To the best of my understanding I think Muslims might view "God" (the God that is being written about in the Quran) as some far off person that only wants to put humanity to a test (I don't understand their religion perfectly) in order to reward or punish them, and then they ascribe certain things to him because that is what the Quran says that he is like. From my own understanding, the Bible is not really like that. This is just based on my limited understanding though, but I have read the Quran and interacted with Muslims on a limited basis (have been to a Mosque and talked with Muslims a few times) and know what I know from YouTube and elsewhere.

In deciding which religion to adopt, if any, we don't get to start with, "Okay, there is a special set of rules here. Magic is fine, supernatural claims are fine, the rules of reality and nature don't need to be obeyed here." No, you start with reality. A reality based religion is the only one feasible under the sun. We don't get to start with the supernatural doctrines from pre-rational, pre-scientific, superstitious cultures. You start with reality. How does reality work? Do we feed the multitudes with a few fish then go walk on water? No. That's a story. In reality, in a non-story time belief system, we might lean toward Einstein's "cosmos-based" religion. After all, the stars created mankind, not some magic genie poofing the world into being. That's a magic story.

Is god showing his wrath via the solar eclipse? Do we need to sacrifice goats, people, and maybe even part of god himself to ward off the judgment? If not ... why not? That's what the people who devised the religion believed. Can you extricate yourself from these kinds of systems of belief, so obviously primitive, ignorant, superstitious and fictional? Can we move our knowledge and understanding along out of the 1st Century on ALL tenets of the religion, and leave behind what needs to be left behind, keep what is valuable and reasonable ... and end up in a less fictional belief system?

Signs you’re missing something important and it’s time to detach yourself from your current truth-seeking position:

(1) You haven’t yet reached the promised land

(2) You’re starting to completely dismiss the time tested religious position of a group of people around you

Point #2 doesn’t mean the group is completely right or even close to completely right, but to see a group of people as entirely detached from truth and reality is a red flag indicating you’re in the wrong position.

And so if you are in China, or Russia, or Nepal, or India, or Haiti, or Africa ... if you are detached from the religious beliefs around you that's a red flag?? Or is it just in the "right believing" cultures?

But here is an even better point. If your religious belief emanates from the 1st Century, take a look at just what percentage of what they thought and believed then is true, on every subject under the sun. And then you realize the colossal foolishness of arguing in this manner, on religion or for any of their other beliefs. You might as well be arguing the earth is flat and that demons cause leprosy. THAT is how you are limiting your worldview.

Here's the disgrace of "You're going to hell if you aren't in our religion" explained quite well.

If you think killing every child on earth is holy because somebody was disobedient and ate an apple, and you refuse to reassess this bizarre position by using your mind and inherent morality, they you go to hell and take your beliefs with you.

There is an impressive list of people executed by the church for espousing utterly true scientific knowledge that contradicted church doctrinal beliefs. Murdered by the church for knowledge that contradicted their religious BS. To pretend that an omniscient god was informing this church is ridiculous. And to refuse to acknowledge the reality of what such a religion is is an abomination. To blithely align oneself with this kind of immorality and mindset seems indefensible on any standard but, "It's a faith thing. I believe this the path to good."

It's one of the made up religions. They all are. The choice is not between which ancient magic story to believe. The choice is whether to surrender any semblance of reasonableness on the subjects of origins and morality, or not to. True, all answers are not found by reason and certainly not by hyper-rationality, but to have to negate and abandon reason in the name of believing something is a dubious, reality subverting practice. If such is required to adopt a belief system, it speaks for itself loud and clear as to reliability (even though it's supposed to be the quiet part).

I'm not trying to deconvert anybody. If I was doing that, I wouldn't write in ways that evoke defensiveness so palpably. The enemy here is blatant apologetics and those that will apologize for and rationalize ANYTHING to keep their positions and worldview, and who are practiced and devious with it. That deserves being exposed for what it is.

When seeking to deconvert someone innocently ensnared in some cult or blindly indoctrinated in some religion, who is not a cynical or self-serving liar on the subject, any effective engagement is different. The religion thing is so massively ingrained in the cultures and in the psyche that people can't fathom questioning it ... and they are always holding on to it even when trying to look at it anew. Kudos to those who can break the chain and gain new eyes with which to see, who do not consider clinging to old paradigms a virtue, and who venture into an unknown reality in which The Great Mystery was not solved in the 1st Century any more than so many other unknowns were.

And so when The Great Mystery is on the table, and the candidate explanations are borne of cosmology, quantum electrodynamics, physics, chemistry, biology ... the true believer says: "No. None of that. It's the talking snakes, the blood sacrifices, the homicidal deity with the fire and brimstone hell, the poof it into existence god ... it's demons, devils and ghosts, the walking on water stories that wowed the superstitious, the miracles and the streets of gold paradise. Not any of that 'scientific' stuff."

