As the other commenter pointed out, I don't agree with your mass down voting. I don't necessarily agree with your argument or your conclusion but never the less

As the other commenter pointed out, I don't agree with your mass down voting. I don't necessarily agree with your argument or your conclusion but never the less, I think you presented it quite well. I am also not qualified to comment on Muslim texts and their interpretations. I think it should be pointed out though that you have basically made a good and qualified epistemological argument for empiricism. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. But these arguments are nothing new and have, quite literally, been around for millennia. Religion, with all of the varying texts and belief systems, falls squarely into an argument within epistemology. All I ask is that people remember there are many theories in this space of philosophy and while you might "communicat[e] that their beliefs are based on a made up story rather than rooter in reality", they may point out that your reality has changed significantly over a very very short periods of time as abilities to use your senses in different ways to gather knowledge have evolved and changes, and that your reality will continue to do so. Now, with that, these are philosophies! I can't stand when we teach philosophies as sciences in school (yes, I know, this is a personal belief, but it still drives me batty).