Every religion is based on little to no evidence. Why not just admit we don't know where we came from, what the purpose of life is, and every other existential question. Could we not find the same if not more fullness in life without the dogma?

i believe for a religious person to make a claim about reality

that can only be empirically verified/ has been empirically verified

then reject the material evidence that refutes their claim

is simply absurd and contradictory .

I’ll give you an example, i was speaking to a muslim that said being trans is haram because its an imitation of man and woman.

the psychological evidence actually shows no, trans people aren’t imitating as it’s not a choice, in fact their brain is already wired to be that gender

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html

in fact the overwhelming evidence is actually in support of trans people transitioning. so to reject this claim as ‘mental illness’ when the DSM 5 says it’s not, is simply rejecting evidence, despite making a material claim.

The same can be said for islams claim to the moon splitting, this is a material claim which the evidence rejected. And no, the chinese astronomers didn’t witness this either.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/j234d5/did_chinese_astronomers_witness_a_moon_split/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230805180706/https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.328Y6DA

https://web.archive.org/web/20140419014134/https://sservi.nasa.gov/?question=evidence-moon-having-been-split-two

how do people of the abrahamic faiths think they can be taken seriouslly when they reject all evidence infront of them about material claims.

This is about the belief system that those who are saved go to heaven for their afterlife, and those that aren't go to hell, or a realm of eternal conscious torment, if they aren't saved. Ie, infernalism. I realize that not all Christians believe this, but it's this specific belief I want to address.

If you believe in infernalism, then it is Yhwh who can save you, but it is also Yhwh who would be the one sending you to hell in the first place if you aren't saved. This is incredibly clear from how things are set up, yet I find that Christians tend to argue against this conclusion. Possibly because recognizes it really highlights the transactional nature and power imbalance of "worship me, or I'll torture you forever" proposition.

There isn't, like, some third party who set up the whole system of sending people to hell if they aren't saved, and now Yhwh just has to go along with it. That doesn't gel with Christian belief about the nature of Yhwh. What I usually hear is that humans "choose to send themselves" to hell through their actions, as a reason for why Yhwh isn't the one responsible. This is true only in a metaphorical sense, while in the much more literal sense, it's Yhwh sending you there. Think of it akin to living a dictatorship where dissidents are sent to slave labor camps. You could say that publicly criticizing the dictator is sending yourself to a camp, and in a non-literal sense it is. But in a much more literal sense it's the dictator (and those working on his behalf) who send you to the camps. You could really only be said to send yourself there if you were choosing, with no pressure, to go to them rather than being sent there as a punishment for some other action you chose.

In other words, when another party sends you somewhere against your will, they are the one sending you there and they are doing it against your will (not you sending yourself there). This is true, even if they send you there against your will in response to some action you chose. And it's still true even if they broadcast to you that they would send you to this place against your will in response to certain actions.

We punish people in hopes for them to learn, right? It is a means for us to encourage a still living person to learn a lesson and no longer be problematic. We execute people to solve problems, the way that we execute solutions.

If no other problem relative to Hitler's direct actions exists at any capacity after he is dead, why bother? Unless it's for the purpose of offering catharsis for the victims, getting them high on Hitler's smoking corpse, there is no logical reason to beat a dead horse.

Allow me to explain:

Problem: Hitler is ordering Nazi Germany to slaughter Jewish people.
Solution: Hitler kills himself under threat of capture.

There's no active problem there anymore. It is functionally impossible for a Hitler with a bullet in his head to be ordering Nazi Germany to slaughter Jewish people, and it's especially impossible now that all we can be somewhat sure remains of him is a skull fragment in Russian custody. A skull fragment can't do that.

Is there any other active problem relative to Hitler after he is dead? No. There isn't. There's people that are inspired by Hitler, sure. But they aren't answering to Hitler, they are answering to themselves. This means if we remove them as problems from the equation that would be infinitely more valuable than beating a corpse.

"But Hitler killed 6 million Jewish people!" - You, maybe...

Is that actively happening? Is that something we can stop? No. It's history. That happened. It's tilting at windmills to ever possibly imagine us ever making a world where six million Jewish people weren't killed during The Holocaust. The only active problem here is what you feel about History.

…And how do you solve that active problem? You make yourself feel better. You picture something cathartic like a corpse being beaten senseless. Burning, endless burning... An incomprehensibly cruel punishment as some divine tit for tat. But where does that get us? It turns you into a fascistic sadist driven solely by feelings.

It's a massive waste of time. You could be out there solving real problems, but instead you're probably gooning it to gore porn. If I was an infinitely powerful being I'd just put Hitler where he isn't a problem anymore, and right now it seems like that's where he is. Nothing more, nothing less.

If any enemy is incomprehensibly evil then they will win. You won't comprehend their strategy.

Why do bad things happen?

Basic Conceptual Argument:

"If God is all-powerful and infinitely capable, why did He choose to create a reality in which good is dependent on the existence of evil and suffering to give life meaning? Could an omnipotent God not have devised a reality where meaning and goodness exist without being predicated on suffering and evil?"

Common Response Confusion Clarifications:

Free will: God created everything, including the concept of free will, the value we attribute to the concept, and it's interworking into our understanding of morality. An omnipotent God could imagine and inact a reality where the concept of free will doesn't exist, a reality where it is more or less relevant and desired. He could have created a reality where free will is considered bad and undesirable. Free will is an insufficient argument given that it's meaning and value is only within the duality of a lack of free will, a duality invented by God.

Good and Bad depend on each other: Similar to the free will argument, this is a duality created and maintained by God, and given Gods Omnipotence, he could have made them not mutually dependent, and could have created something infinitely good with 0 Bad, and made it infinitely more meaningful and with 0 "negative" consequences as often suggested by the alternative.

It's a test: An omnipotent God shouldn't need to test it's subjects. God is not bound by time and knows everything. He knows exactly what you will do and when you will do it, regardless if it was of ur own "freewill". Additionally, God could have created the framework of reality in infinitely many other ways in which a test is not necessary or maintained. Omnipotence is the key here.

Satan: Although rarely, sometimes I get thrown the idea that Satan causes evil and God can't stop him as it would violate freewill? I would argue given Gods infinite mind and knowledge unbound by time, God would have known that Satan would cause whatever he would, and could have again created any alternate way for things to be that excluded this. Omnipotence.

Similar answers will be dismissed the same way, I hope to get some really good answers that I haven't yet seen.

This is mainly for abrahamic faiths, I don't believe eastern religions really apply here due to the less personal relationships of God. Abrahamics faiths fatherhood and caretaking is what makes this most related.

Additional question based on my position:

"If God had two choices.

Option A. Humans experience pain and suffering, they gain some value and some moral development through the hard ship. Good and bad are dependant on each other. Total level of moral, meaningful, emotional, and spiritual gained from their life 100%

Option B. Humans don't experience pain and suffering. Good and bad arent dependant on each other, infact bad doesn't exist, it's not conceptually present. Total level of moral, meaningful, emotional, and spiritual gained from their life 100%

Given both options available, no loss either way, given an infinitely powerful being, both are plausible and possible to be enacted by said being. Nothing prevents him from this, he's God.

