A conversation with Robvalue about religion.

[Mystic]

So I could write a huge essay about Islam and it's proofs. But I thought I would let Robvalue start to pick the strongest reason he thinks the Islamic religion and the Lord described there in is illogical to believe in.

Note: We wanted to have a conversation and thread between the two of us.

[robvalue]

OK, sure. I'll come up with something in a little bit.

Let me first repeat that a religion being true does not mean anyone is obliged to join that religion. This is a key point that some people seem to struggle with, or can't even seem to comprehend. I'm not saying you can't, but just putting it out there. It's not necessary to think a religion is false to leave it.

If I found undeniable evidence that "Islam was true", whatever that means, I wouldn't become a Muslim. I'd be a non-religious theist who behaves in just the same way, barring scientific curiosity of course.

[robvalue]

While we all wait for my brain to work, here's a little music regarding the angst of evidence-based living.

http://youtu.be/ZXB5_DQNct8

[robvalue]

Alright, here we go. I'll stick to one argument. I don't need to concern myself specifically with Islam to make the point.

It is sensible to only believe things for which there is credible evidence. Having an internal model of reality that is as accurate as possible means that you are able to make the best decisions. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence we should require before believing it. The same goes for how important the claim is.

I made some videos on the important of scepticism before which go into more detail:

http://youtu.be/cX7mdUh9yUE

http://youtu.be/lOrP9nb-yrk

The only "evidence" ever presented for religions is:

1) Religious texts
2) Fallacious or irrelevant philosophical arguments

1) All of these books are exactly what one would expect to see from primitive societies trying to make sense of the world around them. Even if they happen to contain some things that are true, and even if those things are impressive by the standards of the time, that in no way validates the truth of the rest of the book. It also doesn't validate claims about where those truths came from, and certainly doesn't give the author free reign to write a load of magic stuff and expect us to just believe it. If you get to the point where you will believe whatever someone writes based on what they have already written, you are literally prepared to believe anything. I don't consider that a good position to ever be in.

They are just books. They are surrounded by oral myths, and without these myths, they would be viewed as a mixture of vague historical record and fiction. This is further evidenced by the very high correlation between the religion someone is "raised" in (indoctrinated) and the religion they "believe".

2) Abstract arguments are never evidence about reality on their own. They require producing a model of reality, and then manipulating that model. When manipulated correctly, all we have are conclusions that are as true as the initial assumptions of the model. They would be true in a reality that followed this idealised model exactly. But inevitably, our models are simplified. The only way to be sure that our abstract, idealised reality bears any resemblance to how reality actually works is to go back to reality and study the results. Otherwise, we can never be sure that we haven't gone wildly off target, and are considering a fictional reality that is in line with what we want it to be, or what we can understand.

Generally, these arguments make huge simplifications, reducing the whole of physics and the study of space-time to a single, simple sentence. The idea that these arguments can produce results that the whole of science cannot is ludicrous. And further, every religion uses the same arguments to try and establish some sort of entirely abstract "God", without any evidence to check it's actually anything real, and then makes the huge non-sequitur jump of assuming "their God" is the real God.

If there is a "God", then we currently have no way to learn anything about it with any accuracy. Not only are there multiple religions all claiming to be true while contradicting each other, not even a single religion can agree with itself what the truths are.

If there is a "God", until such time as some credible evidence about it is presented, it is irrelevant. To try and follow the whims of an undemonstrated being, based on the say-so of fallible humans touting magical stories is foolhardy. Even if it wishes us to act a certain way, we have no duty to do so. If it wants us to do anything other than what we feel is right, for objectively good reasons, it's not a being worthy of our attention.

[Excited Penguin]

While we all wait for my brain to work, here's a little music regarding the angst of evidence-based living.

http://youtu.be/ZXB5_DQNct8

You crack me up.

[Mystic]

One thing I believe is true, is that if God wanted us to believe in him, he would program us with clear knowledge of Him like he programmed us with knowledge of other things.

That said, let's assume we are programmed with this knowledge. Not only are we programmed with this knowledge, but we are constantly looking at reality, that is pointing to us to his existence and oneness.

Now to me, humans often become heedless of things they know and take it for granted. I don't think God would punish people while they are in this heedless state. There is however a heedless state that is a step further. That is when we have clear reminder to this knowledge, remember it fully well, see it, see clearly the signs of it in ourselves, yet, with the impure part of us taking us over and we giving power to it, decide to doubt it and deny our knowledge of it.

How should this disease be addressed? It's an illness if this was the case. It's a disease in the soul. The uncleanness must be rooted out. But how? God can not warn us, leave us to ourselves, and he being the most greatest treasure and valuable one to have relationship to, we would be without the greatest purpose we can have. We would be given such a great purpose, but unjustly breaking that trust.

When we kill ants, it maybe bad, for no reason to do that, but I would saying cheating on your wife is a whole worse or beating your kids is a whole worse, even if these two don't result in death of a being like stepping on ants.

God although we cannot harm, is the ultimate being. That said, there maybe so much indications in reality and in ourselves and in our programmed knowledge, of God and his Oneness, and if we are reminded with many proofs, and turn away from it, what is the injustice? Why are we doing this?

The Islamic position is that it's a great evil, an injustice. Humans also want to eat their cake and have it to. They seem to want to be evil often but convince themselves they are good.

This is indicate right off the bat "They say we are but peacemakers, now surely they are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive".

That said, a lot of Quran does focus on the proofs, but a lot of focus on the disease of refusal to acknowledge proofs.

Why did I begin with this? Because this is the other side of the equation I feel you don't acknowledge. You feel it's impossible humans have such a disease, while I witness it clearly regarding the Sunni-Shia issue.

I'm not telling you to accept humans have such a disease. I am arguing, at least, in this discussion, it should be taken as a possibility. A rational possibility.

When we do a great wrong, our parents are very harsh. There should be a majestic eloquent harsh tone to this disease in my belief if God were to warn humanity about it.

This is our nature. This is how we talk to each other. This how we try to guide those who we care about.

[Red_Wind]

Lots of claims and "ifs" in your comment, zero proof.

This should be interesting.

[Mystic]

Lots of claims and "ifs" in your comment, zero proof.

This should be interesting.

1. This is a conversation between Robvalue and I.

2. It's not about proving, but coming to a mutual understanding of our positions.

This discussion is not meant for everyone to come in with their smart Alek remarks, or cheer lead or whatever.

It's between Robvalue and I to come to a mutual understanding.

Moderator Notice
With the exception of the debate forum, the forum rules specifically forbid limiting the participants in a thread

Putting limitations on who is allowed to post in a thread is not allowed. Unless a member is unable to post in a thread due to the permission system, all members are allowed to post in all threads

Forum Rules.---Jenny A

[Red_Wind]

Lots of claims and "ifs" in your comment, zero proof.

This should be interesting.

1. This is a conversation between Robvalue and I.

2. It's not about proving, but coming to a mutual understanding of our positions.

This discussion is not meant for everyone to come in with their smart Alek remarks, or cheer lead or whatever.

It's between Robvalue and I to come to a mutual understanding.

I know, which is why i kept my comment short.
BTW, what is your position?

[Brakeman]

Funny how the influence of allah on the muslims doesn't make them a better people than the norm, but rather worse, and those that expend the most effort to be close to allah are the most dangerous to women, children, and others outside of their beliefs. Wouldn't you think that a perfect god would give a perfect message to his people so that it would be understood perfectly?