Hi Grateful,

It is probably futile to argue rationally against faith, since its logic is simply not rational: one simply believes. In fact, the less evidence the better, since a believer can then show his greater devoutness. Rational argument is pretty pointless in those circumstances.

As well, so much of the premises bolstering faith are sort of circular: If, say, you put forward Premise 1, Premise 2, and Premise 3, then a 'Conclusion', the first Preimse is considered valid because it is based on the second; the second is considered valid because it is based on the third; and the third is considered valid because it is based on the first. Of course, the Conclusion follows IF one agrees with the Premises: that's precisely how it is defined, IF Faith is all you need.

But, from a rational point of view, if any of your Premises actually demand some sort of proof of validity, and it can't be provided, then the lot collapses.

So we can 'argue' past each other, each questioning the other's Premises, and get nowhere. You have your faith, I have (I hope) some measure of rationality, and a sense of uncertainty or tentativeness, and expectation of the incompleteness of all hypotheses, that there is always more to be learnt, BUT that what I take to be more-or-less 'true' has to have some solid supporting evidence. And it can always be improved on. I'll try to keep learning: never just accepting anything without evidence, but trying to understand. Fine with me: I'll never know everything of course, and I'll probably have mistaken beliefs which later I'll see as mistaken - uncertainty, correction, incompleteness - that's how the world is, and it will never stop.

That must terrify someone who craves certainty, perfection, completion of the circle, not to have to think. I feel desperately sorry for them, wasting their one and only life like that. We're all better than that.

Joe

Joe, are you running away?

You asked that i be prepare to offer my views and "and if they are solid, they will stand up to scrutiny in discussion with others"

I've offered my view that the Qur'an has not been corrupted and shown that, since the Quran itself states that Allah will protect it from corruption, all we need is one instance that can conclusively demonstrate the corruption of the Quran. With this, its claim to being the word of god is sunk. Just one!

And yet you have the audacity to write:

"It is probably futile to argue rationally against faith, since its logic is simply not rational: one simply believes. In fact, the less evidence the better, since a believer can then show his greater devoutness. Rational argument is pretty pointless in those circumstances. "

Joe, you are the one avoiding rational discourse, by resorting to belittlement:

"That must terrify someone who craves certainty, perfection, completion of the circle, not to have to think. I feel desperately sorry for them, wasting their one and only life like that. We're all better than that."

Surely, if the Quran was man-made there would be numerous examples of how the Quran. I'm only asking for one...just one.

How about a bit of courage. Do you have the evidence or not?

Sorry, Grateful, I don't understand what you are asking me to do. Are you asking me to find any instances of inconsistency, or contradictions - where the Koran says one thing, then somewhere else it says the opposite ?

No problems: it is claimed that the Koran, is the book of the 'religion of peace'. So all one has to do is find verses about brutal punishment, mutilation, rape, invasion, slavery. Is that what you are asking for ?

Joe

Hi Joe

You asked that I present my views for scrutiny "and if they are solid, they will stand up to scrutiny in discussion with others"

Let's see if you are willing to provide that scrutiny in an objective manner.

Given my background, an appropriate starting point would be my view that the Quran has not been corrupted. By corrupt I mean that there have been changes to the original text over time.

This is a statement which is refutable. Its been done with the Bible. You only need evidence that the version today is not the orinal; it has been altered over time.

And I'll put my cards on the table. Refuting this view would undermine my faith, particularly as the Qur'an itself makes a prediction that it will not be corrupted:

"We, Ourselves, have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’an), and We are there to protect it." 15:9

In reference to this verse, Mufti Taqi Usmani (whose interpretation of the Quran is, I'm told, authoritative) has said: "Here Allah Almighty has taken upon Himself that the Holy Qur'an will remain intact for all times to come, and no one will be able to change it, as it happened with earlier Scriptures" . http://www.maarifulquran.net/

So in refuting my view you would also be proving that the Quran cannot be the word of God (since God does not make false predictions).

Now since you maintain the Quran was the word of illiterate, ignorant, inbred, nomads of the desert it should be a relatively straight exercise. You should be feeling relaxed and comfortable with such easy task.

Over to you.....

Joe you asked
"Are you asking me to find any instances of inconsistency, or contradictions - where the Koran says one thing, then somewhere else it says the opposite ?"

I'd welcome any evidence supporting the view that the Qur'an is inconsistent, as i would evidence that the Qur'an has been corrupted over time.

Hi Grateful,

We really are talking past each other. As a kafir, I don't really care much about your 'authorities' or your book, which is a mass of contradictions, a jumble of 'sweetness and light' and utter brutality, frankly.

I'm interested in what YOU think, and how you may provide evidence to back up a particular point of view. What have YOU learnt from your own reflections and experiences, not what you can parrot out of some book ?

Of course, since I don't believe in any gods, yours or Hindu or Christian or otherwise, I obviously don't put any value on some notion that a book is handed down by a god: of course, I take it for granted that the book was cobbled together by men, over time, from bits of the old Jewish books and from the newer Christian books as well, with a lot of it quite garbled, and mixed in with the folk knowledge of Arabian desert tribes.

But maybe there is common ground, in terms of shared values. So, as examples, do you support:

* the separation of State and religion,

* the equality of men and women,

* the rule of law, equality before the law of everybody,

* democracy,

* freedom of expression, provided it does not incite violence ?

Over to you .....

Joe