Religion, what's the point?

[Foxbatt]

How is called a warlord who initiates unprovoked wars that kill thousands?

There is no hatred of the religion, it is calling a spade a spade. Secular Islam is perfectly okay, but secular Islam is not the Islam Muhammad taught. Jihad was not a fight within our mind to become better people, but was literally a call of arms against nonbelievers. fecking an underage woman was not a figure of speech - and it does not matter if she gave consent or not - neither it was marrying 11 women.

In a civilized country, if you feck a 8-9 years old, you go to jail, simple as that. A Muslim who wants to emulate Muhammad, would go to jail in today's modern societies. But maybe 8 was a figure of speech for 28 and it should not be taken literally, and it is me who cannot see what is in front of my nose.

If the cap suits you put it on.
Fighting against the Meccans who fight against is not being a Warlord.
Abu Bakr and Umar conquering lands is a different story. In that vein the Christians conquer countries in the name of Jesus. Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?
As for the age of marriage of Aisha, yes today he would have been jailed. But in those times, without birth certificate etc a woman is considered an adult when she reaches her puberty. Islam also states marriage is between two consulting adults.
It's much later the age issue has cropped up. It's because the Arabs wanted to keep the women down and for them to " marry" whom they want to marry.
Sadly in some countries it's economic and in others political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia talking about the age shows the tyranny of these countries rather than the essential nature of Islam.

 

[Revan]

If the cap suits you put it on.
Fighting against the Meccans who fight against is not being a Warlord.

But he initiated the war for Mecca though. When he was in Medina, everything was fine, the Meccans were not attacking him.

Abu Bakr and Umar conquering lands is a different story. In that vein the Christians conquer countries in the name of Jesus. Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't those 2 guys, Muhammad's best friends? I think this is a pretty acceptable and non-controversial hadith:

Abu Bakr is in Paradise, ʿUmar is in Paradise, ʿUthman is in Paradise, ʿAli is in Paradise, Talhah is in Paradise, Az-Zubair is in Paradise, ʿAbdur-Rahman bin ʿAwf is in Paradise, Saʿd bin Abi Waqqas is in Paradise, Saʿeed is in Paradise, Abu ʿUbaidah bin Al-Jarrah is in Paradise.

See who is in the top of the list. Abu-Bakr (responsible for deaths of tens of thousands for the wars he did with Arabs, Persians and Romans), and Umar (continued the wars with the Persians and Romans). Sa'd personally lead the war against the Persians (and defeated them), where the Arabs were the aggressors.

Was Muhammad wrong to trust them (him being a peace-loving guy who fights less than them, but nevertheless fights)? How does people who initiate wars that kills tens of thousands are to be guaranteed paradise, and we should thank them every day we pray? Or maybe, we just ignore the hadith cause now it is a bit inconvenient.

As for the age of marriage of Aisha, yes today he would have been jailed. But in those times, without birth certificate etc a woman is considered an adult when she reaches her puberty. Islam also states marriage is between two consulting adults.

Sure, I grant you that. At that time, there was no problem. If only Muhammad claimed that he is the best person of his time only, and should be emulated only from the people of his time. But here comes the problem, he is venerated as the best person ever, and that he should be emulated from people in all time. Raise a beard cause Muhammad did so. Pray extra cause Muhammad did so. feck an underage girl, cause Muhammad did so. But this is inconvenient to do in secular countries, but I guess it is fine in countries who have sharia law.

 

[Gehrman]

If the cap suits you put it on.
Fighting against the Meccans who fight against is not being a Warlord.
Abu Bakr and Umar conquering lands is a different story. In that vein the Christians conquer countries in the name of Jesus. Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?
As for the age of marriage of Aisha, yes today he would have been jailed. But in those times, without birth certificate etc a woman is considered an adult when she reaches her puberty. Islam also states marriage is between two consulting adults.
It's much later the age issue has cropped up. It's because the Arabs wanted to keep the women down and for them to " marry" whom they want to marry.
Sadly in some countries it's economic and in others political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia talking about the age shows the tyranny of these countries rather than the essential nature of Islam.

Aisha was cheeky enough to equate muhammeds revelations to be completely in line with his own desires.

"Aisha from speaking her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!'"[64 "

 

[Cascarino]

I thought this was an interesting post, just thought I]d give my thoughts on a few of your points

Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere.

A modern day plane would be almost incomprehensible to large swathes of history, but while still impressive it's very comprehensible to us today, as we know of the technological advances that lead us here. Looking up at the stars is still something I find evocative, and even though it's otherworldly to myself, I know that much of it can be explained.

We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt.