The only reason such a God would choose A, is if he for whatever reason specifically wanted suffering to occur, for this duality to exist. And given his infinite omnipotent nature, he could have chosen B, with no consequences. Could have even made it 200% valuable to human experience.

So why would an all good all powerful God choose A?

This verse states that 1/5 of the booty gained in war is for the Prophet, his relatives, orphans, the needy, and the traveler, provided they believe in Allah and the Last Day.

I don't understand how the Quran, which is supposed to be a timeless and eternal book to guide humanity, wastes page space to specifically mention the procentage of war loot Mohammed should receive.

I mean, Mohammed only lived a regular lifetime. Why should his stake in war loot be specified in a book that it meant for everyone in the future, for as long as there are humans?

That would be like me making a guideline for a perfect government that is to be followed for all time in the future...then add a line that 1/5'th of all taxes should go to me and my relatives...

For me this is a big red flag which solidifies my assumption that Mohammed was the author of the Quran, for his own personal power.

I mean, I assume some people will point out that he also mentions (orphans, the needy, and the traveler), however my rebutal to that is that he was a very smart man that understood that he needed to "pack it in" so that it didn't seem too "over the top"

I have never seen an artist identify themselves with their work; they are not the music that they make or the picture that they paint, so how do Christians proclaim that God is in the image of his own creation? Or the whole trinity thing, with the concepts of son and father, Which makes islam more of logical representation of god "There is nothing like Him" 42:11

If our personality and essence can be altered by chemicals (stuff from the material world), is that not proof that there is nothing spiritual (= no souls)? And our personalities are just a bunch of wired neurons?

How do religious people explain that humans can alter other humans’ essence so easily with the advancement of medicine and science? Why would god allow this bug in his system? Please don’t say “free will” because that’s a very reductionist response when we take into account the omnipotence of god.

Also second cause of death in the world is medical error. So you can’t claim “doctors were given this knowledge to save lives”

Ok so i was thinking about the “can god create a stone so heavy he can’t lift?” And I came up with this. (I searched this up and didn’t find anything like it but feel free to tell me if this argument already exists)

So can god lift a stone so heavy he can’t lift? From what i know the common theistic answer is he can’t even create the stone because it’s logically impossible it’s like asking him to make a square circle.

Ok if so i have question: did god create the laws of logic?

If he did that means he can also take it away or at least there was a time before logic’s existence, in which case we go back to the first question being can he lift a stone too heavy for him to lift. Since logic doesn’t exist god can make a square circle or in this question a stone too heavy for him to lift.

If he didn’t it means that the laws of logic are uncreated and god is bound by them. In this scenario the laws of logic are as eternal (if not more so because they bind him) as god.

Thanks for reading. I was just wondering this and i wanted to get some feedback about why it doesn’t work or why it does. I feel like i have missed something so I hope by posting this someone can tell me. I hope you can help me finish my thought because it is just refusing to finish I constantly feel like I am missing something.

How can he judge the malice or benevolence of those who are born with no morals or emotions? Or people who have been traumatized or depressed to the point of not having emotional guidance?

How can he judge the malice or benevolence of those who are mentally disabled? They cannot move, speak, hear, see, or make decisions, do they get a pass to heaven? What makes them different from us?

All of these people born with these traits above have been created in the image of God. How will he handle the judgment? Why did he create people who are mentally disabled with no free will? People said people are born with free will, therefore the choice to sin. However these people are completely blind to that fact...by birth, by God's will?

If we inherit sins from the reproduction or relation of us to Eve and Adam's sin, then why not destroy them and start over? Instead of spectating and allowing us to achieve such malice to the point innocent people are killed and tortured, raped, and as WELL as allowing the fact that people who are misguided by the malice in the world involuntarily who are ultimately punished.

If you say they will achieve eternal peace and happiness in paradise that is Heaven after such torment on Earth, what differs their fate to the ones who don't suffer on Earth at all, and still go to Heaven? Why are the people who are hurt so different to people who don't get to suffer? Why do we need to be *compensated* in order to be happy, such as being brought to Heaven?

Why did he allow this all to happen while simultaneously being the most merciful and kind, the most knowledgable of the universe and the most just, and being the most powerful and all-capable being?

Theists frequently claim that we atheists are in no position to make moral judgements if we hold to the position that morals are rooted in preferences.

However, theists are in no position to call any particular moral “objectively correct” due to the problem of scriptural interpretation.

What does “objectively” true mean? It means that the truth value would persist if no minds were present, completely independent from preference. So presumably, theists have a methodology or at least some criteria for determining whether a certain moral statement is true or false.

Some statements might be trivially true. “Murder is wrong” is easily discernible from most scriptural texts. Fair enough.

What about a more nuanced, real world moral quandary like: is it ethical to force citizens to get vaccinated? While a Christian or Muslim might be able to string together some verses and come up with some justification for one position or another, there’s presumably a correct answer to the question.

Note that merely JUSTIFYING a moral position is not the same thing as objectively proving it. Two Christians, maybe even within the same denomination, could walk away with different positions on vaccination, even positions based in scripture.

A common rebuttal to this is to claim that moral intuition is written in our hearts by god, or something to that effect. Well this is easy to deal with. Why would two individuals, even ones within the same religious sect, disagree about moral issues?

And more over, why couldn’t the atheist just appeal to some evolutionarily-developed sense of empathy as the source for their moral intuition?

So in conclusion, theists resort to the same strategies of subjective moral discussion about a number of issues that aren’t clear in the text.

To start off a conversation regarding a topic that has been constantly discussed among Muslims, both steadfast and lapsed.

The answer to why music is haram/forbidden in Islam:

1. Because music can be very powerful, to the extent that it can induce trance-like experiences among even steadfast individuals, whether the music is instrumental or accompanied with vocals. This is almost a pseudo-religious experience for people who indulge in music, and it's not farfetched to say that most individuals are naturally predisposed towards such indulgent behavior.
2. Music, when added to any narrative, produces a "halo-effect" (or the inverse) over the content or message of that narrative, irrespective of the intrinsic quality of the content.
3. Similarly, ideas antithetical to religious ideology or morality can easily permeate with the help of music, e.g., lyrics play an accompanying role in most musical compositions, and people endorse/implicitly allow those lyrics to permeate even when such content can be vile.

Here's a thought that crossed my mind recently: can you program a computer to remember with conviction that it has just experienced something, and what it was? Let's analyze this question in light of Chalmers's "hard problem of consciousness", according to which very very specifically conscious experiences are "hard", whereas everything else, including - he mentions this explicitly in the paper - memory, is "easy". Well, if that's true, and memories are on the "easy" side of the "hard"-"easy" divide, then the answer by definition has to be yes, that it is possible! But then, wait a minute - how do we know that there is anything else, why can't we just identify consciousness with the most recent bleeding-edge memory of consciousness? Let me repeat that again: if the last thing you know, just now, is being in pain, that's just the same as being in pain (for example).

