Why I Am Not A Muslim

[Yahzi]

Quote:

Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida?

Linking Al Qaida to Islam is like linking the KKK to Christianity.

Which is, um, pretty much accurate.

Damn... what was my point again?

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
Baker
Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida? Is Christianity behind the Christian fundamentalists?

The Christian fundamentalists don't have a network of terrorist cells all over the world not all muslims or behind Al Qaida but you never hear muslim clerics speaking out against them and if you noticed in most Islamic countries they protested in favor of Bin laden.

Quote:

Considered 2nd class citizens? I can quote a former president, the father of the present one, who said that he didn't consider atheists citizens of the US at all, not even 2nd class.

I don't recall hearing this but did he make laws to back his statement?
And take rights away from atheists?
And you keep avoiding my question how many Christian ruled countries are there?
And make all laws from the bible?

Quote:

Why don't you give us some then? Examples of how Amnesty says that we have more violations in Muslim countries than in the others?.

Look at the list they don't provide stats on types of governments just the violations but there is a lot they don't report.

Quote:

If one is enough, you lost already.

I have no idea what your saying here?

Quote:

From what I could see you were dead wrong on the first one you provided - the guy wasn't exactly killed but his marriage was 'dissolved'. Why did you give us an example that proved something different from what you were claiming?

I did I say he was a muslim convert to Christianity?
I don't see how I proved something different from what I was claiming?

Quote:

You claimed, please prove - and again, give us more than one country please.

Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan to name a few.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO BJORN

Quote:

Bjorn wrote on page 1, 09-15-2002 12:04 AM: Are you saying that Islam is behind Al Qaida? Is Christianity behind the Christian fundamentalists?

Soderqvist1: I will put it in this way!
Al-Qaida 's behavior is more in accord with what is literally stated in the holy Koran, than the modern Islamic behavior is. Analogically, the young earther, or the flat-earth movement, is literally more in accord with the bible, than modern Christianity is. Tautologically, fundamentalism stems from some scriptural fundament, and modernism have thus no base in the fundament!

When the fundament is rejected, why don't they skip it all together?

[Baker]

I know this is an old thread but there are many posts left unanswered from when I originally started this thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by headscratcher4

However, when talking about history, keep a couple of things in mind. Until fairly recently (the 2oth Century) Muslims were at least as tolerant if not more so than much of Western culture. Remember, it was the Ottoman sultans who invited the Jews chased out of Europe to Constantinople where they lived in relative harmony with the other religions of that empire.

Well, yes, Christians in the Balkans and Middle East were SAID to have welcomed the Islamic invasions -- by Muslim historical accounts of those events. Their own historical sources -- or what was left of them after the Muslim invaders did their best to destroy their histories and cultures -- often tell quite a different tale. Ever read Michael of Syria? Ever wonder why the Spanish -- even to this day -- refer to the woman who started the civil war that led to the Muslims conquest of Spain as "The Whore"? Or why Spain considers its greatest "Muslim fighter," El Cid, to be its national hero? If Spaniards "welcomed" their invasion by marrauding North African Muslims," why would they name their greatest "Muslim fighter" as their national hero? But the politically correct line on Islam insists that the Spanish adored the Muslim occupiers, although they fought a 500-year brutal civil war to get rid of them. Makes no sense at all, just like a lot of politically correct "thinking."

And why is it that some of the Eastern European states jumped at independence from the Ottomans the minute a savior (in the person of Orthodox Russia) showed up to rescue them? Why was the word "Turk" (which Europeans used interchangeably with the word "Muslim" at the time) a scare word in Europe for centuries if the Ottomans were such kind and wonderful people?

Quote:

Remember that many Christians in the Balkans and across the Middle East welcomed the Islamic invasion because they believed (and with some justification) that the Muslims would let them worship according to their beliefs -- unlike Christian leadership in Rome or Byzantine Constantinople.

You have an Islamic version of history ...
The Massacres of the Khilafah

Quote:

Keep in mind that at a time when Christians were assembling to launch the crusades, Muslims in Baghdad and other centers of learning were saving Plato, Aristotle as well as medical knowledge, math, engineering, etc. all of which contributed to the eventual renaissance (sp) that swept Europe beginning in the 15th Century.

Well, keep in mind that when Muslims were assembling to launch brutal and primitive and vicious jihadi attacks on Christians in Europe in the 700s-800s, the Byzantines were already quite well-versed in Plato, Aristotle, etc., because Greek was their native language. Also, Byzantine exiles who fled to Italy after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 contributed far more to the European Renaissance than "Muslim centers of learning."

Sounds like you've been reading the Karen Armstrong version of Islamic history, headscratcher. Sorry, but it ain't the truth.

Quote:

Anyway, there is much to condemn in Islam, much that is illogical, fallacious, bigoted and promotes ignorance...just like most religions. I think a fair analysis of history would show you that Muslims suffer from many of the same faults, as do most religions, not less, but certainly not more.

Try living as a woman in an Arab Muslim nation and see how long you hold that view ... Or as a Sudanese Dinka tribesperson.. or as a Pakistani Hindu .. or a Nigerian Christian.

I dunno why it is but Muslims and Islamic apologists are forever defending Islam as it exists in the 21st century by comparing it to Christianity as it existed in the 14th century.

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn

I just showed that some of the Koran verses he uses to prove that

are just made up or very poorly translated. Why would you want to take this man still seriously? Just because he is 'now an atheist' ?

Quite an interesting opinion. Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Voyager. Maybe Dawkins was inspired by it. Or vice versa.

Problem of course is that Richard Dawkins is not an expert on geopolitics. I'd take his word on everything that has to do with evolution, but on this sissue I don't think his opinion his of any more value than that of a random taxidriver or construction worker.

As I said: "Surely there is enough that's actually in the Koran to criticize?"

Hear, hear! And I say that atheists are allowed to say the same about the atrocities in the Soviet Union. Or does one of you think these atrocities prove that atheism is inherently evil?

One former muslim. Who thinks he can write a better Koran than Mohammed (peace be upon him)!
Hey, why don't we write brand new Bibles, Torahs, Bagavad-Gitas or other religious works and use its verses against the religious people who we claim believe these books? Wouldn't that be great? We wouldn't have to wade through thousands of peacefull and reasonable verses to find the occasional verse that could be interpreted as violent!

