Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am Enjoying Being A Muslim

The Quran sought to reform, not to destroy and start from scratch, to salvage what was useful and then to modify and build on it. The task was to get the Arabs to think about religion in a novel way, to inculcate in them a new conceptual frame of reference, to transfer them from one worldview to another, and higher, one. This process of transformation took them from traditionalism to individualism, from impulsiveness to discipline, from supernaturalism to science, from intuition to conscious reasoning and, in the end, ideally, harmonized the whole. The Quran does not ask for human perfection, but rather asks that we persevere in striving for self-improvement and that we never become complacent or despondent about our progress. Personal ignorance should be admitted, but it should not be allowed to place limits and bounds on the ways 'and means of [u]revelation[/u].

You cannot simply read the Quran, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and you would be on other side. As you read the Quran and pray, a door to your heart would be unsealed and you would immersed in an overwhelming tenderness. No one knows loneliness like an atheist. When an average person feels isolated, he can call through the depths of his soul to God- who knows him -and sense an answer. An atheist cannot allow himself that luxury, for he has to crush the urge and remind himself of its absurdity.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Quizzical · 46-50, M
Rather real loneliness than make-believe deities...
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@Quizzical Are you certain that God doesn't exist?
Quizzical · 46-50, M
@Madeleine 100%
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@Quizzical What is your evidence?
Quizzical · 46-50, M
@Madeleine Hold on... I've put it where I keep my evidence of unicorns and dragons not existing...

I'll just go find it 🙄
ArianaRose25 · 26-30
@Quizzical lmao. well hey, I've seen a unicorn. I can show you? xD
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@Quizzical Can you explain the existence of the universe?
Quizzical · 46-50, M
@Madeleine Nope, but sure as hell it wasn't created by magic.
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@Quizzical True.. it wasn't. But what is your explanation for it? It's a scientific fact that the universe had a beginning.
@Madeleine a scientific “beginning” is not the same as a theological “beginning”.

Those are vastly different forms of “knowing.” One is empirical and the other is “religious intuition” or “divine inspiration”.


In science, you can actually pose the question, “ what was before the big bang?”. And that position can be proven wrong if research shows it to be true, since science allows for false positives.

Accepting theological “beginnings” however, is not a matter of research but faith or belief in the religion’s sacred text.

It’s either you can accept it (religious doctrine) or reject it. And if you reject it, you’re most likely heretical or some type of apostate.

Disagreement on scientific beginnings is simply a disagreement, not an offense to any deity. Or most importantly, not an offense to the violent fanatics who try to “defend” the words of their deity.
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@BigbangFACTS There are only 4 possibilities to explain the origin of the universe:

1. Created by nothing.
2. Self-created.
3. Created by something created.
4. Created by something uncreated.
@Madeleine thanks for responding. I think your positing an oversimplification and/or reductionist thought in the options your present above.

science allows for the possibility of “no origin” and no “creation” (perhaps cyclical) if the research takes it there.

A “big bang” doesn’t mean “beginning” (even though many scientific and unscientific minds view it that way). It’s just an event that took place, that we presently have no understanding of what has happened before it as yet.

Science allows for multiple realities and multiple universes to not only overlap, but to also exist on parallel dimensions.

Science also allows for the possibility of a deity (though highly unlikely) if the research shows it to be true.

Dogmatic religious views do not allow for such things, except their their exclusive theological world view. Anything else would be heretical.

In other words, a religious body would be “satisfied” with us just being “believers”, than to doubt the validity of their deity’s nature, and the nature of the known universe,
let alone the potential of having more than one (universe that is).

Thanks for reading.
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@BigbangFACTS What about logic?
@Madeleine ok. tell me your views on logic in relation to things being “created”.

I hope it’s not a teleological argument.
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@BigbangFACTS The possibilities I gave earlier are from logical point of view.
To assume there is a creator is a matter of faith and not based on any data.

I have no problem with faith confession. I only have a problem when people mask it as science. It’s definitely not.

People only justify their belief in a creator through a teleological argument.
Madeleine · 41-45, F
@BigbangFACTS Fair enough. But you probably want to address the possibilities I mentioned for the sake of discussion. My argument goes beyond faith. It's logical.