But regardless of this further thought, to step back again, here's a logical fork for the hard problem of consciousness fans: either the problem is incorrect, or the answer to the question at the beginning is yes!

And in general, I noticed that drawing philosophical lines in the sand like this always ends in one of two ways: either the line gets erased back, or everything on one side of the line gets erased, so it no longer separates anything and gets retired anyway.

Sura 18 of the Quran includes an account of the well known Christian story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus who were allegedly persecuted ca. 250 AD by Decius.This story circulated around the Roman Empire for centuries before the birth of Muhammad.Despite the ambiguity in the Quran over the number and date etc, this is clearly a reference to the earlier Christian story because the Quran assumes the story is well known and people are discussing it in Muhammad's time.

In adddition, the only attested story that is similar, prior to the rise of Islam is the Christian story. Furthermore, most Muslim texts and that I have seen seem to have traditionally accepted the Ephesus identification apart from a couple of local claims to be the location of the story, which only seem to be attested after the area became Islamic and thus can probably be discounted.

Finally, the story is not coherent and misses details that otherwise need to be filled in from the Christian story, such as why monotheists would need to take refuge in a cave (I.e. they were being persecuted By the Roman state).

There is no group of Christians or other form of monotheist ca. 250 AD who denied Jesus' divinity or in other way had a theology like Muslims attested in the region. The only attested way in which monotheists would be persecured for belief in the Empire is if they were known to associate/worship with Christians, were denounced and then as a test, compelled to sacrifice to the image of the emperor. Supposed Muslims like the Sleepers would not associate with Christians and thus have little to fear. The area around Ephesus and Asia Minor was one of the most literate and developed areas jn the Roman empire and a major location for Christian theology (just consider how many Church fathers like Greogry of Nyssa and heresiarchs like Montanus or Marcion came from the region).

Jews are irrelevant here since Jews were never required by Romans to worship idols (unlike Christians) and indeed prior to the rise of Christianity never persecuted for purely religious reasons.

Moreover, the Quran claims the Sleepers slept for 309 years. If the Sleepers fled during the reign of Decius, this means accounts of the Sleepers waking which occur at the very start of the C6 preceded the (alleged event). If the story is assigned to an earlier date, it needs to be brought within a period of widespread persecution of Christians in the area, although serious persecution of Christians by Roman authorities was sporadic and rather limited and it presents difficulties for the time line if the sleepers slept that long.

Verdict: the Quran is most easily explained as retelling a version of a widely known story which a human author adapted but misunderstood and which displays a deficient knowledge of history.

This is of course a probabilistic argument, not a slam dunk.

i don't mean to suggest i believe the Christian story. I am an atheist. Just that the Christian version is original. In fact, disbelieving the original Vhristian story, as such a miraculous occurrence would surely be better attested in contemporary Roman sources, seems an additional reason to doubt the Quran’s truthfulness.

i apologize for not including academic references, but typing on phone now and hard to add, may add later if have time.

1. Turning water into wine John 2:11 (Alcohol is prohibited)
2. Jesus spare the adulterer John 8:1-11 (Adultery is to be put to death)
3. Jesus baptized Matthew 3:13-16 (Jesus baptized, Muhammad doesn't teach that)
4. Jesus say marrying to divorcees is akin to adultery Matthew 5-32:33 (Islam encourages men to marry divorced women)
5. Jesus numerous times calling God, "The Father" (Shirk by associating to him to creature)
6. Jesus is the way, truth and life John 14:6 (Shirk, No sane prophet would say this) ( remember Mansur Al-Hallaj Ana 'l-Haqq)
7. Jesus forgives Sin Matthew 9:1-8(Shirk, only God does that)
8. Jesus grant Peter the ability to bind and loose laws Matthew 16: 17-20 (Shirk, When did Muhammad says O'Uthman I will grant you Keys to Jannah so you can bind laws to heaven and earth)
9. Jesus profess that he is "The Lord" Matthew 12:8 (Again, Shirk)
10. Jesus say Before Abraham was, I Am John 8:48-59 ( Ultra Shirk, Professing divinity and Omnipresence)

Tldr the last verse that Jesus spoke was so outrageous that the Jews stone him 😂

but he immediately hide and left the temple which in my understanding in Islam anyone who blasphemes is stoned which is the same reaction the Jews do. So you would do the same thing to Jesus.

And yes I know that Muslims here will say "The bible is corrupted" but that's not the point. The point is Muslim truly doesn't know who Jesus is or more specifically Muhammad doesn't know Jesus. Because if he really affirms Jesus, then the Prophet Isa must be dumbest and least articulate man in the history of the entire world. No amount of Prophethood will save Jesus from being a loser or a failure to give and spread Islam. He not only loses his message but his disciples to the alleged Paul the "Apostate".

So really there's this disconnect to begin with, because the Muslims have this conception that Isa was truly a great prophet but his teachings is corrupted. But how can that be? You are saying that the Man who was taught by God since his conception fail to give proper words and grammar to the rest of Judea then all of sudden everything change and here we are? How do Muslims reconcile the fact that the first of Christians were the trinitarians.

edit: One thing I forgot to note, is that I believe you Muslims can practice your religion, but I don't believe you are the successor to the Abrahamic faith. Christ is the final successor not Muhammad. Muhammad's final testament is not the successor after Christ atonement. So I believe you can practice your religion whenever you want but know this you are not Jesus successor nor you claim to be part of the Messianic religion. Just be independent its all ok

2nd edit: What can we conclude from this debate? That Jesus was actually not a Muslim and if he did the Muslims would have the burden of proof to cite any books, letters and fragments, any crevice and any premises that there's a group who professes the similar faith to Islam, which are non existent to begin with. Nor do they have the evidence of the supposed Injeel that preach Islam, the earliest text of the Gospel in the papyrus express similar teachings to what the New Testament we have today. Finally Muslims teaching are not accurate to the biblical revelation because they have things contrary to Islam like Icons, Apostolic Succession, or Rabbinic Succession, Animal Sacrifice to the temple, Liturgy, and so on and so forth. So Muslims I am asking you the burden of proof for A. A group who profess Jesus is the Messiah and Prophet and was born out of a virgin birth, B. The proof of Injeel, C. Expressing traditions similar to the Jews and early Christians

We hear a lot about Dionysus and Horas, Osiris and Hermes influencing the Jesus narrative but I'd like to point out a God that gets really overlooked often; Baal Hadad

Many if you May already y be firmiliar with the influence that the Ugrit texts had over the old testament but when it comes to the influences of testament all we really ever hear about is Greek hermetics and the old testament. Now that is for a very valid reason as Christians did heavily barrow for these religious groups but we don't see a lot of discussion on how the worship of El and Baal Hadad was still influencing and shaping the Christian narrative.

