True Religion

You have missed it. The text below refers to the religion as a percentage of global population.

That's the point Fresco was trying to make. If Muslims account for 21.5% of the global population then, all things being equal, they should account for 21.5% of Nobel prizes.

Things aren't equal though, and the manner of the inequality is what Fresco and I have been arguing about.

That's precisely what I've brought up with Fresco.

Yeh, yeh...whatever you say!
I've made an attempt to raise the level above the futile discussion of comparative psychological palliatives.
I'm now delighted to leave the dancing to others !

When you start sounding neo colonial you're not raising any levels or tones, just opening another can of worms.

So then in regard to your metric, religion is a "lower level of argument," but these 'data' that you present are a higher level of guidance upon which conditioned tribalism is also based. They are not equally fallacious. Understood. You continue, however, to circumvent the question of what you make of these 'data,' that you hold to a higher level of argument, in regard to your perceptual set.

If they sound like a duck, and . . . well, you know the rest.

Without going in further details, my original post mentioned that God sent down guidance for humanity throughout human history. All prophets preached the same message that's is to believe in one God and to believe in Hereafter. My subsequent posts maintained that the Divine guidance throughout human history was limited to a particular nation and particular time. I also maintained that over time the message from God was corrupted and what is left today of these religions is a mix of truth and falsehood. The only religion which has been preserved and preaches the same message brought by all prophets is the religion of Islam.

Now you have read Quran and you know that this is a constant theme throughout Quran. There is not a single Muslim who would say otherwise. Prophet Muhammad PBUH is the final messenger and in Islam disbelief in any prophet makes one a disbelivers whether it is prophet Muhammad PBUH or Prophet Jesus PBUH.

So far what I have described is the summary of my all previous posts and it affirms Muslims belief. I understand as a non-Muslim, you dont believe that and should ask for evidence which is I am providing. You should look into evidence which supports my claim instead of keep arguing about what I am claiming.

If you can prove that what you believe is right then please do so and I will not waste my time in arguing on your claim but will look into your evidence.

Finally there is no conversational dishonesty from my part. I dont believe in telling lies as I know I am answerable to whatever I will say or do to my God. Anyways I appolgize if anything I said may have hurt your feelings, that is not my intention.

FACT#10 QURAN ON CEREBRUM
God has said in the Quran about one of the evil unbelievers who forbade the Prophet Muhammad PBUH from praying at the Kaaba:



The expression "the lying, sinful forelock" in the above verse is most interesting. Research carried out in recent years revealed that the prefrontal area, which is responsible for the management of particular functions of the brain, lies in the frontal part of the skull. Scientists only discovered the functions of this area, which the Quran pointed out 1,400 years ago, in the last 70 years.

If we look into the skull at the front of the head, we will find the prefrontal area of the cerebrum (see figure below).



On page 211 of a book entitled Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology, which includes the results of the latest research on the functions of this area, says:


Also the book says:


So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivation, and initiating good and sinful behavior, and is responsible for telling lies and the truth.

https://youtu.be/0pRsLs7hj1w

We have no disagreement here. That is what is believed.

Same again.

Same again.

No particular issue with this.
A little problematic from my point of view, but not an issue in this conversation.

Actually, I took issue with your logic. You presented a 'logic' argument, and then when challenged as to the 'logic' of the argument - have avoided your own logic argument since.

You talk about your beliefs, which are fine, but they aren't in contention precisely - specific beliefs are in contention, and only within the context of your own logic argument. This is why I kept quoting it (because you were providing responses without relating them to your own logic argument), and saying you weren't answering within context.

Saying you have formed your beliefs through dispassionate logic, and have honestly searched for the truth...then repeatedly refusing to answer a challenge to your own logic, within the context of your own logic (no matter how many times you were asked to), is not dispassionate logic.

Then please:

- address the issues I raided with your logic argument that is in contention (this is the longest running one), within the context of your own logic. If you don't know how to do this, it can be done by breaking down your logic into it's component parts, and addressing them in a way that they join together to reform the logic argument. This is the most obvious way to outline it - carrying it out occurs in multiple ways, but people can always see the underlying structure (logic has a structure) and argument (logic has an argument) and supporting evidence. Sometimes this takes one or two lines, sometimes much longer.

