Islam is the truth. debate me

[justinAnomaly]

rich people might forget about god and might develop huge egos which is a test for them, your retards cant even reason shit properly jfl

 

[Sujumh]

they might not even live till 70 ig, but an eternity of joy is always better than 70 years of going through hell

ah yes allah needs u to live as a subhuman for ur life on earth to be able to be granted happiness
JFL AT THE COPE

 

[halabi]

if faith can justify ur religion then every religion including contradictory ones is equally justifyed yet u retards want to be the sole truth

I wasnt gonna reply to you because youre disrespectful but here:
our religion is special because of several reasons
1) we are truly monotheistic
2)The Quran has alot of miracles (u can look them up)
3)the prayer (puts the body in natural positions and can be seen as a stress free time out and a dopamine reset)
4) complete fasting (scientifically proven to be healthy)
5) Quran is memorized by millions of Muslims all around the world and couldnt ever be corrupted

 

[justinAnomaly]

Alright heres an argument about The clear book(what you guys call the Qur'an)

If the Quran is clear and beneficial for all times, then it does not need to be updated, and its texts can be used to manage society's affairs in every era.

But when we look at Sharia, we find that many laws are regressive from a modern ethical perspective.

The Quran came in the seventh century to manage the affairs of a society living in that time, where slavery existed, war captives, gender discrimination, a tribal authoritarian system, and customs that today's citizens, following a modern secular ethical system, would find repugnant.

The Muslim response to this is that the Quran is gradual in reform, and that preventing these actions would lead to the collapse of the economic and social system at that time.

We can somewhat say that about slavery, but Islam’s analysis of concubines ("And if you fear that you will not be just, then one [woman], or those your right hands possess. That is more suitable that you may not transgress.") and its legalization cannot be justified in any historical context.

However, if we view Islam as a human-made construct, we find that the reason behind these laws is not to create virtuous individuals, but to manage a society living in the seventh century, and the justification of enslavement to push people towards jihad. Anyone unknown could go and fight, not necessarily because they believe in jihad, paradise, and houris, but perhaps out of greed for owning women and slaves, or maybe both.

In fact, slavery was abolished in Arab countries due to colonialism or international pressure.

Where slave markets existed in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, until the sixties.

It was not the result of an internal change.

If we compare the Islamic ethical system and the modern secular ethical system objectively under the principle of harm, then secular laws always come out better because they center the individual in these laws.

So if the Quran is "clear," how did humans create a better ethical system than what is found in the Quran? A system that relies on correction and trial and error, not a sacred text.

sharia means islamic law in english buddy boyo, and the modern laws may look different to you but its all like algebra, we substitute things until we have a good outcome

 

[toodeepin0]

Do you dream about fucking 9 year olds

 

[halabi]

"son of god"

these 3 words are so blasphemous but ur too blind to see

 

[justinAnomaly]

ah yes allah needs u to live as a subhuman for ur life on earth to be able to be granted happiness
JFL AT THE COPE

there are 7 different levels to heaven you are granted one based on your effort jfl at your dork

 

[juan_max]

\

incorrect greyfag muhammad said "jesus is none but a messenger of allah like me"

you're proving my point. he does not recognize jesus as the son of god



here's a video link disproving islam

 

[Sage]

The Epicurean paradox is all you need, debating with you is meaningless because you’re only here to win, not learn or change minds.

 

[juan_max]

these 3 words are so blasphemous but ur too blind to see

Matthew 3:16–17

"And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water... and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"

 

[halabi]

the

Alright heres an argument about The clear book(what you guys call the Qur'an)

If the Quran is clear and beneficial for all times, then it does not need to be updated, and its texts can be used to manage society's affairs in every era.

But when we look at Sharia, we find that many laws are regressive from a modern ethical perspective.

The Quran came in the seventh century to manage the affairs of a society living in that time, where slavery existed, war captives, gender discrimination, a tribal authoritarian system, and customs that today's citizens, following a modern secular ethical system, would find repugnant.

The Muslim response to this is that the Quran is gradual in reform, and that preventing these actions would lead to the collapse of the economic and social system at that time.

We can somewhat say that about slavery, but Islam’s analysis of concubines ("And if you fear that you will not be just, then one [woman], or those your right hands possess. That is more suitable that you may not transgress.") and its legalization cannot be justified in any historical context.

