Evidence for religion

vmsuhail said:
Does the lack of availability of the written sources of the past now (they were present back in the time then and some manuscripts are available today as well) negate the strong oral traditions present at the time ? Qur'an was transmitted orally and preserved by memorization primarily, along with copying them in writing by the scribes.
We know from the hadith (actions and sayings of the Prophet and his companions) and the Sira (history) literature regarding how the Qur'an was compiled, when it was done, who commissioned it and the companions involved in the process. Unless there is an alternative history (not speculations based on absence of evidence or bogus apologetic claims) challenging this, I don't find any reason to doubt them. The little available historical data only conforms to the scholarly tradition.
Take for example the recent carbon dating of the Birmingham manuscripts which dated them between 568 and 645 AD with 95.4% confidence, the latest date falls just 13 years after death of Muhammad(saw) [571 AD - 632 AD]


My comment was in relation to judging the prophets based on the "divine laws". Even if you don't consider them as divine, you could still consider them as laws applicable of the time they lived in.
Click to expand...

most of it isn't today or maybe you think it is
 
vmsuhail said:
Does the lack of availability of the written sources of the past now (they were present back in the time then and some manuscripts are available today as well) negate the strong oral traditions present at the time ? Qur'an was transmitted orally and preserved by memorization primarily, along with copying them in writing by the scribes.
We know from the hadith (actions and sayings of the Prophet and his companions) and the Sira (history) literature regarding how the Qur'an was compiled, when it was done, who commissioned it and the companions involved in the process. Unless there is an alternative history (not speculations based on absence of evidence or bogus apologetic claims) challenging this, I don't find any reason to doubt them. The little available historical data only conforms to the scholarly tradition.
Take for example the recent carbon dating of the Birmingham manuscripts which dated them between 568 and 645 AD with 95.4% confidence, the latest date falls just 13 years after death of Muhammad(saw) [571 AD - 632 AD]


My comment was in relation to judging the prophets based on the "divine laws". Even if you don't consider them as divine, you could still consider them as laws applicable of the time they lived in.
Click to expand...
95.4% certainty that it could have been written 13 years after the death of someone called Mohamed, it still doesn't negate the fact that it's more than likely to be a 100% made up story.
 
vmsuhail said:
1. Simply because I find it impossible that the complexities involved in the creation happened by chance. Randomness creates chaos not order.



2. All major religions have answered this.
[Q 112:2] He is Eternal
[Q 112:3] He neither begets nor is born
[Q 57: 3] He is the First (nothing is before Him) and the Last (nothing is after Him)



3. Sun is one of the signs of the Creator.
[Q 41:37] And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah who created them, if it is Him that you worship.
[Q 10:5] It is He who made the sun a shining light and the moon a derived light and determined for it phases - that you may know the number of years and account [of time]. Allah has not created this except in truth. He details the signs for a people who know
Click to expand...
1. So you’re just going on the delusion or deliberate lies of some random ancient figures as your basis that there must be a God?

2. No major religion has ever answered anything to do with God. Ever! They’ve put forward a theory of a creator with absolutely no evidence or scientific credence. There couldn’t be anything more unreliable. It’s probably the most unreliable thing that’s ever been put forward by our species.

3. Ah, so there’s a bit of evidence - evidence of brainwashing and attempt to control people. All these pre-Abrahamic religions who had it right who did worship the thing they knew gave life to the planet (the Sun) were told not to do this and to prostrate to some made up figure “Yahweh” “God” “Allah”...

Swap the word “Jesus” with the “the Sun” in every story in the New Testament and every story actually reads the same but with a more obvious meaning and it all makes more sense.

And you really need to branch out fella. You’re using the same one book written hundreds and hundreds of years ago, about 1/5th of which cannot ever be translated anyway, as your source of evidence and what you’re trying to convince me that there is a God or that religion should be followed. That’s absolutely fucking barmy!

I’ve read more reliable things from The Beano than what’s written in the Torah, the Bible or the Qu’ran. They are literally the “Lord of the Rings” or “Harry Potter” fiction books of their time, used as a form of controlling of the masses by scaring people or brainwashing people.