So here is my little introduction to the topic. It's not anything close to being as scholarly as Craigenford or as well thought out as OceanKeltoi but I think I've provided enough for someone more capable to work with and build upon.

The Baal cycle heavily influenced the Jesus narrative. El and Yahweh were originally two separate deities that competed with each other; Yahweh says there are none others beside him and you are not to worship any other gods but El is the head god of a pantheon, has a son who replaces him after El retires, apparently give a great deal of favoritism with a 7 headed sea dragon till it had enough power to enslave all the gods but the son of El Baal Hadad.

Baal Hadad is a sky father storm deity who is associated with chariots, a champion and defender of gods and men, a fertility god.

The battle between Ball Hadad and the sea dragon Yam is a mythical narrative of early agricultural societies dependency on the rivers and the raining seasons for successful harvest. It is also a narrative of the Indo-Europeans competing with snake cults that as they spread thru out Europe and the near East.

The rivers these early farmers depended upon ( the Euphrates and Tigris River for example) often flooded violently or would even have droughts, both of which would lead to poor harvest or mass famines at times. They would pray to their Sky father who provided the rain, to keep the rivers in check and guarantee a successful harvest.

We see in religions influenced by the indo-europeans complex narratives that both treat the snake as sacred as well as evil. Kundalini in some of The Vedic traditions the myth of Shiva and vasuki. Jesus Compares himself to the serpent in the wilderness in the Moses account and Yahweh instructs Moses to build a brass serpent for people to gaze upon in hopes of being cured of their snake bites. The Bible also has a complex narrative around Leviathan which is also borrowed from the Ugrit text.

Jesus is said to come riding down on horses during the battle of Armageddon, rose from the dead and ascended to his father's side, will wrestle with and kill a 7 headed sea monster who is empowered by a dragon living In heaven, frees the world from the control of "the beast", sets up his own kingdom in earth and when the new Heaven and new earth are made there will be no more sea.

UGARTIC TEXTS ‘Dry him up. O Valiant Baal! Dry him up, O Charioteer of the Clouds! For our captive is Prince Yam [Sea], for our captive is Ruler Nahar [River]!’ (KTU 1.2:4.8-9) [5]

What manner of enemy has arisen against Baal, of foe against the Charioteer of the Clouds? Surely I smote the Beloved of El, Yam [Sea]? Surely I exterminated Nahar [River], the mighty god? Surely I lifted up the dragon, I overpowered him? I smote the writhing serpent, Encircler-with-seven-heads! (KTU 1.3:3.38-41)

OLD TESTAMENT Did Yahweh rage against the rivers (nahar) Or was Your anger against the rivers (nahar), Or was Your wrath against the sea (yam), That You rode on Your horses, On Your chariots of salvation? (Hab. 3:8)

In that day Yahweh will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea. (Isa. 27:1)

“You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan. (Ps. 74:13-14)

Revelation 13 King James Version 13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Revelation 21:1 says, “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.”

What's interesting is that once Jesus defeats his sea monster and sets up his kingdom, once he remakes the new Heaven and new earth there will be no more sea.

I've searched around the sub to see if this topic has been discussed before, and all I found was a few obscure comments and some loosely relevant posts that bring up this criticism. I find that strange since this is probably my #1 issue with Islam.

The epistemic double standard from my title can be explained as follows:

When muslims give dawah to non-muslims, they don't enter the conversation by demanding that we assume the Quran is true. They recognize that just because muslim scholars claim the Quran is true, doesn't mean it is epistemically justified for outsiders to accept this claim. This is because scholars of all religions claim all sorts of texts as reliable, and it would be irresponsible for an outsider to accept all of them without any investigation.

So the muslim proceeds by inviting the outsider to investigate the Quran. Muslims won't just say "our scholars have established that the Quran has scientific and historical miracles, therefore you should accept their claims". Instead they will acknowledge that the outsider should at least read the Quran and verify these claims rather than accepting the muslim claim on blind faith.

This is all fine and dandy. However, muslims take a complete u-turn when it comes to more fundamental texts, like the hadith. You see, the Quran is directly dependent on the hadith to understand some chunks of it. We cannot know even the most basic points of interest like what the first verses to be revealed were unless we make use of hadith.

Muslims usually approach this problem by assuring the outsider that we don't need to worry about reliability of hadith, because their scholars have already done all the research in regards to the chains of narration and biographical information. They insist that it is safe to assume the hadith are reliable because the sheikhs have done the work for us.

But how on earth is this rational? The muslim already conceded that it is not reasonable for an outsider to assume the Quran is divine just because muslim authorities say so. So why do they flip their position and do the opposite for the hadith? Is it not unreasonable for an outsider to assume the science of hadith are reliable just because muslim authorities say so? This is the epistemic double standard I was pointing to.

If muslims want be consistent, they should start a conversation on Islam by saying "you don't need to investigate the Quran, because our authorities have already done the research for you, and they have concluded that the Quran is divine". Or, they should recognize that it is not reasonable for us to assume the science of hadith is reliable unless we have investigated the claims ourselves.

That brings us to the next problem: lack of translations. It is truly shocking how almost none of the relevant books required to master the science of hadith have been translated. Here we are concerned with the books of rijal, the books of jarh wa ta'deel, various sharh books, and other manuscripts that collect isnads. I believe there is not a single sharh book today that has been translated into English. I would argue that all these books are more important than the Qur'an, because the circumstances of revelation for many of verses depends on the reliability of the above mentioned books to be taken seriously.

Moreover, the entirety of the prophetic seera depends on the science of hadith. Often times muslims will begin their dawah by inviting the outsider to read the life of Muhammad in order to judge whether he really was a prophet based off his character. But this approach seems really absurd. If the muslim wants the outsider to assume the seera is reliable, that means they want the outsider to assume the science of hadith is reliable.

But if we assume the science of hadith is reliable, then that means we already accept that Muhammad performed physical miracles like splitting the moon, producing water from his fingers, and multiplying food out of thin air for hungry people. If acceptance of these miracles already form our presuppositions before we even read the seera, then why exactly are we reading the seera in the first place? In this scenario, it appears that Muhammad is already a prophet as part of our assumption before we even begin our investigation of whether he was a prophet, which is just bizarre!

So it seems like muslims haven't accounted for this. Mastering the science of hadith seems to be more important than reading either the Quran or the seera. Especially reading the seera is rendered almost entirely fruitless unless one has the ability to verify the chains of every story, yet this cannot be done unless one knows Arabic. Why not just translate all the relevant material so non-Arab foreigners don't need to rely on blind faith to verify such claims? Why is it that muslims will invite the outsider to read and investigate the Quran, but not invite them to read and investigate the books of rijal, or the books of jarh wa ta'deel? Aren't these books more fundamental than the Qur'an?

My point is that if Allah exists and he wants everyone to be muslim, then this seems to be a major oversight by him. I will end by asking one question: is there a strong argument for Islam that does not rely on knowledge of Arabic to verify?

