Which religious texts? Each and every one of the texts available for each religion in the world?
> they actually can create real issues - we've had enough of them in history.
I think Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc. disagree with you there.
> Which religious texts? Each and every one of the texts available for each religion in the world?
> I think Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc. disagree with you there.
> The existance of these monsters does not prove religions don't create issues. Or what's your claim?
My claim is that without religion, we'd be in a far off worse place.
> What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy.
> My claim is that without religion, we'd be in a far off worse place.
> so when making choices about others
By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular.
> Please provide evidence for this
We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place.
Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides.
Wow, I'm surprised you went there. To this day many denominations of Islam are still killing each other over the "correct" interpretation.
You call out developed worlds as if they're immoral yet the most religious countries [0] also have a big overlap in having the most militant conflict [1]. Oh but they're happy, right? I wouldn't think so. Many of the least religious countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, often rank higher on happiness as well. Also in the developed world we can criticize our own countries more, generally, and so we have lots of free press that loves to prop up the negatives. Are Islamic countries generally free to criticize themselves so easily? Sorry to speak negatively of those countries but you invite such generalizations when you make such generalizations.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity#/media/File:Import...
.svg){kind=link}
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
Yet, those denominations you speak of are minorities, and some are even supported by factions like the CIA to continue civil unrest, because it's in the interest of the West.
> also have a big overlap in having the most militant conflict
I'm who's surprised you went there. It's as if the last 100 years of history didn't mean much? The vast majority of those countries have been occupied and colonized by the West, and I'd argue that they continue to be to this day.
> Are Islamic countries generally free to criticize themselves so easily?
You can look up Islamic history to see to what high degree of responsibility those in charge were held. Read up on Omar ibn AlKhattab for example.
> Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings.
> By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular.
> We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place.
> Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides.
The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way. That's the same mistake the presenter in that video made. There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good theists and bad theists. You cannot claim from any of these that either secularism or theism is good or bad.
Which is why you evaluate those claims and see what evidence they bring forth. We have a lot of proof and evidence in Islam. Some are listed on www.provingislam.com
> Life expectancy and quality of life has improved drastically in (not only) western countries over time while at the same time turning more secular.
Correlation vs causation.
> Thanks science
False dichotomy. No one is saying science isn't useful. As a matter of fact, many of today's foundational sciences and discoveries go back to the Islamic Golden Age. Great Muslim scholars like Al-Khararizmy (the word "algorithm" is a direct derivative of his name), Algebra (the science of Al-Jabr, an Arabic word), and many many more were because Islam pushed those people to seek knowledge and learn about the world around them. Many of those scholars saw studying and exploring the world around them as signs of God. This is something established in the Quran and Hadith.
> What's up with all the fighting between religious groups there?
Maybe the colonizing West that engaged in dirty divide and conquer tactics has something to do with it? Or maybe the fact that the US lied about WMD's to invade Iraq and they got away with it with no consequences, while leaving millions of Iraqis between dead and maimed and homeless. Same with Afghanistan. The amount of destruction caused to Muslim lands by the West is orders of magnitude more than any internal conflicts. And it's not like the West is some bastion of peace either, today Russia and Ukraine are fighting aren't they?
> The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way.
So tell me why are they wrong to say that rape is just a phenomenon or that incest is ok. On what basis, from a strictly atheistic materialistic world view are you going to make an opposite claim?
> Which is why you evaluate those claims and see what evidence they bring forth. We have a lot of proof and evidence in Islam. Some are listed on www.provingislam.com
> Correlation vs causation.
> False dichotomy. No one is saying science isn't useful. As a matter of fact, many of today's foundational sciences and discoveries go back to the Islamic Golden Age. Great Muslim scholars like Al-Khararizmy (the word "algorithm" is a direct derivative of his name), Algebra (the science of Al-Jabr, an Arabic word), and many many more were because Islam pushed those people to seek knowledge and learn about the world around them. Many of those scholars saw studying and exploring the world around them as signs of God. This is something established in the Quran and Hadith.