Or maybe we just need a www.skepticsannotatedkoran.com
Well, it appears you haven't been long in the skeptic business have you? If you were then you would have known that 'fastest growing' almost always means 'still very small'. As used in newsitem 'Whateverball: the fastest growing sport in the World', Jack taught his brother to play whateverball. Effect: 100% increase in the number of Whateverball players. "Newsflash: Whateverball doubles in popularity!"

If you are afraid of Islam, you shouldn't worry about 'fastest growing'. The growth will probably slow down later. You should not worry about Islam in the United States until a majority of people is outraged about removing "ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In light of Peter Soderqvist quotations from the Quran and the Hadith, how many of the 1.2 billion Muslims believe that those verses are hideous and a crime against humanity? How many Muslims are willing to come out in the open and admit that something must be done to explain those verses and the behavior of Mohammed and his gang? Can we put an end to those verses? Can we at least get you to admit that what Mohammed and his gang did to those innocent people was wrong? Also, can we completely ban stoning of anyone, chopping off of hands and beheading?

[Yahzi]

Baker

Quote:

Can we at least get you to admit that what Mohammed and his gang did to those innocent people was wrong?

At what point did anyone dispute this?

Nobody here argued that Islam was peaceful or friendly. What they argued was that Islam was indistinguishable from Christianity when it came to providing justifications for violence.

How is it that you cannot comprehend that, as atheists, we despise all religions for promoting violence? How is it that you cannot comprehend that Islam and Christianity are the same does not constitute a defense of Islam?

Are you stupid or just retarded?

Quote:

Also, can we completely ban stoning of anyone, chopping off of hands and beheading?

The Bible advocates plenty of stoning and chopping. As atheists, we agree that all holy books should be abandoded.

Quote:

How many Muslims are willing to come out in the open and admit that something must be done to explain those verses and the behavior of Mohammed and his gang?

How many Xians are willing to condone the "kill everything that breathes" in the Bible?

What is your malfunction, dude?

[Yahzi]

Quote:

I dunno why it is but Muslims and Islamic apologists are forever defending Islam as it exists in the 21st century by comparing it to Christianity as it existed in the 14th century.

Why don't you try comparing the Islam of the 14th century to the Xianity of today?

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi
Baker

At what point did anyone dispute this?

I was asking a question not making a claim.

Quote:

Nobody here argued that Islam was peaceful or friendly. What they argued was that Islam was indistinguishable from Christianity when it came to providing justifications for violence.

I agree the Bible recounts of terrible acts of violence committed by Moses and Joshua and most religions have violence associated in their annals. I am not a religious person and do not support any one of them. Even though not all of the religions call for killing the disbelievers like Islam does, they are all the cause of disunity and much bloodshed amongst the humankind.
Muslims, when face the dismal status of women in their religion console themselves with the fact that other religions also have discriminatory teachings about women, and the Christians take comfort in the fact that woman in Islam are nothing but man's property.
In addition, the verses in question are in the Old Testament the resolution, embraced by even the Christian fundamentalists: Christians are no longer "under the Law (i.e., the Old Testament)

Quote:

How is it that you cannot comprehend that, as atheists, we despise all religions for promoting violence? How is it that you cannot comprehend that Islam and Christianity are the same does not constitute a defense of Islam?.

Because when a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself. Nowhere in the Gospel it says kill the people of other faith. Quran is replete with such exhortations. For a Muslim all wars are religious wars. Christians do not go terrorizing people shouting Jesus is great, the Muslims always shout Allah u Akbar to get ready for killing.

Quote:

Are you stupid or just retarded?

Now we have to resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the topic.

Quote:

The Bible advocates plenty of stoning and chopping. As atheists, we agree that all holy books should be abandoded.

How many Xians are willing to condone the "kill everything that breathes" in the Bible?

What is your malfunction, dude?

They have its called the New Testament.

Quote:

Why don't you try comparing the Islam of the 14th century to the Xianity of today?

How does this answer my question?
Islam of the 14th century is not much different then it is today.

[Yahzi]

Baked

Quote:

I was asking a question not making a claim.

Why are you asking irrelevant questions? Does it advance the conversation if I suddenly ask, "Why do all you people hate fried eggs?"

Quote:

Because when a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself.

What? The Crusades were not inspired by religion itself? The abortion doctors that have been shot were not inspired by religion itself?

This is either a) true of both Xianity and Islam, or b) false of both, depending on how esoteric you want to be about "inspired by." The point remains that despite your pathetic apologies for Christianity, it is virtually indistinguishable from its bastard step child Islam.

This claim of yours belies a bias that is incompatable with your claim to be religiously neutral. It is the statement of a Christian fundamentalist.

Quote:

Nowhere in the Gospel it says kill the people of other faith. Quran is replete with such exhortations.

Nowhere in sura 107-108 does it say to kill the people of other lands. The Old Testament is replete with such exhortations.

The fact that you need to compare 4 chapters of the Bible - excluding all else - to the entire Quran demonstrates that even you understand you are full of sh*t.

Last time I checked, the Bible didn't mean just the four chapters you like. Of course, if a Muslim made the same argument, you'd scream bloody foul. Something's foul here, that's for certain.

Quote:

Islam of the 14th century is not much different then it is today.

This is true in exactly the same sense and degree that the statement, "Christianity of the 14th century is not much different then it is today." I.e., in the sense that it is utterly false.

Making a statement like this indicates that you actually know nothing at all of historical Islam. One suspects that your ignorance of history and theology is not necessarily limited to that narrow field, however.

Just a clue: 10th century Islam was a liberal faith. It did not turn fascist and fundamentalist until after the Islamic world was ravaged by invaders (mostly Mongols, but the Crusades were not inconsequential).

Quote:

I am not a religious person and do not support any one of them.

Then why do you so vigorously resist the comparison of Christianity and Islam, despite all the facts?

Quote:

They have its called the New Testament.

The New Testament is also a holy book. Hence we treat it with the same disdain. Doh.

Quote:

Christians are no longer "under the Law (i.e., the Old Testament)

As I suspected, your theology is as shallow as your history. I will let a certain respected theologian refute this particular idiocy for me:

Quote:

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Yes, I realize that Paul allegedly released you from the law, but this little confusion between your doctrine and your holy book might serve to illustrate why quoting verses out of context just isn't very illuminating. Ya think?