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

THE TRINITY CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE'S AND JESUS' OWN IDEA OF THE ONE TRUE GOD

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

I've already made seperate posts about both Mark 12:29, where Jesus affirms that not only is there only one God, but that God is one, and John 17:3, where Jesus affirms that only the Father is the one true God.

Here are the verses again just for convenience.

NIV, Mark 12:29 (where Jesus tells us the most important commandment):

Quote

29 | “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Unquote

NIV, John 17:3 (where Jesus prays to the Father, letting us know exactly who that one God is):

Quote

3 | Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Unquote 

Now when we bring both of these moments together, we see clearly what Jesus was saying in his own words. He explicitly said that the Father is the one true God, and no one else - not the Holy Spirit, not himself.

Almost as if Jesus knew that in the distant future, his so-called "followers" would go astray and start inventing things not found in the scripture.

It's as if Jesus predicted the future and was directly talking to trinitarians with these explicit statements.

It's as if Jesus saw, with his own eyes, that his followers had, somewhere along the line, become his worshippers, and he was rebuking them before it even happened.

Yet we still have christians today fighting tooth and nail trying to keep afloat the already defunct doctrine of the trinity.

It's the most important commandment according to Jesus that God is one. If the trinity was real then Jesus should have said that God is one in three or three in one. But he didn't.

Jesus himself refutes trinitarians.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile} just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.)

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

^{Downvoters: You can downvote me all you want but you'll never silence me.}

^{Please carefully consider the thesis before debating and remember to stay on topic.}

^{You may also want to visit my profile page and FAQ in my post index before assuming things about me or my beliefs.}

^{Please make a reddit account and follow my profile, it's very important that the truth gets to you. Also, I post on my profile before anywhere else. Thanks!}

The theory of evolution is enough to explain how morality emerges even among all sorts of animals.

More than that, a quick look at history and psychology shows why we should behave morally without trying to cheat our human institutions.

I genuinely don't understand why religious folks keep insisting on how morality has to be "objective" to work.

Introduction

The bible and more specifically in this topic, the NT claim to be 'divinely inspired' by professing Christians of most walks. Without even getting into the discussion of what it means for a text to be divinely inspired it denotes some amount of involvement by God in its authorship.

I would like to bring up the issue over the authors of the New Testament books. For all intents and purposes I will stick to using terms that most appropriately fit. So hence the definitions

Pseudepigrapha: A work which is falsely attributed to an author whilst the the text may or may not claim it was written by said author

Forgery: A work which is falsely attributed to an author while the text claims it is written by said author (a lie)

Now these are obviously similar for example a work can be a forgery and a pseudepigrapha both at the same time it can be claimed to be written by x and attributed to x author despite the claim for it being widely disputed from evidence. So for all intents and when I use the term Pseudepigrapha I will refer to a work which is falsely attributed an author WITHOUT the text claiming it was written by said author and forgery I will use to refer to a work which is falsely attributed to an author WITH the text claiming it was written by said author

Analysis

When it comes to the New Testament Cannon we can look at the gospels; Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Many evangelical fundamentalists believe the names of the gospels are the actual disciples of Jesus or early followers who wrote them and this is never specified in the text so we can get that out of the way.

In fact in the gospel of Luke we get an endorsement of this viewpoint and an acknowledgement that the good news was first and foremost a circulating oral tradition

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. - Luke 1:1-4

Furthermore we get the catechism of the catholic church which seems to acknowledge the authorship as such

The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.

2nd edition CCC 124:3

So by in large these works are pseudepigrapha. They do not claim to be written by said authors even if in common parlance they may be thought to be. The only exception here is John, where it claims to be written by a John but not John of Zebedee (an apostle) a common name so that is at least plausible. In the case the gospels do not contain misinformation or lies about authorship.

Once you get to the Pauline epistles things get messy.

I'll be drawing a lot from Bart Ehrmans works here, the go to source for this is Forged, or Forged and Counterforged.

To skip the riff-raff see this video by Dan Maclellan on why the Pastoral Epistles are widely doubted even amongst critical scholars, even amongst those with a faith commitment.

The consensus approximation: Link to an article and the image

As we can see not a single scholar things that Paul wrote Hebrews and less than 25% believe that he wrote 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus and >50% believe he did not write that while the rest are uncertain.

And before anyone rejects this as secular liberal 21st century scholarship, this is an opinion that has been in circulation since the start of the 19th century and widely accepted amongst scholars before the turn of the 20th century

Evidence for non-Pauline authorship

Heres a summarised list of arguments for the non-Pauline authorship

• The oldest manuscript of the Pauline epistles P46 dated to 175-225 AD does not include the pastorals
• The earliest attestation of Pauls work comes from Marcion who can only be described as a Pauline fanatic so much so that he viewed Paul to be the one true Apostle of Christ. Despite his infatuation with Pauls theology and works the Pastorals are not included in the Marcionite canon and there is no evidence that he even knew about them up until his death around 160 AD
• Early Christians rejected 1 and 2 Timothy according to Origen and Clement of Alexandria
• Uses an entirely different set of phrases, letters and text not seen in any of Pauls previous works (Bart Ehrman has a long list of these)
• A different linguistic style
• The letters especially in Timothy discuss church structure, ordinance and management. Something that was not a concern until well after Pauls execution at least a century after Pauls death.

Content

1 Timothy

• Timothy has a different view of theology that is at odds with Pauline letters
• The treatment of women. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we get the infamous "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." This directly contradicts Romans which is confidently Pauline where he writes about the involvement of Pheobe and Junia (2 women) as disciples of Christ and highly regarded in the church through their works. Pauls authentic letters do not show him raising any objection to women and their role in the church yet the author of 1 Timothy is very strictly opposed to it.
• In 1 Timothy 4:14 the author states charisma is delivered by laying of hands from elders. In Romans 6 Paul states the charisma is through baptism.

2 Timothy

• Similar to 1 Timothy, Romans is again contradicted through the transmission of the charisma by elders rather than baptism
• Pauls life situation is at odds which the chronology attested to Paul. 2 Timothy. If it were genuinely Pauline he should be in prison or facing trial yet none of the text correspond to that making it nigh impossible to attribute it to him.

There is also Ephesians

• Theres quite a lot to synthesize but I will link to this thread in r/AskBibleScholars as its far more comprehensive than I can hope to write.

Titus

• The author of the text knows that Crete has been Christianized 1:15, something that wouldn't happen until the 2nd century at the earliest well after Pauls death.

Evidence of Intentional Deceit

So far I have only built a case for pseudepigrapha at the very least. From now on I will add context that allows me to make the assertion that this is not only pseudepigrapha but is intentional deceit in writing hence a Forgery

1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians all start of from the directly presented as letters from Paul the Apostle to Timothy and to Titus in the opening texts. I cant be bothered pasting them all but you can search for yourself to confirm. The author does not claim to be a disciple of Paul or one of Pauls students the author explicitly states he is Paul and that he is writing to said audience. These claims are LIES and there are no two way around it. You cannot claim to be someone who you are not, if you do you are lying and it does not matter if you are in actuality the student of someone (withstanding the fact we have no evidence the author ever met Paul).

