An Naturalist/Atheist cannot say that Covid is bad.

[you_dont_know_me]

Two reasons:

1. They have no basis to call anything "good" or "bad" other than their own perception. Which means: Everyone's own individual perception is of the same value, which means ultimately there is no good and bad. You can't get around this.

2. Covid is just culling the herd...survival of the fittest...it's what they think is the mechanism for all diversity of life and development of new species. If anything they should say it's good...(but again, they can't say good or bad with an actual foundation of objectivity)

 

[kaskaskiakid]

This topic again?? I don't know one atheist!!

 

[you_dont_know_me]

This topic again?? I don't know one atheist!!

Have you not seen your cohorts mocking belief in God?

 

[Stable_Genius]

This topic again?? I don't know one atheist!!

I’m an apatheist. I don’t know. And I don’t care. Spending time thinking about it or the meaning of your life is an even bigger waste of time than posting on mosports.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

I’m an apatheist. I don’t know. And I don’t care. Spending time thinking about it or the meaning of your life is an even bigger waste of time than posting on mosports.

That’s a lie.

You care. You just think you’ll be fine. You operate as if you are God in your life.

“An unexamined life isn’t worth living”

Your worldview doesn’t allow for objective moral judgments. You can’t tell anyone else what to think or do or even make fun of it with any logical sense. You are just a series of chemical reactions. We are all right in your worldview. Your worldview holds you have no value, dignity, purpose, or hope.

Why should you honestly care about anyone than yourself based on your worldview?

 

[Arkansas_Laserback]

That’s a lie.

You care. You just think you’ll be fine. You operate as if you are God in your life.

“An unexamined life isn’t worth living”

Your worldview doesn’t allow for objective moral judgments. You can’t tell anyone else what to think or do or even make fun of it with any logical sense. You are just a series of chemical reactions. We are all right in your worldview. Your worldview holds you have no value, dignity, purpose, or hope.

Why should you honestly care about anyone than yourself based on your worldview?

Didn’t read. Get a life and go live it.

 

[Veerman_12]

Didn’t read. Get a life and go live it.

You're an atheist for sure.

 

[r14veer]

That’s a lie.

You care. You just think you’ll be fine. You operate as if you are God in your life.

“An unexamined life isn’t worth living”

Your worldview doesn’t allow for objective moral judgments. You can’t tell anyone else what to think or do or even make fun of it with any logical sense. You are just a series of chemical reactions. We are all right in your worldview. Your worldview holds you have no value, dignity, purpose, or hope.

Why should you honestly care about anyone than yourself based on your worldview?

Quick question: which worldview does allow for objective moral judgements? Just look at the word “worldview.” It necessarily implies subjectivity.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Quick question: which worldview does allow for objective moral judgements? Just look at the word “worldview.” It necessarily implies subjectivity.

Only one based on a standard above ourselves and our experience.

Aka one based on revelation from a higher power.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

I would argue from the Biblical worldview that is based on Revelation from God. It assesses is value based on being made in his image, a set of laws and conduct.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Didn’t read. Get a life and go live it.

Suppressing the truth. You dismiss the truth by saying you can’t know it.

You are implying there is no objective truth by implying an absolute statement that it isn’t knowable.

What is the point of living a life that is meaningless? You just don’t have the confidence to say you are an atheist. You care.

 

[r14veer]

Only one based on a standard above ourselves and our experience.

Aka one based on revelation from a higher power.

Revelation to whom?

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Revelation to whom?

As in who considers it revelation or the audience to which it is directed?

I believe the Bible is for everyone. And, it claims to be God’s word, and the God of the Bible claims to be the only true God. So that narrows things.

And It’s validated by:

Literally hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.

Eyewitnesses never renouncing what they saw even on the way to be martyred.

Archaeology

Outside historical documentation

And many other things

———-

But your question leads off-topic.

Atheists cannot make any moral claim and have the ability to justify it.

None. —

There is no logical reason to protest injustice, no need to picket anything. In fact, they should probably advocate for anarchy (but their claim would still be irrelevant respective of other people’s perspectives having the same value) And less government instead of more welfare.

———

 

[you_dont_know_me]

So the question becomes... why do they protest and advocate then? And should they?

 

[millerbleach]

So the question becomes... why do they protest and advocate then? And should they?

