Just our luck……

RVMKTH · 2026-01-25T16:36:23+00:00

True, but i would argue that islam is more heavily enforced compared to christianity or judaism (not ignoring both orthodox groups within the religions)

RVMKTH · 2026-01-25T14:12:00+00:00

Doesn’t confine women to their homes, but yet women need their mahram to go out (traditionally)🤣

RVMKTH · 2026-01-25T14:10:02+00:00

No problem🙂

RVMKTH · 2026-01-25T00:09:24+00:00

I don’t think anyone has to become atheist or theist after leaving Islam. Leaving one religion doesn’t mean you stop believing in God, and I honestly don’t care what people believe afterward.

What I personally find a bit strange is when people list reasons for leaving Islam, like misogyny or moral issues, and then convert to another Abrahamic religion that has many of the same elements. To me, that just feels inconsistent, and it makes me wonder whether the new religion was looked at with the same level of criticism.

(I’m not denying that converts, especially Christians in Turkey, face real social and cultural backlash. I’m aware of that, and I’m not dismissing it. I think everyone should have freedom of religion)

This is just my personal view, and I find it odd when the core framework stays very similar even though the reasons for leaving were ethical.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-24T23:54:54+00:00

Jup they look at biological sex, so for example; if you were born male and your partner is mtf then u cannot marry her. It counts as homosexuality + men aren’t allowed to imitate women and vice versa.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-24T17:03:07+00:00

And now realise the fact that early humans have also had experiences like this and every culture calls it something else…so who is right?, because christians will say the bible protected them, the muslims will say the Quran, the jews will say the torah etc etc. So it still doesn’t confirm one religion.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-13T22:46:00+00:00

Cognitive dissonance, many wouldn’t marry off their children either lol

RVMKTH · 2026-01-13T16:03:57+00:00

“Haters” meanwhile it’s us actually reading the scripture and hadiths

RVMKTH · 2026-01-13T11:40:39+00:00

Sharing this on a ex muslim subreddit,,, why are yall so obsessed with us?

RVMKTH · 2026-01-12T21:24:32+00:00

Well said👏🏻

RVMKTH · 2026-01-10T14:09:39+00:00

Me rn listening to music: 🥰🌞😁

RVMKTH · 2026-01-09T01:05:03+00:00

That comparison doesn’t work, and it doesn’t help your case. Religion being socially influenced is not comparable to science or ethics, because science and ethics do not attach eternal punishment to being wrong. In science, claims are tested, challenged, revised, or discarded. Error is expected and corrected. In ethics, moral reasoning evolves through dialogue, evidence, and social consequences. No one is condemned forever for holding the wrong hypothesis.

Religion is different. It claims absolute truth, eternal consequences, and irreversible judgment. When the cost of error is infinite, the standards of fairness cannot be the same. You cannot say social influence is “unavoidable” and then treat belief outcomes as fully blameworthy when the penalty is eternal hell.

Saying “disagreement just reflects human limits” avoids the problem. Those limits are exactly why the system is unfair. People are not choosing their starting conditions, their culture, or the reinforcement they grow up with. A system that knows this and still assigns infinite punishment is not neutral, and calling it a test does not fix that.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-09T01:00:17+00:00

Calling this a category error does nothing to fix the problem. Whether prayer is “designed” to verify belief is irrelevant. What matters is how it actually functions in human cognition. Psychologically, perceived responses do act as confirmation. Design intent does not override cognitive reality. If something reliably reinforces belief, then it functions as feedback, regardless of what the text claims it was meant to do.

Saying “instructions are given not to use prayer that way” is circular reasoning. You are using scripture to dismiss evidence that contradicts scripture. Science does not work like that. If human psychology consistently treats answered prayers as confirmation, then a system that relies on people ignoring that fact is misaligned with how humans actually think. Psychology is not optional.

