Is Islamic faith reasonable.

[England my lionheart]

The "natural questioning" trait seems a good explanation.
It could also be that we since we lack dogma, we've very little to defend.
Tis easy to debate when one takes fewer shaky positions.

Except when it comes to Bacon

 

[1robin]

I don't believe anyone has addressed the one author for the quran point yet.
Any event or claim is thought to be more substantiated the more witnesses it can produce.
If the bible has 40 or so there is not much chance they were all mistaken or nuts.
With the 1 for the quran it is much harder to establish the reliability of the books events.
If Muhammad was unreliable or untrustworthy (and there are many arguments in favor of that) then the whole Quran is unreliable because of no coberrating testimony. This seems to be the logical reason for the descrepencies between all the contemporary witnesses concerning the crucifixion and resurection and the Islamic claims written hundreds of years later. It also accounts for many mistakes made in the quran when relating stories originally told by the contemporaries of these other events in the bible written hundreds to thousands of years earlier. How could a non-muslim ever believe the quran's later account with no witnesses is the correct versions.

Any thoughts?

 

[A Troubled Man]

If the bible has 40 or so there is not much chance they were all mistaken or nuts.

Just over 1% of the population is known to have schizophrenia today, that number was probably a lot higher 2000 years ago considering how healthy we are now compared to then. 40 people who hear voices in their heads controlling their thoughts, not having the capacity to form social relationships and fear of others plotting against them isn't such a stretch for that time.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just over 1% of the population is known to have schizophrenia today, that number was probably a lot higher 2000 years ago considering how healthy we are now compared to then. 40 people who hear voices in their heads controlling their thoughts, not having the capacity to form social relationships and fear of others plotting against them isn't such a stretch for that time.

So you're saying that Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Baha'i, etc. are all the product of this?

 

[Quiddity]

Just over 1% of the population is known to have schizophrenia today, that number was probably a lot higher 2000 years ago considering how healthy we are now compared to then. 40 people who hear voices in their heads controlling their thoughts, not having the capacity to form social relationships and fear of others plotting against them isn't such a stretch for that time.

It could be argued that we are sicker now, then ever. Technology and advances in medicine can had alot of ugliness. Just a thought.

 

[A Troubled Man]

It could be argued that we are sicker now, then ever.

Please do, I for one would be very interested to hear that argument. Perhaps, we should start with comparative lifespans and go from there.

 

[A Troubled Man]

So you're saying that Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Baha'i, etc. are all the product of this?

Maybe not entirely the product of schizophrenia, but most likely a host of mental disorders prevalent and widespread then but not now.

 

[Desert Snake]

Maybe not entirely the product of schizophrenia, but most likely a host of mental disorders prevalent and widespread then but not now.

I'm not going to agree with that theory, but you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I'm not going to agree with that theory, but you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

During the era of the Roman Empire, life expectancy was about 25-30 years. Malaria, typhoid, tuberculosis and all sorts of gastronomical maladies were common place due to poor hygiene, food transportation and undernourishment. Mental disorders were rampant as a result but were entirely unknown for what they were and what caused them.

Yes, many people were barking mad back then.

 

[Quiddity]

Please do, I for one would be very interested to hear that argument. Perhaps, we should start with comparative lifespans and go from there.

Go ahead and start it. However, it's unfair to phrase the discussion with regard to lifespan.

 

[Desert Snake]

During the era of the Roman Empire, life expectancy was about 25-30 years. Malaria, typhoid, tuberculosis and all sorts of gastronomical maladies were common place due to poor hygiene, food transportation and undernourishment. Mental disorders were rampant as a result but were entirely unknown for what they were and what caused them.

Yes, many people were barking mad back then.

However, it could be argued that religions sprang out of myths which were used to explain natural phenomena such as the seasons etc., if this is the case then where do you differentiate between myths, which are not (according to most) delusional but rather educational, and purely delusional religions?
Also, be specific, which religious figures do you suspect as to being nuts?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Go ahead and start it. However, it's unfair to phrase the discussion with regard to lifespan.

I kinda did in the post above in regards to the Roman Empire and the life spans then. Even so, life expectancies were not that much more even up to 1900. It's only been this last century life expectancies have soared.

 

[A Troubled Man]

However, it could be argued that religions sprang out of myths which were used to explain natural phenomena such as the seasons etc.,

Religions and gods were used to explain almost everything back then, they still are today by many believers.

if this is the case then where do you differentiate between myths, which are not (according to most) delusional but rather educational, and purely delusional religions?

Myths were educational? You mean like Mother Goose and Aesop?

Also, be specific, which religious figures do you suspect as to being nuts?

I would suspect the vast majority of them were nuts. One of the symptoms of schizophrenia is the inability to hold down a job, so they turned to religions instead.

 

[Desert Snake]

Religions and gods were used to explain almost everything back then, they still are today by many believers. Mmm O.K.


Myths were educational? You mean like Mother Goose and Aesop? Yes, of course they were educational, and holy books generally have quite a bit of moral/ethical teachigs in them.



I would suspect the vast majority of them were nuts. One of the symptoms of schizophrenia is the inability to hold down a job, so they turned to religions instead. O.K, it's your opinion.

.....

 

[A Troubled Man]

Yes, of course they were educational, and holy books generally have quite a bit of moral/ethical teachigs in them.

That's odd, whenever I read holy books, I find a tremendous lack of morals and ethics contained within, things written there that I would never even consider doing.