I don't believe that only the threat of divine judgement is the only motivator when it comes to being nice. I don't think a lack of religion leads to less remorse either, I'm an atheist and always feel guilty about the money I waste on hookers and drugs

You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness.

Well then I hope Adolf likes scrabble and discussing samurai films
Also screw you for saying I'm worse than Hitler I'm joking I get it all the time

Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything.

The point is the life. The experiences and connections we make and shit. I don't think the things we do on Earth mean nothing, I think they mean everything (unless you argue politics with online strangers). That we only get a finite amount of time is the beauty and tragedy of life.

Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

In the hope that things get better I guess. I'm still not sure how naive my answer is there though.

 

[Carolina Red]

Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere.

The book “Finding Darwin’s God” does a pretty good job of explaining how the eye is a great example of evolution.

Richard Dawkins also pretty famously explained the evolution of the eye here...

 

[Revan]

I don't believe that only the threat of divine judgement is the only motivator when it comes to being nice. I don't think a lack of religion leads to less remorse either, I'm an atheist and always feel guilty about the money I waste on hookers and drugs

Every time I read this from theist people (that you commented to the original post), a small part of me makes me wonder if these people are nice people only because of fear of God and the potential punishment on the other life. I don't want to take moral ground here (if I am nice, it is probably because of my genes and my environmental surrounding), but it is something that goes in my mind every time I hear the argument.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

......I sincerely regret mentioning the eyeball.

 

[Carolina Red]

Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?

Jesus never led actual armies into battle. Muhammad did.

 

[Revan]

The book “Finding Darwin’s God” does a pretty good job of explaining how the eye is a great example of evolution.

Richard Dawkins also pretty famously explained the evolution of the eye here...

Excellent explanation. Never seen Dawkins so young, thankfully his taste on clothes has improved over time.

I wonder if there has been anyone who was so passionate about something as Dawkins about the evolution.

 

[Revan]

......I sincerely regret mentioning the eyeball.

What about Bing Bang? Do you regret it too?

 

[AaronRedDevil]

Every time I read this from theist people (that you commented to the original post), a small part of me makes me wonder if these people are nice people only because of fear of God and the potential punishment on the other life. I don't want to take moral ground here (if I am nice, it is probably because of my genes and my environmental surrounding), but it is something that goes in my mind every time I hear the argument.

It’s like the idea of a holy man not being mean to the person who wronged him, instead he holds his thoughts and believes that guy will be in hell for being a dick. Even that’s just as worse for the holy guy. I guess you’re behaviour becomes a part of you the older you get. Till it’s not about trying to be nice for the sake of it.

 

[Carolina Red]

Excellent explanation. Never seen Dawkins so young, thankfully his taste on clothes has improved over time.

I wonder if there has been anyone who was so passionate about something as Dawkins about the evolution.

Yeah, Dawkins is great there. I’m really impressed in his ability to explain it to a room of “average” people like that. There’s another video on YouTube of him doing something similar more recently in a high school classroom. Really awesome stuff.

And yes, his shirt there... oh boy

 

[Gehrman]

The book “Finding Darwin’s God” does a pretty good job of explaining how the eye is a great example of evolution.

Richard Dawkins also pretty famously explained the evolution of the eye here...

I thinks mrs. garrisons explanation was much better.

 

[Carolina Red]

I thinks mrs. garrisons explanation was much better.

I mean, who can argue with buttsex?

 

[Revan]

Aisha was cheeky enough to equate muhammeds revelations to be completely in line with his own desires.

"Aisha from speaking her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!'"[64 "

Geez, just saw this. It is really funny, Aisha seems to have been quite cool, to be fair. Way ahead of her time.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Yeah, Dawkins is great there. I’m really impressed in his ability to explain it to a room of “average” people like that. There’s another video on YouTube of him doing something similar more recently in a high school classroom. Really awesome stuff.

And yes, his shirt there... oh boy

He's a brilliant communicator and an admirably lucid and clear minded thinker. My great regret regarding Dawkins is that we have likely lost wonderful works on evolution to his years debating the existence of God.
Interestingly, his shirt is surely a strong argument against the concept of an interventionist god, as surely no compassionate creator would allow that abomination to exist.

 

[Revan]

He's a brilliant communicator and an admirably lucid and clear minded thinker. My great regret regarding Dawkins is that we have likely lost wonderful works on evolution to his years debating the existence of God.
Interestingly, his shirt is surely a strong argument against the concept of an interventionist god, as surely no compassionate creator would allow that abomination to exist.