- and please articulate the biases you have twice accused me of

- as a note, there was a third issue - but the third one, the circularity of your logic relating to Mohammed, is mostly related to the first issue. Please avoid circular logic.

There's nothing to apologise for. You've been quite respectful. As a note in relation to my posts, I have not tried to be antagonistic, but rather, simply seek to have my question / challenged answered within the context of your own logic.

People presenting logic that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then avoiding their own logic (in their responses) when challenged, can result in problems.

Are you referring to this statement? If so then you should read my first post again. The statement I quoted above in right in the middle of my first post. What I am implying from quote above is that God is Just and He did provide us guidance throughout human history. This guidance is what Quran calls Islam because it asks to submit to the guidance provided by God. This is why I said that all prophet before prophet Muhammad PBUH preached the same fundamental message which is to call people to worship one God and call them to believe in angels, prophets and to believe in day of judgement. Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet and he came with final guidance from God for all humanity. For anyone born after Prophet Muhammad PBUH's prophethood, it is important to follow the final guidance because it contains teachings of all prophets and it is preserved by God for entire humanity.

Let me know if I am addressing your main question or I am off track? If you have more specific questions then please let me know what those are and I will try my best to answer those.

Regarding biases: everyone has their own biases. I have mine which I try not to be influenced with when looking at thing objectively. I am sure you do the same. I appologize for accusing you for something which is natural sometimes and I am sure you try to keep a neutral stance as well.

Regarding Prophet Muhammad PBUH: He is the last Prophet and is selected by God just like all other prophets. As I stated above, current version of Islam is incomplete without following Prophet Muhammad PBUH as Quran is revealed to him. This is not a circularity of my logic, it is a fact about Muslims which everyone knows. I honestly dont understand why you find that against my original argument. All I am saying that Islam means submission to God's message which is revealed to Prophets. If God willed He could have revealed Divine guidance just one time and would have preserved it but human beings were evolving slowly. The needs of humans beings at the beginning were not the same as needs of human beings in our time. 1400 years ago God decided to revealed His final message because only He knew that this message will be complete guidance for all human being to be born until day of Judgement. God could revealed His message to anyone He would choose and he chose Prophet Muhammad PBUH as his final prophet.

The main topic of our discuss should be the proofs I am presenting because those proofs establish if Quran is the word of God or not. If it is then Quran clearly says to believe in all prophets and it also say to follow teaching of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. I will also present proofs that how God has preserved parts of Bible which prophesize the coming of Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

Anyways I hope this clears any confusion, if not please let me know if there is anything you still want me to address.

You are right that everyone has biases. That is not the issue. The issue is that when you accuse someone of bias, as the reason that they aren't agreeing with you (or similar), then you need to be able to articulate what those biases are - otherwise you run the very real risk of dismissing a legitimate argument while blaming 'bias'. In other words, in such instances, the accusation of bias (without substance) becomes an excuse (for the accuser, in their own mind) to not think about the logic/argument/issue the other person has presented. Hence why I asked you to articulate the accusation - doing so avoids this problem.

Once you get used to thinking in this way - you start to realise that it is the only honest way to deal with 'problems' with your own (or my own) logic. The other ways simply aren't honest - we just tend to refuse to think about our avoidance, and because we don't think about it, we tend not understand how it relates to honesty (ie. you can't honestly evaluate something you refuse to think about, or make excuses for, or attack without trying to understand, etc).


Yes, I was referring to that 'logic'.

Yes it was. That 'logic' was, quite appropriately, at the heart of your post. Which is why I chose that 'logic' to quote.


The version you present now is a very watered down version of what you stated outright in the post - being which contains guidance in all spheres of life, religious, moral, societal, and individual.