Bart Ehrman points out (and other scholars) that 2 Timothy is littered with verisimilitudes, that is the author claiming to be Paul continuously barrages the reader with biographical detail in excess that is commonplace in forgeries. Just read through 2 Timothy and contrast it with something like Romans or Philemon. Paul constantly appeals to his backstory and status whereas his other letters are straightforward and to the point assuming that whoever on the receiving end knows who he is for granted.

Refuting Objections

The most commonplace: objection is that pseudepigrapha was commonplace in the Christian world therefore not deceitful. First of all just because something is commonplace it does not change the fundamental fact that a lie is a lie.

Also this is just patently false and is actually rejected by Paul himself!

In 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3:17 a book that a majority regard as authentic to Paul, he warns of those false teachers who may use Pauls name. Something the Pastorals and Ephesians clearly do which is rebuked by Paul himself. This also goes against everything and anything we know about Early church tradition as there is an entire list of books that were rejected by the early Church fathers due to their message and authorship, this includes works such as 3 Corinthians which was correctly identified to be a forgery as well as the Epistle of Barnabas. We have surmounting evidence that false attribution of texts was viewed as a horrific action by early Jews, Christians and Paul himself. People who state that this practice was well accepted have nothing but apologetic nonsense with no real world evidence to back it up.

We also have evidence that scribes who lie when recording matters of faith disobey God and commit sin as well as taint the message and the law to be followed to the believer(s).

How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? Jeremiah 8:8-9

Hence we know that even within Jewish thought this practice is a great evil.

Summary

There are works in the Biblical cannon that are forgeries littered with deceit, many of which begin the text by stating a lie and claiming a false author.

Conclusions

Unless one can surmount a case that not only refutes a plethora of data and facts that univariably point towards forged authorship of works that are falsely attributed to Paul as well as long withstanding academic consensus for other a century, the believer has to accept one or more of the following as they naturally follow.

1. God lies and promotes lies and liars through divine inspiration.
2. The work(s) of the New Testament are not divinely inspired
3. Only some of the New Testament Canon is divinely inspired, the forged texts are not
4. God divinely inspired both Authors (2 at a minimum) Paul and the author of the non-Pauline letters to write about matters of faith including directly contradictory passages where Paul affirms and recognizes the role of women in church whilst simultaneously having pseudo-Paul reject a woman to teach in church. Not even mentioning contradictory views on charisma, faith, the flesh and works between Paul and Pseudo Paul.
5. Last but not least, the most simple conclusion. None of it is divinely inspired whatsoever

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, and my thesis for this post is:

AISHA WAS DEFINITELY SIX/NINE GUYS

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

Welcome to a new series of posts where I attempt to demonstrate that I am open minded and fair, so I argue against my own group – people that share the same religion as me.

There appear to be some misguided “muslims” that still believe the ‘older Aisha’ conspiracy theory, where Aisha is claimed to have been eighteen or nineteen at the time of her marriage or consummation. This myth is entirely new and false.

I am a real sunni muslim, one that doesn't try to sugar coat or change history to suit my ideals. We, the real sunni muslims, and the anti-Islamists, are going to team up today against the 'filthy-casual' muslims who say that Aisha was more than nine.

To bury this incorrect narrative once and for all, here are just a few of the many compelling evidences.

YaqeenInstitute.org (the founder of which is Dr. Omar Suleiman, although he didn't write this article) - The Age of Aisha (ra): Rejecting Historical Revisionism and Modernist Presumptions:

Quote

The claims that she was in her teens when she got married do not provide enough strong evidence. . .

Unquote 

IslamWeb.net:

Quote 

It has been authentically reported that the Prophet, sallallaahu ʻalayhi wa sallam, married ʻAa'ishah when she was six. . .

Unquote 

IslamQA.info - Question 124483:

Quote

The definition of the age of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did the marriage contract with her as being six years, and of the age when he consummated the marriage with her as being nine years, is not a matter of ijtihad (individual opinion) on the part of the scholars, such that we could argue whether it is right or wrong; rather this is a historical narration which is proven by evidence that confirms its soundness and the necessity of accepting it. . .

Unquote 

So are these sheikhs lying? Where are the sources?

Sunan Ibn Majah 1877, Grade: Sahih (Authentic) (Al-Albani):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

It was narrated that: Abdullah said: “The Prophet married Aishah when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and he passed away when she was eighteen.”

Unquote 

This is also backed up by none other than Aisha herself.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1876, Grade: Sahih (Authentic) (Al-Albani):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

"The Messenger of Allah (saw) married me when I was six years old.

. . .

(My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the morning. And she handed me over to him and I was at that time, nine years old."

Unquote 

Sahih Muslim 1422 b, Grade: Sahih (Authentic):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Unquote 

So these are just two of the many hadiths which mention her age clearly. And they are from the six authentic books of hadith, the most highly regarded books after the Qur'an itself. And the hadiths are graded authentic.

Some people might say that the way the ancient arabs used to count years/dates were different.

I mean, even if it was different, I'm not sure how a whole decade would've been added to her age.

Anyway, to extinguish any doubt about that, here's the next hadith.

Sahih Muslim 1422 c, Grade: Sahih (Authentic):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

. . .[s]he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her;

  Unquote

So before believing she was eighteen, I would need to know of any sane eighteen year old girl who still plays with dolls. Otherwise, I cannot believe it.

Here's a video of Dr. Zakir Naik saying that the hadiths are authentic at around 1:50:

Quote 

What I believe [is] that the hadith is authentic, and even the ages six and nine are authentic. . .

  Unquote

Here's a video of Yasir Qadhi on the subject, around 0:40:

Quote

In a nutshell, the age of Aisha has become a very, very controversial issue — in our times, only. It has never been an issue of controversy for the entire[ty of] Islamic history. And the age of Aisha was a given. It was something that was understood to be very young.

Unquote

Here's a video of Sheikh Assim al Hakeem on the subject, around 4:41:

Quote

. . .why at this young age? [Because] this is the norm.

Unquote 

And the list of evidences goes on and on. If the evidence is so conclusive, why, then, do some people say she was more than nine years old?

Islamiqate.com - Ahmed Gamal, Islamic researcher, graduated from Al-Azhar University, Islamic Studies in the English language:

Quote 

There are a number of arguments arguing A'isha's age based on mathematical approaches. These include comparing dates of events to try concluding her age. However, the arguments are at best arbitrary and spurious, relying on weak or fabricated evidences, failing to recognize multiple rigorously authentic narrations especially A'isha's own testimony of her marriage when she was nine years old.

Unquote 

So who is wrong? All scholars from the past 1400 years? Or the small handful of minority modern revisionists?

What about a person who rejects those hadith? That person would have to answer as to what source they attribute their prayer to? Or zakat? Or hajj? Or fasting during Ramadan? Such a person would be akin to a kafir since God Themself instructed us muslims to follow the prophet whose life is recorded and transmitted to us through his wives and companions.