That's definitely true. He is still one of the most-cited scientists in entire biology, despite that for a long time he has been an anti-theist first, and a scientist second. Probably could have given much more valuable scientific contributions if he had stuck with science, instead of his personal vendetta against religion (though at the same time, perhaps ironically, could have made laymen be interested in evolution).

 

[Carolina Red]

That's definitely true. He is still one of the most-cited scientists in entire biology, despite that for a long time he has been an anti-theist first, and a scientist second. Probably could have given much more valuable scientific contributions if he had stuck with science, instead of his personal vendetta against religion (though at the same time, perhaps ironically, could have made laymen be interested in evolution).

He has definitely had an influence on me. I grew up in the rural American South, so was raised an evangelical Christian. I discovered Dawkins’ work at about 18-19 years old. I’d already started questioning things by about age 16, but his way of explanating the evidence for evolution and against religion really did it for me.

 

[Wibble]

Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens.

Even ignoring a likley misinterpretation of randow, why would it be impossible?

Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere.

It really didn't. Do yourself a favor and read The Blind Watchmaker.

And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell.

Just because something isn't how you would like it to be has nothing to do with what is.

Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today.

It wasn't. The concept of god was most likely arrived at because we couldn't explain storms, earthquakes, tsunamis or whatever. Now we can. Once we thought a god exists legends build up around this powerful supernatural being which leads to religion.

Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you.

We are social cooperative animals. Sadness at the absence of a person who was socially important is a function if that. I think you are looking for a point to life in terms of individuals being important in an ultimate sense. We aren't. Why would we be?

It should make us more colder as a person.

Some people react to death in this way presumably to protect themselves from feeling like this again. So? Not sure the point.

We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

We are "nice" to each other because we have evolved that way and this is common in more complex animals that require cooperation, particularly in child rearing. The happy result is that living in close family groups and wider social groups is heavily selected for so we get a feeling of satisfaction when we have good social contact and relationships

Let’s say the 10 commandments came in, the rules were set. Now everyone is obeying them so theres less murder, less evilness. Even though some are using religion with evil intent. Creating wars, killing Millions because they follow the “wrong god“. So yeah religion made the world worse in that sense. Don’t know where I’m going with that, my mind kinda went a bit off here sorry. I hope you guys get what I’m TRYING to say . I’m never good with explaining things. But I do love talking about shit like this.

Religious rules evolved out of a combination of the religious norms that developed mainly in the days before science but even then they were largely driven by existing informal social "rules" that had evolved in humans. Minimising murder, theft, coveting other people's spouses etc are all necessary for a happy family/social/community group so as to maximise individual successful reproduction.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

He has definitely had an influence on me. I grew up in the rural American South, so was raised an evangelical Christian. I discovered Dawkins’ work at about 18-19 years old. I’d already started questioning things by about age 16, but his way of explanating the evidence for evolution and against religion really did it for me.

The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, in particular, are brilliantly conceived and wonderfully written. I reread them on occasion and enjoy them immensely each time.

 

[Wibble]

The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, in particular, are brilliantly conceived and wonderfully written. I reread them on occasion and enjoy them immensely each time.

The Blind Watchmaker is far more accessible if I remember correctly. A long time since I read them all so I may well remember correctly.

 

[Revan]

He has definitely had an influence on me. I grew up in the rural American South, so was raised an evangelical Christian. I discovered Dawkins’ work at about 18-19 years old. I’d already started questioning things by about age 16, but his way of explanating the evidence for evolution and against religion really did it for me.

Same here. I was a de facto atheist, but considered myself an agnostic. After I read The Gold Delusion (I think it was 2010 or 2011), I started defining myself as atheist. I think it was inevitable that I was going to reach there (starting from occasionally religious, to not much religious but still believing in God and religion, to actually not caring about it too much but still thinking that there is a God, to agnostic, to de facto atheist), though that book saved me a year or two.

However, I just read a couple of days ago 'The Selfish Gene' and it is just on an entirely different level. It has to be one of the best books of all time, and I loved it for being scientific and barely mentioning God.

 

[Revan]

The Blind Watchmaker is far more accessible if I remember correctly. A long time since I read them all so I may well remember correctly.

The Selfish Gene is quite accessible too. I think that the parts with Evolutionary Stable Strategies might get a bit difficult for people who are not familiar with game theory, but the other parts seemed really clear.

The meme chapter was just out of this world. I have no idea how true that theory is (and I don't think it ever became that big and seriously considered), but it just came out of nowhere, and was so thought-provoking (as is most of the book).

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Same here. I was a de facto atheist, but considered myself an agnostic. After I read The Gold Delusion (I think it was 2010 or 2011)However, I just read a couple of days ago 'The Selfish Gene' and it is just on an entirely different level. It has to be one of the best books of all time, and I loved it for being scientific and barely mentioning God.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the follow up and companion book "The Extended Phenotype". Just as brilliant.