However, if we view Islam as a human-made construct, we find that the reason behind these laws is not to create virtuous individuals, but to manage a society living in the seventh century, and the justification of enslavement to push people towards jihad. Anyone unknown could go and fight, not necessarily because they believe in jihad, paradise, and houris, but perhaps out of greed for owning women and slaves, or maybe both.

In fact, slavery was abolished in Arab countries due to colonialism or international pressure.

Where slave markets existed in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, until the sixties.

It was not the result of an internal change.

If we compare the Islamic ethical system and the modern secular ethical system objectively under the principle of harm, then secular laws always come out better because they center the individual in these laws.

So if the Quran is "clear," how did humans create a better ethical system than what is found in the Quran? A system that relies on correction and trial and error, not a sacred text.

the sharia law is the ideal law for all societies and yes also modern ones.
the slavery prohibited is the multi generational slavery where the children of the slaves stay slave for generations but the islam completely prohibits that.
the type of slavery wich is halal is war slaves.

 

[Demirs]

Alright heres an argument about The clear book(what you guys call the Qur'an)

If the Quran is clear and beneficial for all times, then it does not need to be updated, and its texts can be used to manage society's affairs in every era.

But when we look at Sharia, we find that many laws are regressive from a modern ethical perspective.

The Quran came in the seventh century to manage the affairs of a society living in that time, where slavery existed, war captives, gender discrimination, a tribal authoritarian system, and customs that today's citizens, following a modern secular ethical system, would find repugnant.

The Muslim response to this is that the Quran is gradual in reform, and that preventing these actions would lead to the collapse of the economic and social system at that time.

We can somewhat say that about slavery, but Islam’s analysis of concubines ("And if you fear that you will not be just, then one [woman], or those your right hands possess. That is more suitable that you may not transgress.") and its legalization cannot be justified in any historical context.

However, if we view Islam as a human-made construct, we find that the reason behind these laws is not to create virtuous individuals, but to manage a society living in the seventh century, and the justification of enslavement to push people towards jihad. Anyone unknown could go and fight, not necessarily because they believe in jihad, paradise, and houris, but perhaps out of greed for owning women and slaves, or maybe both.

In fact, slavery was abolished in Arab countries due to colonialism or international pressure.

Where slave markets existed in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, until the sixties.

It was not the result of an internal change.

If we compare the Islamic ethical system and the modern secular ethical system objectively under the principle of harm, then secular laws always come out better because they center the individual in these laws.

So if the Quran is "clear," how did humans create a better ethical system than what is found in the Quran? A system that relies on correction and trial and error, not a sacred text.

youre assuming modern secular ethics are an objective standard that every society across history should have followed. thats a philosophical claim, not a fact. the quran doesnt claim every institution existing in the 7th century would disappear overnight, it introduced reforms within that society while setting principles many muslims argue ultimately undermined slavery rather than expanded it. whether that process should have been faster is a separate debate, but calling secular ethics “objectively better” simply assumes the conclusion youre trying to prove.

 

[halabi]

Matthew 3:16–17

corrupted

 

[duzxk1]

Lol, Asking people to debate you on religions on a incel forum. You're debates won't get you or anyone else anywhere.

 

[horseman.]

mentally disabled people are literally lucky because they are guaranteed jannah. Allah doesnt discriminate this dunyah is all a test. your suffering and pain will all be replaced with good in jannah.

Being lucky literally disproves the concept of God being just

 

[halabi]

You're debates won't get you or anyone else anywhere.

how would you know? someone might convert because of this

 

[Sujumh]

I wasnt gonna reply to you because youre disrespectful but here:
our religion is special because of several reasons
1) we are truly monotheistic
2)The Quran has alot of miracles (u can look them up)
3)the prayer (puts the body in natural positions and can be seen as a stress free time out and a dopamine reset)
4) complete fasting (scientifically proven to be healthy)
5) Quran is memorized by millions of Muslims all around the world and couldnt ever be corrupted

1. Being monotheistic doesn't make a religion true.
2. " The shitran has miracles " is nothing but a claim with no proof. You would have to prove the "miracles" cannot be explained any other way. Just to refresh ur memory on what a miracle is " A miracle is an extraordinary event, a supernatural act, or a marvelous occurrence that defies natural laws " Every religion claims their own miracles , If having miracles proved a religion then it'd be harder to find a religion that isnt true by that logic.
3. Again that logic doesnt make sense. The mental benefits of meditation doesnt help ur case in any way.
4. Again how does that prove that religion is real???? " QURAN SAY FAST. SCIENCE SAY FAST HEALTHY. QUARN REAL " fucking sub30 iq chimp brain.
5. Preservation of text doesnt make it divine in any sense. Alot of texts have been preserved with great care.

