are so far removed from the scientific understanding of the history of this planet and universe and how it works, that we can't discuss truth because we're not even working with the same set of facts. I don't really assign Allah any more probability of being true than say, Jupiter or Ra, so it's just not an interesting point to me. I prefer to spend time on truth debates with other people on other topics.

Applied ethics, on the other hand, are very interesting to me. Because if a religion is entirely untrue in the sense that none of its gods exist and its metaphysical claims are completely inaccurate, it's still true that the religion exists on this planet and people believe it. There's a book from about 1400 years ago that 1.5 billion people believe is the word-for-word infallible recitation from the creator of the universe, and that it's something to base one's own life and one's laws around. So, it's true that Islam is the second largest religion on the planet, primarily centered around the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia with smaller populations in most countries of the world.

And it's true that in terms of rankings for things like human rights, gender equality, the freedom of religion and expression, or the freedom of LGBT people, Islamic-majority countries tend to get internationally ranked near the bottom of all of those lists. In some Islamic countries women can't vote or drive, and the majority of countries that have laws against consensual adult homosexual sex (up to and including prison or death in many cases) are Islamic countries. Today, most predominantly Christian and Jewish countries strongly support freedom of speech, religion, and expression, even though that was not the case in the past. Many Hindus, Shintos, pagans, non-religious folk, and Buddhists, also strongly support freedom of speech, religion, and expression, although there are of course exceptions like in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, North Korea, aspects of China, etc. Islamic countries on the other hand with a few exceptions tend to fairly consistently restrict freedom of speech, religion, or expression, and especially when concerning criticism of Islam.

 

[technomage]

Well that wording there changed things- yes part of my objection to Islam is evaluation of its philosophy, consistency, and applied ethics. Truth is another, only partially related matter.

I can see that, and I agree with our views regarding applied ethics. My main point was thus: _if_ Islam is true (a position that I do not hold to, but apply for the sake of the discussion), then our standards of applied ethics are based on falsehood, and are thus a poor gauge to measure Islam by.

For me, truth, if discoverable, trumps everything.

 

[Penumbra]

I can see that, and I agree with our views regarding applied ethics. My main point was thus: _if_ Islam is true (a position that I do not hold to, but apply for the sake of the discussion), then our standards of applied ethics are based on falsehood, and are thus a poor gauge to measure Islam by.

For me, truth, if discoverable, trumps everything.

I disagree.

If Allah exists and said he wants me to, say, kill a homosexual man or an adulteress, I'm still not gonna do it or think that it's ethical. Nor would I support the idea of people being tortured in hell endlessly, with skins being burnt off and replaced for more suffering, and being beaten with maces and forced into scalding fetid fluid like the Qur'an talks about. The existence or non-existence of any gods doesn't affect those positions I hold, because it doesn't change the facts that led to the ethical conclusions.

 

[technomage]

I disagree.

I understand. But I am also of the opinion that people of good will can look at things and come to different conclusions, and I can respect your conclusions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can see that, and I agree with our views regarding applied ethics. My main point was thus: _if_ Islam is true (a position that I do not hold to, but apply for the sake of the discussion), then our standards of applied ethics are based on falsehood, and are thus a poor gauge to measure Islam by.

For me, truth, if discoverable, trumps everything.

However, it is fairly easy to establish that Islam is, in fact, untrue.

One of the main, most convincing paths to arrive at that conclusion is the study of its teachings and the ethical implications. Chief among them, the disapproval of atheism.

 

[technomage]

However, it is fairly easy to establish that Islam is, in fact, untrue.

Islam, in and of itself, yes. Theism ... I've yet to find any conclusive proof on that, for or against.

One of the main, most convincing paths to arrive at that conclusion is the study of its teachings and the ethical implications. Chief among them, the disapproval of atheism.

That may be convincing to you personally, and I have no problem with that. However, it is a form of appeal to the consequences: whether or not Islam is agreeable has no bearing on whether or not it is true. I personally find Islam to be disagreeable. I _also_ find it to be false. But these are two separate issues.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose it has the same fundamental bug that any other rationally and empirically unsupported worldview has - chiefly, that many of its claims require one to suspend rational questioning and analysis in order for them to be accepted. A practice myself, and many other people, are unwilling and/or unable to do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Islam, in and of itself, yes. Theism ... I've yet to find any conclusive proof on that, for or against.

Theism is true, in the sense that it exists.

It is not however needed, and most definitely it is not disapproved by God even if he exists. Otherwise it would not exist, or at the very least I could not possibly be an atheist.

That may be convincing to you personally, and I have no problem with that. However, it is a form of appeal to the consequences: whether or not Islam is agreeable has no bearing on whether or not it is true. I personally find Islam to be disagreeable. I _also_ find it to be false. But these are two separate issues.

They are, but the argument I am using is that of the impossibility of existence of atheism against the will of God.

