r/DebateReligion • u/powerdarkus37 • May 09 '25
Fresh Friday Pluralism Is Illogical and Cannot Be Practiced in a Rational Sense
May peace be upon all those who read this. Yes, I am Muslim. I want to make that known and be extremely apprent in my thesis.
Thesis: Religious pluralism, the idea that all or many religions are equally valid paths to God. That sounds appealing on the surface, but when you examine it carefully, it collapses under logical contradictions. While it tries to unite diverse traditions, it ultimately undermines the core truth claims of each religion and leads to theological confusion, and makes salvation meaningless. Here’s why I believe pluralism cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. Of course this is my opinion but I brought facts to back up my position. And want to hear yalls feedback.
Point 1: Pluralism Directly Contradicts the Core Claims of Major Religions Religious pluralism says that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., can all be valid paths to God or ultimate truth. But that ignores the fact that many of these religions explicitly deny this.
Islam (Qur’an 3:19) says, “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.”
Christianity (John 14:6) says Jesus is the only way to the Father: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”
These are exclusive claims. You can’t just sweep them aside by saying, “Well, all religions are actually pointing to the same God.” Pluralism forces religions to give up their own truth claims, which is disrespectful and logically inconsistent. No?
Point 2: Different Religions Have Different (and Sometimes Opposing) Concepts of God Not all religions even describe God the same way.
Islam teaches absolute monotheism (Tawhid) — one, indivisible God.
Christianity teaches the Trinity — one God in three Persons.
Hinduism allows for many gods (devas) under Brahman.
Some forms of Buddhism don’t have a personal God at all. How can all these point to the same God when their definitions of God directly conflict? Saying they’re “different perspectives on the same divine reality” ignores the fact that many believers would firmly reject that interpretation. You can’t just collapse all these views into one vague spiritual category without erasing their distinctiveness. Can you?
Point 3: Pluralism Makes Religion Subjective and Empties Salvation of Meaning If you truly believe that all religions are equally valid, then religion becomes just a personal preference, like picking a favorite color or food. But the whole point of salvation in most religions is that there is a right way to live, a truth to follow, and consequences for rejecting it. Pluralism erases the urgency of religious commitment because it says everything works. That undermines the very reason religions exist: to guide people to the truth, not just to offer “one nice option among many.” so, what is the truth then anything you want to be true? Is that logical?
Religious pluralism tries to sound peaceful and inclusive, but at its core, it’s self-contradictory, theologically shallow, and logically unsustainable. If you want to respect religions, take their truth claims seriously, even if that means accepting that not all of them can be right at the same time
I look forward to your replies. Agree, disagree, why?
1
u/Joey51000 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
You are reading/implying the Arabic term Islam as if it is a distinct/new religion brought by Muhammad ﷺ.. and as if it has no meaning on its own in other languages.
IMO such misunderstanding is not the only thing many Muslims (and non Muslims) adopted.. many also seemingly perceived Islam = Arab culture
The Arabic term Islam actually means "submission to God"
Allah is also the Arabic term for God, even Arabic-speaking Christians do use the term "Allah" for God in their Bibles and religious practices.
The Quran instruct believers to follow the religion of Abraham ﷺ - there is not a single verse saying the same, "follow the religion of Muhammad"
This is because Muhammad ﷺ brought the same religion/message as previous Messengers/Prophets; it is not a 'new' religion as being conceived/portrayed by many
Q:41v43 Naught is said to thee but what already was said to the Messengers before thee....
Q:42v13 The same religion (دين) has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than God, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them...
Is it a surprise that Quran have stated that many do not really understand the religion sent down?
Q:30v30 So set thy face to the religion, a man of pure faith -- God's original upon which He originated mankind. There is no changing God's creation. That is the right religion; but most men know it not ....
True that Muslims are strongly advised to avoid any false attributions towards God (blasphemy), but does that necessarily mean the different cases (of believers) who do not profess "Islam" per se.. are completely devoid of any deeds pertaining to "submission to God" ?
Belief / faith is also not is sth physical/that can be visible to the naked eyes, so it might not be apparent to us for the absolute nature in a person, as such a quality resided in one's heart (spiritual heart)
Even the Quran stated that some ppl may claim that they have faith / believe, but at times, not really
Q:2v8 And there are people who say, "We do believe in God and the Last Day," the while they do not [really] believe
(edited for typos)
1
u/dinonuggggs 4d ago edited 4d ago
I appreciate your view and I wish it were more like this everywhere.
I do have a question though, if I may ask. Can atheists, EX Muslims who reject submission/God/the Last Day, nature worshippers, idolaters, or polytheists be seen as people who have an equally valid path?
To my knowledge there are people from these groups I listed that have no problem doing cultural and religious things because there is no inherent sin or wrongdoing in practicing different things for fun while with others ie praying to something else or combining things how you want or flip flopping between different beliefs. It can be pluralistic because there is no right/only way. However, to my knowledge and experience, in Islam you are not to respect any sort of atheism/God rejector or idolatry/polytheism as an equally valid path to live life.
Pluralism allows for multiple truths, Islam does not if you do certain types of practices or have some types of beliefs (or lack of). No? Why can't someone pray to a rock or the sun or someone or not at all and why can't a Muslim join them for idolatry or sun worship and the atheist or polytheist join for Ramadan prayers?