But at the heart of your logic, you essentially implied that each religion could be wrong if God didn't provide guidance through that religion (because in order for God to be just he would have to provide guidance). I pointed out that God has already provided guidance, and not through religion, because within ourselves is sufficient guidance, if we so choose pay attention to such, to be the best we are capable of being, particularly as relates to living a principled life.. In essence, using your logic, this means that each religion could be wrong.

But then you added the argument over what is the appropriate amount of guidance. We obviously disagree regarding the amount of guidance one requires. You believe that in order for there to be justice from God that guidance needs to be provided in every part of life. I don't - just the ability within ourselves to work out what is right. In that way, anyone who believes in God has the ability to live in the right way by God. It's hard to argue that this isn't sufficient justice (the ability to do right by God).... unless you also want God to right all the ills of the world, which he has shown he is not willing to do. But in any event, it's a subjective belief (and if you missed the implication - your 'logic' rests upon a very subjective belief)

If everyone is guided by their own intelligence then why we have so many different views. There are people who believe in God and yet there are those who don't. There are people who believe to take any extreme measure to survive such as killing, stealing etc. and yet there are those who believe that people who commit such crimes shall be punished. While they all can claim that their intelligence has guided them to believe in what they are doing is right. Do we have right to punish people then?

If we agree that we should, then there is a question of how we punish them? Who shall make the law and who shall judge them? Does a judge who is a women and recently divorced will have no biases when she judges any divorce related cases? Does a black judge whose entire family is killed by white extremist will have no discrimination against white people when judging them? Will people in power be judged fairly? Can a president have an influence on the outcome of any investigation against him/her if he/she is still a president?

There are so many examples around us which tell that our intelligence is not enough. Yes I agree that our intelligence and consciousness are tools to identify God. Yes I also agree that our intelligence and consciousness can be tools to differentiate between good and evil but only if we have a baseline definition of what is good and what is evil. And this only comes from someone who knows the nature of human beings and have no bias for anyone based on their gender, color, race and ethnicity etc.

I previously gave you example that why we agree to certain rules and regulations in a society even when we can't agree with them as an individual. This is to keep peace and harmony in the society and make sure there is a certain baseline which everyone is aware of and follows. Still we see that these rules are not the same for everyone. People in power are treated differently than common people.

Now let's focus on intelligence part. Is our intelligence enough for us to learn worldly matters at our own? If someone wants to be a doctor, can he/she be a doctor at her own? He/she will not only have to read books written by other human beings but will also need to the help from his/her teachers in a medical school to acquire the right knowledge before he/she starts practicing. What we see here is that, intelligence alone is not enough.

Before you say this example is relevant, think again. The social sciences are very different from the physical sciences. There are no labs in which humans can be entered to determine what may be the best results under different scenarios (and even that would have to assume that humans will always react the same under the same circumstances). God knows His creation better than anyone else and God knows what is best for them on an individual basis and on social basis. For that reason God did reveal laws in human history. Read the OT which is full of Divine laws and these laws cover every aspect of our lives. Read Quran and Sharia law which cover every aspect of Muslim's life and these laws are their to guide us and to tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Let me give one example of Islamic finance system. Interest has been prohibited in OT and in Quran. Muslims don't deal with interest because Quran tells them that this is second major sin after adultery. Use your intelligence and you will disagree with OT and Quran's stance on interest based system. Our countries and socities are all based on interest based syste. Time is money is the basic economic prinipal.

Economists can attempt to come up with numerous justifications for the payment of interest but the real test is to study the affects that interest has. It is important to note that when something is prohibited by God, this does not mean that there is absolutely nothing beneficial in the prohibited item or practice. Indeed, one may be able to find something beneficial even in prohibited items. For example, God says in the Quran about alcohol:



Thus, the essential point is not whether there is anything beneficial in something but whether the harm of something outweighs its benefit. Thus, economists may be able to find a hint of a justification for paying interest but this definitely would not outweigh the harms that interest can be shown to cause. Even if interest is considered some kind of payment to a factor of production, it has some unique characteristics that set it apart from payments to any other factor of production. Due to its unique nature, it leads to some very disturbing results.