So Basically your arguement is " my religion is true because it encourages habits that might be healthy for you and because the believers intercept the claims written as miracles. That's not proof. It's a list of reason why YOU might find it convincing not factual evidence or proven 'miracles'. Plenty of religions can make similar lists.

 

[halabi]

Being lucky literally disproves the concept of God being just

I used the wrong word to deliver the message

 

[juan_max]

corrupted

explain

 

[halabi]

1. Being monotheistic doesn't make a religion true.
2. " The shitran has miracles " is nothing but a claim with no proof. You would have to prove the "miracles" cannot be explained any other way. Just to refresh ur memory on what a miracle is " A miracle is an extraordinary event, a supernatural act, or a marvelous occurrence that defies natural laws " Every religion claims their own miracles , If having miracles proved a religion then it'd be harder to find a religion that isnt true by that logic.
3. Again that logic doesnt make sense. The mental benefits of meditation doesnt help ur case in any way.
4. Again how does that prove that religion is real???? " QURAN SAY FAST. SCIENCE SAY FAST HEALTHY. QUARN REAL " fucking sub30 iq chimp brain.
5. Preservation of text doesnt make it divine in any sense. Alot of texts have been preserved with great care.

So Basically your arguement is " my religion is true because it encourages habits that might be healthy for you and because the believers intercept the claims written as miracles. That's not proof. It's a list of reason why YOU might find it convincing not factual evidence or proven 'miracles'. Plenty of religions can make similar lists.

im not replying to this
ur a clown
talk respectfully or get ignored

 

[rippedvets]

su muslim scum

terrorist fuck

go fuck yourself retard

 

[Demirs]

1. Being monotheistic doesn't make a religion true.
2. " The shitran has miracles " is nothing but a claim with no proof. You would have to prove the "miracles" cannot be explained any other way. Just to refresh ur memory on what a miracle is " A miracle is an extraordinary event, a supernatural act, or a marvelous occurrence that defies natural laws " Every religion claims their own miracles , If having miracles proved a religion then it'd be harder to find a religion that isnt true by that logic.
3. Again that logic doesnt make sense. The mental benefits of meditation doesnt help ur case in any way.
4. Again how does that prove that religion is real???? " QURAN SAY FAST. SCIENCE SAY FAST HEALTHY. QUARN REAL " fucking sub30 iq chimp brain.
5. Preservation of text doesnt make it divine in any sense. Alot of texts have been preserved with great care.

So Basically your arguement is " my religion is true because it encourages habits that might be healthy for you and because the believers intercept the claims written as miracles. That's not proof. It's a list of reason why YOU might find it convincing not factual evidence or proven 'miracles'. Plenty of religions can make similar lists.

fair enough, those points by themselves arent absolute proof of islam. monotheism, preservation, fasting and prayer can make the religion convincing or beneficial, but none of them alone logically prove divine origin.


the stronger case would have to come from the quran’s overall message, its historical context, its language, its claims about god, muhammads character and whether the best explanation is revelation or human authorship. calling the points weak is fair, but insults dont make your argument stronger either.

 

[Sujumh]

im not replying to this
ur a clown
talk respectfully or get ignored

how about u prove something first. let's guess u cant
millions of people brainwashed
its sad that u think a man made religion is anyway divine
ignoring the "disrespect" i gave. let's hear factual claims?

 

[halabi]

explain

the bible is corrupted i could go in depth about this but im not too knowledgeable about this topic so I might say something wrong. you can look into it

 

[Sujumh]

fair enough, those points by themselves arent absolute proof of islam. monotheism, preservation, fasting and prayer can make the religion convincing or beneficial, but none of them alone logically prove divine origin.


the stronger case would have to come from the quran’s overall message, its historical context, its language, its claims about god, muhammads character and whether the best explanation is revelation or human authorship. calling the points weak is fair, but insults dont make your argument stronger either.

it doesnt make my arguements any weaker either.
factual evidence or no believe

 

[Demirs]

it doesnt make my arguements any weaker either.
factual evidence or no believe

insults dont make your argument weaker, but they dont make it stronger either. and when it comes to religion, youre asking for empirical proof for a metaphysical claim. by definition, belief in god isnt something science can prove or disprove. if there were undeniable factual proof, it wouldnt really be belief anymore. the debate is about which explanation best fits the historical, philosophical and textual evidence, not about laboratory proof.