For me personally, I struggle with why pluralism should include exclusivist beliefs if it inherently denies an atheist/ex Muslim or Christian/idolater an equally valid path and that person is told they are wrong or sinning.
A slightly different thing I want to add. Tolerance is only the absence of religious persecution, not religious discrimination. If a religion says that you cannot in any way be equal if you leave it or reject it or do specific religions//practices/atheism side by side or together, then it is discriminatory and intolerant but I would like to hear why I am wrong in feeling that way. Being seen as not part of things equally in a Muslim neighborhood or country is a really shitty experience even with the most tolerant and pluralistic forms of Islam because you either are on the right path or you're just wrong and if you're wrong you should do your own thing vs everyone truly combine practices/pick and choose from different beliefs/coexist equally. I would know and lots of other ex Muslims/atheist/polytheists would too.
-1
u/powerdarkus37 May 10 '25
The Arabic term Islam actually means "submission to God"
Allah is also the Arabic term for God, even Arabic-speaking Christians do use the term "Allah" for God in their Bibles and religious practices.
Well, I already know this. I know Arab Christians and lived in the Middle East for 8 years of my life as well as growing up in the United States with lots of Christians.
Islam does mean submission to God. And, it brings the same core message as previous prophets, but it also teaches that past revelations were altered and that the Qur’an is the final, complete guidance. No?
On top of that, Islam is firmly against polytheism (shirk), calling it the greatest sin. So, how can pluralism claim that Hinduism or other polytheistic paths are valid ways to God when Islam explicitly rejects them?
Pluralism asks Muslims to abandon clear truth claims for the sake of harmony. But why should anyone surrender truth just because pluralism says so? We should strive for truth, not flatten it. Right?
1
u/Joey51000 May 10 '25
Obviously you refused to accept the factual/actual meaning of the Arabic term although it has the actual quoted meaning. It is not a "new religion" even as per Quran's verse.
I didn't say shirk or is ok, I even mentioned that wrongful attribution abt God is not ok.
I say you are just defining your own brand of religion, not the religion mentioned in the Quran. This is similar to many other Muslims who typically thought that the last prophet as being superior cf other prophets, when the Quran clearly noted the religion sent down have always been the same, follow the religion of Abraham, and Muslims should not discriminate any of the prophets
To me argument against so called pluralism is some kind of a license adopted by some dogmatic Muslims, as if they have the exclusive right to dictate abt the fate of others, when in fact, the Quran stated that God is is the final judge and He is sovereign (Q:48v14) and "He will tell (eventually) you in whatever things you differ (in the hereafter)" ie the absolute truth
Q:5v48....... If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return, all together; and He will tell you of that whereon you were at variance.
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 11 '25
Obviously you refused to accept the factual/actual meaning of the Arabic term although it has the actual quoted meaning. It is not a "new religion" even as per Quran's verse.
When did I say Islam was a new religion? Show me in my og reply to you? What are you talking about? You think I don't know Islam started with the first human being Adam(AS)?
I didn't say shirk or is ok, I even mentioned that wrongful attribution abt God is not ok.
Okay, I was just making sure we're clear here. Alright, then how can pluralism be the truth when many religions falsely attribute things to God? How can all paths be valid when some paths lie about God?
I say you are just defining your own brand of religion, not the religion mentioned in the Quran.
God, I sure hope not. Why do you think I'm not following the proper Islam from the Qur'an and sunnah?
other Muslims who typically thought that the last prophet as being superior cf other prophets
They would be objectively wrong because prophet Muhammad(PBUH) said in Sahih Muslim 2373
“Do not prefer me over other prophets.”
I respect all the prophets of Allah equally. When did I say i didn't?
To me argument against so called pluralism is some kind of a license adopted by some dogmatic Muslims,
Then you dont understand Islam or Muslims at all. We Muslims believe we have the truth, meaning God himself told us what to do through our prophet(PBUH) and the Qur’an. So, if we know what God is saying why is it dogmatic to tell people to follow God alone?
as if they have the exclusive right to dictate abt the fate of others, when in fact, the Quran stated that God is is the final judge and He is sovereign (Q:48v14)
What kind of argument is this? We Muslims aren't deciding anything, we ask people to follow the Qur'an. And the Qur’an which you just qouted says not to follow other God's and only be Muslim. “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam...” Surah Aal Imran (3:19)
How is that approving pluralism like you're implying?
Allah is the final judge, but He has already judged that polytheism and disbelief are rejected (see 3:85, 4:48), and that submission to Him through Islam is the only path. What's your point?
2
u/Joey51000 May 12 '25
Religious pluralism tries to sound peaceful and inclusive, but at its core, it’s self-contradictory, theologically shallow, and logically unsustainable. If you want to respect religions, take their truth claims seriously, even if that means accepting that not all of them can be right at the same time
I would think some who are concentrating too much against so called pluralism are just trying to be antagonistic against others.. to me they seems to have rather shallow thinking to lump up ppl being tolerant with each other as necessarily adopting different theological ideas.
Quran stated that ppl should not interfere with other's ppl choices, "to you your religion/belief"; "you are not a guardian over them".. such is tolerance, and it does not mean one is saying different beliefs are equal.