First, interest leads to an inequitable distribution of income. This can be seen by taking an example of three people. Suppose there are three people who consume of all of their income in a given year yet one of them starts with $1,000 in savings, a second with $100 and a third with zero. At 10% interest per annum, by the end of the year, the first person will have $1,100, the second $110 and the third person zero in their accounts. If the same scenario follows in the next year, the first person will have $1,210, the second $121 and the third will have zero. Already, one can see how the distribution between them grows every year, even between the one who has some savings of his own. This scenario will be made even worse if the richest person will also to be able to add savings. Suppose he adds one thousand at the end of each year. He will have 1,100 at the end of the first year, he adds $1,000 and continues with his 10% interest and he will have $2,310 at the end of the second year, and so on.

Now it is one thing if this money paid was actually due to some positive factor of production but in reality one cannot make that argument in this case. The money that the people are making via interest may have been squandered, lost or even stolen by the people who borrowed it, but one still has to be pay the interest. It may have been invested in a completely losing project and therefore it actually did not produce anything. But all of that does not matter, it has to be paid regardless of whether that “factor of production” produces anything or not. This is simply one of the unique aspects of money and payments to money. No one can argue that this is just and therefore its results are an inequitable distribution of money.

Furthermore, the distribution of income becomes more and more skewed over time. One can imagine some individuals dealing in millions while others are dealing in hundreds or thousands. The disparity in their interest incomes will indeed be great and growing every year. In other words, as one hears often, it will lead to a situation where the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting relatively poorer. Note that those in debt, paying interest that grows every year, have not been added to the equation. In their case, as interest continues to grow, more and more of their overall income is consumed by interest, further exacerbating the skewed distribution of income.

Someone could ask as to whether an inequitable distribution of income should be considered a major issue. Besides the psychological effects on the poor, especially given mass media advertising that emphasizes the good life and the need to consume, there are very important effects on the market as a whole. In a market economy, production will be geared towards those who have the money to pay for the output, regardless of how necessary other goods may be for society. If the rich desire, demand and are willing to pay a lot of money for SUVs and gas-guzzling vehicles, those will be produced (regardless of how much conservationists may complain). As the income distribution becomes more and more skewed, more and more resources will be devoted to the demands of the richer classes. Since resources are somewhat “fixed,” this means that less and less will be devoted to the needs of the poorer classes.

Furthermore, the lesser resources devoted to the goods that the poor consume reduces supply and drives up the prices of those goods, further harming the poor people’s overall economic situation. For example, one can find numerous medical clinics catering to the rich (those who can afford such treatments), even if they are far from necessary, such as numerous places for cosmetic surgery and the like. At the same time, one may find it very difficult to find clinics catering to the poor and meeting their basic needs. If they could pay more for those essential services, in a market driven economy, one would definitely find more of those types of clinics, more resources devoted to those needs and a cheaper price in the long-run for what they need. In addition, this skewed distribution also has strong implications for the health of democracy; however, that discussion is beyond the scope of my post and will only make my reply much more longer.

In addition, the burden of interest upon the poor who fall into debt puts them into a situation where they cannot advance socially or economically, widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Debt itself is a difficult situation for any individual. However, it is interest payments that make one’s debt a moving target, many times one that an individual simply cannot keep up with. Again, it is a bogus factor of production but it works to allow the rich to get richer while putting a great burden upon those who fall into debt.

Perhaps you are familiar with how much of a debtor society the United States, the richest country in the world, has become. This has afflicted not only the lower classes but many of the middle class as well. Some sorry individuals do not realize that if they pay only the minimum on their credit card bills, for example, they will virtually never clear their balance. But, of course, it is the poorest that are hardest hit. In fact, the system is stacked against them as the poorer an individual is, the worst his credit rating and the higher the interest rate he will be forced to pay.
The plight of small-scale farmers forced to borrow due to dropping prices on their output has been well-documented. Many of them have pawned their precious belongings or lost their farms that have been in their families for generations simply due to interest payments that they could not keep up with.

