Apostasy and Blasphemy

[teachyourself]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

 

[Dark Destination]

Most of those countries are Muslim-majority. However, killing someone for changing their religion, or for blasphemy has no basis in Islamic law. Such an action is neither mentioned in the Quran nor the authentic Hadith.

The Quran clearly says:
"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion." (2:256)

Forcing someone to stay a muslim because of death penalty is "compulsion", hence clearly against the Quran.
Similarly, there is no mention of killing someone for Blasphemy in the Quran or authentic Hadith.

 

[Muzammil ahmad]

Teachyourself,the third point is totally wrong..
I agree that changing your religion is OK..
But after changing your religion and then speaking against that religion is wrong.
Because there are people out there who sacrificed so much for the love of their religion..
And then there are people who start abusing there god ,their beloved prophet..
So, indirectly you are also torturing them by blasphemy..
What else reaction would you expect from them then?.. after speaking against something they love..?
I agree that killing someone is also wrong.. even Islam tells us not to..
B/c if killing was a solution then our prophet would have killed the worst enemies of Islam..
But he speared them and he used to pray for them..
The point is, what do blasphemers get by saying things against a particular religion?
Are they not happy with their life? That they start such pointless arguments and start abusing ones religion?
So in my opinion such people should be punished.. b/c indirectly they are also punishing those who have love for their faith..
And at the end I would say , blasphemy and apostasy is not expressing your opinion..
B/c you are hurting others by doing it.. however you can enter into a debate with Muslims etc but that too,by not abusing their god or making fun of their prophet..

 

[teachyourself]

Teachyourself,the third point is totally wrong..
I agree that changing your religion is OK..
But after changing your religion and then speaking against that religion is wrong.
Because there are people out there who sacrificed so much for the love of their religion..
And then there are people who start abusing there god ,their beloved prophet..
So, indirectly you are also torturing them by blasphemy..
What else reaction would you expect from them then?.. after speaking against something they love..?
I agree that killing someone is also wrong.. even Islam tells us not to..
B/c if killing was a solution then our prophet would have killed the worst enemies of Islam..
But he speared them and he used to pray for them..
The point is, what do blasphemers get by saying things against a particular religion?
Are they not happy with their life? That they start such pointless arguments and start abusing ones religion?
So in my opinion such people should be punished.. b/c indirectly they are also punishing those who have love for their faith..
And at the end I would say , blasphemy and apostasy is not expressing your opinion..
B/c you are hurting others by doing it.. however you can enter into a debate with Muslims etc but that too,by not abusing their god or making fun of their prophet..

so basically, you would punish someone for "making a remark" or "making jokes", is this what your prophet would have done? how would you decide which remark is offensive? if someone does not agree with the tenants of a religion and decides to speak about it, how is that a crime? also, a verbal assault on an idea, a supernatural entity or an individual other than you is not an assault on you, only verbal aggravation that is as in threats to a specific individual (who is alive) can be considered as an assault upon that person only and no one else, upon which legal discourse can be pursued (at-least in the civilized part of the world)

here is what a civilized person does, she/he tolerates the verbal abuse against the idea/belief and then through blogs, op-eds, interviews, etc shows the community what an intolerant, disrespectful, hateful bigot that particular abusive individual is and also why that individual is so because not every criticism is an attack or hate-speech, this is an important point because young students and generally emotional people, quite often (due to the egocentric tendencies of their brain) tend to find even critique as something negative (as a side note just check the difference between criticism and critique)

in such matters honest intellectual discourse is a far superior choice, since it shows the tolerance/peace/love and intellect muslims claim from time and time, it also encourages young students like you who are developing their thought processes to deal with the real world, to think logically and in a civilized manner so that they can grow up to be contributing members of a society

 

[badrobot14]

 

[teachyourself]

change of religion is NOT an act of treason
even change of citizenship is not an act of treason, those countries that still have it, east or west need to become more tolerant and change their laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship
http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/abandonment-or-renunciation-of-your-us-citizenship.html (you can check for other countries)
as for other religions killing people for changing religions, the same logic applies
as for what jews used to do or others used to do i.e. switching religions, it was not a religious issue, it was politics, religion/god was an effective tool to manipulate people, in many parts of the world it unfortunately still is, rooted in our pattern seeking behavior along with our fear/intolerance of anyone who is different, if you are worried about the morality of human beings, secular morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality and the UDHR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights, cover that quite sufficiently while providing people the liberty to practice faith, each in their own personal capacity
do not use religion and its archaic views of life to coerce others