Religious doctrine is what it is.

Keep in mind that your children and grandchildren are evil and deserving of torment in hell, apparently because their forebearers sought knowledge (according to the story, the STORY). Was it physics, psychology, chemistry, biology, cosmology that produced that idea? No, it was superstitious religion.

There isn't anything supernatural behind these religions, any more than there is anything supernatural behind lightning, magnetism, people recovering from illness. It was made up. In superstitious, magic believing times ... they made up magic gods.

Can you imagine how many miracles would be caught on cell phone cameras now if they were happening? Yet there are none. What does that mean? It means the supernatural part of the stories are false, and pick your morality with discernment from the doctrines. And stop obeying barbaric declarations of thousands of years ago ONLY ATTRIBUTED to one of the many gods that fit the fancy of man.

Why do a clear majority of professional scientists identify with a major religion let alone those of no specified religion? Conversely, atheists are in a minority.

Read and followed Christianity hard. Did it all, prayed fasted. Went hard in the paint. Interestingly something I looked forward too was the healing that was declared to follow all true believers. Obviously I failed as has everyone ever. No healings for thousands of years. Only the most gullible will believe the one off healing story. There is of course no one that can perform what will follow a believer as written.

Now to use my rational mind after wasting quite a few years "believing"

I look at the ocean. Seems nice, everyone thinks it looks nice. Well it is blue. But underneath is a murder fest. All living things are either eating other living things or being eaten. Now a God wants me to become "perfect" in my ways. There are big problems here, problems maybe a God could help with. Quite a few people suffering that can use help. These issues are put off on me, it up to me as if I possibly could fix it. A few problems here and there I can work on, but looking at the ocean.... someone else should do someone heavy lifting and not soon, but yesterday.

Continuing on just thinking, I conclude following any Creator is a humiliation ritual. Zero benefits, constant shame. And blame as if without the creator of the ocean I would somehow be a killer. Well of course I'm not and I won't follow a humiliation ritual any longer.

Promises have been made by God. Speaking as a Non-Christian, those Christians stuck in the humiliation ritual are brothers and sisters. They deserve an advocate. Someone willing to confront someone powerful and who has the stomach for retribution. A dark knight.

1. I’d like to see your source for this. You may be right, but your assertion does not make it true.

2. If true, so what? Who said science must necessarily conflict with religion? Science is non-religious in its methodology. That does not mean that science excludes the possibility of a deity. It does exclude the possibility of the literal truth of some of the stories told by religions (the wafer and wine really are Jesus, a worldwide flood, a less than 10000 year old earth, etc), but science is limited to the study of observable, natural phenomena.

3. Why would a majority of scientists believing in a religion mean that they are right? Science itself has shown over the years that argument ad popularum is not a particularly compelling one. The minority, or even a single individual is often correct. Do scientists know more than anyone else about things like religion that are outside their realm of expertise? If not, why should the beliefs of scientists regarding religion lend any particular credence to religious belief?

[QUOTE=stremba70;58561338]1. I’d like to see your source for this. You may be right, but your assertion does not make it true.

He'll just believe the quote ... the same way one just believes in magic stories. Why would you subject any of it to reality testing when you can just believe?

Pain is the only reality check. Not empiricism, not rationalization. Only pain.

Whoever suppresses pain and death suppresses reality.

No. Pain is ONE reality check ... and a darn good one. Maybe the best and strongest. However, there are all kinds of defenses and addictions designed to escape it. And significantly, in this context, it is the pain of acknowledging that one's beliefs might not be true, that they might be fanciful, mythological, and yes, unrealistic, that is avoided by the true-believer mindset.

Try modeling it for them. Assume your beliefs about Christianity are incorrect and re-engage Christianity with curiosity.

People: Hey, God, all this stuff you supposedly do is clearly allegorical, abstract and imperceptible to us simple mortals, we need something more concrete to see and touch so we can better believe in you and your teachings.

God: Isn't faith in me enough?

People: well, we can appreciate faith and all but the whole thing would be more understandable if we could see you and touch real flesh and blood.

God: Very well, I shall send my Son to earth, borne by a virgin, to show you what I'm about and teach you all how to live your lives and love one another.

People: Perfect! We can't wait.

God: Hey, what happened to my son?

People: We killed him.

Religion serves one purpose, to make people do what they would not otherwise do. Hence the Spanish clerics coming to America to teach the indigenous people the word of God and if they don't do as they are told then they would burn in hell. Then they put them in mines to get gold and silver and made them build churches and forts to pave the way for exploitation.

Why did Jesus disguise his teaching so often in parables?

don't know, wasn't there