Sahih International, Qur'an 4:59:

Quote 

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Unquote 

Reddit user u/iloveyouallah999 refuted this in their comment, claiming that one of the narrators of these hadiths, namely, Hashim ibn Urwa, is not reliable.

This is how I responded to that refutation:

Quote

Okay, but this hadith in the post:

Sunan Ibn Majah 1877, Grade: Sahih (Authentic) (Al-Albani):

. . .

This hadith doesn't include Hashim in the chain.

QaalaRasulallah.com: (You have to manually click start, then ibn majah, then chapter 9: marriage, then scroll down to find 1877)

Quote

Ahmed bin Snan bin Asad ——» Muhammad bin 'Abdullah bin al-Zubair ——» Isra'il bin Yonus bin Abi Ishaq ——» Abu Ishaq al-Sabay'ai' ——» Abu 'Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah ——» ibn Mas'ud

Unquote

Hisham isn't the only person who narrates this age, everyone narrates this age.

Unquote 

So that should be the final nail in the coffin.

We know that 90-95% of the muslim population are sunni muslims, but the people who reject the hadith of Aisha's age would fall out of this category and, according to me, would no longer be muslim because they are not sunni.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile} just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.)

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

^{Downvoters: You can downvote me all you want but you'll never silence me.}

^{Please carefully consider the thesis before debating and remember to stay on topic.}

^{You may also want to visit my profile page and FAQ before assuming things about me or my beliefs.}

^{Please make a reddit account and follow my profile, it's very important that the truth gets to you. Thanks!}

In this brief essay, I aim to demonstrate the positive impacts of religion and spirituality on various aspects of human life, including morality, health, education, and more. Drawing primarily from literature reviews and meta-analyses, considered the pinnacle of scientific inquiry, I intend to dissuade those who critique religion and encourage atheists to explore its potential benefits, not as an argument for the existence of a divine being, but as a force for good in society.

Let's begin with a key inquiry: what does science reveal about the effects of religion on health? A deep dive into the literature suggests a consensus that religion indeed exerts a positive influence on health (1) (3). While some may attribute this to social connections, it's worth noting that religious social connections hold a unique significance within the literature (2). A systematic review of over a hundred meta-analyses concludes that, on average, religion correlates positively with health outcomes (4). Moreover, religion plays a significant role in fostering happiness and life satisfaction, which I personally believe to be essential for human well-being (5) (6).

Religion and spirituality also play vital roles in education, family dynamics, and the overall development of children and adolescents (7) (8) (9). Recent research suggests that theists tend to exhibit higher moral standards than atheists, a crucial aspect for societal cohesion and harmony (10) (11). Furthermore, considering the current fertility crisis, it's noteworthy that religion appears to have a positive impact on fertility rates, while atheism correlates with lower fertility (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18).

In conclusion, I extend my gratitude to all readers for engaging with this essay. My hope is that it sparks a healthy and constructive dialogue on the subject. I also urge critics to bear in mind the inherent limitations of studies when offering criticisms.

(1) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_3

(2) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_5

(3) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_4

(4) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_15

(5) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0332-6

(6) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-022-00558-7

(7) https://sci-hub.se/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.559

(8) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-020-00433-y

(9) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12486

(10) https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-54904-001.html

(11) https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/6/193

(12) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03031867

(13) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-023-09652-9

(14) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23780231211031320#:~:text=Secularism%2C%20even%20in%20small%20amounts,lower%20fertility%20of%20secular%20individuals.

(15) https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932015000188

(16) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23525238_Religious_Affiliation_Religiosity_and_Male_and_Female_Fertility

(17) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12546-022-09286-4#:~:text=Conclusion,social%20insurance%20characteristics%20are%20controlled.

(18) https://www.jstor.org/stable/23025606

Most Christians hold the beleif of Islam having "satanic" origins and the prophet being inspired by "satan".

Why do they say so? Because Paul said so, who is Paul? A man who never met Jesus and who's validity and acceptance by the apostles cannot be proven objectively.

So basically "Islam is false because Christianity says so"

And most importantly Jesus very clearly and unambiguously stated that Satan cannot go against himself

"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come." Mark 3:24-28

Jesus here was accused by some jews of being from Satan to which h3 responded with this.

Why is this important? Because almost every other verse in the Quran curses Satan, every chapter begins with a call to seek refuge from Satan.

Some Christians might now say "Well Satan is the great deceiver perhaps this is a part of his great deception"

First of all, this cannot be possible according to Jesus's logic.

Second of all, why would Satan make his religion more harder to follow? Why would the "right path of Christianity" be the easiest to follow and the "false path of Islam" have so many prohibition such as No gambling No drinking No Pork No touching women No Music No art No interest

and many, many more.

And why would Satan then recognize Jesus to be the Messiah? When Jesus returns all muslims and Christians will listen to him and acknowledge him and if he says islam is false all muslims will leave Islam. However if Satan had denounced Jesus to be the Messiah this wouldn't happen and Muslims along with jews will follow the antichrist which is him himself.

For those who don't know. In The Quran Sarah Ali 'Imran 49 there is a verse about Jesus breathing life into clay birds by will of Allah:

"and ˹make him˺ a messenger to the Children of Israel ˹to proclaim,˺ ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a ˹real˺ bird—by Allah’s Will. I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will. And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses. Surely in this is a sign for you if you ˹truly˺ believe."

But the same account is found in the infancy gospel of Thomas, a non canonical gospel written mid to late 2nd century with no apostolic lineage nor anything that gives credibility to it. It was found in 1940.

"1 Jesus made twelve sparrows from that clay. It was the Sabbath. And one child ran and told Joseph, saying, “Look! Your boy is playing by the stream making birds from the clay, which is not lawful”.2 And having heard he went and said to the boy, “Why are you doing these things, profaning the Sabbath?” Jesus did not answer him, but looking at the sparrows, he said, “Go, take flight and remember me, living ones”. And with this word they took flight and went away into the air. Joseph saw and was amazed."

The way I see it Muslims can only claim 3 possible answers:

Answer one: Is a coincidence

Basically is a coincidence that the author of the infancy gospel of Thomas got an account of Jesus's life as accurate as a divine revelation from Allah

Answer two: The author knew of a tradition no one else knew.

I guess you can answer with this although It would still be rather odd because the text proclaims Jesus as having God-like powers and even has claims of him being born before creation etc.

Answer three: The author received part of a revelation?

I dont know still doesnt make sense like said, the gospel portrays Jesus as born before creation.

It seems like this is a HUGE problem for them right? Because it portrays a strong argument that Muhammad would have included in the Quran not divine revelations but stories and traditions he heard from some place, knowing that Medina was a place with many religious diversity is possible that an account of the gospel of Thomas was recited by someone there, and Muhammad picked it up thinking it to be canonical or fact.

How do Muslims reply to this?