 

[badrobot14]

change of religion is NOT an act of treason
even change of citizenship is not an act of treason, those countries that still have it, east or west need to become more tolerant and change their laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship
http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/abandonment-or-renunciation-of-your-us-citizenship.html (you can check for other countries)
as for other religions killing people for changing religions, the same logic applies
as for what jews used to do or others used to do i.e. switching religions, it was not a religious issue, it was politics, religion/god was an effective tool to manipulate people, in many parts of the world it unfortunately still is, rooted in our fear/intolerance of anyone who is different, if you are worried about the morality of human beings, secular morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality and the UDHR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights, cover that quite sufficiently while providing people the liberty to practice faith, each in their own personal capacity
do not use religion and its archaic views of life to enforce others

thats only ur opinion..

that was a response for his context.. about other religions..

and that is also your delusion... and plz dont make a laughingstock out of yourself, you are the person who thinks he cant be wrong about the choice of his believes(as I asked you in art of grooming thread)... and then you dare to call ppl intolerant and fearful... if you cant entertain even the thought that you can be wrong... you are clearly afraid what if you really are wrong? what if some others are right about their believes.... the kid who doesnt do homework wants his peers not to do it as well so its not as shameful... so that others are with you... xD why else would one be compelled to preach something as stupid as atheism...?
and m sorry to inform you that i cant read all those links... if you cant make your point in a clear, concise and understandable fashion, you arent worth my time (or anyone wise for that matter)... unlike you, I have a purpose in life (walhamdulillah) and for that I have to be productive and efficient...

 

[teachyourself]

thats only ur opinion..

that was a response for his context.. about other religions..

and that is also your delusion... and plz dont make a laughingstock out of yourself, you are the person who thinks he cant be wrong about the choice of his believes(as I asked you in art of grooming thread)... and then you dare to call ppl intolerant and fearful... if you cant entertain even the thought that you can be wrong... you are clearly afraid what if you really are wrong? what if some others are right about their believes.... the kid who doesnt do homework wants his peers not to do it as well so its not as shameful... so that others are with you... xD why else would one be compelled to preach something as stupid as atheism...?
and m sorry to inform you that i cant read all those links... if you cant make your point in a clear, concise and understandable fashion, you arent worth my time (or anyone wise for that matter)... unlike you, I have a purpose in life (walhamdulillah) and for that I have to be productive and efficient...

i entertain the thought that i could be wrong (about anything) this is why i discuss and read, whenever I can, otherwise i would not even mention anything to others nor listen to others nor respond to others if i do mention something in the first place

you did not specify which issue it is that I do not think I could be wrong about but for the sake of discussing it, i will assume that you mean my lack of belief in a supernatural entity, my position on that is simple and i have said it several times before, there is no evidence (religious texts, superstition and logical fallacies do not count as evidence) to support the claim of a god, so i do not accept that claim; in-fact i have read about, thought about and discussed this notion with many people before coming to my conclusion

so any idea (supernatural/spiritual) resulting from the notion of a god does not affect me, however, the actions of individuals who use the notion of god to coerce others does or can affect me, so i take an issue with that specifically

you want to believe in your god, that is your right but do not coerce others to do so even if they change their mind

so you can see i am not intolerant at all, as for your claim about me accusing someone or a group of people for being intolerant, I said it is the rooted in our (all human beings) tendency to be pattern seeking and intolerant/afraid of people who are different from us, so as you can see i did not accuse any specific group of people of being intolerant or fearful
https://seeingcomplexity.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-brain-as-a-pattern-recognition-machine/
http://humanistsofmn.org/220-evolution-of-the-religious-mind-finding-patterns
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/29/religion-children
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-legacy-distorted-love/201210/intolerance-difference
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/05/religion-prejudice.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302481

as far as those who preach atheism or invite others to atheism, I do not bother with that, I just urge people to use reason, evidence and to not coerce others

if you cannot read the links no problem at all, if you do not want to read it that is your right as well, my response to you or anyone over here is not specifically to that one individual but to anyone/everyone

as for having a purpose in this life, religion is not necessary, I have multiple purposes in this life one of them is helping people think rationally, with evidence and to be more humane

 