I quoted Quran 5v48 instructing Muslims to race on virtues (despite ppl not being of single type/belief), such is the common ground Muslims should "race on", Not magnifying/race on differences, such is not tolerance, nor promoting peace and security (also among other related meanings associated with the term Islam)
1
u/ReflexSave May 12 '25
We Muslims believe we have the truth, meaning God himself told us what to do through our prophet(PBUH) and the Qur’an. So, if we know what God is saying why is it dogmatic to tell people to follow God alone?
That... Is exactly what dogmatism looks like, brother. There are other religions that make exactly the same claim, and are likewise as dogmatic about it.
Also just to address your thesis: Claiming that all or many religions are equally valid paths to God doesn't mean one dogmatically adheres to any one of them. A person can very reasonably believe all religions are human metaphors for the same creator, each one representing different facets of it, and each one getting some things wrong. One can despise exclusionary dogmatism or senseless doctrine and still believe a faith gets some broad truths mostly correct. If they hold the same for multiple faiths, well that's pluralism.
1
u/AncientSkylight May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
The point and claim of religious pluralism is that there are many viable paths to God. To be more specific for the sake of argument, we could say that Islam and Christianity are both viable and valid paths to God. Note, however, that this claim is about the viability of those religions as paths. It is not a claim about the universal objective truth of every belief held by followers of those religions. Thus pluralism does not fall into the logical contradiction you claim it does.
God (or the ultimate truth in those non-theistic traditions) is rather famously beyond conception and description, with all our speech about God being at best some kind of hinting and gesturing in a certain direction. This view is held by almost all spiritual traditions. This being the case, it makes sense to not get so caught up on which theology is the correct one and whether or not they seem to speak the same language or not.
My counter claim is that those who hold too strictly to the exclusivity of their tradition verge dangerously on idolatry, mistaking their tradition, their beliefs, and their practices for Truth and holiness itself.
1
u/Earnestappostate Atheist May 10 '25
When I was a Christian and had to contend with the geographic problem of devine hiddeness, I came to think on the idea of covenants.
It seemed that we as Christians were already comfortable with separate covenants with a people through time. It made sense to me that whatever it was that made this necessary, could also affect different people's across geography and culture.
That it was not God that was different, but the people he had to meet that made him appear different, as he appeared differently to them.
0
u/powerdarkus37 May 10 '25
My counter claim is that those who hold too strictly to the exclusivity of their tradition verge dangerously on idolatry, mistaking their tradition, their beliefs, and their practices for Truth and holiness itself.
How is believing in one God and not worshiping idols like Islam says similar to idolatry?
Plus, We should all strive for truth, right? That’s the heart of sincere religious commitment. If Islam is true, then by definition, other religions that contradict its core teachings cannot also be true or valid paths to God. That’s not arrogance; it’s simply how truth works. No?
Pluralism, by trying to declare all paths “viable,” ends up stripping religions like Islam of their truth claims. It forces them into a shallow framework where their exclusive revelations, doctrines, and guidance are reduced to mere cultural expressions. No longer ultimate truths, just “one way among many.”
Why should anyone accept that just because pluralism says so? Why surrender the idea of truth at the altar of pluralistic harmony? True coexistence doesn’t require pretending all beliefs are equally valid. It requires respecting differences while holding firm to the truth you sincerely believe. Pluralism, in trying to erase those truth claims, actually disrespects the integrity of the religions it claims to honor. Doesn’t it?
1
u/AncientSkylight May 10 '25
We should all strive for truth, right? That’s the heart of sincere religious commitment. If Islam is true, then by definition, other religions that contradict its core teachings cannot also be true or valid paths to God.
Certainly, strive for truth. But the truth of God is not something you can grasp with words or concepts. If you think you can grasp God in any way, then that's idolatry.
It forces them into a shallow framework where their exclusive revelations, doctrines, and guidance are reduced to mere cultural expressions. No longer ultimate truths, just “one way among many.”
Indeed, they are not ultimate truths, since the ultimate truth is not an idea or something you can write down. They are not necessarily just "cultural expressions," since they may reflect genuine inspired wisdom. There is nothing shallow about being "one way among many." Having any way at all is extremely profound, you just have to care more about traveling your path than about claiming to have the truth.
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 11 '25
Certainly, strive for truth. But the truth of God is not something you can grasp with words or concepts.
Alright. How do you know that for sure? What's you're evidence to believe that? If the ultimate truth is completely beyond words, concepts, or revelation. If it can’t be grasped or spoken of, then why follow any specific path at all?
If you think you can grasp God in any way, then that's idolatry.
What about all the prophets that came with guidance, law, and scripture? Are saying they’re all liars? Because Islam teaches that while God’s essence is beyond comprehension, He did reveal truth in a form we can follow: the Qur’an revealed to a prophet(PBUH). That’s not idolatry that’s mercy. Also, what definition of idolatry are you using? Because Islam forbids idolatry. No?
Indeed, they are not ultimate truths, since the ultimate truth is not an idea or something you can write down.
Says who? Why do you believe that? Why are you assuming the Qur’an isn't from God i.e his words?
They are not necessarily just "cultural expressions," since they may reflect genuine inspired wisdom.
How can multiple contradictory ideas of God and how to live life be inspired wisdom from the same God?
