How does a theist decide which beliefs to have?

[M.H.Mubarak]

My Apologies autumn 1971!

Hi M.H.M,
I was raised in a rather stuffy Christian sect (Lutheren, Missouri Synod), and many of the arguments I now find inadequate are repeated by others interested in my recognising a particular affiliation.
Since you were also raised in a different religion than the one you have decided offers the greatest truth, what do you see as the differences between your "taught" religion and your "chosen" religion?
Was there a sudden epiphany?
I know that you have already said that your journey was too complex to "sum up", but I am interested in particular differences which you may now notice.
Keep in mind that Islamic dogma is not any more convincing to those here than Christian dogma.
Simply stating that a particular Christian belief is unfounded is not a valid defense of an Islamic belief.
To simplify to the point of redundant redundancy, what is so different about your belief now as opposed to before?

I apologize for getting wrapped up with the more negative and contrary posts and not responding to you.

To be brief. The Pauline Doctrine. Isa (Jesus)[Peace be upon him] never said he was "the Son of God" in the four basic gospels... he did say "The Son of Man". You will, however, hear these words attributed to him in latter "books".

Saul of Tarsus [a city in Anatolia (Turkey)] was part and parcel of the Roman Empire. Though his parents were Hebrew, they were also well establish Roman Citizens, living in a Pagan society. "Mithrasism" was in vogue in the Roman Empire at that time. Mithras was "the Son of God" [Azura Mazda of the Zoroastrian belief]. His date of birth is December 25th of the Roman Calendar. He was born of a virgin in a humble surroundings, and visited by Three Maji [Zoroastrian wise men] bearing gifts of Fankenscence and Mirr.
You can google it yourself.

Saul violently hated the "Christ" and his followers, and was as we all know the greatest persecuter of the early following of this Hebrew upstart. After his alleged blinding vision of Christ saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me.." that Paul proclaims to the followers of Jesus his vision, and he runs off to the synagouges to proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God.
[Thus, introducing the first element of corruotion in the community of Christ's followers].

Paul also interprets Christ's saying to his desciples that if he did not leave them now, how would the Comforter come to them... as the Holy Spirit. [The only surviving text being a Greek copy of the accepted books of Christiandom by the Holy Roman Empire of Emperor Constantine in Niceia in A.D. 325. Thus: The Son of God, The Holy Spirit, and God the "Father" became the accepted interpretation of Christiandom. [Fitted right in with Pagan Traditions].

All the books that were burned and ommitted in Niceia, the untimely death of Arius, forever silenced his people who opposed the concept of the trinity, in the name of Oneness of the Creator.

Believe me, I'm trying to be brief. So I will stop here. But, that is the major difference.

 

[The Man]

This is where a theist and a non-theist part.

Agreed, so the question then comes, as is the purpose of this thread…

How did you choose which of the many outside sources for this goodness best suited you (not specifically why you may have concluded it was an outside source)? Was it the first one that came along? The one you were most exposed to? Or was it only after long deliberation and contemplation that you were finally able to make a choice?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

"There is no time line, and a day in the parlance of the Lord is measured in thousands of our years. Thus, it would be hard to rule out the evolutionary process which is evident in the world and the expanding universe.

Yes, a day being anywhere between 1000 (32:5) to 50,000 (70:4). Consider God created the universe in six of his days. That is only 300,000 years, a whisper in the 15 billion years of cosmic evolution.

The Quran clearly states God created the universe in six days, which is what you would expect from people ignorant of cosmological knowledge. Consider 10:3:
فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ

That is quite clearly six days in the modern phrasing of the word.

If six days can therefore be a metaphor, why stop at that, and not conclude that the creator, hell and heaven is simply a metaphor?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Consider this also, and forgive me for using a Hitchens argument:

Humanity has been around for 250,000 years. For 248,500 years God simply sat on his throne, watching millions upon millions of humans die in pregnancy, in childbirth, from malaria, from easily treatable illnesses by modern standards. For thousands upon thousands of years, the average age may have been anywhere between 10-40 years old. Yet God cares not, and watches millions upon millions of humans condemn themselves to hell, as they are not able to read the Quran's revealed word. Then only in the last 1,500 years he decides to start saving humans from hell.