If all religious teachings were outright banned from being taught to children and could only be accessed by adults who can think for themselves, then hardly anyone in the world would follow a religion. But you tell a little kid from toddler age upwards, every day, every week, every year, something, especially with a threat behind the teachings then they’re going to fall for it and think it’s true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vmsuhail said:
The Holy books have also done their part in changing how slavery was viewed at the time.

Freeing a slave was made a righteous act
[Q 2:177] It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.

Expiations for Certain Sins is to Free a Slave (eg: for breaking oath)
[Q 5:89] Allah will not punish you for what is uninentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masakin (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families; or clothe them; or manumit a slave.

One of the ways to spend the obligatory charity was for freeing the slaves
[Q 9:60] Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah .

Encouraging to marry slaves
[Q 24:32] And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

I hope you can take a balanced view and reassess your "God is big on slavery" statement.



This isn't accurate. For me, Allah is the same YHWH of the OT and the one whom Jesus(as) addressed as Father in the NT, the same ParaBrahma of the Vedas etc. God doesn't have a single name.
[Q 17:110] Say: "Invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious: by whichever name you invoke Him, the best names belong to Him.
Click to expand...
These books are supposedly "his word". They clearly show that ownership of slaves is permitted in certain circumstances. Those books support the very existance of slaves in the first place, and tolerates their need in society. I need to make no reassessment of that statement.

You've missed the second point entirely. YOU dismiss all the other Gods and Goddesses that exist in the world. Do you deny Shiva? Odin? Zeus? Jupiter? Tabaldak? Huitzilopochtli? All from various, large regions around the world, all with existing claims to have been the "creator" God, but no, for some reason, it'll be the stories from the Middle East that we shall be interpreting as the "true creator" story.

Why does your Middle Eastern God/YHWH/Allah, whatever you call him, have any more validity than the Germanic God, the Indian subcontinental God, the Native American God, the Mediterranean God, the Central American God?
 
Last edited:
ps oh fuck it. Please try substituting the word 'wholeness' for the word 'holiness,' If you have ever been to, eg, a boxing class then..at first you may try to punch with just the strength of your arm, separate from the rest of your body. Might be alright? Yet, If you have good teacher, you might come to learn how to put the full weight of your body into a punch. In this way you might learn that it's not just about using 'brute' force but that there is power available that comes from the likes of, eg, rhythm and timing, that could otherwise not be known. Extrapolate this a few times and then it may be understandable as to what many have spoken of. Evidence for wholeness? Try getting hit by someone that hits you with just their arm and then try get hit by someone that can put their whole body behind this. Would this be evidence enough as to the existence and benefits of wholeness or not? This may not be the the same as fitting into religious dogma or believing in a god that sits on a cloud somewhere, giving you the equivalent of a school report that tells you if you are doing alright or not?
 
arfurclue said:
Ironically, this comes across as not so different from a buddhist koan. Genius ;) Anyhow, back to sleep again for me.
Click to expand...
Buddhism believes in finding enlightenment, it's a reward system. Zen just believes in right thoughts and right actions. Do good things and good things will happen to you v do good things and good things will happen to others. Far less selfish.

Zen also doesn't teach against emotional attachment. Emotional attachment and empathy are what makes people good instead of bad.
 
aguero93:20 said:
And you see more order than chaos in the universe? Really?
Click to expand...
It depends on what scale you look at things, but I suspect he means on a grand scale, and the answer to that is simple. The Universe isn't random. Our own solar system wasn't created randomly, it formed over billions of years due to the various fundamental forces of nature, primarily gravity. The religious claim that is god's work, but produce no credible evidence whatsoever to back up their claim. It's like me saying my mate Rob created cheese and then refusing to explain why, just repeating how much I feel fulfilled by believing it is so.
 
bluejon said:
It depends on what scale you look at things, but I suspect he means on a grand scale, and the answer to that is simple. The Universe isn't random. Our own solar system wasn't created randomly, it formed over billions of years due to the various fundamental forces of nature, primarily gravity. The religious claim that is god's work, but produce no credible evidence whatsoever to back up their claim. It's like me saying my mate Rob created cheese and then refusing to explain why, just repeating how much I feel fulfilled by believing it is so.
Click to expand...
The chaos defines the rules mate, not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.