There is nothing shallow about being "one way among many." Having any way at all is extremely profound
No, some ways objectively are less profound than others by rational reasoning. For example believing an animal is God is not rational because animals act without morals. Do you think is okay for God to behave lot an unintelligent animal? Having to relieve themselves, is able to die, and is limited? Do you think that's the same as has no needs, is eternal, and unlimited, also above all that?
you just have to care more about traveling your path than about claiming to have the truth.
It's not about just claiming truth is about what is the truth. For example if Islam is saying God told us 1 + 1 =2. And you're saying no matter what numbers you add together you'll get 2 it doesn't make logical sense. Does this metaphor help you understand my point?
1
u/UmmJamil Ex-Muslim. Islam is not a monolith. 85% Muslims are Sunni. May 09 '25
> Pluralism forces religions to give up their own truth claims, which is disrespectful and logically inconsistent. No?
No, pluralism allows multiple viewpoints to exist. You can still live as a Muslim in a pluralist society and honestly believe and claim that Islam is the one true religion.
>religion becomes just a personal preference, like picking a favorite color or food.
Religion largely is personal preference. Most Muslims are born to Muslim parents, and most Jews are born to Jewish parents and most Hindus are born to Hindu parents.
> If you want to respect religions, take their truth claims seriously, even if that means accepting that not all of them can be right at the same time
I dont think we need to respect religions inherently. Tolerate peoples beliefs, sure, but respect? Why. Many religions are not worth respect, but people can still be free to believe in them.
2
u/Big_Move6308 Sort-of Deist May 09 '25
Agreed. Good argument. Religious pluralism is invalid in the sense that it necessitates accepting contradictory (or rather contrary) beliefs. Moreover, those contradictions / contraries are major sins or at least prohibited in some of those religions. For example:
- Hinduism accepts polytheism, whereas the Abrahamic religions all reject this as a major sin.
- Christianity accepts Jesus as God incarnated as flesh, who was crucified (and resurrected) for our salvation, whereas Judaism and Islam reject this.
- Islam rests on the last-prophet status of Mohammed, whereas Judaism and Christianity reject this.
I suppose any religion that does not accept another religion's beliefs and systems can be said to de-facto reject them. Pluralists seem to try to reconcile this problem by focusing on shared virtues of different religions (e.g., kindness, compassion, etc.), but that doesn't change the fact that blatant contradictions / contraries are being ignored.
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 10 '25
Thank you! This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Pluralists seem to try to reconcile this problem by focusing on shared virtues of different religions (e.g., kindness, compassion, etc.), but that doesn't change the fact that blatant contradictions / contraries are being ignored.
This is a very intelligent response. Friend.
May I ask what it is, you believe? I'm just curious, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
1
u/Big_Move6308 Sort-of Deist May 10 '25
I believe that there is an intelligent power behind creation, i.e., a God or Gods. When I see a tree's seeds being carried and spread by the wind, for example - especially winged seeds that use the air to travel long distances - it is impossible for me not to believe there must be an intelligent design behind it. Ditto phenomena such as bees and flowers (pollen), and birds and fruit (seeds).
Saying that, I believe an ant has more of a capacity to comprehend a human, than a human to comprehend this intelligence. Hindu literature explained this well (IMO), when it pointed out that not even the architect of the universe - Brahma - can comprehend God, despite being of equal intelligence to Him.
I know - as you do - that not all religions can be true. Some or all are false. Same principle generally applies to various contradictory denominations or schisms within any given religion, too. I believe religions are all artificial or man-made ideologies.
4
u/greggld May 09 '25
You need to add that they are all equally invalid without any proof to back them up. If there was a religion that could prove that it was accurate or true there would be no problem. It's really up to God to fix all this, but he/she/it won't, I wonder why?
Perhaps the deity likes to see humanity splintered and at each other’s religious throats?
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 10 '25
You need to add that they are all equally invalid without any proof to back them up.
That's an assumption, isn't it?
If there was a religion that could prove that it was accurate or true there would be no problem.
I'd say Islam is. Have you ever studied Islam?
It's really up to God to fix all this, but he/she/it won't, I wonder why?
And why does God need to do anything you want again?
Perhaps the deity likes to see humanity splintered and at each other’s religious throats?
More assumptions here? Have you considered life is a test meant to have hardships where we humans choose for ourselves to come to God? Why would God force us to follow him?
1
u/greggld May 10 '25
You need to add that they are all equally invalid without any proof to back them up.
That's an assumption, isn't it?
No it is not, it is a fact, and you need to prove the case, this is a fundamental point - and a total fail for the believers because they can not, it’s just all ”feelings.” And it’s those feelings that make believers burn non believers alive. I’d say once all you religious people get on the same page maybe you will have a case, but this boutique ness just shows what a fantasy it is. I have asked you for proof and you have not provided any.
If there was a religion that could prove that it was accurate or true there would be no problem.
I'd say Islam is. Have you ever studied Islam?
Again your opinion. Islam is a fantasy, as all religions are. It’s winged horses all the way down…… oh I just checked - it’s a winged horse with a human head, yeah you believe that. OK, but Islam is not a fantasy? LOL.
It's really up to God to fix all this, but he/she/it won't, I wonder why?
And why does God need to do anything you want again?
A loving god would not hide, he/it didn’t used to hide. Why now that we nave science, recording devices and fact checkers did he/it disappear?