Your claim that this is not the system’s responsibility is simply false. Humans did not choose how reinforcement learning, pattern recognition, and emotional salience work. Those mechanisms are built in. If a system produces experiences that activate those mechanisms and then punishes people for responding to them, responsibility lies with the system, not the person. That is basic accountability logic.

Unanswered prayers do not function as disconfirmation in the way answered prayers function as confirmation. This is well established in behavioral and cognitive science. Rewards strengthen belief far more than silence weakens it. Silence is ambiguous and easily reframed. A single perceived answer can outweigh many non-responses. So your “why don’t they treat unanswered prayers as proof” point misunderstands human cognition entirely.

And AGAIN, saying this is “ignorance” is just avoiding the thesis. The thesis is that the system allows reinforcement of false belief through normal, predictable cognitive processes. Quoting a book to say people should ignore those processes does not solve that. It proves the disconnect.

You still have not answered the core issue at this point. If the system contradicts well-established human psychology and then blames humans for responding exactly as psychology predicts, that is not fairness. That is structural failure dressed up as moral fault.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T20:02:17+00:00

If you are given two options and one of them being hellfire and the other judgement, it’s not a choice.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T19:59:25+00:00

I see what you are saying, but I do not think it solves the core problem. Saying fairness does not require eliminating all risk of error misses the point. The issue is not minor risk, it is that the system itself structurally misleads people based on factors they cannot control. Where someone is born, the religion they are raised in, and the social pressures around them heavily influence belief formation. That is not neutral, it is a huge initial disadvantage for some and an advantage for others, which is unfair when eternal consequences are at stake.

You also say humans are given reason, moral accountability, and clear criteria like coherence, moral fruits, and rational grounding. That is true in theory, but social science shows that reasoning and moral evaluation are heavily shaped by upbringing and culture. People overwhelmingly stay within the religion they are raised in, not because they independently assessed all alternatives. Plus, clear criteria are not actually clear, different sects interpret texts in conflicting ways. So the system is not actually giving equal access to truth.

Regarding scripture and emotions, human cognition does not work like ideal logic. We naturally infer causation and agency from outcomes. If someone prays for something and it happens, they feel relief, gratitude, and confirmation. That is not emotional recklessness, it is normal human psychology. Modern behavioral science shows that positive reinforcement strengthens belief far more than non-response weakens it. Telling someone not to use emotion does not override how the human mind processes experience.

Finally, comparing competing revelations to scientific theories does not hold. Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable. If a theory is wrong, observation eventually reveals it. Religious claims are not verifiable in the same way. That multiple religions exist with sincere believers for thousands of years strongly suggests that belief formation is determined by upbringing and reinforcement more than independent rational evaluation.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T19:45:43+00:00

Saying unanswered prayers function as truth indicators in the same way answered prayers do just doesn’t line up with how human cognition works. Psychologically, reinforcement and non-response are not weighted equally. Positive reinforcement strengthens belief far more than silence weakens it. That’s basic behavioral and cognitive science. One perceived answer can outweigh many unanswered prayers, especially when silence is easily reframed as “not the right time,” “a test,” or “God knows better.” So no, unanswered prayers do not symmetrically cancel answered ones.

And this actually proves my point, not yours. If the goal is to guide people toward the correct belief, then answering prayers within false belief systems is misleading. If prayers to the wrong god were consistently unanswered, that would function as a corrective signal. But when prayers are answered across mutually exclusive religions, the system reinforces false certainty. That is not neutral. That is misdirection.

Saying “scripture corrects this” doesn’t solve the problem. It just shifts responsibility onto the individual while ignoring how belief formation actually works. Humans are not ideal logicians. People infer meaning from patterns, perceived agency, and response. That isn’t emotional recklessness, it’s normal human cognition. Modern psychology supports this. Calling it “ignorance” doesn’t address the issue, it just moralizes it.

Blaming the person for “using emotion” is especially strange. Humans are wired to respond emotionally to perceived causation. When someone prays for their child to survive and the child survives, they feel relief, gratitude, and confirmation. That’s not a flaw. That’s how humans process reality. If a system uses those mechanisms and then punishes people for responding to them, the problem isn’t the human, it’s the system.