On an international level, the situation is much more devastating and dangerous. There is no question that when looked at from an international perspective, interest kills people. The debt servicing of lesser developed countries today is so great that they must sacrifice essential health and nutritional needs. It is dumbfounding to think that untold numbers of children are dying daily in lesser-developed countries due to the “tool” of modern capitalism: interest. Some African governments are forced to spend more on debt servicing than they spend on health or education.

In this context, the UNDP (1998) predicted that if the external debt of the 20 poorest countries of the world was written off, it could save the lives of 20 million people before the year 2000. In other words, it means that uncancelled debt was responsible for the deaths of 130,000 children a week up until the year 2000. Global capitalism kills more people each year then were killed by Adolf Hitler. IMF and World Bank are to be blamed for deaths of millions due to their refusal to ease the debt burden. Every year since 1981 between 15 and 20 million people died unnecessarily due to debt burden because Third World governments have had to cut back on clean water and health programs to meet their repayments.

Debt, with its increasing amount of interest compounded upon it, is dangerous for any nation because it means loss of sovereignty and control. This aspect, incidentally, is no accident. Lesser developed countries especially their elites and corrupt rulers are not free of guilt when it comes to the issue of the debt that they have accumulated. At the same time, if they did not borrow and get in debt, pressure would definitely be put on them to do so.

The current debt situation, with the major role that interest is playing in it, is potentially very devastating for the world as a whole. In Global Trends 2015, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recognized:


In reality, there are yet other ills related to interest that could be discussed but the above should suffice for the purposes here. As you can see that God has prohibited to use interest many thousand years ago because He knows what you and I can't know with our own intelligence. This is just one example and I can quote many more. My reply is already very long but I truly hope it helps you to see why we need to rely on Divine guidance.

You need to condense your posts a bit. Very few people are going to read all of that, the amount looks quite daunting.

If you don't write quite as much you should reach more people.

I think I should provide a little more details of the Islamic solution to the issue of interest which rests upon two basic principles:
(1) If an individual wishes to lend money to another in order to help the latter, this act must be based on “brotherly principles” and it is absolutely unacceptable to charge any interest in such a case. It is not helping another individual to put him into a cycle of debt where he has to pay more than what they borrowed. This principle applies as well to Islamic international relations. If this important principle were applied today, countries would truly give “aid” and assistance to other countries, rather than sucking them into a pattern of dependency and debt burden.
(2) If an individual wishes to use his money to make more money, then he must be willing to put his money at risk. In other words, he cannot guarantee for himself a fixed return (whose amount keeps growing over time) regardless of the result of the investment that his money is used for. If he puts his money at risk, he is deserving of some share of the profits. However, this also means that he must accept losses if losses occur. This is a system that is based on justice. It also has numerous benefits to it. The one who invests becomes concerned about the results of his investment and cannot demand his “pound of flesh” regardless of what may occur to the debtor.

This Islamic solution works for individuals as well as for society as a whole. Banks are essentially financial intermediaries. They take money from those who have excess money (savings) and turn it over to those who need money for investment purposes. Interest is not necessary for such a system to work. The bank and its depositors (shareholders) invest, rather than simply loan, their holdings. The money is put at risk and the return to the depositors will be based on the amount of profits made in the respective investments. Under normal circumstances of a growing economy, if the bank is big enough and it diversifies its portfolio, the bank is virtually “guaranteed” a positive return on its total investments. Thus, those who invest their money with the bank will also receive a positive return on their money without it being guaranteed or fixed ahead of time.

I agree but if I keep it really short it raise more questions and does not convey the message. I will try to keep my posts as short as possible and probably let people ask the question so that it can be more engaging.

If it raises questions it's more likely to get a response.

Then when you answer the questions they'll be engaged.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Very well said. I understand this very well especially when I read Quran, how Allah has put guidance for all mankind in such perfection and minimum use of words.

Regarding the longest post ever I posted today, it was result of many back and forth posts between me and @vikorr and I wanted to make sure he understands my POV without causing more confusion, fingers crossed on that

Your argument seems to be 'Why aren't people good, Godly people if we have sufficient to guide us'. The answer is quite obvious - because many don't choose to listen to their inner guidance. This doesn't nullify the fact that such inner guidance exists and is available, should we choose to use it. So it doesn't nullify that under your logic, none of the religions need be correct.