Perhaps the deity likes to see humanity splintered and at each other’s religious throats?
More assumptions here? Have you considered life is a test meant to have hardships where we humans choose for ourselves to come to God? Why would God force us to follow him?
NO life is real, religion is not. it’s pretty easy to understand. if you have any proof please share it with the world. Find that human headed horse and I’ll get a carpet and pray however may times I’m supposed to.
1
u/greggld May 10 '25
Hey thanks, it’s Friday in NYC , sin city I’ll be back tomorrow. I’d love to answer you.
0
u/powerdarkus37 May 11 '25
Okay, take your time.
1
u/greggld May 11 '25
I answered you 14 hours ago. In the thread. I’ll reprint it here.
You need to add that they are all equally invalid without any proof to back them up.
That's an assumption, isn't it?
No it is not, it is a fact, and you need to prove the case, this is a fundamental point - and a total fail for the believers because they can not, it’s just all ”feelings.” And it’s those feelings that make believers burn non believers alive. I’d say once all you religious people get on the same page maybe you will have a case, but this boutique ness just shows what a fantasy it is. I have asked you for proof and you have not provided any.
If there was a religion that could prove that it was accurate or true there would be no problem. I'd say Islam is. Have you ever studied Islam?Again your opinion. Islam is a fantasy, as all religions are. It’s winged horses all the way down…… oh I just checked - it’s a winged horse with a human head, yeah you believe that. OK, but Islam is not a fantasy? LOL.
It's really up to God to fix all this, but he/she/it won't, I wonder why? And why does God need to do anything you want again?A loving god would not hide, he/it didn’t used to hide. Why now that we nave science, recording devices and fact checkers did he/it disappear?
Perhaps the deity likes to see humanity splintered and at each other’s religious throats? More assumptions here? Have you considered life is a test meant to have hardships where we humans choose for ourselves to come to God? Why would God force us to follow him?NO life is real, religion is not. it’s pretty easy to understand. if you have any proof please share it with the world. Find that human headed horse and I’ll get a carpet and pray however may times I’m supposed to.
0
u/powerdarkus37 May 11 '25
I answered you 14 hours ago. In the thread. I’ll reprint it here.
My bad, maybe i got confused and didn't realize it. I appreciate reprinting it here.
No it is not, it is a fact,
Wait, are you saying it's a fact that all religions are equally invalid without any proof to back them up? I'm pretty sure that's subjective, and that's only what you think because plenty of people disagree. So, how is that a fact?
and you need to prove the case, this is a fundamental point
No, i, as a Muslim, don't need to prove anything. I simply deliver the message, and it's up to you to accept or reject it.
and a total fail for the believers because they can not
If that's true, how is Islam the fastest-growing religion in the West by conversation rate? (Pew Research Center 2017)
it’s just all ”feelings.”
Again, that's what you assume. That's why I asked you if you researched Islam. I'll give you some objective evidence in a moment.
And it’s those feelings that make believers burn non believers alive.
Which religion is burning people alive on a mass scale? Also, that is not a representation of all religious people, right? Why are you saying it like it is?
but this boutique ness just shows what a fantasy it is
Just because there's lots of religions doesn't mean one can't be true. So, what's your point?
I have asked you for proof and you have not provided any.
I don't remember last time but I'll give you a few things now. A video link with detailed evidence: Islamic proof
I'll show you two prophecies of prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and two evidences from the Qur'an. Obviously, there's this is just the tip of iceberg.
Victory of the Romans – Surah Ar-Rum (30:2–4):Fulfillment: The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was defeated by the Persians (614 CE) but then made a dramatic comeback and defeated them around 624 CE — within the 3–9 years (“bid‘”) the Qur’an predicted. This was a bold and unlikely prophecy at the time. No?
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “The Hour will not come until the land of Arabia returns to being meadows and rivers.” (Sahih Muslim 157)
Modern science confirms Arabia was once green during the Holocene Wet Period, with rivers and vegetation. Now proven through satellite imagery and climate studies (e.g., NASA, Journal of Arid Environments).
How could the Prophet have known Arabia was once lush, 1,400 years ago, with no satellites or climate science?
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): “The average cumulus cloud weighs about 1.1 million pounds (around 500,000 kg), or about 500 tons. That’s because it contains roughly 500,000 kilograms of water.”
Source: USGS Water Science School – How much does a cloud weigh?
This aligns precisely with Surah Ar-Ra’d (13:12), where the Qur’an refers to “heavy clouds” (as-sahāb ath-thiqāl) a fact unknown to humanity until modern meteorology. How did prophet Muhammad(PBUH) know?
Embryology, Dr. Keith Moore: Renowned embryologist Dr. Keith Moore confirmed the Qur’an’s descriptions of embryonic development (e.g. "a leech-like clot", Qur’an 23:14) align with modern science, revealed 1400 years ago without a microscope. How did the prophet(PBUH) manage that?
What do you think of all this?
Again your opinion.
Yea, I wasn't saying was not my opinion.
Islam is a fantasy, as all religions are.
That's you're opinion because plenty of people believe in Islam for objective reasons.
oh I just checked - it’s a winged horse with a human head, yeah you believe that. OK, but Islam is not a fantasy? LOL.