You can't determine what is right and what is wrong or if there even is right and wrong. How you evolved is not incorrect so what you become cannot be questioned.
Morality and right and wrong only exist because God says what is right and what is wrong. Left to ourselves there is no wrong.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

You can't determine what is right and what is wrong or if there even is right and wrong. How you evolved is not incorrect so what you become cannot be questioned.
Morality and right and wrong only exist because God says what is right and what is wrong. Left to ourselves there is no wrong.

Right. That’s what I’m saying. Haven’t heard any counter arguments and pointing out the nonsense of the atheistic/naturalist worldview. The best counter we heard was “didn’t read it, live your life.”

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Didn’t read. Get a life and go live it.

This is what a little kid on the playground says when he is bested.

This is what someone says when they have no actual reason to live the way they do.

Sorry for you. Jesus did die for you though. Repent and believe.

I cannot imagine what must have happened in your life that causes you to be so hateful, spiteful, arrogant, pain-inflicting, obtuse, and closed-minded. But, I'm sorry it happened.

 

[HomeyR]

This is what a little kid on the playground says when he is bested.

This is what someone says when they have no actual reason to live the way they do.

Sorry for you. Jesus did die for you though. Repent and believe.

I cannot imagine what must have happened in your life that causes you to be so hateful, spiteful, arrogant, pain-inflicting, obtuse, and closed-minded. But, I'm sorry it happened.

You are one arrogant self absorbed individual...

 

[you_dont_know_me]

You are one arrogant self absorbed individual...

If you have read my posts, and even with this particular individual, I'm usually reasonable. But I have reached my threshold with him. That is frustration being vented.

Maybe you disagree. That's fine.

"you believe what you want to believe" remember?

 

[r14veer]

As in who considers it revelation or the audience to which it is directed?

I believe the Bible is for everyone. And, it claims to be God’s word, and the God of the Bible claims to be the only true God. So that narrows things.

And It’s validated by:

Literally hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.

Eyewitnesses never renouncing what they saw even on the way to be martyred.

Archaeology

Outside historical documentation

And many other things

———-

But your question leads off-topic.

Atheists cannot make any moral claim and have the ability to justify it.

None. —

There is no logical reason to protest injustice, no need to picket anything. In fact, they should probably advocate for anarchy (but their claim would still be irrelevant respective of other people’s perspectives having the same value) And less government instead of more welfare.

———

Not at all. And that was a well-done deflection, unintentional though it may have been. Do not read what follows here as a personal attack, these are earnest questions and thoughts on which I have done a good deal of research.

As in who received the revelation, and how do you know for sure?

Also, how do you objectively know the prophecies were fulfilled?

Also, if truth is determined by people (often purported eyewitnesses) dying for their strongly held beliefs, that makes nearly every religion “true,” doesn’t it (since whatever your particular brand of Christianity is doesn’t exactly have a monopoly on martyrs)?

Also, which prophecies are confirmed or corroborated by archaeological evidence? That many of the historical accounts in the Bible seem to be true or at least very plausible and corroborated by archaeology isn’t really at issue here, it’s the supernatural claims that are at issue with many people.

Now, back to the original issue: the claim that atheists cannot make moral claims and have the ability to justify them. Why could an atheist not make a moral claim based on a system of belief (systems which do not have to be religious in nature)?

Are there or are there not cultural or even practical definitions of what is “right” and “wrong” that have nothing to do with deontological notions of the same? What is important to remember here is that those words (and all words) only have the meaning that we (as a cultural-linguistic group) ascribe to them; they have no objective meaning in and of themselves. Further, the meaning that we ascribe to them necessarily derives from what we have already pre-conceived: namely, the cultural and/or religious conceptions over which we have zero control that we were raised with.

It’s getting pretty deep in here, so I’ll leave with a thought that seems kind of obvious to me when a person calls themself an “atheist,” and it is this: there can be no such thing as an atheist. An atheist says there is no God, but in order to have knowledge of that, one would need omniscience, an attribute of what we’ve decided to call a god. One can be an agnostic non-believer at best (or worst depending on your viewpoint).

I appreciate the debate!

 

[you_dont_know_me]

This is a good watch and honestly where I was introduced to the argument. He uses presuppositional apologetics as well. Pretty different sound in debates than the typical WLC or Ravi Zacharias debates

 

[Neutron Monster]

As in who considers it revelation or the audience to which it is directed?