 

[halabi]

insults dont make your argument weaker, but they dont make it stronger either. and when it comes to religion, youre asking for empirical proof for a metaphysical claim. by definition, belief in god isnt something science can prove or disprove. if there were undeniable factual proof, it wouldnt really be belief anymore. the debate is about which explanation best fits the historical, philosophical and textual evidence, not about laboratory proof.

high iq

 

[TheGreatDetective]

@ltnbrownacnecel someone post that meme of allah getting gangbanged by bibisis

 

[Sujumh]

insults dont make your argument weaker, but they dont make it stronger either. and when it comes to religion, youre asking for empirical proof for a metaphysical claim. by definition, belief in god isnt something science can prove or disprove. if there were undeniable factual proof, it wouldnt really be belief anymore. the debate is about which explanation best fits the historical, philosophical and textual evidence, not about laboratory proof.

" this explanation fits better therefore it's true " thats the logic.

 

[Sujumh]

high iq

 

[Demirs]

" this explanation fits better therefore it's true " thats the logic.
View attachment 5463796

no, thats not the logic. im not saying “it fits better so it must be true. im saying metaphysical claims are usually judged by inference to the best explanation, the same way we reason about other things we cant directly test in a lab. you can reject the evidence but asking for scientific proof of god is using the wrong standard for the type of claim being discussed

 

[Sujumh]

no, thats not the logic. im not saying “it fits better so it must be true. im saying metaphysical claims are usually judged by inference to the best explanation, the same way we reason about other things we cant directly test in a lab. you can reject the evidence but asking for scientific proof of god is using the wrong standard for the type of claim being discussed

whole lotta words but none that represents evidence
muslims learning how to twist and turn their tongues but never speak the truth
mirin allah's teaching

 

[.Orbital]

0/10 ragebait

 

[Demirs]

whole lotta words but none that represents evidence
muslims learning how to twist and turn their tongues but never speak the truth
mirin allah's teaching

you still havent addressed the actual point. saying no evidenceisnt an argument unless you explain what kind of evidence you would accept and why that standard applies to a metaphysical claim. insults about muslims dont replace reasoning either.

 

[halabi]

bump

 

[Sujumh]

you still havent addressed the actual point. saying no evidenceisnt an argument unless you explain what kind of evidence you would accept and why that standard applies to a metaphysical claim. insults about muslims dont replace reasoning either.

evidence that clearly distinguishes islam as the sole truth. Thread title " islam is the truth " if ur arguement can be used by the christ believers the hindus the mormons or any other religion to defend contradictary conclusions then it isnt unqiue evidence to islam being truth

you dont get to lower evidential standard simply because the claim is metaphysical. If anythin supernatural , insane sounding , difficult to test claims require stronger justification, not weaker

yall claim god exists , revealed a specific book , sent a prophet or whatever the delusionals claim it's very reasonable to ask for evidence that makes islam seem like the truth distinguishing from other alternatives that's how rational inquiry works even if the claim is phsyical or metaphysical
forget the insults theres none here now wheres ☆ le proof ☆

 

[Demirs]

evidence that clearly distinguishes islam as the sole truth. Thread title " islam is the truth " if ur arguement can be used by the christ believers the hindus the mormons or any other religion to defend contradictary conclusions then it isnt unqiue evidence to islam being truth

you dont get to lower evidential standard simply because the claim is metaphysical. If anythin supernatural , insane sounding , difficult to test claims require stronger justification, not weaker

yall claim god exists , revealed a specific book , sent a prophet or whatever the delusionals claim it's very reasonable to ask for evidence that makes islam seem like the truth distinguishing from other alternatives that's how rational inquiry works even if the claim is phsyical or metaphysical
forget the insults theres none here now wheres ☆ le proof ☆

oure asking for empirical proof for something that isnt an empirical claim. if your standard is only what can be scientifically demonstrated counts as evidence then youve already ruled out every metaphysical worldview before the discussion even starts. philosophers dont treat historical testimony, inference to the best explanation or philosophical arguments as meaningless just because they arent laboratory experiments. you can reject those forms of evidence, but thats a philosophical position, not a neutral standard

 

[Sujumh]

oure asking for empirical proof for something that isnt an empirical claim. if your standard is only what can be scientifically demonstrated counts as evidence then youve already ruled out every metaphysical worldview before the discussion even starts. philosophers dont treat historical testimony, inference to the best explanation or philosophical arguments as meaningless just because they arent laboratory experiments. you can reject those forms of evidence, but thats a philosophical position, not a neutral standard

holy fucking reading any religion message is ropefuel
listen u delusional subhuman brain low iq mongrel
show le proof never said i need scientific proof
final response
standard was never science or not
js gonna dnr u delusional retards jfl

 

[krieg]

Alright heres an argument about The clear book(what you guys call the Qur'an)

If the Quran is clear and beneficial for all times, then it does not need to be updated, and its texts can be used to manage society's affairs in every era.