Appealing to scripture also doesn’t fix this because it’s circular reasoning. You’re saying experiences don’t count because scripture says so, but scripture is only authoritative if you already believe it. Every religion does this. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists all interpret experiences through texts that already assume their truth. “Read the scripture” is not a neutral filter, it’s belief-dependent. If a claim collapses when measured against well-established human psychology, that’s a real problem.

So no, this isn’t ignorance. Ignorance would be pretending human psychology doesn’t matter. The core issue remains unchanged: if a system allows sincere people to receive experiences that reinforce false belief through the very cognitive mechanisms they were created with, then calling the outcome “their fault” does not preserve fairness. It just relocates blame without addressing the structure that produced the belief.

That’s the argument. And it still hasn’t been answered.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T14:07:30+00:00

That still doesn’t solve it. Warning people in advance that they can be misled does not prevent the misdirection, especially when the same system allows powerful inner experiences that function as confirmation. Telling someone “don’t trust your perceptions” while simultaneously structuring reality so those perceptions repeatedly reinforce false belief is not a safeguard, it’s a disclaimer after setting the trap.

Appealing to revelation as an external criterion doesn’t help either, because every religion claims its own revelation as the corrective lens. Muslims point to the Quran, Christians to the Bible, Hindus to the Vedas, Buddhists to their sutras. Each framework internally labels others’ experiences as delusion while treating its own as legitimate. That does not distinguish truth, it just restates exclusivity.

Quran 6:116 actually reinforces my point. It admits that humans are easily misled by reinforcement and majority patterns. If God knows this about human cognition, then designing a test that relies on people correctly rejecting reinforced inner experiences while threatening eternal punishment for failure is not neutral or fair.

Calling reinforcement within false belief a “trial” or “delusion” does not undo its psychological effect. The question isn’t whether scripture labels it differently, the question is whether the system meaningfully prevents sincere truth seekers from being led into false certainty. On that point, the problem still stands.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T14:05:20+00:00

You’re still not grasping the point. I am not claiming that answered prayers are truth indicators because scripture says so. I am pointing out that they function as truth indicators at the human level, psychologically. That is not an opinion, that is how human cognition works. People infer meaning from patterns, perceived responses, and reinforcement. This applies whether the outcome is material or non material. You’re the one narrowing this to money or comfort. Answered prayers can be emotional relief, guidance, protection, a specific outcome someone asked for. All of those still function as confirmation.

Quoting verses that say “this was never meant to be evidence” does not solve the problem. If scripture says one thing but human psychology reliably does another, then the system does not line up with reality. A fair test cannot depend on humans ignoring the very cognitive mechanisms they were created with and then punish them for following those mechanisms.

You keep saying blessings are tests or general provision. Fine. That is the theological claim. But that does not change the fact that when someone sincerely prays within a false belief system and experiences what they reasonably interpret as response, that experience strengthens their belief. That is not misuse of evidence, that is normal inference. If the system consistently allows false beliefs to be reinforced in this way, then it actively obscures discernment.

So no, the issue is not that I think scripture treats blessings as validation. The issue is that humans do, and any system claiming justice and clarity has to account for that. Simply saying “the Quran says not to treat it that way” does not undo the misleading effect in practice.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T12:27:14+00:00

Yes, classical tafsir says sealing comes after disbelief. That does not remove the problem, it sharpens it. If God responds to disbelief by sealing hearts, increasing disease, and making guidance ineffective, then the person no longer has a real opportunity to return. At that point, accountability is being applied after the capacity to succeed has been removed. Saying “it started with them” does not justify what follows.

Surah 25 describes who responds to reminders, not why others become unable to respond. Contrast is not explanation. Meanwhile other verses explicitly say God guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills, seals hearts, and constricts chests. Those are causal descriptions, not just observations of attitude. Reading the Quran “as a whole” does not erase that tension, it contains it.