I believe the Bible is for everyone. And, it claims to be God’s word, and the God of the Bible claims to be the only true God. So that narrows things.

And It’s validated by:

Literally hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.

Eyewitnesses never renouncing what they saw even on the way to be martyred.

Archaeology

Outside historical documentation

And many other things

———-

But your question leads off-topic.

Atheists cannot make any moral claim and have the ability to justify it.

None. —

There is no logical reason to protest injustice, no need to picket anything. In fact, they should probably advocate for anarchy (but their claim would still be irrelevant respective of other people’s perspectives having the same value) And less government instead of more welfare.

———

Yes, people have the right to have personal views of good/bad, right/wrong, but you also can have basic moral codes about how society should expect people to act.

I mean, what's the point of society or government under your logic? You don't have to be religious to believe that basic, shared rules and expectations are necessary to live in a first world society. If you want to live on the power grid, go to first world doctors, use American money, speak a shared language, etc. you have to be willing to accept shared norms.

You're making too big a leap. Views can be relative; but that doesn't mean all views have to be personal in nature. It's perfectly reasonable to have a personal view that individuals must comply to basic standards of living (however you define them) in order to be society. It's a collective decision to set those norms, and individuals generally won't have 100% agreement with their personal views. But they accept the aggregate package.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

You're making too big a leap. Views can be relative; but that doesn't mean all views have to be personal in nature. It's perfectly reasonable to have a personal view that individuals must comply to basic standards of living (however you define them) in order to be society. It's a collective decision to set those norms, and individuals generally won't have 100% agreement with their personal views. But they accept the aggregate package.

I think you missed or dismissed what I'm saying.

According to your worldview, what you said is based on your perception of reality and if mine is different, then I get to decide differently. And if I decide differently, then my view is as valid as yours, but it's ultimately all meaningless.

You cannot validate the idea that eating babies (this is extreme but again shows the point) is wrong. You have no standard to say that. The only possible answer you could give is that it is hurting the possibility to reproduce...but lots of people want us to depopulate (Bill Gates) so is he wrong? He can't be in your view.

Human beings have no greater value than a tree, or a cat, or pond bacteria in your view.

You can't truly say anything is good or bad because you have no set in stone standard to judge it off of. Only your ideas and constructs of those around you.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I think you missed or dismissed what I'm saying.

According to your worldview, what you said is based on your perception of reality and if mine is different, then I get to decide differently. And if I decide differently, then my view is as valid as yours, but it's ultimately all meaningless.

You cannot validate the idea that eating babies (this is extreme but again shows the point) is wrong. You have no standard to say that. The only possible answer you could give is that it is hurting the possibility to reproduce...but lots of people want us to depopulate (Bill Gates) so is he wrong? He can't be in your view.

You're missing what the core view is that people accept on a relative basis:

If I want to be in a 1st world society, I have to be willing to confirm to its standards. That means even if person X wants to eat babies/sell cocaine/whatever, they have to accept that they can't do that, or they have to accept the consequences of those actions.

Your point is too reductive to be meaningful.

Adjusting to this core view gets to the second point, which is that it is perfectly rational to advocate for society to conform to your personal standards and views.

There's also a third point, which is that an awful lot of what society/government does is not inherently "good" or "bad" even from a religious standpoint.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You can't truly say anything is good or bad because you have no set in stone standard to judge it off of. Only your ideas and constructs of those around you.

So your view of religion is it is mindless devotion to one's personal set of constructs derived from one's personal religious views?

 

[you_dont_know_me]

If I want to be in a 1st world society, I have to be willing to confirm to its standards. That means even if person X wants to eat babies/sell cocaine/whatever, they have to accept that they can't do that, or they have to accept the consequences of those actions.
*** Doesn't address why things are good or bad

Your point is too reductive to be meaningful.
***Your worldview can't account for anything being meaningful.

Adjusting to this core view gets to the second point, which is that it is perfectly rational to advocate for society to conform to your personal standards and views.
***no, your thoughts have no more value or worth than mine as another fizzing chemical reaction as highly evolved pond scum

There's also a third point, which is that an awful lot of what society/government does is not inherently "good" or "bad" even from a religious standpoint.
***You cannot account for good or bad...define good or bad?