Islam (and nearly all of Christianity) take as one of their premises that Atheism displeases God, yet existence proves that such can not be the case. Ergo, both are on the wrong, at least on that particular point.

 

[technomage]

Theism is true, in the sense that it exists.

I'm sorry, my language was imprecise. I should have stated that I have seen no conclusive evidence, for or against, the existence of God, however that entity is defined or understood.

They are, but the argument I am using is that of the impossibility of existence of atheism against the will of God.

Islam (and nearly all of Christianity) take as one of their premises that Atheism displeases God, yet existence proves that such can not be the case. Ergo, both are on the wrong, at least on that particular point.

They also posit that sin displeases God, but make allowances for why it exists at this point in time. Unfortunately, the existence of atheists (however displeasing a putative God may find them) does not disprove the existence of God.

 

[loverOfTruth]

However, it is fairly easy to establish that Islam is, in fact, untrue.

One of the main, most convincing paths to arrive at that conclusion is the study of its teachings and the ethical implications. Chief among them, the disapproval of atheism.

Nice circular logic you have there .... Since Islam(main idea of which is to believe in the existence of God) disapproves atheism(main idea of which is the lack of belief in the existence of God), so Islam is false. So according to that same logic, Atheism (main idea of which is the lack of belief in the existence of God) is False since Islam(main idea of which is to believe in the existence of God) disapproves of it - Well done

What I see here happening is ... people are complaining about rules and regulations of Islam without actually first establishing the facts about Islam. This is how you should go about it ...
1. First prove/disprove that God exists and that He is the only Creator of the Heavens and the earth
2. Once that is established, you should see if there is any need for the God to communicate with Humans
3. If so, then which communication of God to mankind is the authentic one
4. Then whether you like it or not, those rules and regulations are the true commandments from the One True God.
[The following video might help in regards to the first 3 : Is Life Just A Game? - Hamza Tzortzis [ISLAMIC AWARENESS WEEK 2013] - YouTube]

For me, truth, if discoverable, trumps everything.

Now that's honorable and rational.

 

[Penumbra]

I've never seen anything that to me looks like something even resembling a convincing case for Islam being true.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry, my language was imprecise. I should have stated that I have seen no conclusive evidence, for or against, the existence of God, however that entity is defined or understood.


They also posit that sin displeases God, but make allowances for why it exists at this point in time. Unfortunately, the existence of atheists (however displeasing a putative God may find them) does not disprove the existence of God.

I must disagree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nice circular logic.

It is not at all circular. It is instead direct testimonial of the untruth of a remarkably bold assertion.

The Quran says that I must be a sinner of the highest order, simply because I disbelieve in God.

It also says that God is the supreme reference for fairness, moral virtue and good will.

So, either I am somehow a grave sinner without even realizing it, or the Quran is on the wrong.

The first choice, rest assured, is untrue. So I know that the second is indeed true.

 

[technomage]

I must disagree.

Hmmm ... If you've expressed this argument in full in another thread, I would be interested in reading it.

 

[loverOfTruth]

It is not at all circular. It is instead direct testimonial of the untruth of a remarkably bold assertion.

The Quran says that I must be a sinner of the highest order, simply because I disbelieve in God.

It also says that God is the supreme reference for fairness, moral virtue and good will.

So, either I am somehow a grave sinner without even realizing it, or the Quran is on the wrong.

The first choice, rest assured, is untrue. So I know that the second is indeed true.

That is what 'you' think - that does not prove anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is what 'you' think - that does not prove anything.

It proves that if the God of the Quran exists as stated, he is either a fraud or insane, which means that it can't be the god of the Quran.

Islam is salvageable, to the extent that its adherents are actual people and can see beyond such minor points that hinder the doctrine. Christianity did much the same in regards to slavery. It can be done, and it must be done.

However, I have reason to believe that Islam basically forbids itself from doing so. Which is a very grave dilemma IMO.

Most Muslims are very well-meaning people who deserve better than to be stuck in such a sorry situation. It is a shame to see so many people suffer so much for so little reason.

 

[loverOfTruth]

It proves that if the God of the Quran exists as stated, he is either a fraud or insane, which means that it can't be the god of the Quran.

Care to explain how ?

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

That is what 'you' think - that does not prove anything.

So you agree Islam may not be true as you can't prove it either?

 

[LuisDantas]

Care to explain how ?

A reasonable person would not call me a sinner simply because I disbelieve in God, without regarding who I actually am and what I actually do.

Islam, according to Muslims that I doubt to be mistaken on this matter, states outright that according to God as expressed by way of the Quran, I am such a sinner anyhow.

Therefore, if Islam is true, God is somehow more flawed than the average person.

But if that is of course an even more serious absurd.

Therefore, either I am lying or Islam is wrong.

And I am not lying.