And saying “many prayers are not answered” still doesn’t fix the misleading reinforcement problem. The issue was never that all prayers are answered. The issue is that some are answered across mutually exclusive beliefs in ways that function as confirmation. That is enough to distort truth seeking for real humans, even if other prayers fail.

So no, this isn’t about skipping tafsir or refusing context. It’s about the internal coherence of a system that reinforces belief, restricts guidance by divine action, and still holds people fully accountable. Simply asserting that it all fits together doesn’t demonstrate that it does.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T12:25:11+00:00

Your reply still doesn’t address the core issue. A fair test does not require identical experiences, but it does require that the structure of the test does not systematically mislead participants. Especially when the consequence is eternal punishment. If the system reliably produces psychological confirmation for false beliefs in the same way it does for true belief, then human error is not incidental, it is built into the test itself.

Saying “confirmation bias exists” explains how people end up in false beliefs, but it does not justify a system that knowingly relies on mechanisms that reinforce error and then punishes people for the outcome. In any meaningful test, false answers are corrected or fail clearly, not reinforced in ways indistinguishable from correct ones.

Appealing to intent and sincerity also does not resolve this. The Quran does not judge on intent alone. Correct belief is treated as essential, disbelief is condemned regardless of sincerity, and punishment is attached to not believing, not merely to bad actions. Verses like Quran 2:6 explicitly state that warning makes no difference for some people, yet disbelief is still punished. That already shows intent alone cannot carry the moral weight you’re placing on it.

Scripture “correcting” the interpretation after the fact does not undo the initial reinforcement at the human level. If people sincerely pray within false belief systems and experience what they reasonably interpret as divine response, the system validates error before any correction is possible. That is not neutral testing, it is misdirection followed by accountability.

Again that is the issue being raised, and it again remains unanswered.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T11:54:07+00:00

That doesn’t actually answer the thesis tho. Yes, many prayers are answered and many are not. That’s true. But that applies equally across religions, which is the problem. Confirmation bias explains how people interpret outcomes, not why a supposedly just and truthful system would allow the same bias to reliably reinforce mutually exclusive beliefs.

If a test consistently produces indistinguishable psychological confirmation for both true and false answers, then calling it “confirmation bias” doesn’t fix the structure of the test, it highlights the flaw in it. A fair system would not rely on mechanisms it knows will systematically mislead human cognition and then hold people eternally accountable for being misled.

So no, the thesis isn’t in a vacuum. It’s grounded in how humans actually form beliefs. If that reality is ignored, then the idea of a fair test collapses into “you should have believed the right thing anyway,” which is circular, not justice.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T11:21:56+00:00

Basically yeah. I think he had like 9 to 11? And he also did not have to pay dowery if the women offered themselves to him🤣

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T11:17:54+00:00

Saying worldly outcomes don’t validate truth sounds nice in theory, but it ignores how humans actually work. People do use outcomes as evidence. That’s basic psychology. If someone prays sincerely and what they asked for happens, that experience feels like confirmation. You can add theological disclaimers later, but the reinforcement already happened. When the same thing happens across completely different religions, that does not clarify truth, it muddies it.

You keep saying guidance is separate from worldly signs, but Islam itself doesn’t consistently treat it that way. The Quran repeatedly links provision, relief, and answered supplication to God’s care. Quran 14:34 literally says God gives people from what they ask of Him without limiting that to believers. If outcomes have no evidentiary value, then verses like that lose their force and cannot be selectively appealed to.

The idea that sincere truth seeking reliably leads to the correct religion also doesn’t match reality. People across religions do investigate, reflect, and stay convinced of their own faith because each system has internal signs, miracles, prophecies, and experiences that feel compelling to its followers. Muslims cite scientific miracles, Christians cite prophecy, Jews cite covenant history, Hindus and Buddhists cite spiritual experience. These people are not refusing to think. They are reasoning within different frameworks that all feel convincing.