 

[you_dont_know_me]

(I answered some of those above, you still haven't answered why something is bad or good...)

 

[you_dont_know_me]

So your view of religion is it is mindless devotion to one's personal set of constructs derived from one's personal religious views?

No, it's not mindless. And no. My objective standard is the Bible. God's word revealed as it is claimed.

Faith isn't the opposite of intellect. And while my interpretation of many things will differ from other people who also try to read and adhere to the Bible, and even some of the morality stuff. But, Murder is wrong? Why...because God said so. The creator of the universe who set it in motion said it's wrong...then it's wrong. It has to transcend my opinion.

You didn't tell me why it's bad to eat babies?

Do you eat cows? Assuming you do (which you may not) ....why are humans any different?

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Why is covid bad?

 

[Neutron Monster]

Why is covid bad?

Because it kills and injures people you care about, including yourself?

 

[Neutron Monster]

You are really, really fascinated with asking the same questions over and over again, then ignoring the answers to make some high horse point that the only source of good and bad is the Bible.

You are trapped in a box of your own creation that is limiting your ability to understand the points others make in response to these questions.

If you can't accept a paradigm that people who have a different faith than you are being very rational in evaluating coronavirus as a bad thing because they can figure out that it's bad for people to die without reading it in the Bible, that's maybe something you should reflect on instead of asking the same abstract questions over and over while complaining they aren't being answered to your satisfaction.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

You are really, really fascinated with asking the same questions over and over again, then ignoring the answers to make some high horse point that the only source of good and bad is the Bible.

You are trapped in a box of your own creation that is limiting your ability to understand the points others make in response to these questions.

If you can't accept a paradigm that people who have a different faith than you are being very rational in evaluating coronavirus as a bad thing because they can figure out that it's bad for people to die without reading it in the Bible, that's maybe something you should reflect on instead of asking the same abstract questions over and over while complaining they aren't being answered to your satisfaction.

I am asking the same question, because you haven't answered it.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

you can't objectively say anything is good or bad.

 

[SadButTrue]

You are really, really fascinated with asking the same questions over and over again, then ignoring the answers to make some high horse point that the only source of good and bad is the Bible.

You are trapped in a box of your own creation that is limiting your ability to understand the points others make in response to these questions.

If you can't accept a paradigm that people who have a different faith than you are being very rational in evaluating coronavirus as a bad thing because they can figure out that it's bad for people to die without reading it in the Bible, that's maybe something you should reflect on instead of asking the same abstract questions over and over while complaining they aren't being answered to your satisfaction.

***OWNED***

 

[you_dont_know_me]

***OWNED***

It was nice of you to drop in to add so much to the conversation.

I am not asking abstract questions, nor do I lack understanding of what you are saying.

You have no answer. You have zero foundation for objective morality. Zero.

It isn't that I'm waiting for a sufficient answer, its that all of your answers aren't answers... they are what is abstract and a construct of your perspective and experience, etc.

------
I'm not saying you cannot be moral, or have moral viewpoints. You obviously do. I'm just saying you have no basis for them in your worldview if you are a naturalist/atheist.

You have morals and values because you have been given those by God. He has given you a conscience, and he has made you in his image. You are an image bearer of God. It makes you value people and hate injustice and desire mercy.
------

A biblical worldview allows for these moral ideas to have a foundation that is transcendent beyond your own opinion.

--You can't answer my question, because there is no answer, so you critique my question. (all the while not answering my question).
-------
Being a member of a society has no objective grounds.... our society has changed views over and over again on many issues. Were things good that are now bad truly? Or are things that were bad now good truly?
-------
I'm reading, I'm listening, and I hear you. I'm not ignoring you or talking past you.

You cannot say covid is bad with any weight according to your worldview. You just can't.
------
Your actions aren't in line with your worldview.

 

[r14veer]

you can't objectively say anything is good or bad.

Why do you get to determine this and be the voice for objectivity?

It was nice of you to drop in to add so much to the conversation.

I am not asking abstract questions, nor do I lack understanding of what you are saying.

You have no answer. You have zero foundation for objective morality. Zero.

It isn't that I'm waiting for a sufficient answer, its that all of your answers aren't answers... they are what is abstract and a construct of your perspective and experience, etc.