> Maybe the colonizing West that engaged in dirty divide and conquer tactics has something to do with it?
> So tell me why are they wrong to say that rape is just a phenomenon or that incest is ok. On what basis, from a strictly atheistic materialistic world view are you going to make an opposite claim?
That video was a good start, the fine tuning argument, the fact that something cannot come out of nothing, etc.
The next step is that when someone claims to have been sent by God, we look at the evidence he brings forth. Prophet Muhammad Prayers of God be upon brought with him signs and performed miracles. The Quran itself is a living miracle, no one had been able to bring anything like it, and the Arabs at the time tried. Some even admitted but would not believe due to pride, this is quite well documented. Furthermore, the Quran and Hadiths talk about events that happen tens or even thousands of years later. The website I linked mentions over 100 of them. Some like the desolate bedouins competing to build tall towers or the fact that the deserts of Arabia were not only green, but would return to be rivers and meadows have only been discovered very recently.
> You might want to try apply that to your original claim that the western civilizations are declining because they are so secular.
The behavior of secular people is quite obvious as to what is causing these issues. Many of them get rich, have everything at their disposal and think, this is it? This has happened time and time again. I'd be interested to hear your explanation. The Quran already alluded to this over 1400 years ago, even when atheism was not common (another miracle):
> But whoever turns away from My Reminder will certainly have a miserable life
> Any many go back to christians, jews or even predate our mainstream religions
The difference is that with Islam, those scholars admit that it was Islam is what played a role in pushing them to pursue knowledge. It's in our religion.
> Pretty sure it also persecuted people who seeked knowledge that Islam didn't like.
Bold and false claim. Show me your proof. Islam is not Europe in the dark ages that you are talking about.
> Or maybe that happened already before all the western influence?
The Islamic world had the Caliphate established until WWI. Not saying that we did not make mistakes (one of the biggest was getting involved in WWI to begin with), but since then, it's been quite clear what's going on.
> I'd argue rape being just a phenomenon is wrong
But it's not wrong according to those atheist figures, who are heavily pushing atheism. You cannot force your view on him. Once such practices get adopted and popular, you have no retort.
> Rape leaves the victim traumatized and less productive in society
Maybe, maybe not. Rape used to be common back in the day, and people were not as traumatized. Secondly, who cares about society, we're all "chemical scum" anyway. Why does it matter?
> anyone with a bit of knowledge how reproduction and genetics work can see that inbreeding increases the chance of genetic defects.
So? Also, there's birth control and abortion to solve that problem.
> That video was a good start, the fine tuning argument, the fact that something cannot come out of nothing, etc.
> The next step is that when someone claims to have been sent by God, we look at the evidence he brings forth. Prophet Muhammad Prayers of God be upon brought with him signs and performed miracles. The Quran itself is a living miracle, no one had been able to bring anything like it, and the Arabs at the time tried. Some even admitted but would not believe due to pride, this is quite well documented. Furthermore, the Quran and Hadiths talk about events that happen tens or even thousands of years later. The website I linked mentions over 100 of them. Some like the desolate bedouins competing to build tall towers or the fact that the deserts of Arabia were not only green, but would return to be rivers and meadows have only been discovered very recently.
> The behavior of secular people is quite obvious as to what is causing these issues. Many of them get rich, have everything at their disposal and think, this is it? This has happened time and time again. I'd be interested to hear your explanation. The Quran already alluded to this over 1400 years ago, even when atheism was not common (another miracle):
> Bold and false claim. Show me your proof. Islam is not Europe in the dark ages that you are talking about.
Rhazes (865-925)
Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice.
> The Islamic world had the Caliphate established until WWI. Not saying that we did not make mistakes (one of the biggest was getting involved in WWI to begin with), but since then, it's been quite clear what's going on.