This is some merciful God isn't it? Not only merciful, but (according to the Quran), the most merciful.

It makes utterly no sense.

But that said, do you believe humans are 250,000 years old and evolved from apes?

 

[M.H.Mubarak]

No, to the evolution of man from the apes.

"God created the universe in six of his days. That is only 300,000 years, a whisper in the 15 billion years of cosmic evolution."

We are given no timeline for the time of existence in the State of Felicity. As for our recorded history, We only have whispers of Atlantaluvian and Lumerian cultures prior to the Ancients of our recorded history. Even "myths" have their roots in something real. The Quran does speak of he Ad People who had a far superior culture than we've known, but they were destroyed without a trace left. What is Hidden from us is Hidden for a reason. Why trouble your mind over apparent numbers and time lines?

After the day of Judgement, you will see the entire picture, exact numbers and all. Patience, my friend.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

No, to the evolution of man from the apes.

I'm unsure what you mean. Are you saying man is independently placed on Earth, failing to evolve from apes?

Do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?

What is Hidden from us is Hidden for a reason. Why trouble your mind over apparent numbers and time lines?

After the day of Judgement, you will see the entire picture, exact numbers and all. Patience, my friend.

Well, yes. After all that we see the real situation here. Whenever phrases such as 'We do not know the mind of God' and 'You will see on the day of Judgement', the argument appears to have been lost on your side. Do you not see how I am trying to address features of the Quran which shed doubt on Judgement Day even existing? To reply that I will know when it actually, really happens is a horrific shade of arrogance that you must understand is a poor way to argue your case. I ask again:

If six days can therefore be a metaphor, why stop at that, and not conclude that the creator, hell and heaven is simply a metaphor?

 

[Mr Blue Sky]

M.H.Mubarak,

As I understand your belief structure, a major tenant of your personal belief seems to be the Quran. I have not read it completely myself, however like any ancient text, I believe it to be below the level of required evidence for belief. Parts of it are contradictory and dated. Additionally on reading I found consistent use of fear of punishment to be broadly offensive, as too parts of 'The Women' like (4:34). Lastly, like the Rorschach test, with the tool of "it's a metaphor" any wanted justification can be found.

Furthermore, should anyone not believe the whole text (including the contradictions) then eternal punishment results (2:85).

For the record, I did have to look those references up

I tend to accept two forms of justification:
Reasoned argument and personal belief.

That is, a rational, reasoned argument would consist of a claim supported by observable evidence. Personal belief may be as simple as believing that God talks to you and told you to believe.

The requirements for a reasoned argument have not been met, and God has yet to contact me (obviously I'd apply Occam's razor stringently before accepting). Therefore I am an atheist. Just to clear that up, earlier you seem to have confused anti-theism (aka strong atheism) with atheism.

I guess that also answers a question the OP mentioned, but wasn't interested in the answer to.

You seem to have a personal belief, that's fine!
However, such a believe gives no basis for me to develop a similar belief.

 

[M.H.Mubarak]

M.H.Mubarak,

As I understand your belief structure, a major tenant of your personal belief seems to be the Quran. I have not read it completely myself, however like any ancient text, I believe it to be below the level of required evidence for belief. Parts of it are contradictory and dated. Additionally on reading I found consistent use of fear of punishment to be broadly offensive, as too parts of 'The Women' like (4:34). Lastly, like the Rorschach test, with the tool of "it's a metaphor" any wanted justification can be found.

Furthermore, should anyone not believe the whole text (including the contradictions) then eternal punishment results (2:85).

For the record, I did have to look those references up

I tend to accept two forms of justification:
Reasoned argument and personal belief.

That is, a rational, reasoned argument would consist of a claim supported by observable evidence. Personal belief may be as simple as believing that God talks to you and told you to believe.

The requirements for a reasoned argument have not been met, and God has yet to contact me (obviously I'd apply Occam's razor stringently before accepting). Therefore I am an atheist. Just to clear that up, earlier you seem to have confused anti-theism (aka strong atheism) with atheism.