------
I'm not saying you cannot be moral, or have moral viewpoints. You obviously do. I'm just saying you have no basis for them in your worldview if you are a naturalist/atheist.

You have morals and values because you have been given those by God. He has given you a conscience, and he has made you in his image. You are an image bearer of God. It makes you value people and hate injustice and desire mercy.
------

A biblical worldview allows for these moral ideas to have a foundation that is transcendent beyond your own opinion.

--You can't answer my question, because there is no answer, so you critique my question. (all the while not answering my question).
-------
Being a member of a society has no objective grounds.... our society has changed views over and over again on many issues. Were things good that are now bad truly? Or are things that were bad now good truly?
-------
I'm reading, I'm listening, and I hear you. I'm not ignoring you or talking past you.

You cannot say covid is bad with any weight according to your worldview. You just can't.
------
Your actions aren't in line with your worldview.

Here's a definition of morality that seems to have consensus:
Morality - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. Ex.: bourgeois morality, Christian morality, etc.

There doesn't seem to be any requirement of an objective standard in this definition.

It does seem that people need morality to come from an objective standard because if it doesn't, they feel there is no meaning or at least no order.

However, I would actually go one step further. I would say that not only can there be no objective morality, but also that there is no such thing as objectivity, since every thought we have is filtered through the lens of our individual experience.

This does not mean that morality doesn't exist. But it does mean that your morality is just as subjective as every other person's. A lot of agreement exists on what is "Good" and "Bad," "Right" and "Wrong," but let's not pretend that they are anywhere near universal, even on the most fundamental of things, like, say, killing other people.

So, to your point that atheists have no basis for their morality, you are 100% correct...from your particular worldview.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Why do you get to determine this and be the voice for objectivity?

I don't get to determine it. God has set it.

Also, a dictionary is written by a human being, so it has the fault of subjectivity too.

Are there some things that are relative and related to experience, yes. Christians disagreeing about lots of issues. But, God has spoken on much through his word. Those things we cannot shake as they are transcendent.
-----

It has nothing to do with just being "my worldview."

 

[r14veer]

I don't get to determine it. God has set it.

Also, a dictionary is written by a human being, so it has the fault of subjectivity too.

Are there some things that are relative and related to experience, yes. Christians disagreeing about lots of issues. But, God has spoken on much through his word. Those things we cannot shake as they are transcendent.
-----

It has nothing to do with just being "my worldview."

On the dictionary, that's exactly my point! Every word that comes out of our mouths and every thought we have in our heads is necessarily subjective!

Why are those things transcendent? And which things are transcendent as opposed to which are not? Is "love your neighbor as yourself" transcendent? Because I certainly don't see a lot of that going on here or in the world, especially if it's a core belief.

Here's a question you might be able to clear up: How do you know that your books (and the people who wrote them) are the ones which are actually inspired by God and that all the other books out there (most of which claim to have God-inspired "truth" in them) aren't? Heck, within Christianity, there isn't even total agreement on which books are canonical (and contain the divine word) and which are not, since these decisions were made, not by God, but by ecumenical councils made up of men with their own individual motivations.

Additionally, if there isn't even full agreement on this, are you doomed to hell as a Christian if you follow doctrines within those books that do not align with those in whatever each Christian supposes is the the "real" canon? And how are you supposed to know if your canon is the wrong one, since, by the standards religions set, the books proclaim their own trustworthiness?

I could substitute the word "Christian" with nearly any other religion and my questions would be the same. I have nothing against any particular religion, it just seems to me to be an abdication of logic to follow one of them, which perhaps, is the point, but as an agnostic, how can I know?

 

[you_dont_know_me]

On the dictionary, that's exactly my point! Every word that comes out of our mouths and every thought we have in our heads is necessarily subjective!

I agree, words out of my mouth are subjective. Words out of God's mouth are not, if he is who he says he is.

Why are those things transcendent? And which things are transcendent as opposed to which are not? Is "love your neighbor as yourself" transcendent? Because I certainly don't see a lot of that going on here or in the world, especially if it's a core belief.

Love your neighbor is transcendent, whether people do it or not. People scream and picket and protest when they see perceived injustice. People murder and rape too, but doesn't mean it's okay.