 

[Revan]

If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the follow up and companion book "The Extended Phenotype". Just as brilliant.

Definitely planning to read it, The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth (though heard, that The Greatest show is a bit too simple). However, I like to alternate between the topics I am reading (back to human history again).

 

[Fingeredmouse]

The Selfish Gene is quite accessible too. I think that the parts with Evolutionary Stable Strategies might get a bit difficult for people who are not familiar with game theory, but the other parts seemed really clear.

The meme chapter was just out of this world. I have no idea how true that theory is (and I don't think it ever became that big and seriously considered), but it just came out of nowhere, and was so thought-provoking (as is most of the book).

Well, the term "meme" comes from that book and is still used today so it's embedded into society's collective subconscious at least.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Definitely planning to read it, The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth (though heard, that The Greatest show is a bit too simple). However, I like to alternate between the topics I am reading (back to human history again).

Yes, "The Greatest Show..." is, quite deliberately, much more simple.

"Extended Phenotype" is the only other if his books in precisely the same mode as "the Selfish Gene", I'd say. "The Blind Watchmaker" is very good though.

 

[Revan]

Well, the term "meme" comes from that book and is still used today so it's embedded into society's collective subconscious at least.

Sure, it has left that mark in that sense, though I would guess that the vast majority of meme-users do not know where does the name come from.

Nevertheless, I was just 'wow' reading the chapter, especially the part that memes can be considered living structures * (in people's brains, essentially the patterns that the neurons make to create the memes) and that it is memes who are spreading themselves (or trying to), instead of us robots spreading our own memes (which was in perfect analogy to the accepted view of genes).

Honestly, you need to be very creative to reach those conclusions (for genes too, so maybe reaching the same for memes was going to come anyway).

* Technically, it wasn't his own idea. Some researcher who read a draft of the chapter, suggested that to Dawkins.

 

[Wibble]

The Selfish Gene is quite accessible too. I think that the parts with Evolutionary Stable Strategies might get a bit difficult for people who are not familiar with game theory, but the other parts seemed really clear.

The meme chapter was just out of this world. I have no idea how true that theory is (and I don't think it ever became that big and seriously considered), but it just came out of nowhere, and was so thought-provoking (as is most of the book).

Have you read Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature? A very interesting read but also one that differs from Dawkins science/evolution books. It start with a really accessible reading of Van Valen's Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why something so energy expensive as sexual reproduction is a benefit. The longer the book goes the more speculative it gets and by the end he is applying gene level theory to social interactions (memes) without really flagging the huge gulf between the early and later chapters. His approach is very different from Dawkins who evidences everything he discusses. Probably not surprising that Ridley has more recently turned into a climate contrarian (not denier) who argues what he would like the point to be rather than what it actually is.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Sure, it has left that mark in that sense, though I would guess that the vast majority of meme-users do not know where does the name come from.

Nevertheless, I was just 'wow' reading the chapter, especially the part that memes can be considered living structures * (in people's brains, essentially the patterns that the neurons make to create the memes) and that it is memes who are spreading themselves (or trying to), instead of us robots spreading our own memes (which was in perfect analogy to the accepted view of genes).

Honestly, you need to be very creative to reach those conclusions (for genes too, so maybe reaching the same for memes was going to come anyway).

* Technically, it wasn't his own idea. Some researcher who read a draft of the chapter, suggested that to Dawkins.

Agreed on all points.

 

[Gehrman]

I mean, who can argue with buttsex?

Nobody but damn prudes.

 

[Wibble]

Also interesting that to most people a meme is a cat picture with a funny phrase superimposed. The real meaning has largely been lost or more likely never really been socialised.

 

[Revan]

Have you read Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature? A very interesting read but also one that differs from Dawkins science/evolution books. It start with a really accessible reading of Van Valen's Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why something so energy expensive as sexual reproduction is a benefit. The longer the book goes the more speculative it gets and by the end he is applying gene level theory to social interactions (memes) without really flagging the huge gulf between the early and later chapters. His approach is very different from Dawkins who evidences everything he discusses. Probably not surprising that Ridley has more recently turned into a climate contrarian (not denier) who argues what he would like the point to be rather than what it actually is.

I have not. In the last 5 years, for whatever reasons (probably cause I was reading a lot of scientific stuff for Ph.D.), I read exclusively fiction stuff (sci-fi and fantasy) in my reading time. However, recently went back to non-fiction books and they're much better. The book looks quite interesting though, so putting it in my to-read list.