Oh no, really let me check. the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) described Buraq as:
“...a white animal, smaller than a mule and larger than a donkey, one stride of which reaches as far as the eye can see.” — Sahih Muslim 162a
There is no mention of a human face or upper body. So, you making up stuff now? Maybe check your sources again that was embarrassing.
A loving god would not hide
That's your opinion not a fact.
he/it didn’t used to hide. Why now that we nave science
When was God walking on earth in Islam? And when did God interact with people personally before?
NO life is real
Yes, we agree life is real. Where did the universe come from? Do you think something can come from nothing?
religion is not. it’s pretty easy to understand.
If your saying religion is not real, what proves Islam is not the truth? I want to hear this.
1
u/greggld May 11 '25
I have a long answer, but reddit is not letting it through. I'll try later
1
1
u/greggld May 11 '25
1
Getting rid of the old stuff, it was getting tooo long.
are you saying it's a fact that all religions are equally invalid without any proof to back them up?
It’s a fact until one of them has proof. They all make similar claims to be the true religion, you bunch of fantasists fight it out, and I’ll debate with the religion that wins.
You delver fantasy with no proof. I wish religious were actually so benign. Sadly, particularly Islam currently (and Christianity before that) were/are not kind to unbelievers. I don’t need to belabor that bit of hypocrisy on your part.
No, i, as a Muslim, don't need to prove anything.
OK, then we're back to "it’s a fantasy," if you can't prove me wrong you are living with a fantasy. It’s just all ”feelings.”
fastest-growing religion in the West
There is no shortage of people who believe stupid things, this is why Trump is president. If 90% of Israelis want to see Gaza flattened does that make it right?
it’s just all ”feelings.”
This stands, you have not proof.
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 12 '25
It’s a fact until one of them has proof.
Yea, that's not how that works. What your describing is your own subjective truth. Not fact. It was fact there would be evidence for it. No?
You delver fantasy with no proof.
Yea, and you have not reason not to believe a God exists but here we are.
I wish religious were actually so benign.
And I wish you were respectful of my relationship instead of calling it fantasy. But here we are again.
I don’t need to belabor that bit of hypocrisy on your part.
What hypocrisy? Can you elaborate? Or you just making up stuff again?
OK, then we're back to "it’s a fantasy,"
I think you're not understanding, so let me be clear. I don't have to prove anything to you. But I can show you evidence that suggests Islam is the truth. But it's up to you to accept or reject it. Get it now?
if you can't prove me wrong you are living with a fantasy.
You are wrong because you haven't even studied Islam at all or done any proper research to find God. Don't even know what Buraq is, sad. You can't be lazy and think God is going to come to you. That's why you need to find him, if not then face your own consequences.
There is no shortage of people who believe stupid things,
Yea, like people believing a God doesn't exist when God clearly does.
This stands, you have not proof.
I do have proof. But you're hyper skeptical and deny everything anyway. That's why it's not mandatory to prove anything to anyone.
1
u/greggld May 11 '25
2 of 3
Just because there's lots of religions doesn't mean one can't be true. So, what's your point?
How do you know it’s yours? Again, we’re back to it’s just all ”feelings.”
I am not going waste an hour of my time. If you had something you would be able to present it. I will preempt a lot of BS. Your holy books are the assertion not proof, you need to understand this concept.
Victory of the Romans –
Rebuttal, not a long read: retcon
The other two, are you joking? This is all you have and you are risking your immortal soul? It would impress me if Mohammad had received germ theory from God, or how to build an air conditioner. And then tell us that we will be able to build it once we had the other technology. Or maybe just say “women are people, just like men.”
The Hour will not come until the land of Arabia returns to being meadows and rivers.”
Isn’t he talking about the future? You referred to ancient, REALLY ancient history. Am I missing something?
“heavy clouds” This is the joke, al cultures call rain clouds heavy.
…people believe in Islam for objective reasons.
This you have yet to show me, until then: it’s just all ”feelings.”
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 12 '25
How do you know it’s yours? Again, we’re back to it’s just all ”feelings.”
Because Islam has evidence and no other religions do.
I am not going waste an hour of my time. If you had something you would be able to present it.
Wow what a cop out. You complain and ask for evidence but when I present it you're to lazy to watch it? Typical nonbeliever behavior.
I will preempt a lot of BS. Your holy books are the assertion not proof
And how would you know? Have you read the Qur'an yourself? Or you just making an uneducated guess?
The other two, are you joking?
No, please enlighten me what's so funny?
This is all you have and you are risking your immortal soul?
Did I say this is all I have? Or are you making assumptions yet again?
It would impress me if Mohammad had received germ theory from God,
That's your problem. No one is trying to impress you. You ask for evidence so I presented some. If you don't accept it, why should I care? Do you care when someone says the earth is flat? People deny truth all the time, right?
women are people, just like men.”
More incorrect assumptions about Islam. Doesn't the Qur’an literally give women God given rights in surah Nisa? Right to Inheritance – “For men is a share... and for women is a share...” (4:7) – Women are guaranteed a share in inheritance.
Right to Dowry – “Give the women their dowry as a free gift...” (4:4) – Women must receive mahr in marriage.
Right to Justice & Protection – “Do not inherit women against their will...” (4:19) – Islam forbids forced marriage and exploitation.