I guess that also answers a question the OP mentioned, but wasn't interested in the answer to.

You seem to have a personal belief, that's fine!
However, such a believe gives no basis for me to develop a similar belief.

anti-theism (aka strong atheism) with atheism [belief that there is no God]. What then is "weak" atheism?

You are free to believe as you wish. To you, empirical proof is the only "infallible" proof.

If, in your estimation, you believe that The Holy Quran is the invention of man and not Divine Scripture, so beit. If you are in error in your estimation, so be it. At least you have been advised.

My only response to that is Mankind is that empirical knowlege (anything that can be measured) is limited by the tools used for measurement.

As far as Ayat 4:34 is concerned:

4:43 "Men are guardians over women because ALLAH has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with ALLAH's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, ALLAH is High and Great. "

The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (pbuh) in his Farewell Pilgrimage said:

"Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY (fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and beat them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE (fadribu hunna darban ghayra mubarrih*). Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."

*** Then he took the covenant from them and from us that they and we all heard and understood this from him, respectively, directly and indirectly, with his forefinger raised, and said: "O Allah! bear witness." ***

After this, whatever Muslim man derogates to the recommendation of the Prophet (pbuh) has violated his covenant with the Prophet and shall be called to account for it; and whoever of the non-Muslim men or women claims - even the Archbishop of Canterbury and his wife - that beating women is allowed in Islam, has belied the Divine witness invoked by the Prophet and shall be called to account for it in the Divine Court.

* "Mubarrih" is defined in al-Mawrid as "violent, intense, severe, acute, sharp, excruciating, tormenting, agonizing." Qatada said as narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not disgraceful/ outrageous/ obscene/ indecent [beating]." Muhammad Asad translates it over-figuratively as "not causing pain."


Go the whole nine yards and quote the context of the Ayat you Quoted.

2:83 We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: "You shall not worship except GOD. You shall honor your parents and regard the relatives, the orphans, and the poor. You shall treat the people amicably. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat)." But you turned away, except a few of you, and you became averse.
2:84 We made a covenant with you, that you shall not shed your blood, nor shall you evict each other from your homes. You agreed and bore witness.
2:85 Yet, here you are killing each other, and evicting some of you from their homes, banding against them sinfully and maliciously. Even when they surrendered, you demanded ransom from them. Evicting them was prohibited for you in the first place. Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part? What should be the retribution for those among you who do this, except humiliation in this life, and a far worse retribution on the Day of Resurrection? GOD is never unaware of anything you do.
2:86 It is they who bought this lowly life at the expense of the Hereafter. Consequently, the retribution is never commuted for them, nor can they be helped.
2:87 We gave Moses the scripture, and subsequent to him we sent other messengers, and we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it not a fact that every time a messenger went to you with anything you disliked, your ego caused you to be arrogant? Some of them you rejected, and some of them you killed.
2:88 Some would say, "Our minds are made up!" Instead, it is a curse from GOD, as a consequence of their disbelief, that keeps them from believing, except for a few of them.
2:89 When this scripture came to them from GOD, and even though it agrees with, and confirms what they have, and even though they used to prophesy its advent when they talked with the disbelievers, when their own prophecy came to pass, they disbelieved therein. GOD's condemnation thus afflicts the disbelievers.
2:90 Miserable indeed is what they sold their souls for - rejecting these revelations of GOD out of sheer resentment that GOD should bestow His grace upon whomever He chooses from among His servants. Consequently, they incurred wrath upon wrath. The disbelievers have incurred a humiliating retribution.

 

[M.H.Mubarak]

I'm unsure what you mean. Are you saying man is independently placed on Earth, failing to evolve from apes?

Do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?

YES.