 

[arthra]

1robin

I don't believe anyone has addressed the one author for the quran point yet.
Any event or claim is thought to be more substantiated the more witnesses it can produce.
If the bible has 40 or so there is not much chance they were all mistaken or nuts.
With the 1 for the quran it is much harder to establish the reliability of the books events.

My comment:

The revelations reported in the Bible were over centuries of time ... They didn't necessarily have witnesses..For instance who was present at the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary? the encounter Jesus had with satan in the wilderness was only between Him and satan?.. And who else was present when Moses encountered the burning bush? Or who else was there when God enscribed the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai..?

The Qur'an records many of the same stories in the Bible with often additional information..simply because they were revealed by Prophet Muhammad makes them no less credible in my opinion... Moses was according to tradition the author of the first five books of the Bible.

1 robin wrote:

If Muhammad was unreliable or untrustworthy (and there are many arguments in favor of that) then the whole Quran is unreliable because of no coberrating testimony.

My comment:

Prophet Muhammad was called "Al-Amin" Trustworthy and it was demonstrated in His life .. People turned to Him to secure their goods..He was the leader of caravans..and He resolved disputes in the community before His Mission became public.

 

[Road Warrior]

That might be a counterclaim concerning the violence but not the other points. If this was the only problem it might be more reasonable to have faith in Islam, but coupled with the many others it seems illogical in my opinion.

Actually, it's a legitimate question since many of the questions you asked in the OP have similarities in the Bible.

Here's a question; is it better to praise God and walk in the footsteps of Christ or is it better to start a crusade and seek the elimination of the world's One Billion Muslims?

 

[1robin]

1robin

I don't believe anyone has addressed the one author for the quran point yet.
Any event or claim is thought to be more substantiated the more witnesses it can produce.
If the bible has 40 or so there is not much chance they were all mistaken or nuts.
With the 1 for the quran it is much harder to establish the reliability of the books events.

My comment:

The revelations reported in the Bible were over centuries of time ... They didn't necessarily have witnesses..For instance who was present at the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary? the encounter Jesus had with satan in the wilderness was only between Him and satan?.. And who else was present when Moses encountered the burning bush? Or who else was there when God enscribed the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai..?

Some didn't but many did. Even if you rule out the ones that didn't then there is still more than enough for my contention to be valid.

The Qur'an records many of the same stories in the Bible with often additional information..simply because they were revealed by Prophet Muhammad makes them no less credible in my opinion... Moses was according to tradition the author of the first five books of the Bible.

You cannot expect that I can agree that God's revelations to Muhammad are true. I do understand that that is your claim and I cannot prove it isn't true but I can't be expected to grant it either. I was not referring to additional information itself (even though that might be a problem itself, depends) I was was referreing to the apparent mistakes and contradictions in the quran's stories found in the bible. Your Moses claim I agree with but I don't see the point.

1 robin wrote:

If Muhammad was unreliable or untrustworthy (and there are many arguments in favor of that) then the whole Quran is unreliable because of no coberrating testimony.

My comment:

Prophet Muhammad was called "Al-Amin" Trustworthy and it was demonstrated in His life .. People turned to Him to secure their goods..He was the leader of caravans..and He resolved disputes in the community before His Mission became public.

I understand that you believe this but you can't expect me to agree. When argueing with an atheist, I can't say something is true because the bible says it is. He doesn't believe the bible is reliable. I can agree with you that God exists, revelation happens, Muhammad existed, etc...... but I can't agree that your statements are a fact. Thanks for the info though.

 

[1robin]

Actually, it's a legitimate question since many of the questions you asked in the OP have similarities in the Bible.

Here's a question; is it better to praise God and walk in the footsteps of Christ or is it better to start a crusade and seek the elimination of the world's One Billion Muslims?

Cool Avatar. I don't think any of them have any meaningful similarities except the presense of violence in both. However I don't have to defend Christianity in a thread about Islam. I have defended Christianity from many attacks in other threads.

That last question sounds like the one in Conan. "Conan what is best in life? To drive your enemies before you and to see the lamentation of the women.

I am not Conan and the question is silly. I would like to point out it is the Muslims who have shown in countless wars (they started and then lost) and made known their desires to wipe Israel and us out. Good luck. No major Christian organisation in modern times has ever suggested what you are. I condemn the actions of the Crusaders in most areas even though the reason for them initialy was valid (to stop muslim turks from killing peacful pilgrims). The Christian universal condemnation of the violence done by people in the name of Christ is however never returned by a muslim condemnation of their innumerable atrocities even in modern times.

 

[F0uad]

Cool Avatar. I don't think any of them have any meaningful similarities except the presense of violence in both. However I don't have to defend Christianity in a thread about Islam. I have defended Christianity from many attacks in other threads.

That last question sounds like the one in Conan. "Conan what is best in life? To drive your enemies before you and to see the lamentation of the women.

I am not Conan and the question is silly. I would like to point out it is the Muslims who have shown in countless wars (they started and then lost) and made known their desires to wipe Israel and us out. Good luck. No major Christian organisation in modern times has ever suggested what you are. I condemn the actions of the Crusaders in most areas even though the reason for them initialy was valid (to stop muslim turks from killing peacful pilgrims). The Christian universal condemnation of the violence done by people in the name of Christ is however never returned by a muslim condemnation of their innumerable atrocities even in modern times.

Sorry to say this but do you know the Christian history is much worse violent then the Islamic one?

The Crusades are just a simple example to start with, your argument that ''Christian states'' in modern time do nothing is simply because there is no Christian state but secularist states and i would even argue that there are no REAL Islamic states in these times..

We can conclude that Christians did not survive Secularism and the Islamic Ones did but not fully practice its teachings.