No, seriously, do you think? Because it doesn't show.

[DialecticMaterialist]

http://secularislam.org/humanrights/compatible.htm

Quote:

Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard

Also it's been pointed out many times that the earlier wiritngs in the Koran express a more tolerant attitude(since Islam was a small cult) and the latter a more militant stance.

Also Islam very much promotes what they call "self-defense" saying many of the violent scriptures promote "self-defense" what they fail to mention is that an attack on Islam is a very vague thing, ranging from initiated violence to a vocal criticism to walking onto a sacred land.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Quote:

I am not trying to defend Islam... its current use by nationalist movements in the Middle East as a justification for murder and oppression is clearly abhorrent.

Nonsense. Positing that Islam turned bad due to nationalist hijacking it is reverse causation.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well if we are going to quote the passage why not quote the WHOLE passage?

Quote:

47: 4. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood while those who
believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does ALLAH set forth for men
their lessons by similitudes.
47: 5. And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their
necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among
them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a
favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is
the ordinance. And if ALLAH had so pleased, HE could have punished them
Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those
who are killed in the way of ALLAH - HE will never render their works vain.
47: 6. HE will guide them to success and will improve their condition.
47: 7. And will admit them into the Garden which HE has made known to them.
47: 8. O ye who believe ! if you help the cause of ALLAH, HE will help you
and will make your steps firm.
47: 9. But those who disbelieve, perdition is their lot; and HE will make
their works vain.
47: 10. That is because they hate what ALLAH has revealed; so HE has made
their works vain.

There are also other translations of this verse:

Quote:

Koran :
Whenyou meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off thei rheads and, when you have laid them low,bind your captives firmly.Then grant them theirfreedom or take ransom from them,until War shal llay down her burdens.

As well as the one that excludes mention of battle or jihad(which seems to be an after thought). I wonder which one Islamic apologists would adopt?

Even given your interpretation/translation though:


Where did Jesus say to smite people in regular battle?

And why is the battle to be a regular thing?

And if you kill infidels in regular battle, you are then rewarded. How nice.

By Earthbound:

Quote:

However, if we assume that 'slay' means to kill someone (as my dictionary does) both versions of the Soura make no sense! You can't kill someone first and then expect them to repent and pay taxes, can you? I suspect that by 'slaying' these verse mean 'conquering'. Of course it could be that this verse really doesn't make sense, I haven't read it in its original Arabic (looks all Greek to me)

Why is the second verse better? Because you like it? Also how does it not make sense? You can take them as captives and such, THEN slay them. We don't have to change the meaning of the words for it to make sense.

What I'm irritated by is Muslim apologists who for some reason think that a religion created by a warlord is going to be very peaceful and create an almost endless amount of superfluous assumptions to support the said conclusion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

earthbound:

Quote:

Hear, hear! And I say that atheists are allowed to say the same about the atrocities in the Soviet Union. Or does one of you think these atrocities prove that atheism is inherently evil?

Apples and oranges. That's similiar to saying if you can blame "Nazism" for something then you can likewise blame "Non-Nazism" for everything else. Blaming a postivie doctrine is very different the blaming a negative doctrine.

wolfgirl:

Quote:

These mythological books can be interpreted in many ways to defend almost any position. Most mainstream xians will say Fred Phelps' views don't reflect their god's views, but others will insist that they do. Who can say which is right, since it's just an old book?

That's a bit simplistic. Positing that all religions are equal is just nonsense. Sure christianity may be militant(n tradition only) but is it as militant as Islam culturally and in realm of scripture? Nope. All religions can be abused but some are more easily abused/used then others.

Quote:

That's why I disdain all fundamentalist religions, not just xianity or Islam. Any religion that claims that their god is better than some other god (or that their god tells them what to do or that the followers of another religion or lifestyle are evil or infidels or what have you) has the potential of its followers doing violence in the name of that god. Let's not get into a politically correct position of defending Islam because not all Muslims are violent. Not all xians are backwards, either, but we don't generally defend the xian religion. We should fear all of this myth-based ideology as it is all dangerous.

I agree with you in all points save one, according to that all monotheist religions are fundamentalist as they all believe their God is the one true, best god. Especially Abrahamic ones that do teach followers that non-believers are in some way evil.

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
And with bad intentions, I think it would be fully possible to write just as bad about Christianity, quotes about killings and all.

Of course! Are you kidding? The Old Testament is the motherlode!

[Baker]

You are trying the same tired old defense of Islam we have all seen before, you have realised that Islam is utterly indefensible so you resort to comparing it to Christianity instead... the supposition being "since Christianity is just as bad we cannot attack Islam" ... If you love Islam so much try defending it on it's merits, If you hate Christianity so much try attacking on a Christianity forum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi

What? The Crusades were not inspired by religion itself?

The crusades are past their use-by date .. try defending Islam as it exists today by comparing it to Christianity as it exists today ... like this next pathetic attempt you make -

Quote:

The abortion doctors that have been shot were not inspired by religion itself?

ahh .. here we go.. The pro-life guys who actually advocate (or make apologies for) the murder of abortion doctors are a MINISCULE percentage of Christians.

The Muslims who advocate Shar'iah governed societies, who advocate (and practise) circumcision of young girls, who advocate barbaric punishments for crimes like .. having sex with one's lover, who perpetuate the most widespread, sexist and oppressive regime in existence .. ARE IN THE MAJORITY! .. They are the MAINSTREAM of their faith.. not some "out there" fringe group.

Do you understand that the number of girls circumcised in Egypt alone is in the 90 - 95 percent range?

Do you understand that, while David Koresh was a fanatical idiot who managed to muster the support of a couple of dozen followers to hold off the FBI for a few days, Khomeni was a fanatical idiot who mustered the support of a few million people and overthrew the government of Iran? .. There is simply no comparison to be made here.

Quote:

Just a clue: 10th century Islam was a liberal faith. It did not turn fascist and fundamentalist until after the Islamic world was ravaged by invaders (mostly Mongols, but the Crusades were not inconsequential).

Where in hell did you learn your history?!? .. in a freaking Madrassa???

How the hell do you think Islam made it across Persia and into Asia? How did it get North into the Balkans? How did it get south into Africa and west into Europe? .. by wind?