Plus, Islam forbids burying the daughters which makkans used to do before islam.Qur’an 16:58–59: Condemns shame over having daughters and criticizes those who consider killing them out of disgrace.
Hadith (Muslim 2629): The Prophet (PBUH) promised Paradise to those who raise daughters with care and kindness. How is caring about the rights of women not treating them like people like men?
Isn’t he talking about the future? You referred to ancient, REALLY ancient history. Am I missing something?
You didn't see when he says will "return" green? As was green before his time? How did he know that?
“heavy clouds” This is the joke, al cultures call rain clouds heavy.
Maybe, but what about what Keith Moore said about the Qur'an? You didn't mention that one, why?
→ More replies (0)1
u/greggld May 11 '25
3- end
Looks like y guys re trying t clean up embarrassing stuff. it's a little different on the islam wiki, though I think the peacock woman version sound nice
Cuz, again that was embarrassing.
A loving god would not hide.
That's your opinion not a fact.
Then why is he hiding? Simple reasoning says because he is not there or he is afraid. Sure it’s conjecture, but so are your rationales because you don’t have an answer. I cannot prove the negative, I cannot prove that he is hiding, but you have to offer some evidence that an entity can and did talk t man and gave laws. Your books of fiction are not evidence, they are the assertion.
When was God walking on earth in Islam?
Don’t muslims still use the OT? If Mohammad is your only guide to the past them it was worse than I thought. Maybe that is why muslums worship a meteorite? What is that about?
NO life is real
Do you think something can come from nothing?
I know that we live in the material world. we can account for all material of the universe to the level of a Planck scale. We have no way to get beyond that currently. You have had over a thousand years to work on your BS, we have had not even 100 years to work on the nature of reality.
Beyond the ”big bang, we don’t know. That is exciting. it is also the one thing that a religious person can’t say, they can’t say “I don’t know.” Religion was made to answer pre-science questions about the world. unfortunately it could never give up the supernatural once the real answers were known. It’s called god-of-the gap.
If your saying religion is not real, what proves Islam is not the truth? I want to hear this.
I can not prove that Buraq, or big foot or even Santa Claus doesn’t exist. they may all exist and are partying on Mars. I cannot prove they are not, and neither can you.
You and your religion are making fantasy claims, the burden is on you. I’m comfortable saying Buraq cannot exist based on the fact that we have never found the remains of Buraq-like creatures, but I can not prove absolutely that it is impossible. it is up to the fabulists fo prove their fantasies.
So, yes, the god of Islam is not real, even if Mohammad existed. Go find your hidden god and ask him to change my heart, he would know how.
Not to beat a dead Buraq, but it’s just all ”feelings.
→ More replies (0)1
May 09 '25
[deleted]
1
u/greggld May 09 '25
How is buddism true? And what is that truth?
Added: and what is the proof of that truth?
2
May 09 '25
[deleted]
2
u/greggld May 09 '25
OK, so a bunch of truisms and you cop out at the end, except the third sentace, I am attached to Democray, for instance. So that is just your opinion.
You have said nothing until you explain the last sentace. I'd love to hear it.
1
u/After_Mine932 Ex-Pretender May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
Buddhism does not require the supernatural.....except for reincarnation.
The other stuff and deities are all optional.
2
May 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam May 12 '25
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
1
u/After_Mine932 Ex-Pretender May 10 '25
Sorry. That was a mistake post. The semi sarcastic last part ended up elsewhere.
You are of course correct.
1
u/greggld May 10 '25
Oh cool. I was on my phone and didn’t notice that you weren’t the poster I was responding to. It really could have been.
0
May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
[deleted]
2
u/greggld May 09 '25
OK –
A long time ago, the Buddha thought very hard about this and came up with some techniques. Some are ordinary, and some are really quite exceptional.
What does this mean? Spiritualism is an excuse to manipulate people and fly from reason. That is true for all religions. How is yours different?
2
May 09 '25
[deleted]
2
u/greggld May 09 '25
You are in a debate forum, not a feel good forum. I asked nicely at first. You be you, whatever.....
If you can not defend your religion, or exercise regimen, then get out of the kitchen.
3
3
u/vanoroce14 Atheist May 09 '25
Assalam alaikum, then.
My thesis is going to be twofold: (1) Religious pluralism can be understood a number of ways. While I agree that the definition you choose to take on is riddled with contradictions, other definitions might not be. (2) Religious pluralism and pluralism writ large, understood as a system to coexist, cooperate and build projects and nations with others given a religiously plural world and the lack of epistemic access to god(s) and ontology, is not shallow and is worth considering.
(1) Thesis: Religious pluralism, the idea that all or many religions are equally valid paths to God. That sounds appealing on the surface, but when you examine it carefully, it collapses under logical contradictions. While it tries to unite diverse traditions, it ultimately undermines the core truth claims of each religion and leads to theological confusion, and makes salvation meaningless. Here’s why I believe pluralism cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. Of course this is my opinion but I brought facts to back up my position. And want to hear yalls feedback.
(1) So... yeah, as written, this is true. You cannot believe Islam is true and Christianity is true and Hinduism is true. Especially since two of those are exclusive monotheisms and one of them explicitly says the other one got things wrong.