[badrobot14]

i entertain the thought that i could be wrong (about anything) this is why i discuss and read, whenever I can, otherwise i would not even mention anything to others nor listen to others nor respond to others if i do mention something in the first place

you did not specify which issue it is that I do not think I could be wrong about but for the sake of discussing it, i will assume that you mean my lack of belief in a supernatural entity, my position on that is simple and i have said it several times before, there is no evidence (religious texts, superstition and logical fallacies do not count as evidence) to support the claim of a god, so i do not accept that claim; in-fact i have read about, thought about and discussed this notion with many people before coming to my conclusion

so any idea (supernatural/spiritual) resulting from the notion of a god does not affect me, however, the actions of individuals who use the notion of god to coerce others does or can affect me, so i take an issue with that specifically

you want to believe in your god, that is your right but do not coerce others to do so even if they change their mind

so you can see i am not intolerant at all, as for your claim about me accusing someone or a group of people for being intolerant, I said it is the rooted in our (all human beings) tendency to be pattern seeking and intolerant/afraid of people who are different from us, so as you can see i did not accuse any specific group of people of being intolerant or fearful
https://seeingcomplexity.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-brain-as-a-pattern-recognition-machine/
http://humanistsofmn.org/220-evolution-of-the-religious-mind-finding-patterns
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/29/religion-children
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-legacy-distorted-love/201210/intolerance-difference
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/05/religion-prejudice.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302481

as far as those who preach atheism or invite others to atheism, I do not bother with that, I just urge people to use reason, evidence and to not coerce others

if you cannot read the links no problem at all, if you do not want to read it that is your right as well, my response to you or anyone over here is not specifically to that one individual but to anyone/everyone

as for having a purpose in this life, religion is not necessary, I have multiple purposes in this life one of them is helping people think rationally, with evidence and to be more humane

well then maybe that was a slip of tongue?

no i didnt specify coz apparently some1 as clever as you can easily go to that thread and see what i asked you about which you could be wrong...
oh... so you mean to say you wont believe in logic even(coz whatever logic I provide will be a logical fallacy, right?) ? look.... there is a difference between animals and humans... animals only believe when they can see, hear or smell stuff... if a goat saw a fire or smoke... it will run away; if you told it.. it wont... human beings are cleverer... if we hear about it on radio without seeing we will act coz we know it has credibility and makes sense to not be an obnoxious moron and take the exit...
anyway.. there was this arab in the desert... and a clever roman asked him how could some1 as illiterate as him could believe in existence of a god? and the arab simply said pointing to the faeces of his camel, that is a proof that my camel exists... how hard is it to understand that you being here... this word being here is a proof that its maker exists?

oh.. yeah it can affect u.... dosent mean it does... why then do you keep posting about it when no one is trying to influence you? ppl have their lives to be busy with.. no one wants to argue with you unless you shove stupid stuff in their faces... you are the one starting all these threads here instead of letting ppl peacefully help each other in studies..

yeah its my right.. but why should i not coerce others to do so? why does it matter to you what i do? if you stay quiet.. you can believe in whatever you like... usually no one cares... but why be so pissed about conversations of others if you are not affiliated with any religion? like let's say i sell tea... and i have a competitor who sells tea... if i convince others to buy my tea n competitor tries convincing others to buy his tea... when u dont sell tea.. why do you bother wasting so much of your time telling ppl not to buy our tea rather to go through blogs, op-eds, interviews, etc...

no i dont see that yet... sorry.. and not all of us are like you... dont paint every1 with same brush.... we arent patteren seeking.. we cherish individuality...
*ignores links*

yeah u dont.. but still somehow every other post targets religion and boasts about your lack of believes xD

yeah.. very clever... when i talk to you i feel like instead of telling me the person m conversing with is making public announcements/broadcasts from the PA systems.TVs etc.... broadcasting his resposes without care for the person who asked the question...

yeah it isnt... if you want a meagerly, boring and wasteful purpose in life.... for those wise enough... Islam has the answers... ofc that requires one to invest time in understanding it... treasures do need exploration...
more humane? so u mean to say we arent humane enough? how very rude and arrogant..

 

[Rizwan Javed]

Well, religion is a connection that is between God and man only. No one has any authority to interfere in it. Yes, if you see someone going astray you have the right to advise him / debate with him on this issue (but no forcing!) Islam does not allow any forcing, as Dark Destination quoted the reference to the quranic verse. Ill-treatment of an individual on the basis of blasphemy by any individual is not representative of Islam, since there are no evidences of any such teachings.