> But it's not wrong according to those atheist figures, who are heavily pushing atheism. You cannot force your view on him. Once such practices get adopted and popular, you have no retort.
> Maybe, maybe not. Rape used to be common back in the day, and people were not as traumatized. Secondly, who cares about society, we're all "chemical scum" anyway. Why does it matter?
Not sure where the "chemical scum" comes from? I presented rational argument that can justify morals. Of course we care about society because we are part of society and when optimizing life in society we optimize also our own. That's why we don't eat our children and why we care for the elderly. One day we will be old and hopefully our children will care for us when we can't anymore.
The Quran challenges anyone to bring something like it. The challenge is open. Seeminly easy right? It's gone unchallenged all these millenia.
> Horoscopes also "predict" the future
No they don't. The prophecies of Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him are extremely nuanced, from things like the emergence of a green Arabia, to the desolate bedouins competing to build tall towers, to naming individuals and their exact spot where they will die on the battle field, to the intricate and nuanced knowledge he had about other traditions while living in Makkah (https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg). More at provingislam.com
> You are confusing secular people with materialistic people
Materialism as in explaining reality with only a purely materalistic tangible point of view, not monetary materialism.
> The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript,
Who was that "Muslim priest"? (we don't have priests in Islam by the way). According to wikipedia (to be taken with a grain of salt):
> He spent the last years of his life in his native Rey suffering from glaucoma. His eye affliction started with cataracts and ended in total blindness.[19] The cause of his blindness is uncertain. One account mentioned by Ibn Juljul attributed the cause to a blow to his head by his patron, Mansur ibn Ishaq, for failing to provide proof for his alchemy theories;[20] while Abulfaraj and Casiri claimed that the cause was a diet of beans only
If this indeed happened, he would have had the right to seek retribution from a judge. You failed to show that this is a systemic problem as Europe was in the darsk ages.
> Even police does not dare to confront when there is open illegal behavior unless it is really serious.
What you're describing is not different from what happens in poor ghettos in America. Nothing to do with religion. I'm willing to bet that neighborhood is poor and uneducated.
> This is in Asia btw and the US is not meddling here.
The West has been meddling for a long long time, if not directly, then indirectly.
> That some atheist makes some claims
That's not any atheist. Those are the people claiming "enlightenement" and spearheading the atheist movement like Dawkins and his ilk. The difference is that with atheists, there is no moral compass or ultimate reference or authority to confirm or debate their thoughts. Whereas with a religion, we can go back to their scriptures.
> Not sure where the "chemical scum" comes from?
Stephen Hawking
> The Quran challenges anyone to bring something like it. The challenge is open. Seeminly easy right? It's gone unchallenged all these millenia.
> No they don't. The prophecies of Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him are extremely nuanced, from things like the emergence of a green Arabia, to the desolate bedouins competing to build tall towers, to naming individuals and their exact spot where they will die on the battle field, to the intricate and nuanced knowledge he had about other traditions while living in Makkah (https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg). More at provingislam.com
> Materialism as in explaining reality with only a purely materalistic tangible point of view, not monetary materialism.
> Who was that "Muslim priest"? (we don't have priests in Islam by the way). According to wikipedia (to be taken with a grain of salt):
> What you're describing is not different from what happens in poor ghettos in America. Nothing to do with religion. I'm willing to bet that neighborhood is poor and uneducated.
> The West has been meddling for a long long time, if not directly, then indirectly.
> That's not any atheist. Those are the people claiming "enlightenement" and spearheading the atheist movement like Dawkins and his ilk. The difference is that with atheists, there is no moral compass or ultimate reference or authority to confirm or debate their thoughts. Whereas with a religion, we can go back to their scriptures.
> Stephen Hawking
The problem I have with religious texts is they are very vague and evidently open to a lot of interpretation. And by talking about things like God and building a logical system out of wrong axioms that is then applied to daily life choices they actually can create real issues - we've had enough of them in history.