But when we look at Sharia, we find that many laws are regressive from a modern ethical perspective.

The Quran came in the seventh century to manage the affairs of a society living in that time, where slavery existed, war captives, gender discrimination, a tribal authoritarian system, and customs that today's citizens, following a modern secular ethical system, would find repugnant.

The Muslim response to this is that the Quran is gradual in reform, and that preventing these actions would lead to the collapse of the economic and social system at that time.

We can somewhat say that about slavery, but Islam’s analysis of concubines ("And if you fear that you will not be just, then one [woman], or those your right hands possess. That is more suitable that you may not transgress.") and its legalization cannot be justified in any historical context.

However, if we view Islam as a human-made construct, we find that the reason behind these laws is not to create virtuous individuals, but to manage a society living in the seventh century, and the justification of enslavement to push people towards jihad. Anyone unknown could go and fight, not necessarily because they believe in jihad, paradise, and houris, but perhaps out of greed for owning women and slaves, or maybe both.

In fact, slavery was abolished in Arab countries due to colonialism or international pressure.

Where slave markets existed in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, until the sixties.

It was not the result of an internal change.

If we compare the Islamic ethical system and the modern secular ethical system objectively under the principle of harm, then secular laws always come out better because they center the individual in these laws.

So if the Quran is "clear," how did humans create a better ethical system than what is found in the Quran? A system that relies on correction and trial and error, not a sacred text.

Realistically the Islamic morality is just stupid

Justification for slavers, concubinage, everything you read about it just shows how it’s made by men who are trying to find loopholes

They often try to say “Well Muhammad was illiterate how could a man in the desert know such things” they completely forget that this guy was a merchant travelling all over of course he would learn about different religions which he would then blend together to form Islam

 

[Demirs]

holy fucking reading any religion message is ropefuel
listen u delusional subhuman brain low iq mongrel
show le proof never said i need scientific proof
final response
standard was never science or not
js gonna dnr u delusional retards jfl

you never defined what kind of evidence would actually distinguish islam. if you reject philosophical arguments, historical evidence and textual evidence from the start, then nothing could ever satisfy your standard. so what evidence would you actually accept?

 

[Demirs]

Realistically the Islamic morality is just stupid

Justification for slavers, concubinage, everything you read about it just shows how it’s made by men who are trying to find loopholes

They often try to say “Well Muhammad was illiterate how could a man in the desert know such things” they completely forget that this guy was a merchant travelling all over of course he would learn about different religions which he would then blend together to form Islam

thats a claim, not evidence. being a merchant doesnt explain producing the quran. muhammad wasnt known as a scholar of christianity or judaism, and the quran often differs from both in major theological points. if he was just copying, why does it repeatedly disagree with the very sources he supposedly borrowed from? sayinghe traveled, therefore he invented islam” is speculation unless you can show where he actually learned all of it.

 

[Sujumh]

you never defined what kind of evidence would actually distinguish islam. if you reject philosophical arguments, historical evidence and textual evidence from the start, then nothing could ever satisfy your standard. so what evidence would you actually accept?

evidence that clearly distinguishes islam as the sole truth. Thread title " islam is the truth " if ur arguement can be used by the christ believers the hindus the mormons or any other religion to defend contradictary conclusions then it isnt unqiue evidence to islam being truth

you dont get to lower evidential standard simply because the claim is metaphysical. If anythin supernatural , insane sounding , difficult to test claims require stronger justification, not weaker

yall claim god exists , revealed a specific book , sent a prophet or whatever the delusionals claim it's very reasonable to ask for evidence that makes islam seem like the truth distinguishing from other alternatives that's how rational inquiry works even if the claim is phsyical or metaphysical
forget the insults theres none here now wheres ☆ le proof ☆

 

[jugendliebe]

.