Of great concern at the present time is the subject of whether Islam prescribes any punishment for blasphemy. Every true Muslim loves and regards the Holy Prophet, the Founder of Islam, more than any other human being. A Muslim may tolerate insults against his parents, relatives or friends, but he cannot endure anyone mocking the Prophet Muhammad(saw). But how exactly does Islam teach a Muslim to respond to insults against the Prophet(saw), or for that matter, insults directed at God or anything sacred in Islam? Unfortunately, many Muslims assert that death or other harsh measures are the only possible punishments for those who commit blasphemy. However, this belief is mistaken and incorrect according to both the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah—the Practice of the Holy Prophet(saw).

Islam enjoins fair treatment of all, including one’s enemies:

"…Let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness… (Ch.5:V.9)"

Islam grants man the freedom of speech and expression. Blasphemy is condemned on moral and ethical grounds, no doubt, but no physical punishment is prescribed for blasphemy in Islam despite the commonly held view in the contemporary world. Islam does not advocate the punishment of blasphemy in this world nor vests such authority in anyone! The authority of punishment lies with God only!

Yes, you are allowed to express your opinions, but DONOT hurt someone's sentiments.

There has been no prophet upon whom derogatory words were not used, but there is no evidence that any of the offenders were ever ordered to be punished. The Holy Qur’an records many disrespectful utterances and acts by the hypocrites. Yet they were not expelled from the main body of Islam, nor were they killed for apostasy.

The Qur’an speaks repeatedly of those who disbelieved after believing, it does not once state that they should be killed or punished. The Holy Qur’an states:

"…And whoso from among you turns back from his faith and dies while he is a disbeliever, it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next…" (Ch.2:V.218)

Notice that this verse does not say that the disbeliever should be killed—rather, it is simply pointing out the fate of one who dies while having gone back on his faith. The Holy Qur’an would not have used this phrasing if it had wanted Muslims to punish apostates with death.

In short you have the right for freedom of speech, but do not hurt someone's feelings and sentiments! Because it's just intolerance, undermines the peace and harmony of the society.

 

[Dark Destination]

you did not specify which issue it is that I do not think I could be wrong about but for the sake of discussing it, i will assume that you mean my lack of belief in a supernatural entity, my position on that is simple and i have said it several times before, there is no evidence (religious texts, superstition and logical fallacies do not count as evidence) to support the claim of a god, so i do not accept that claim; in-fact i have read about, thought about and discussed this notion with many people before coming to my conclusion

Okay, but what evidence is there to support the claim that there is no god? Do you have any evidence for the non-existence of god that led you to your conclusion?

 

[badrobot14]

Okay, but what evidence is there to support the claim that there is no god? Do you have any evidence for the non-existence of god that led you to your conclusion?

*brings popcorn. waits for 101 links to arrive xD*
P.S. I was asking similar questions mate...

 

[teachyourself]

well then maybe that was a slip of tongue?

no i didnt specify coz apparently some1 as clever as you can easily go to that thread and see what i asked you about which you could be wrong...
oh... so you mean to say you wont believe in logic even(coz whatever logic I provide will be a logical fallacy, right?) ? look.... there is a difference between animals and humans... animals only believe when they can see, hear or smell stuff... if a goat saw a fire or smoke... it will run away; if you told it.. it wont... human beings are cleverer... if we hear about it on radio without seeing we will act coz we know it has credibility and makes sense to not be an obnoxious moron and take the exit...
anyway.. there was this arab in the desert... and a clever roman asked him how could some1 as illiterate as him could believe in existence of a god? and the arab simply said pointing to the faeces of his camel, that is a proof that my camel exists... how hard is it to understand that you being here... this word being here is a proof that its maker exists?

Evidence supersedes logic

As for your logic you have not presented it so I cannot say

As for your analogy, the analogy does not apply because the “warning” I am assuming the you mean it to be “the word of god” that would comes after the acceptance of the existence of one, if a person sees no grounds for the existence for a god in form of evidence, then your “warning” is irrelevant

As for the camel analogy, a more relevant analogy is that of finding a watch or any other item, the fallacy of that logic is based upon a false equivalency, as in there being no precedence for the creation of existence but for the watch (or any other human made item) there is precedence that it has been made by human beings, science stops and says we do not have sufficient evidence to make a conclusion whereas the founder of each religion says “I know this” without giving any evidence

another analogy is that of the watch maker you can find that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

oh.. yeah it can affect u.... dosent mean it does... why then do you keep posting about it when no one is trying to influence you? ppl have their lives to be busy with.. no one wants to argue with you unless you shove stupid stuff in their faces... you are the one starting all these threads here instead of letting ppl peacefully help each other in studies..