Just a clue: Try telling your version of history to the Hindus, Mandeans, Coptics, Sabians, Persians, Zorastrians, Jews, North Africans and the Christian Europeans.

In 1400 years Islam has never seen a day of peace... and little wonder since Jihad (WAR) is one of the five pillars of the Islamic faith.

Quote:

Then why do you so vigorously resist the comparison of Christianity and Islam...

Because I'm so used to Islamic apologists attempting to defend Islam by chatting about the Crusades.

Quote:

No, seriously, do you think? Because it doesn't show.

Well nobody could expect you to readily identify analytical thought.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

Apples and oranges. That's similiar to saying if you can blame "Nazism" for something then you can likewise blame "Non-Nazism" for everything else. Blaming a postivie doctrine is very different the blaming a negative doctrine.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here...

I think this statement is perfectly valid. 'Positive doctrine' or 'negative doctrine', those are both doctrines. And the people who hold that doctrine should be allowed to say that atrocities done in name of that doctrine are using a perversion of that doctrine: atheists are allowed to say that Stalin doesn't represent atheism, Muslims are allowed to say Osama doesn't represent Islam, Christians are allowed to say that abortion-doctor-killers don't represent christianity.

Whether I believe in Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them) or not makes no difference: I still don't have to apoligize for any person who does something wrong and just happens to agree with me on Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them).

Quote:

Why is the second verse better? Because you like it?

I did not say that I like it. I even think that it is already bad as it is.

Quote:

Also how does it not make sense? You can take them as captives and such, THEN slay them.

That just isn't compatible with: leave their way free to them, is it?

Quote:

What I'm irritated by is Muslim apologists who for some reason think that a religion created by a warlord is going to be very peaceful

I didn't claim Islam is peaceful, I claimed that this Ibn Warraq guy uses the worst possible interpretations at best, and fabrications at worst to prove that it is violent.

I think we should allow Muslims themselves to define what their religion is, and most of them seem to define it as peaceful. Trying to argue that it is a violent religion might become a selfulfilling prophecy:

"Why are you angry?/Why is your religion so violent?"
"I'm not angry./My religion isn't violent."
"Yes, you are./Yes it is."
"No, I'm really not./No, it really isn't."
"But you sound angry./Your religion appears violent."
"No, I don't./No, it doesn't."
"Yes, you do/Yes, it does."
...
"When are you going to stop arguing that
I am angry/my religion is violent?"
"When you are going to admit it."
"But I'm not going to! It isn't true!"
"Yes, it is."
"Oh, please shut up."
"No, I won't. Because
you are angy/your religion is violent
and I know it."
"Shut up or I'll kick you out... "
"I told you
you were an angry/your religion is violent"
"Aaargh!"

So people, stop arguing that Islam is a violent religion, because arguing that it is could very well backfire.

Quote:

The Muslims who advocate Shar'iah governed societies, who advocate (and practise) circumcision of young girls, who advocate barbaric punishments for crimes like .. having sex with one's lover, who perpetuate the most widespread, sexist and oppressive regime in existence .. ARE IN THE MAJORITY! .. They are the MAINSTREAM of their faith.. not some "out there" fringe group.

Do you have any evidence to back it up? And if we assume it is true, why do you think that is? Just because some of the writing of Islam are? Or do you think geopolitics is a little bit more complicated than that and there are other reasons why this perpetuates?

Quote:

Do you understand that the number of girls circumcised in Egypt alone is in the 90 - 95 percent range?

I am sure you have some sources to back it up. But even if you do... How about some figures on the percentage of female circumcission for the entire Muslim population? I think it would show you that it is only common in a few areas in Africa, while the vast majority of Muslim women remains uncircumcised.

Quote:

How the hell do you think Islam made it across Persia and into Asia? How did it get North into the Balkans? How did it get south into Africa and west into Europe? .. by wind?

I would say, like all empires spread: by trade. Force has never been an effective way to spread a culture or religion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Quote:

I think this statement is perfectly valid. 'Positive doctrine' or 'negative doctrine', those are both doctrines.

Yes but one leaves the room a lot more open then the other.

Quote:

And the people who hold that doctrine should be allowed to say that atrocities done in name of that doctrine are using a perversion of that doctrine: atheists are allowed to say that Stalin doesn't represent atheism, Muslims are allowed to say Osama doesn't represent Islam, Christians are allowed to say that abortion-doctor-killers don't represent christianity.

Or we can recognize relevant differences between the two categories. Blaming a postive doctrine and negative doctrine are two totally different things.

According to what you're saying any racist can dismiss atrocities or hate crimes done by racist people as "perversions" of their doctrine. And they can then say "Well if you are going to say racists do bad things, then I'm going to say non-racists do bad things."

But there is a huge difference between blaming racism and non-racism for something. Racism is a postive doctrine with specific beliefs and values, which then become the rationale for specific actions. Nonracism, or nonanything however is not a tenet of specific beliefs or values: in short the door is still very wide open on what you can believe. Hence blaming a positive doctrine is allowed since it does prescribe a certain course of action, whereas a negative one does not.

If we are going to make a valid analogy, we should posit Stalin and Mao as representing Marxists, not atheists.

[quote] Whether I believe in Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them) or not makes no difference:[/quoute]

Yes it does. Lets say I believe in Nazism vs Deism, there is a big difference in the content of my belief. Do you think these belief systems are mere labels devoid of specific meaning?

Quote:

I still don't have to apoligize for any person who does something wrong and just happens to agree with me on Pink Unicorns (peace be upon them).

Perhaps not, as long as your belief or tradition stemming from that belief does not get any more specific then this. But if you believe in the "Pink Unicorn God as described by Charles Manson" who among many other things tends to advocate the killing of Muslims, then you do have some explaining to do.

Quote:

I did not say that I like it. I even think that it is already bad as it is.

So what made it better?

Quote:

That just isn't compatible with: leave their way free to them, is it?

If they as a group are subdued it is. Or maybe he meant to do all the above? Also lets imagine it does mean conquest....does that make it better or worse?

IMO it is now advocating outright invasion of the non-believers. So much better then outright slaughter I guess.

Quote:

I didn't claim Islam is peaceful, I claimed that this Ibn Warraq guy uses the worst possible interpretations at best, and fabrications at worst to prove that it is violent.