For crimes against society? Of course.
You realise that I've already explained the difference between individual ability to do right by God...

.... and fixing the ills of the world (intra and inter societies), which God has shown he is not willing to do. You can't even argue that providing such guidance stops conflict - it is very evidenced within the Islamic world that it does not. And nor does he step in to stop them.

You are asking questions that already have answers, around the world, outside of religion. Some are poor answers. Some are good answers. Some you are likely to disagree with.

Our individual 'intelligence'?None that I've yet encountered. I would say that such has steered me truer than any religion I've encountered, and is a much more reliable guide when religion and conscience (etc) disagree.

We obviously disagree severely on this point. The reason we are given compassion, empathy, kindness, the need for respect, love, logic, the ability to see patterns etc...is that such is all the tools necessary to understand what is good.

Here you are removing intelligence from every other gift I've talked about: Conscience, compassion, love, kindness...then logic and the ability to see patterns and forecast consequences.

You can't use kindness to diagnose a persons illness. In point of fact, the only part you can use is logic, patterns, and learning (another human trait). You are mistaking the cat for the dog again, just because a few fundamentals are the same...even while the core abilities to judging right & wrong are different.

Now you're onto something better. Do you realise that much social science has only confirmed what Eastern Mystics had known for millennia through introspection? The thing about science is that they want to be able to physically confirm a thing...that can be known through introspection.

On a much less deep level, simply continual practice of honesty with yourself becomes sufficient (such involves no avoidance of issues or discomforts)

.................

On the issue of interest rates - you raise an interesting question. Much of it I agree with. Some I disagree with. Other parts are complicated. It's a worthwhile topic but large. And I see you have done much research into it. This is a good thing.

Before I answer your post, can you please answer following questions:

Do you believe in God? If the answer to this question is no then rest of the questions have no meanings but if it is yes then answer for rest of the questions do matter.

What is purpose of life?

Do you believe in Hereafter?

Do you believe that God did send prophets? If you do, what was role of prophets?

Do I believe in God? Maybe. I like the idea of God. I am in no way certain that he exists.

What is the purpose of life? Whatever we make it. I don't think there is one overriding goal to life. And the thought of just one such purpose has never been realistic to me. Rather, I would say I have many purposes, each that has meaning to me.

I'm pretty sure I answered this in this thread - on the same level of God, I don't know that one exists. I am in fact more certain of God's existence (which I am not certain) than that of the afterlife.

Religion offers plenty of decent guidance. In relation to the prophets - perhaps, but if so, then not all of them. I definitely do not think God sent a she-bear to kill 42 children just for calling a 'prophet' old baldy.

That by the way, is not hedging my bets - that is a simple statement that I am uncertain in relation to such. If God does exist, and there is judgement - then whatever way I am judged, that will be fine, as I am happy with myself, take responsibility for myself for who I am, and in relation to his kingdom - he obviously sets the rules for his own Kingdom, which is unarguably fair.

What I do know is that we have sufficient within us to guide us as to what is right and wrong. I don't know if you have ever experienced it outside of religion. We as human beings, once we step back from fear of being wrong, or judged, or any of the other human fears... can honest evaluate our conscience/heart/empathy/compassion etc as relates to other people. We can identify and test principles, until we find sound ones. We can live by them, and so come to know who we are.

It is a never ending journey, and very rewarding....but what you find as you take this journey, clashes with certain religious beliefs. Certain specific beliefs you come to see as intolerant and bigoted, even if they think such is mandated by God. Certain things, once you start honestly questioning discrepancies, you realise you aren't satisfied with (and the lack of questioning).

I'm happy that you find solace/peace/joy in your religion. In regards to these conversations - the same questioning that resulted in my leaving religion, are the same things I throw your way (it is in my nature to be curious about discrepancies). God may exist, but if so, then I am quite a lot more dubious that any of the religions are in the form that he wanted, or even that he wanted religions.