all I do is post messages/create threads to create awareness, it is hardly equivalent to shoving it in someone else’s face nor does it prevent anyone from helping each other in their studies, people are free to make their own choices, i understand everyone is busy that is why I do not coerce people to read my posts/threads, etc

oh.. yeah it can affect u.... dosent mean it does... why then do you keep posting about it when no one is trying to influence you? ppl have their lives to be busy with.. no one wants to argue with you unless you shove stupid stuff in their faces... you are the one starting all these threads here instead of letting ppl peacefully help each other in studies..

yeah its my right.. but why should i not coerce others to do so? why does it matter to you what i do? if you stay quiet.. you can believe in whatever you like... usually no one cares... but why be so pissed about conversations of others if you are not affiliated with any religion? like let's say i sell tea... and i have a competitor who sells tea... if i convince others to buy my tea n competitor tries convincing others to buy his tea... when u dont sell tea.. why do you bother wasting so much of your time telling ppl not to buy our tea rather to go through blogs, op-eds, interviews, etc...

no i dont see that yet... sorry.. and not all of us are like you... dont paint every1 with same brush.... we arent patteren seeking.. we cherish individuality...
*ignores links*

as for your question "but why should i not coerce others to do so?", to that the answer is you not coerce anyone else since it infringes upon the right of individuals to choose, it is a basic human right, if you do not want to respect a basic human right then I guess that shows the type of a person you have decided to become

i have never been pissed about anyone else’s conversations so I do not know what you have assumed or what it is that you are referring to, as for the tea analogy it again does not apply, since I never tell anyone not to follow any particular religion and since this website does provide a means of having a dialogue, it is exactly what I am doing; op-eds, blogs, interviews, etc are other means which I have considered using but it is always possible that someone like you who says “why should I not coerce others?” can start infringing upon my basic right of self-expression

pattern seeking individuals do not necessarily have to be people who do not cherish individuality but people with the mindset “why should I not coerce others to do so?” do not cherish individuality by their own admission

yeah u dont.. but still somehow every other post targets religion and boasts about your lack of believes xD

yeah.. very clever... when i talk to you i feel like instead of telling me the person m conversing with is making public announcements/broadcasts from the PA systems.TVs etc.... broadcasting his resposes without care for the person who asked the question...

yeah it isnt... if you want a meagerly, boring and wasteful purpose in life.... for those wise enough... Islam has the answers... ofc that requires one to invest time in understanding it... treasures do need exploration...
more humane? so u mean to say we arent humane enough? how very rude and arrogant..

not every other post of mine is about religion nor do my posts target (targeting would imply attack) religion but rather my posts discuss it

i never boasted anything, i have mentioned about my lack of belief in a god only when the idea was confronted in relation to me

well you can feel whatever you when you read my posts, that is entirely your own problem, also whether people ask for something or not, a communication has to be started by someone at some point

“helping people think rationally, with evidence and to be more humane”, this in your opinion is a “meager, boring and wasteful” purpose, I see

Well, when you something like “why should I not coerce others?” then you specifically and others who think like that are against humane behavior because coercion is inhumane, however, in my previous post I did not state anyone is/was inhumane I just encourage people to be humane because in my experience it takes very little for people to get angry and become cruel

 

[teachyourself]

Okay, but what evidence is there to support the claim that there is no god? Do you have any evidence for the non-existence of god that led you to your conclusion?

there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of a god NOR any evidence that there isn't one, the existence of a god is a claim and if a claim cannot be backed up by evidence it cannot be accepted

 

[Dark Destination]

there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of a god NOT that there isn't one, the existence of a god is a claim and if a claim cannot be backed up by evidence it cannot be accepted

1) The non-existence of god is also a "claim" which cannot be backed up by evidence. Can you present any scientific or logical evidence for the non-existence of god? I don't think you can. Thus, by your own methodology, you cannot accept a "claim" that is not backed up by evidence. So you shouldn't be accepting the "claim" that there is no god. You should be in a neutral position: there MIGHT be a God, there MIGHT NOT be. You are contradicting your own methodology here.

2) Why can't religious texts be used as evidence? What is your viewpoint on religious texts? Are they written by humans, and are they not the word of God?

3) What about the prophets that received revelation? Do you consider them liars? If so, can you back up that "claim" by presenting any historical or archaeological evidence that proves they did not actually receive revelation?