And what do you have to prove this? 1 *possible* misquote.

Lets say you are right...so what? Ever heard of: making a mistake?

Quote:

I think we should allow Muslims themselves to define what their religion is, and most of them seem to define it as peaceful.

Their actions and history beg to differ. Many of them you should note don't even define Islam as a religion, like many Christians, does that mean we take Islam out of the religious studies class?

I think they are better defined by their traditions, their beliefs and their scriptures, then by some invented minority definition.

Quote:

Trying to argue that it is a violent religion might become a selfulfilling prophecy:

Too late.

To date:

There is no real strong muslim democracy.

All Muslim nations have a terrible record for abusing women.

Many, many Muslims, even in the US still strongly believe its ok to use violence in matters of religion. Try drawing a picture of Mohommad, or being a Muslims "apostate" and see how many death threats you get.

Christians may be militant at times, but I've never heard of them declaring a Fatwah in recent times, or mailing hundreds of death threats to a Hawaiin Professor for dressing up like Jesus.

Quote:

So people, stop arguing that Islam is a violent religion, because arguing that it is could very well backfire.

So we should turn on the blinds for such far fetched expediency?

I think to effictively deal with it we must recognize that it *is* a violent religion. Could it imporve? Sure. But that doesn't mean we can simply pretend the violent aspects of it do not exist.

Quote:

Do you have any evidence to back it up?

Look at every Muslims country.

Quote:

And if we assume it is true, why do you think that is? Just because some of the writing of Islam are? Or do you think geopolitics is a little bit more complicated than that and there are other reasons why this perpetuates?

Nature or Nurture?

It's obviously both. Geopolitics and Islam in the Arab world are closely linked.

Quote:

I think it would show you that it is only common in a few areas in Africa, while the vast majority of Muslim women remains uncircumcised.

You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

From Amnesty International:

Quote:

An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk of mutilation - approximately 6,000 per day. It is practised extensively in Africa and is common in some countries in the Middle East.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm


Now I admit, it's not all over the Muslim world. And it may not have stemmed from Islam itself, but Islam has given it a religious rationale.

Quote:

However, in those Muslim countries where it is practice, FGM is often justified by two controversial sayings of the Prophet Mohammed that seem to favor sunna circumcision.

Gee, I wonder why the are controversial? Is it due to an innacurrate reading of the Koran...or because certain people see how barbaric the practice is?

You can also notice the Muslim (what god "really meant") reasoning against female circumcision is very ad hoc.

http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact241.html

Also this does not rule out the fact that Muslim women are basically slaves in their country.(Which in Pakistan for example can literally be bought and sold-the definition of slavery.)

Quote:

Forced marriage of young girls continues to be reported and while slavery is illegal in Pakistan, girls and women continue to be traded to settle debts or conflicts.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA330082002

And Pakistan is one of the more liberal Muslim nations.

Quote:

I would say, like all empires spread: by trade. Force has never been an effective way to spread a culture or religion.

Really? What about Marxism spread by force via Mao and Stalin?


And actually force very much helps spread religion. I currently in fact know of no religion spread by trade. Christianity was spread by missionary efforts. Tibetan Buddhism by Mongolian Khans.

It's not exactly like Charles Martel was fighting off Muslim traders.

__________________

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn

Do you have any evidence to back it up? And if we assume it is true, why do you think that is? Just because some of the writing of Islam are? Or do you think geopolitics is a little bit more complicated than that and there are other reasons why this perpetuates?

FGM in Egypt is being kept in place by Muslim clerics.

Quote:

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, continued to be widespread in Egypt despite government condemnation of the practice. A demographic and health survey funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and released in late 1996 estimated that 97 percent of girls in Egypt undergo FGM.

Following the health minister=s July announcement, a doctor and professor at Ein Shams University, Munir Mohamed Fawzy, filed a lawsuit against Minister Sallem challenging the ban on FGM as unconstitutional; Fawzy argued that FGM is both required by Islamic law and medically desirable.
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/egypt.html

Quote:

I am sure you have some sources to back it up. But even if you do... How about some figures on the percentage of female circumcission for the entire Muslim population? I think it would show you that it is only common in a few areas in Africa, while the vast majority of Muslim women remains uncircumcised.

The majority of Muslim women might remain uncircumcised but that doesn't make it less tarnished.

Quote:

Female genital mutilation (FGM), sometimes known as female circumcision, is still widespread in areas of Africa and the Middle East
Thus virginity - which is considered especially important by Moslem men - can be proven before the bride price is paid to the father
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ar.../inter/fgm.htm

Quote:

I would say, like all empires spread: by trade. Force has never been an effective way to spread a culture or religion.

Islam was mostly spread by the sword. Constantinople was attacked 3 times before it finally fell. The Sindh (first Muslim conquest on the Subcontinent) was attacked 10 times before it fell.

Even in Indonesia, the willing converts were only about half the population; when they got strong enough they started a bloody civil war that forced out the former non-Muslim rulers and their followers. (Many went into exile in Bali, which is why Bali is today mostly Hindu.)

You should study some real history, Earthborn, but I guess you are more content to stay with your fantasy history of Islam.

[Earthborn]

Strangely enough, some of the text you cite does not appear in the articles you link to. Please check whether you have linked to the correct articles.

The first article does contain this:

Quote:

In a positive development for women’s and children’s rights, on December 28, 1997, the State Council, Egypt’s highest administrative court, upheld the Ministry of Health ban on female circumcision, which a lower court ruled illegal last year. The high court found that “circumcision of girls is not an individual right under Islamic law because there is nothing in the Koran which authorizes it and nothing in the Sunna....henceforth, it is illegal for anyone to carry out circumcision operations, even if the girl or her parents agree to it.”

Emphasis mine.

I'll assume you simply linked to the wrong site. So let's see the quote you used:

Quote:

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, continued to be widespread in Egypt despite government condemnation of the practice. A demographic and health survey funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and released in late 1996 estimated that 97 percent of girls in Egypt undergo FGM.

Changing the emphasis changes the argument. Bad enough though... I like to know how FGM is defined. All of it is bad, but some of what can be considered FGM is worse than others.

Quote:

Islam was mostly spread by the sword. Constantinople was attacked 3 times before it finally fell. The Sindh (first Muslim conquest on the Subcontinent) was attacked 10 times before it fell.