Also interesting that to most people a meme is a cat picture with a funny phrase superimposed. The real meaning has largely been lost or more likely never really been socialised.

I guess it just got memed. Some imperfect memnization (mutation) and the new meme had it easier to spread in the teenagers.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Going about life constantly reminding yourself that you have to be nice to people or face the flame of hell is a pretty depressing way to live.

I think even more than the reassurance of Big Brother looking out for you, religious people believe in karmic justice to make peace with our helplessness against the injustice of this world.

 

[Revan]

Going about life constantly reminding yourself that you have to be nice to people or face the flame of hell is a pretty depressing way to live.

I think even more than the reassurance of Big Brother looking out for you, religious people believe in karmic justice to make peace with our helplessness against the injustice of this world.

I think this is definitely the case (though probably one of the factors, instead of the only factor). When you're small, it is your parents who protect you at all times. When you get old, the parents most often cannot protect you against the injustices of the world, and most often are even more helpless than you. But if there is a God right there, he protects you and if not, it doesn't even matter cause this life is short and the God is gonna take us to his kingdom in the next one.

Essentially, God is the replacement for the parents.

 

[GiddyUp]

Going about life constantly reminding yourself that you have to be nice to people or face the flame of hell is a pretty depressing way to live.

I think even more than the reassurance of Big Brother looking out for you, religious people believe in karmic justice to make peace with our helplessness against the injustice of this world.

Pretty fecked up alright. I mean if you were rational and a believer in life after death with an all powerful creator I could sit down with you and talk about evolution, quantum theory, different dimensions, dna manipulation, where it began and where it's going. feck I would even shoot the breeze on the hollow moon theory. But the judeo christian stories are just so divorced from any solid foundation to create the three abrahamic religions we see today. So much is missing archeologically and none of the three have shown anything to convince me to eat it up.
But I love Hinduism and creation stories from other civilizations like the Mayan or Australian Aborigines. That's how it's done, none of this burning bush nonsense or picking scabs off lepers. Nuclear war in flying vermanas and
8ft snake gods with white hair, love it.

 

[Revan]

Pretty fecked up alright. I mean if you were rational and a believer in life after death with an all powerful creator I could sit down with you and talk about evolution, quantum theory, different dimensions, dna manipulation, where it began and where it's going. feck I would even shoot the breeze on the hollow moon theory. But the judeo christian stories are just so divorced from any solid foundation to create the three abrahamic religions we see today. So much is missing archeologically and none of the three have shown anything to convince me to eat it up.
But I love Hinduism and creation stories from other civilizations like the Mayan or Australian Aborigines. That's how it's done, none of this burning bush nonsense or picking scabs off lepers. Nuclear war in flying vermanas and
8ft snake gods with white hair, love it.

There is a theory (probably not very believable, but more believable than today’s religions) that in those religions (and actually early Judaism too), they were just reporting the events that happened. Like some advanced alien civilization being on Earth, maybe even having wars with each other. Of course, the stories got changed over the time, but some laser weapon could have looked like Zeus’ lighting, and so on.

 

[Wibble]

There is a theory (probably not very believable, but more believable than today’s religions) that in those religions (and actually early Judaism too), they were just reporting the events that happened. Like some advanced alien civilization being on Earth, maybe even having wars with each other. Of course, the stories got changed over the time, but some laser weapon could have looked like Zeus’ lighting, and so on.

Or lightning storm were interpreted as the gods fighting?

 

[Revan]

Or lightning storm were interpreted as the gods fighting?

Sure, that is the most believable explanation.

 

[Dumbstar]

Geez, just saw this. It is really funny, Aisha seems to have been quite cool, to be fair. Way ahead of her time.

That's the one thing you've said right despite your and Shamana's unabated mis-contexting. Aisha (RA) was indeed one of a kind, at 16 she was superior in intellect and maturity than any men (and women) around her at the time except her husband of course. Considering the men you mentioned above that is no small feat (Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, etc RA). They would go to her for the most difficult of social, political or religious understanding because she possessed something they didn't. At 16!! Not quite the expected psychological behaviour of a child sex victim.

I accept she was really young, I mean really young, when married. But she was mature a lot sooner than any girl probably before or after. Note, the Prophet (SAAW) did not marry any other young girl not did any of his followers. If you and Shamana are truly open minded you would read the hundreds of books on her attributes and qualities. Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam. It's quite common, even among those that think they're open minded. They still prefer hearing the Daily Mail headlines of the religion lest they succumb to this mystical/secretive religion. And it is pretty much mystical/secretive because they want it to remain so, just taking Quranic blurbs where necessary to fit their arguments.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I think people are getting bored of this discussion.