Well, yes. After all that we see the real situation here. Whenever phrases such as 'We do not know the mind of God' and 'You will see on the day of Judgement', the argument appears to have been lost on your side. Do you not see how I am trying to address features of the Quran which shed doubt on Judgement Day even existing? To reply that I will know when it actually, really happens is a horrific shade of arrogance that you must understand is a poor way to argue your case. I ask again:

Well, yes. After all that we see the real situation here. Whenever phrases such as 'We do not know the mind of God' and 'You will see on the day of Judgement', the argument appears to have been lost on your side. Do you not see how I am trying to address features of the Quran which shed doubt on Judgement Day even existing? To reply that I will know when it actually, really happens is a horrific shade of arrogance that you must understand is a poor way to argue your case. I ask again:
Quote:
If six days can therefore be a metaphor, why stop at that, and not conclude that the creator, hell and heaven is simply a metaphor?

What better way to describe Absolute Reality? Since the human mind can not compass it, doen't mean that it does not exist!

 

[The Man]

M.H.Mubarak, you continue to describe what it is that you believe, even if only written as metaphors, but not why you believe that particular group of metaphors. I am sure most of us are aware that one of the reasons for your belief might be the desire not to incur the wrath of God, but this aspect is included in some other theistic beliefs. This thread is specifically about why you might or have chosen this one particular theistic belief over all the others.

 

[pchams]

some weeds make good smoking!

Would a moslem say this? Maybe...

I hear no bell....show me where it is.
Spouting verses is not an argument.

Summary:
M. H. Mubarak has said that he/she believes in a book.

Forgive me if I move on, having learned nothing.

 

[Mr Blue Sky]

anti-theism (aka strong atheism) with atheism [belief that there is no God]. What then is "weak" atheism?

There are many definitions for atheism, the one I use is:

"atheism is the non-acceptance of the theist claim". This can be taken as a purely skeptical stance. Probably more similar with what most people know as 'agnostism'.

Strong Atheism I take as an anti-thiestic claim. That is "I know there is/are no God(s)"

Implicit atheism would be the disbelief due to not having been exposed to the belief. That's just for the record, and not particularly relevant.

The reason I mention it is because some comments earlier seem to be fuzzy on the subject. e.g. use of know instead of believe (in places).
I can't post links,but there's a podcast that I think may be relevant to the discussion: atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2008-01-20.mp3
just add the www

 

[The Man]

Back on topic, this thread is not about what theists, atheists or agnostics believe, but how a theist decides what to believe. So, I repeat my questions to you, M.H.Mubrarak.

How did you choose which of the many outside sources for this goodness best suited you (not specifically why you may have concluded it was an outside source)? Was it the first one that came along? The one you were most exposed to? Or was it only after long deliberation and contemplation that you were finally able to make a choice?

 

[Jon_Stripe]

Speaking for myself, I just believe what, to me, makes sense.

I don't belive in Hell (unless perhaps you call life "Hell") because I don't believe that if God loves everyone he would still send you to Hell. I do, however, believe in Karma but eternal Hell just doesn't seem legit to me.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

YES.

Well then, I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures around 300,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve are about as likely as a pink, chain-smoking unicorn.

Perhaps some rethinking is in order?

 

[M.H.Mubarak]

Well then, I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures around 300,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve are about as likely as a pink, chain-smoking unicorn.

Perhaps some rethinking is in order?

No.

To you, your belief, to me my belief, and I shall never believe as you believe and vise versa.

 

[moon1969]

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
- Carl Sagan -


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- Carl Sagan -

 

[arthwollipot]

No.

To you, your belief, to me my belief, and I shall never believe as you believe and vise versa.

Sure. The problem is, the idea that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors is not a belief. It is knowledge - supported by extensive evidence to such an extent that it is as close as we can get to truth.

Not interested in an epistemological argument here, just wanted to point out that human evolution is not a belief.

 

[M.H.Mubarak]

It is a theory based on archeologial excavations and findings. It does not prove that there is a link to an ape-man to human. The Theeory of Evolution is just that, a theory.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It is a theory based on archeologial excavations and findings. It does not prove that there is a link to an ape-man to human.

Not quite. For one thing, genetic evidence links us so closely to apes, that if you seriously think that god made apes and human separately, one has to ask why god made it look just like we have a recent common ancestor.