Even in Indonesia, the willing converts were only about half the population; when they got strong enough they started a bloody civil war that forced out the former non-Muslim rulers and their followers. (Many went into exile in Bali, which is why Bali is today mostly Hindu.)

These are some examples fo violence used. It does not necessarily disprove that Islamic culture was spread by non-violent means.

All empires spread by trade because the sword is not enough to spread it: you need an economy too. This is true of the most violent empires also, like the Mongols or the Roman empire.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Quote:

All empires spread by trade because the sword is not enough to spread it: you need an economy too. This is true of the most violent empires also, like the Mongols or the Roman empire.

I hardly believe I read that. Yes all empires have an economy....that doesn't automatically mean the religion was spread by trade.

Religious people need language too, does it then make sense to say Islam was spread by language? I suppose it was, but is that really what we are talking about?

Just because a religion relies on something does not mean it was spread by it.

[Yahzi]

Baked

Quote:

the supposition being "since Christianity is just as bad we cannot attack Islam" ...

Um...dude... we attack BOTH Christianity and Islam!

How, exactly, did you miss that?



We hate them both. We think they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

I hardly believe I read that. Yes all empires have an economy....that doesn't automatically mean the religion was spread by trade.

What do you think is a more effective way to convert people: put a sword against their necks, saying 'covert or die' or by buying stuff from them showing your economic superiority making them think 'I wanna be just like that guy' ?

Quote:

Religious people need language too, does it then make sense to say Islam was spread by language? I suppose it was, but is that really what we are talking about?

I think the language was much more important than violence in spreadin Islam.

Quote:

Um...dude... we attack BOTH Christianity and Islam!

How, exactly, did you miss that?

We hate them both. We think they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away.

Not all of us. Some of us only attack the most extreme forms of both religions.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Quote:

What do you think is a more effective way to convert people: put a sword against their necks, saying 'covert or die' or by buying stuff from them showing your economic superiority making them think 'I wanna be just like that guy' ?

Depends on the situation. I personally for example don't see a rich Christian and say "Boy I'd like to be Christian too."

However if a gun was held to my head and they said "Go to Church or die." Then maybe I'd go to Church.

Quote:

I think the language was much more important than violence in spreadin Islam.

You missed the point. The point was that something being necessary to support such a movement does not mean it spread the movement.

Another example: People that murder breath air. But that doesn't mean murder is caused by breathing air.

Empires which spread their religion may trade, but that doesn't mean the religion was spread by trade.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO BAKER

Quote:

You wrote on page 2, 05-17-2003 04:58 AM: Because when a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself. Nowhere in the Gospel it says kill the people of other faith. Quran is replete with such exhortations. For a Muslim all wars are religious wars. Christians do not go terrorizing people shouting Jesus is great, the Muslims always shout Allah u Akbar to get ready for killing.

Soderqvist1: You are wrong!

2 Chronicels.15: 13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm#top

The Koran and the Bible at the University of Virginia!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html

Soderqvist1: The first link above is a smorgasbord of biblical criticism!
Either the bible is the inerrant word of god, or it is a human invention!
Take your pick?

[Earthborn]

Quote:

Either the bible is the inerrant word of god, or it is a human invention!

Excluded Middle Fallacy!

About as good as "It's Jesus or Evolution!"...

[Earthborn]

Quote:

However if a gun was held to my head and they said "Go to Church or die." Then maybe I'd go to Church.

But would you actually change your religion? And would the person who put the gun to your head believe you changed your religion? Or would he quickly consider you the same as the Spanish Catholics considered the Converso Jews, wanting to form an Inquisition?

[Peter Soderqvist]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Excluded Middle Fallacy!

About as good as "It's Jesus or Evolution!"...

Soderqvist1: Either quantum theory is a correct description about quantum phenomena, or the theory is flawed? Every known phenomenon in the quantum world is consistent with the theory, there is no exception, and therefore this theory is valid! But the Biblical Story of Creation is in the main, ruled out by modern science, therefore, the biblical description is definitely invalid! Can you elaborate what you really mean with Excluded Middle Fallacy? The Aristotelian law of the excluded middle is consistent in a syllogistic framework! A member who only belongs to one set can be formalized in syllogistic framework!

The law of the excluded middle is invalid when a membership is fuzzy! The bible is fuzzy according to you reply, in the sense that it belongs to both human invention, and the inerrant world of god, if we assume that god is inerrant! Members in this case are sentences in the bible, either it is a member in the set of god's statements, or it is a member in the set of human inventions! Where do you draw the line between the inerrant word of god, and human invention in the bible? Why exactly there? Which statements in the bible are god's statements, and which are humans'?

[Earthborn]

Excluded Middle Fallacy From Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Quote:

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities

You created two extremes:
Inerrant Word of God-----------------------Human Invention

You do not consider these possibilities:
- Heavily edited and badly translated word of God
- Human invention inspired by God
- Word of God meant for a particular period of time in human history and no longer fully applicable.
- Word of the Devil
Or any other possiblity humans have invented to reconcile apperant errors in the Bible with their belief in God.

[Yahzi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
- Heavily edited and badly translated word of God
- Human invention inspired by God
- Word of God meant for a particular period of time in human history and no longer fully applicable.
- Word of the Devil

Actually, no.

If it's heavily edited translation, that qualifies as an "invention" of the editors. Ask any author.

If it's invention "inspired" by God, well, what isn't?

If it's not applicable, then it's not the word of God now.

If it's the word of the Devil, well, that still makes it the word of a god. We atheists aren't all that picky about what you call your imaginary friends.

The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is just poetry. Nobody has any use for a Bible that is only partially the word of God, without any method for deciding which parts are and which aren't. That would be like me giving you 5,000 dollar bills and telling you half of them are fake and will land you in prison if you try to spend them, but the only way you can find out if one is fake is by trying to spend it. Can I in any meaningful way claim to have enriched you by $2,500?

The fundies at least got that right - the Bible is either a divine miracle of transmission, or Christianity is meaningless. Sure you can believe in god without the Bible: you just can't be Christian. And if all you want is to believe in god without actually specifying what god means, well, heck, I believe in god too. And I can prove the existance of my god beyond all conceivable doubt. Of course, I define god as "cheese graters," but hey, as long as we are using the word to mean absolutely anything at any given time, what's wrong with grated cheese?