Here's a question you might be able to clear up: How do you know that your books (and the people who wrote them) are the ones which are actually inspired by God and that all the other books out there (most of which claim to have God-inspired "truth" in them) aren't? Heck, within Christianity, there isn't even total agreement on which books are canonical (and contain the divine word) and which are not, since these decisions were made, not by God, but by ecumenical councils made up of men with their own individual motivations.

God wrote the book through human hands, and you can do research as to the establishment of the canon (it does sound like you have looked into it, which is good for decent discussion). Without going into an incredibly long explanation of the canon, I'll let you google it. But, no one is disputing exodus or the words of Jesus as being inauthentic or Paul inside Christianity.

Additionally, if there isn't even full agreement on this, are you doomed to hell as a Christian if you follow doctrines within those books that do not align with those in whatever each Christian supposes is the the "real" canon? And how are you supposed to know if your canon is the wrong one, since, by the standards religions set, the books proclaim their own trustworthiness?

What doctrines are you talking about? Probably referring to Catholicism and Evangelical/Protestantism and worship of Mary, Purgatory, salvation through works and faith.... I think those things are error, but God will sort that out. We aren't talking about Christianity as a whole, but rather materialism's lack of ability to objectively establish morality.

I'm not saying that the Muslim or whoever can't establish the same claims... they can if they have objective standards they claim given them by God, a transcendent supreme being. Doesn't mean their God is right of course, but atheists cannot say things are good or bad with any foundation or weight over anyone else. Nor can they be sure they will be right a year later.

I could substitute the word "Christian" with nearly any other religion and my questions would be the same. I have nothing against any particular religion, it just seems to me to be an abdication of logic to follow one of them, which perhaps, is the point, but as an agnostic, how can I know?

Right, I guess I just addressed the validity of claims of other religions.

If you are asking for proof of as an agnostic, we both know you can't "prove" God.

As a Christian, I would say read the Bible humbly, willing to hear from God. Hear the preached word. Ask believers questions. Seek God and you will find Him.

There is plenty of compelling evidence that Christianity is true. Jesus also claimed to be the only way to God, so that kind of makes Christianity exclusive. Also, every other world religion focuses on how we can get to God or attain peace, whereas Christianity shows us how God came to us to bring peace.

 

[r14veer]

I agree, words out of my mouth are subjective. Words out of God's mouth are not, if he is who he says he is.

Love your neighbor is transcendent, whether people do it or not. People scream and picket and protest when they see perceived injustice. People murder and rape too, but doesn't mean it's okay.



God wrote the book through human hands, and you can do research as to the establishment of the canon (it does sound like you have looked into it, which is good for decent discussion). Without going into an incredibly long explanation of the canon, I'll let you google it. But, no one is disputing exodus or the words of Jesus as being inauthentic or Paul inside Christianity.


What doctrines are you talking about? Probably referring to Catholicism and Evangelical/Protestantism and worship of Mary, Purgatory, salvation through works and faith.... I think those things are error, but God will sort that out. We aren't talking about Christianity as a whole, but rather materialism's lack of ability to objectively establish morality.

I'm not saying that the Muslim or whoever can't establish the same claims... they can if they have objective standards they claim given them by God, a transcendent supreme being. Doesn't mean their God is right of course, but atheists cannot say things are good or bad with any foundation or weight over anyone else. Nor can they be sure they will be right a year later.



Right, I guess I just addressed the validity of claims of other religions.

If you are asking for proof of as an agnostic, we both know you can't "prove" God.

As a Christian, I would say read the Bible humbly, willing to hear from God. Hear the preached word. Ask believers questions. Seek God and you will find Him.

There is plenty of compelling evidence that Christianity is true. Jesus also claimed to be the only way to God, so that kind of makes Christianity exclusive. Also, every other world religion focuses on how we can get to God or attain peace, whereas Christianity shows us how God came to us to bring peace.

If you can't prove God (which you are quite correct about, lacking direct revelation, and even then it's only "proven" to you) then doesn't it make it pretty arbitrary with respect to the God you follow? Not that people just randomly pick a God out of a hat, but arbitrary in the sense that it almost fully depends on the utter coincidence of your birth and/or upbringing circumstances.

Why should I not read the Quran (or the Avesta, or the Vedas, or the Book of Mormon, etc., ad nauseam) humbly, willing to hear from God?