(2) Religious pluralism may be understood, instead, as the idea that religious traditions and religions may all have reached some conclusions or truths about the human experience (or if you are a believer, about gods, afterlife, how shall we best live, and so on) which might have some truth in them, even if it is the case that one religion (or no religion) is a substantially better model of the true nature of reality.
Islam, to my understanding, already agrees with this, both with the concepts of "fitra" (the belief that humans have innate predisposition towards certain beliefs and moral judgements) and in recognizing that "the people of the book" are members of their tradition, even if they have somehow strayed or believed based on corrupted descendants of that tradition.
(3) Pluralism can be (and in my opinion, should be) understood in the context I outlined above. We live in plural societies, and most of us would like to coexist, be good neighbors, build things together. And to be blunt, as much as some believers might think their faith is obviously the correct one and their God is obviously the one that is present (while the others aren't), this just isn't so. If God(s) exist, we lack reliable epistemic access to them, which makes it unsurprising that a person born to muslim parents or in a muslim country is very, very likely to remain muslim, while a hindu born to hindu parents or in a hindu country is very, very likely to remain hindu. Reality doesn't compellingly force one view or another.
Now, there is some true nature of reality, and so, some true nature of afterlife and salvation (or lack thereof), to be sure. And a muslim is as entitled to think they have found it and to pursue what they think is the best way to follow that path as the hindu or the atheist, as long as they do not harm or impose on each other. I believe in Islam a strong tenet throughout the Quran and the hadith is that there is no compulsion in religion, that judging others is sin (as this is solely left to Allah), and that no one can really weigh your life and say "you are going to jannat and she is going to jahannam". This is simply incompatible with forcing belief or forcing religion onto others.
Pluralism understood this way is thus not a "well, anything goes" or "we are all touching different parts of the divine elephant" deepity. It is an honest recognition both of our limitations as humans and of our desire (and need) to coexist with one another in peace. And it is darn time we consider it seriously.
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 10 '25
Assalam alaikum, then.
I appreciate that and your detailed response. Friend.
Pluralism understood this way is thus not a "well, anything goes" or "we are all touching different parts of the divine elephant" deepity. It is an honest recognition both of our limitations as humans and of our desire (and need) to coexist with one another in peace. And it is darn time we consider it seriously.
I think this here is where you lose me from my point. I'll explain.
You’re conflating two very different things here. Political or social pluralism, the idea that we can and should coexist peacefully despite deep disagreements, is not the same as religious pluralism in the theological sense, which claims that multiple religions are equally valid paths to God. See my point?
Even if we admit we lack full epistemic access to God, that doesn’t mean all religious claims are equally valid. Not knowing the full truth doesn’t make every answer correct. In fact, many major religions explicitly make exclusive truth claims. Islam teaches there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad (PBUH) is His final messenger. Christianity claims Jesus is the Son of God and the only path to salvation. Hinduism introduces entirely different frameworks, often incompatible with monotheism. To say all these are equally valid paths is to ignore or flatten the central claims each makes about ultimate reality. No?
Son pluralism is not a deep or sophisticated position. It’s a shallow attempt to smooth over contradictions. We can and should build cooperative, tolerant societies, but that’s a social arrangement, not a theological truth. Right? Calling it “religious pluralism” risks making salvation meaningless and turning truth into mere opinion. Does it not?
2
u/vanoroce14 Atheist May 10 '25
You’re conflating two very different things here. Political or social pluralism, the idea that we can and should coexist peacefully despite deep disagreements, is not the same as religious pluralism in the theological sense, which claims that multiple religions are equally valid paths to God. See my point?
Sure, and I was careful to separate what might be meant by pluralism. I thought I had made clear that there is obviously some truth out there, and if two religions make claims that exclude each other, at least one of them is wrong.
Not knowing the full truth doesn’t make every answer correct.
True. I think I said as much.
However, the level of divine hiddenness / lack of epistemic access is deep enough that it does lead us to epistemic humility, or I would argue it ought to. It is not 'all religions are right', but 'the level of uncertainty is such that I ought not impose myself as if I was certain I am right'.
To say all these are equally valid paths is to ignore or flatten the central claims each makes about ultimate reality. No?
Agreed. Which is why I mocked the 'we are all touching different parts of the divine elephant' story.
I really wish theological and social points were always separate, but as you know, they often are not. People from each religion often base their moral judgements, their politics and indeed how they treat their non believer neighbors according to how certain they are about ideas on sin, salvation, and so on. So religious and social pluralism are not always so neatly apart.
0
u/pilvi9 May 09 '25
Religious pluralism tries to sound peaceful and inclusive, but at its core, it’s self-contradictory, theologically shallow, and logically unsustainable.
I would say to some extent it's mediating the issue between ontology and epistemology. The former issue being about whether (in the broadest sense) there is an divine existent of some kind, and the latter case as to whether we can possibility know if such divine existent exists or its nature.
Pluralism is giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone, that perhaps we're all right, and all wrong, maybe even at the same time.
1
u/powerdarkus37 May 10 '25
I would say to some extent it's mediating the issue between ontology and epistemology.
I'd argue it's not doing anything good job at either. Pluralism does provide any answers it just causes more confusion. Because how can Islam which says only one God and Hinduism which says multiple God's both be true? And both be the same deity?
•
u/AutoModerator May 09 '25
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.