Claiming parts of the Bible are the true word of god is like claiming parts of the ocean are safe to drink - just drink around the salt, ok?

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO EARTHBORN

Quote:

05-19-2003 09:11 AM: Carl Sagan Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities!

Soderqvist1: I have 7 books by Carl Sagan, and I am on page 140 in his The demon hunted world as your link has referred to, these extremes can be summed as black or white orientation, in a fuzzy world there real phenomena are fractional rater than black or white!

Quote:

You created two extremes:
Inerrant Word of God-----------------------Human Invention!

Soderqvist1: Yes the bible is less fuzzy in that way!

Quote:

You do not consider these possibilities: - Heavily edited, and badly translated word of God, - Human invention inspired by God, - Word of God meant for a particular period of time in human history, and no longer fully applicable. - Word of the Devil, or any other possibility humans has invented to reconcile apparent errors in the Bible with their belief in God.

Soderqvist1: There is no set with heavily edited and correctly translated word of god in you list? Who is to be blamed for that? But you have increased the number of sets, yet you have not delivered any means to how we can recognize these memberships here, what criteria do you use for instance, to discriminate between heavily edited, and the rest of the various sets? How can we discriminate internally between the rests of these sets?

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi
Baked


Um...dude... we attack BOTH Christianity and Islam!

How, exactly, did you miss that?



We hate them both. We think they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away.

Since when do you speak for everyone?
Did you miss this comment made by Earthborn?

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think we should allow Muslims themselves to define what their religion is, and most of them seem to define it as peaceful.

Can you replie without adding ad hominem attacks?
Like using Baked to replied to my posts.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

If it's heavily edited translation, that qualifies as an "invention" of the editors. Ask any author.

I am. And when that happened in the past I usually asked: "What the heck did they do with my work?". God might very well feel the same way.

Quote:

If it's invention "inspired" by God, well, what isn't?

I don't know. Is anything inspired by God?

Quote:

If it's not applicable, then it's not the word of God now.

Yes, it is, it is just one of his older works.

Quote:

If it's the word of the Devil, well, that still makes it the word of a god.

True

Quote:

The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is just poetry.

Excluded middle fallacy!

Quote:

Nobody has any use for a Bible that is only partially the word of God, without any method for deciding which parts are and which aren't.

I did not claim anyone has. But I can imagine such a use: to just pick and choose what you like.

Quote:

That would be like me giving you 5,000 dollar bills and telling you half of them are fake and will land you in prison if you try to spend them, but the only way you can find out if one is fake is by trying to spend it. Can I in any meaningful way claim to have enriched you by $2,500?

Either there is a way to determine what is fake or there isn't. (And no that is in this case no excluded middle fallacy!) If a shop can detect the fakes, then there must be a way I can too... I'll just have to buy one of the detectors they are using from my own savings.
If it is impossible for me to detect the fakes, it's also for any shop and thus you have enriched me with $5000. I prefer 10 notes of 500 euro over 5000 dollar bills, thank you very much. (Assuming 1 EUR=1 USD)

Quote:

The Bible is either a divine miracle of transmission, or Christianity is meaningless.

Excluded middle fallacy! There are many Christian who believe the Bible is not a divine miracle and still believe Jesus' ideas were quite good.

Quote:

Sure you can believe in god without the Bible: you just can't be Christian.

Why not?

Quote:

And if all you want is to believe in god without actually specifying what god means, well, heck, I believe in god too. And I can prove the existance of my god beyond all conceivable doubt. Of course, I define god as "cheese graters," but hey, as long as we are using the word to mean absolutely anything at any given time, what's wrong with grated cheese?

Who am I to judge you on your religious beliefs. If you believe God is grated cheese, you are completely entitled to that belief. (I actually think it is the devil and you are a devil worshipper)

Quote:

Claiming parts of the Bible are the true word of god is like claiming parts of the ocean are safe to drink - just drink around the salt, ok?

Desalination plants prove that most parts of the ocean are safe to drink, and they are seperable from the parts that aren't. So the analogy doesn't hold.

Quote:

There is no set with heavily edited and correctly translated word of god in you list?

There is under "Or any other possiblity humans have invented to reconcile apperant errors in the Bible with their belief in God."

Quote:

But you have increased the number of sets, yet you have not delivered any means to how we can recognize these memberships here

Correct

Quote:

what criteria do you use for instance, to discriminate between heavily edited, and the rest of the various sets?

I don't. Easy, huh?

Quote:

How can we discriminate internally between the rests of these sets?

Beats me. I just said there were other possible sets. Never claimed there are any objectively measurable differences between them.

[Peter Soderqvist]

The set of haters have at least two members, namely, Yahzi, and Soderqvist!
We hate them (The fundamentalists), because they are both dangerous, violent, and despicable. We wish both of them would just go away, and all visitors with these criteria belong to our set, and my hate is less, or trivial, where the believers are modern, because the religious fundaments are on the way out there!

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO BAKER



Soderqvist1: You are wrong!

2 Chronicels.15: 13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm#top

The Koran and the Bible at the University of Virginia!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html

Soderqvist1: The first link above is a smorgasbord of biblical criticism!
Either the bible is the inerrant word of god, or it is a human invention!
Take your pick?

Sorry I don’t understand the statement you are trying to make here?
Are these more quotes from the Old Testament?

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO EARTHBORN

Quote:

You wrote on page 2, 05-19-2003 10:57 AM:
Yahzi. The Bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it is just poetry.

Earthborn: Excluded middle fallacy!

Soderqvist1: I propose that the included middle is the errant word of god!
Now, do you know any way to discriminate between these three sets?
If there is no way to discriminate between these sets, it is reasonable to conclude that, that the only real set is mythology!

[Peter Soderqvist]

Quote:

Originally posted by Baker


Sorry I don’t understand the statement you are trying to make here?
Are these more quotes from the Old Testament?

Soderqvist1: Yes the quote is from the OT!
Look at Earthborn 's way of reasoning, and so grasp the meaning!

[Yahzi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Baker


Since when do you speak for everyone?
Did you miss this comment made by Earthborn?

Can you replie without adding ad hominem attacks?
Like using Baked to replied to my posts.