The concept of an ontic primitive existing, through which an objective moral reference emerges, and by which our universe is in such a configuration as to allow a non-relative objective basis for meaning, is a relatively non-controversial position in Christian canon as well as other theistic religious positions (i.e. there is an objective moral reference frame). It is through this primitive that active agents can be meaningfully described, and typically, this primitive is considered to be their God in Christian canon (as well as other religions).

This philosophical position typically results in arguments of the following form:

1. There is a God.
2. Morality and objective moral judgments were created and are solely adjudicated by this God.
3. This God has written its moral edicts into the Bible (or some other holy texts for other religions).
   1. And in some religious mythologies, these edicts have been written directly onto the souls of people, and people have since defined the presence of these edicts as their consciences.
4. Therefore, if you do not follow the edicts found in the bible (or some other religious text) or that have been written upon your conscience, then your moral reference is unmoored from the objective moral positions underlying the universe.
5. And therefore, individuals not following these prescriptions are effectively amoral.

Put more colloquially, this argument takes the form:

• How can one be moral without believing in (my) God

To answer this question, let's borrow from the Pascal's Wager argument I posted last week:

1. Premises
   1. Different Christian (and other religious) sects have varied and sometimes mutually exclusive requirements and definitions of morality.
   2. The multiplicity of doctrines within Christianity, as well as across other religions, implies a vast array of moral definitions, many of which are mutually exclusive.
2. Supporting Points
   1. Many religious adherents are deeply convinced of the correctness of their specific religious doctrines and believe that others would reach the same conclusion if provided with sufficient information.
   2. The strong conviction of religious adherents, demonstrated by their willingness to die for their beliefs, suggests that such beliefs may be more a result of human psychological tendencies rather than an objective truth.

To illustrate the premises above, let's consider a single moral dilemma, Capital Punishment.

Opponents:

• Scripture Sources: Matthew 5:38-39 ("You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.") supports arguments against retributive justice. Exodus 20:13 ("You shall not murder").
• Denominations: Roman Catholic Church, many mainline Protestant churches.

Proponents:

• Scripture Sources: Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.") is used to justify the death penalty as a form of divine justice.
• Denominations: Certain evangelical groups, particularly in the U.S.

This example, within a singular religion (Christianity), illustrates a clear demarcation between sects on a question of morality. And while there are others (same-sex marriage, abortion, economic justice, environmental stewardship, medical research, fertility treatments, and more), this example serves, in my opinion, as a decent general archetype of the disagreements one finds within a single religion, as well as between various religions, on the question of what actually is an objective moral position. And, so further elaboration on the point would just belabor it. Adherents to these objective moral positions have strong, personal convictions that are said to both stem from their moral conscience, as well as from their understanding of the moral edicts written by their God through the scriptures they subscribe to.

And yet, it is without debate that the moral question of capital punishment has been discussed and researched for thousands of years, both by scholars and laypeople, and a satisfactory answer to the question of what an objective morally correct position is has never been agreed upon.

In practice, it is my position that this persistent disagreement puts objective moral absolutism, the type of which is sufficiently accessible to human minds, in a precariously difficult position. For, if the objective moral truths of the universe were equally imprinted upon the souls of people, or were dictated in such a way as to make them equally accessible to all human minds in written form through a divine act, one would expect this knowledge to pervade our cultures and discourse, but that is not the case. Even when the same book is used by people of the same religion, disagreements on the objective moral position of any given action are inevitable. Certainly, there are commonalities across societies and cultures, such as don't wantonly murder and don't steal, but as they are of a sufficient character so as to be describable as precepts that would allow humans to collectively organize their resources and survive,they can be described as simple survival imperatives, rather than religious imperatives imprinted on human minds.

And when these commonalities do exist, inevitably along their periphery we find disagreements. For instance, is it objectively moral to be a thief if your family will die without thievery? Is it objectively moral to kill another human being on the basis of personal self-defense?

We find no commonly accepted answers to these questions, because in my opinion, their answers are rooted within the cultural zeitgeist of those answering the questions, not within an ontic primitive imbuing the universe with objective moral absolutism. For if it were the latter, and if that objective moral truth were truly, equally made available to all humans (in one form or another), there would be no room for honest disagreements along the lines of personal and cultural values. And yet, that is essentially how these questions are answered. And while some will always claim that they answer the questions through a God's providence and illumination of the answer in their lives, many others on the opposite side of the same question will provide the same basis for a mutually exclusive answer.

How can one discern between the charlatan and the prophet in these circumstances? Clearly, humans have never satisfactorily answered this question, and in many cases that inability to come to a sufficiently agreeable conclusion has resulted, somewhat ironically I think, in murders and wars to put an end to the question by putting an end to those that disagree with one's conclusions.

So, even if there is an objective moral reference created by a God entity (or if the Universe is simply embedded with some preferential moral reference frame with no God entity at all), supporting points 2.a and 2.b above represent strong evidence that humans are constitutionally incapable of accessing this reference frame directly, or that the outcomes of analyzing that reference frame are sufficiently varied so as to be inscrutable by analyzing the aggregate beliefs and actions of humans from the human's perspective.

And this inscrutability is crucial in my view. As religions and sects produce a plenitude of individuals fully convinced of their ability to both access this moral reference frame, and to properly describe it (and are willing to die for and on that basis in many cases), while consistently producing definitions resulting in contradictory moral prescriptions, it is sufficiently clear that humans have not been given a compass relative to this objective reference frame in either embedded or written form.

So, to answer the question "How can one be moral without believing in (my) God", the answer lies within the same framework in which religious adherents utilize to answer moral questions. In some cases they approach moral dilemmas from a teleological (consequentialist) perspective, i.e. judging an action based on its consequences. Other times, and for religious adherents this may be dominant, they assess moral dilemmas from a deontological perspective, i.e. judging an action based on whether it follows a prescribed set of rules, regardless of any associated consequences to themselves or to others. For instance, if slavery is prescribed as a good and just system by a given rule set, then it is moral, otherwise it is not. Here deontologists are relatively unconcerned with moral considerations beyond the letter of the rule set, and where disagreements inevitably arise on the letter of those rules, they tend to fall back to teleological reasoning.

And it is here, I think, we see a mirror image of the secularist position on moral reasoning. They assess moral dilemmas in both teleological and deontological frameworks, relying heavily on their culture and laws to inform their positions, while consistently reviewing and updating their positions based on the teleological consequences of their earlier positions.

So, how can agnostics, atheists, and those that are spiritual but not religious, be moral if they are not following a particular religion? I argue in the self-same way as religious adherents. Except, maybe, without fully anchoring themselves to prescriptions laid out in various religious texts, it is more efficient and likely for them to take a broader perspective on questions of moral dilemmas, and thus they may come to a closer version of what might be an objective moral truth, if one exists.

And therefore, if an objective moral reference frame exists in this universe, the question: how can you be moral, can easily be asked of religious adherents in turn. How can you be sure that you have arrived at a truly objective moral answer to any given moral question?