 

[teachyourself]

1) The non-existence of god is also a "claim" which cannot be backed up by evidence. Can you present any scientific or logical evidence for the non-existence of god? I don't think you can. Thus, by your own methodology, you cannot accept a "claim" that is not backed up by evidence. So you shouldn't be accepting the "claim" that there is no god. You should be in a neutral position: there MIGHT be a God, there MIGHT NOT be. You are contradicting your own methodology here.

2) Why can't religious texts be used as evidence? What is your viewpoint on religious texts? Are they written by humans?

3) What about the prophets that received revelation? Do you consider them liars? If so, can you back up that "claim" by presenting any historical or archaeological evidence that proves they did not actually receive revelation?

1. i did not claim there is definitely no god, i said there isn't any evidence to believe in one these two positions are not the same

2. religious texts are just a collection of words, religious texts have been written by people because we have no evidence to prove otherwise

3.the person making the claim of divinity/revelation etc needs to provide the proof, if that person cannot provide the evidence it will not be accepted, so i nor anyone else needs to prove that there was not a revelation

 

[Muzammil ahmad]

According to you ,What is the evidence that the food you eat and the sun/moon you see made themselves then?
And that no god made them..
The movement of sun proves the presence of God..
This is the perfect evidence of god

 

[Dark Destination]

1. i did not claim there is definitely no god, i said there isn't any evidence to believe in one these two positions are not the

1. That's incorrect. You have clearly stated that you DO NOT support the "claim" that there exists a god. See your own words, highlighted in red:

i will assume that you mean my lack of belief in a supernatural entity, my position on that is simple and i have said it several times before, there is no evidence (religious texts, superstition and logical fallacies do not count as evidence) to support the claim of a god, so i do not accept that claim; in-fact i have read about, thought about and discussed this notion with many people before coming to my conclusion

Hence, it has been proven that you DO NOT accept the "claim" that there exists a God, due to lack of evidence.

Also note that you have said "before coming to my conclusion" - which means you accept the "claim" that there is no God. You have also made clear that you do not believe in the existence of a "supernatural entity". You have no evidence to back up the "claim" that there is no God, yet you SUPPORT that claim, and BELIEVE that there is no God. If having "evidence" is the criteria for accepting a claim, you have no evidence for the non-existence of God. Yet you accept that claim. That is totally against your own methodology, and you are contradicting your own philosophy here.

Unless you can present any actual scientific or logical evidence that proves there is no God, it is clear that you are believing in the non-existence of God without any actual evidence.

2. Again, we have no evidence to prove that they weren't indeed words of God. And why would 6 billion people be believing in the revelations today, if it wasn't actually the truth?

3. The prophets did provide proof through miracles, which is why they got so many followers. People don't just put blind faith in someone when someone just claims prophethood.

 

[teachyourself]

According to you ,What is the evidence that the food you eat and the sun/moon you see made themselves then?
And that no god made them..
The movement of sun proves the presence of God..
This is the perfect evidence of god

just study cosmology/astrophysics/biology, etc you will have your answer as to why sun moves, etc
we even know that a universe can be created out of nothing
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html
so a better question would be "why" did it all start, no one has the evidence to answer that, though there are many philosophical discussions for that
https://www.xtremepapers.com/community/threads/history-psychology-and-philosophy-of-religion.46283/

 

[teachyourself]

Dark Destination

1. yes exactly, i do not support/accept the claim because there is isn't any evidence to accept it but i never claimed that there definitely isn't a god, put it another way, not accepting a claim is different from going on to use a contrary claim, however, in either case there is no circular reasoning in this, anyone wanting evidence does not accept the claim or in other words you do not have to accept a claim before rejecting it, otherwise every rejected hypothesis would be have been first accepted, for example in a peer review when researchers are considering/analyzing the methodology and the evidence presented they are NOT accepting it if they ultimately reject it

yes, i was born in a muslim family so before rejecting my faith i had to think to about it so the logical place to start was to see if their is any evidence to accept the existence of a god, yes, even not accepting a claim/or sitting on the fence, is a conclusion

2. because of our pattern seeking behavior see message # 8

3.the ones seen are in the hadiths, so not exactly evidence and it would be contrary to the quran, even if the quran would have said about the miracles it would still not classify as evidence
http://www.message4muslims.org.uk/the-quran/the-qurans-testimony/muhammad-perfomed-no-miracles/