 

[Demirs]

there isnt one single argument that instantly proves islam and rules out every other religion. the case for islam is cumulative the quran’s preservation and transmission, its uncompromising monotheism, its relationship with earlier revelation, muhammads life and whether fraud, delusion or genuine prophethood best explains it, and whether the quran is better explained as human authorship or revelation.


christians, hindus and mormons can also make general claims about miracles or personal experience, so those claims alone arent enough. the real comparison has to be between the specific evidence and contradictions of each religion. islam claims one god without incarnation or divine partners, a historically identifiable prophet and a public text transmitted from the earliest muslim community. those are the claims that need to be tested against the alternatives.

so no, “prayer feels good” or “fasting is healthy” doesnt prove islam. at most those are supporting points. the actual question is which worldview gives the most coherent explanation of god, revelation, the quran and muhammads mission. thats evidence, but it isnt the same as a mathematical proof that forces everyone to believe.

 

[LXR]

The simple argument against the religion of Islam or any religion for that matter is that is a good proxy for determining how much worse a country's quality of life will be. Even the most resource rich nations that are Muslim have less quality of life compared to nations with a past of Anglo Saxon or East Asian culture. Islamic countries also do not compare to these countries in terms of high value added manufacturing or services, again both of which is dominated by relatively irreligious countries.

 

[Demirs]

The simple argument against the religion of Islam or any religion for that matter is that is a good proxy for determining how much worse a country's quality of life will be. Even the most resource rich nations that are Muslim have less quality of life compared to nations with a past of Anglo Saxon or East Asian culture. Islamic countries also do not compare to these countries in terms of high value added manufacturing or services, again both of which is dominated by relatively irreligious countries.

that doesnt prove islam is false, it just points to a correlation between religion and development in certain countries. quality of life depends on institutions, education, corruption, war, colonial history, geography and economic policy, not religion alone. there are also poor secular countries and wealthy muslim countries, so the relationship isnt as simple as more islam means worse life.

a religion’s truth also isnt measured by gdp or manufacturing output. if economic success proved a worldview, then whichever country was richest at the time would automatically have the true beliefs. at most, this is an argument about how some muslim-majority states are governed, not a direct argument against islam itself.

 

[LXR]

that doesnt prove islam is false, it just points to a correlation between religion and development in certain countries. quality of life depends on institutions, education, corruption, war, colonial history, geography and economic policy, not religion alone. there are also poor secular countries and wealthy muslim countries, so the relationship isnt as simple as more islam means worse life.

a religion’s truth also isnt measured by gdp or manufacturing output. if economic success proved a worldview, then whichever country was richest at the time would automatically have the true beliefs. at most, this is an argument about how some muslim-majority states are governed, not a direct argument against islam itself.

I didnt say Islam is false, just that religion seems to be inferior as a cultural tenet compared to irreligiosity in improving the quality of life of a nation. I have always believed that religion is a poor way to control a people since fear of God or appeal to goodness has never stopped religious people from falling into hedonistic vices like apes. In that sense, Islam is not judged by me whether it is true, but on whether it is a factor in improving the quality of life of a people, something which it doesnt do, hence it is not something that I would prescribe to improve a nation

 

[Demirs]

I didnt say Islam is false, just that religion seems to be inferior as a cultural tenet compared to irreligiosity in improving the quality of life of a nation. I have always believed that religion is a poor way to control a people since fear of God or appeal to goodness has never stopped religious people from falling into hedonistic vices like apes. In that sense, Islam is not judged by me whether it is true, but on whether it is a factor in improving the quality of life of a people, something which it doesnt do, hence it is not something that I would prescribe to improve a nation

thats a more reasonable argument, but it still doesnt show religion itself is the main cause. a nations quality of life depends heavily on institutions, education, political stability, corruption, war, geography and economic policy. many muslim countries have also dealt with colonial borders, dictatorships and foreign intervention.


religion also isnt only a tool for controlling people or stopping every individual from committing vice. it can shape charity, family duties, social trust and personal discipline, even though believers obviously still fail to follow it.


so you can argue that some religious cultures or governments have produced worse outcomes, but comparing countries doesnt isolate islam from all the other factors. to show islam itself lowers quality of life, you would need stronger evidence that separates religion from governance, history and economics.

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

I didnt say Islam is false, just that religion seems to be inferior as a cultural tenet compared to irreligiosity in improving the quality of life of a nation. I have always believed that religion is a poor way to control a people since fear of God or appeal to goodness has never stopped religious people from falling into hedonistic vices like apes. In that sense, Islam is not judged by me whether it is true, but on whether it is a factor in improving the quality of life of a people, something which it doesnt do, hence it is not something that I would prescribe to improve a nation

high iq