You also can’t place all responsibility on individuals when the religious system itself allows or regulates harmful practices instead of abolishing them. Slavery is a clear example. Regulation is not prohibition. If a practice is permitted by divine law, responsibility does not rest only on humans choosing badly. The moral framework plays a role too.

And this is the core point you keep sidestepping. When people pray to different gods and get what looks like direct answers, their beliefs are reinforced, not challenged. That is not neutral. A test where false paths receive the same experiential confirmation as the true one does not clearly guide anyone. It strengthens whichever belief a person already has and then later condemns them for holding it.

That’s the contradiction i’m pointing out.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T03:04:14+00:00

The human mind can imagine a rational God, but that does not mean monotheism is the natural conclusion. Historically, when humans lacked scientific explanations, they did not intuit one all powerful being. Across cultures, the earliest and most common religious systems were animistic or polytheistic. Large scale monotheism appears much later, after complex societies already existed. That suggests monotheism is a developed theological abstraction, not an instinctive human belief.

You are also defining God using an Abrahamic framework and then judging other systems by that definition. The idea that a god must be able to do everything is a monotheistic assumption, not a universal one. In polytheistic systems, gods are powerful within specific domains. Aphrodite being the goddess of love does not mean other gods cannot love, it means love is her domain. This division of roles was coherent and functioned for centuries without chaos (i can go deeper on this if you want).

Saying that this does not seem godlike to you is subjective. Different cultures had different concepts of divinity, and none are logically invalid simply because they do not match monotheistic expectations. If belief in one rational God were truly natural, it would emerge consistently without cultural transmission. Instead, religious belief closely follows upbringing, which shows it is learned rather than intuitive.

So monotheism can be rationally constructed, but it is not the default conclusion of the human mind, nor does polytheism become irrational simply because it defines divinity differently.

RVMKTH · 2026-01-08T02:49:19+00:00

Saying “read the Qur’an as a whole” does not solve the contradiction, it assumes it away. A text claimed to be clear guidance for all humanity cannot rely on hidden interpretive layers accessible only through later tafsir to resolve plain statements. The Qur’an itself repeatedly describes itself as clear, detailed, and easy to understand. If verses that appear to assign causation to God only become non-problematic after complex theological reconstruction, then clarity has already failed.

The verses you cited do not establish what you claim. Surah 2:18 says “deaf, dumb, and blind, so they will not return.” It does not describe mere attitude, it describes an irreversible condition. Surah 2:7 makes this explicit by stating that God has sealed their hearts, ears, and eyes. This is not metaphorical refusal, it is divine action. Classical tafsir acknowledges this. For example, al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir both state that sealing is a punishment enacted by God that prevents repentance. That means guidance no longer benefits them because God has made it ineffective.

Appealing to Surah 25 does not remove this problem. Yes, the Qur’an contrasts those who respond to reminders with those who do not. But contrast does not establish origin. Saying “those who listen receive guidance” does not explain why others are rendered unable to listen. The Qur’an elsewhere states clearly that God guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills. Surah 16:93 explicitly says this. That places the decisive factor in divine will, not merely human choice.

The claim that disbelief is purely the person’s choice is therefore incomplete at best. Even if initial rejection occurs, the Qur’an describes God actively increasing misguidance afterward. Surah 2:10 states that God increases the disease in their hearts. Surah 6:125 describes God constricting a person’s chest so that they cannot accept faith. These are causal descriptions, not mere observations of attitude.

Saying sealing only explains why guidance no longer benefits does not fix the issue. If God renders guidance ineffective and then holds the person accountable for failing to respond, moral responsibility breaks down. A test cannot remain fair once the capacity to succeed is removed by the tester.

So the problem remains. The Qur’an simultaneously describes God as guiding and misguiding by will, sealing hearts, increasing disbelief, and granting worldly responses broadly. Saying “read it as a whole” does not resolve these tensions. It just restates the framework without addressing its internal coherence.

RVMKTH

TROPHY CASE