1. I feel safe in asserting that the atheist position opposes Islam and Christianity with equal fervor.

2. Earthborn's quote is entirely appropriate, since you have already decided to allow the majority of Christians to define what their religion is. You aren't interested in isolated quotes from the Old Testament: why would an ordinary Muslim be interested in isolated quotes from the Quran?

3. It looks like you are beginning to grasp the fact that when an atheist compares Islam to Christianity, he isn't defending Islam. I am duly impressed.

[Yahzi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
IExcluded middle fallacy! There are many Christian who believe the Bible is not a divine miracle and still believe Jesus' ideas were quite good.

You keep saying this, and I keep refuting the reasons you offer to demonstrate it.

There are many Christians who believe that Jesus was Buddha in a previous life. I think we can objectively state that those people really shouldn't consider themselves Christians. Of course, it's politically incorrect to suggest that a drunken homeless bum should not be allowed to label himself a "sober real estate tycoon." Just like god is a word that can be redefined at a moment's notice to mean anything, some people think Christianity ought to be a label that applies to anyone who wants it, regardless of whether it has any meaning. This renders all debate impossible, and indeed even communication. So for the purpose of this thread, we will pretend that being a Christian actually means something. In which case, all those people who think that Jesus was a pretty clever dude, but not uniquely divine, are not Christians.

Quote:

But I can imagine such a use: to just pick and choose what you like.

This logically contradicts the notion that some parts of the Bible are objectively true.

You have now admitted that without a method for discerning the true parts from the false parts, either a) the whole thing has to be true, or b) none of it can be taken as true without corroborating evidence. Since that evidence is not forthcoming, this means that none of it can be taken as true. Which. Is. The. Point.

Quote:

Why not?

Because being Christian means something. You might as well ask, why can't people who don't believe in god be Christian? The label "Christian" does not mean "people I like." It means something.

Why am I having an argument with a person that doesn't think words should have fixed meanings?

Quote:

If you believe God is grated cheese, you are completely entitled to that belief.

Why look, here is the new-age nonsense I carefully argued against in the very first paragraph.

Earthborn, I am the true Christian. You are a Satanist, a Nazi, a pedophile, a rapist, a theif, a liar, a hypocrite, ugly, fat, stupid, retarded, greasy, smelly, and just plain worthless. Note: in true new age fashion, my personal definition of all the adjectives in the preceeding two sentences is "human being." Don't tell me I can't define and apply labels any way I want, that would be encroaching on my freedom to be a complete idiot.

Quote:

Desalination plants prove that most parts of the ocean are safe to drink, and they are seperable from the parts that aren't. So the analogy doesn't hold.

The analogy holds perfectly. Provide a desalination plant for the Bible, and you win the argument.

The fact that you don't understand that a desalination plant separates the water from the salt does not bode well for the future of this conversation.

Quote:

Never claimed there are any objectively measurable differences between them.

I will go on repeating this until it sinks in:

"If the existance of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existance, then we say that thing does not exist. This is called Reason."

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi

1. I feel safe in asserting that the atheist position opposes Islam and Christianity with equal fervor.

So you do claim to speak for all atheist try viewing the P&CE forum you will find quite a few that don’t find them equal.

[b][quote]
2. Earthborn's quote is entirely appropriate, since you have already decided to allow the majority of Christians to define what their religion is. You aren't interested in isolated quotes from the Old Testament: why would an ordinary Muslim be interested in isolated quotes from the Quran?[b][quote]

You made the claim that nobody here argued that Islam was peaceful or friendly.
Islam contains such phrases in both the Koran and Hadiths.
Christians wrote the New Testament not the Old Testament

Quote:

3. It looks like you are beginning to grasp the fact that when an atheist compares Islam to Christianity, he isn't defending Islam. I am duly impressed.

I’m not the one who brought Christianity into the argument the thread was named after a book.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

There are many Christians who believe that Jesus was Buddha in a previous life. I think we can objectively state that those people really shouldn't consider themselves Christians.

Why are Christians not allowed to define their own religion? Why are you trying to do it for them? What is objective about religion anyway?

Quote:

Of course, it's politically incorrect to suggest that a drunken homeless bum should not be allowed to label himself a "sober real estate tycoon."

This analogy doesn't hold, because the words 'drunken', 'homeless', 'sober' and 'real estate tycoon' are words that have definitions we all largely agree on. 'Christian' is not such a word: there are many people who consider themselves christian (even atheists !), while some people who consider themselves christians do not agree that other people who consider themselves christians are actually christians (just look at how Jack Chick sees Roman Catholics).

Quote:

So for the purpose of this thread, we will pretend that being a Christian actually means something. In which case, all those people who think that Jesus was a pretty clever dude, but not uniquely divine, are not Christians.

But that is an entirely arbitrary defintion. It is simply you defining for someone else what their religion is. "I think we should allow Christians themselves to define what their religion is..."

Quote:

This logically contradicts the notion that some parts of the Bible are objectively true.

Which, if you weren't so obsessed with disagreeing with me, you can easily see that I never claimed it.

Quote:

Why look, here is the new-age nonsense I carefully argued against in the very first paragraph.

It is not New Age nonsense, it is religious tolerance. It is not defining for someone else what they should believe. It would only become New Age nonsense if I would unquestioningly accept it when you claim grated cheese can perform divine miracles that defy the laws of physics.

Quote:

Why am I having an argument with a person that doesn't think words should have fixed meanings?

I would love it if words had fixed meanings, but some words don't! The word Christian means something different for different people.

Quote:

The analogy holds perfectly. Provide a desalination plant for the Bible, and you win the argument.

The analogy falls because there is no 'desalination' plant for the Bible! How hard is that to see?
Your analogy said that you can't seperate the drinkable parts from the undrinkable parts of the ocean, just as you can't seperate the truth from the nonsense in the Bible. The analogy does not hold, because you can seperate the salt from the water in the ocean, but you can't seperate the truth from the nonsense in the Bible.

Quote:

The fact that you don't understand that a desalination plant separates the water from the salt does not bode well for the future of this conversation.

I understand perfectly well, you misunderstood me. I just changed the meaning of what constitutes a 'part of the ocean' to mean individual molecules and ions. Some parts of the ocean are drinkable: the water parts. Other parts of the ocean are not: the salt parts. Surely the should have ticked you off that I was just playing with words?