Wall of text coming up. If you made any post on this thread, I marked each piece with the username of whoever I am replying to, so you can easily find if I replied to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@i-like-swords:

Thank you for being so kind to provide us with a real-life example of a tolerant, open-minded Christian. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Salah ad-Din:

First video:
Bookmarked it!

Second video:
It is well known that when "Europe" was thrown into the Dark Ages, it was the Arabic (Islamic) world that didn't just keep science alive, but furthered it immensely; they were (by "Western standards"...) ages ahead of their time. I'd have to do actual research on whether it was simply a known scientific fact the moon reflects light (instead of emitting it itself). However, I *do know* (and this makes me wonder about the other claims) that Francis Drake didn't discover the Earth is round..., he *re*discovered knowledge which had been lost in Europe due to our messing up big time (the Dark Ages). In fact, the ancient Greeks already knew the Earth was round. Not only that, they even gave a remarkably accurate estimate of its diameter.

On an entirely non-related matter, I really like how this video shows a massively different rhetoric style then I'm used to. I have no idea whether it's related to Islam, the Arabic world or just the speaker personally, but it's interesting nevertheless.

Third video:
This guy utterly misunderstands (or at least, misrepresents) both the big bang theory and the concept of entropy; on the science front he has not the vaguest clue what he's talking about.
It makes absolutely no sense to dismiss the big bang theory simply because "we don't know where it came from / what exploded", unless you also explain where God came from (you don't get to dismiss one theory when your "solution" has the exact same problem).
The same applies to dismissing evolution because there is no designer (unless you explain who designed God).
The entire part dealing with human souls and the creation of life makes no sense whatsoever from beginning to end. (Also, so what if human scientists cannot create life? An equally valid way of looking at things would be to say they cannot create life *yet*. And given that medical science only really started getting serious a couple decades ago (*and* the fact it sure seems like we're already getting awfully close) blows this whole reasoning out of the water even if it *did* make sense.)
In short, this dude is just preaching the Islamic counterpart to "Intelligent Design" (you can probably guess what I think about that...).

Fourth video:
@Everyone: Don't close it right away! He only speaks Arabic for thirty seconds (and a few seconds here and there when he's (I think?) quoting Quran; I have the impression he's addressing a mosque or something). You might want to skip the first ten minutes, which basically sum up to "I grew up a Christian and ended up deciding to *really* read the Bible, cover-to-cover". After the ten minute mark it actually gets very interesting.

I do have a problem with the last five-or-so minutes of the second part; it makes absolutely no sense to forgive any sin imaginable, yet kill people in "the most horrifying way you can possibly imagine" for the heinous crime of never having heard about Islam. I would have a problem with that if it applied to unbelievers who *do* know about Islam but chose not to adopt it, but he is very clearly talking about unbelievers who've never even heard of Islam (he's urging people to go spread knowledge of *the existence* of Islam).

Also, this video (especially the first part) illustrates very well how dangerous close-mindedness and lack-of-tolerance are. Sure, he might get a few giggles out of his audience recounting some of his own (pretty horrible) anti-Islamic and anti-foreigner prejudices, but an equally valid reaction would be to feel a chill running down your spine about just how bad intolerance and ignorance can get (and how incredibly dangerous they are when combined)... :s

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Your Time:
Could you please consider using punctuation, capitalisation, the use of multiple paragraphs and the application of some proof-reading? Your post is incredibly hard to understand.

The only bit I can figure out is you essentially stating "No matter what happens, it's all for the best, because God is perfect. If something bad happens, it's still good, we just don't understand how or why.". That may be your opinion, but it's impossible to reason or argue about such statements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Awesomeguy:
I can't claim having read the Bible, but from what I know, Adam and Eve indeed had children, Abel and Cain. (If you've ever played any of the games in the "Command & Conquer" series, you might want to notice the similar pronunciation of "Cain" and "Kane" and then go watch all the cut-scenes again. :) ). Of course, with God never having created more people than Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain being Eve's children and your mother not being Eve..., something rather messed up must've happened somewhere along the line.

Christianity has a concept with (judging by name) could be similar to "Judgement Hall". It's called the pearly gates and is manned by Saint Peter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Gayprince
Replying to you is made slightly difficult because I'm not sure whether I should read your post as "all religions are horrible" or "all religions are bad, but Islam is way worse than anything else" (you seem to be switching the two a few times).

I can't find the link any more, but a while ago I read an interview with a gay Imam. It is his believe that nothing in the Quran prohibits homosexuality...; actually, he claims Quran *supports* it, citing a verse about "a kind of man which women need not fear and around which they do not have to wear a headscarf" (that's from memory, not an actual quotation). Of course, I do take offence to the implication that any non-gay man is a rapist-waiting-to-happen (and wonder if women should wear a headscarf when there are lesbians present ;) ), but other than that I think that verse deserves a lot more attention.

A bit of Googling turned up this document: http://worldrec.info/2012/02/17/first-openly-gay-imam/ While I can't be sure, the picture looks vaguely familiar and everything in the article matches the few shards I remember from the interview. He does not appear to have an article on the English Wikipedia, but that webpage links to a Google-translated version of his article on the German Wikipedia. I think you should give it a read.

Also, watch (at least) the first video Salah ad-Din linked to. It's a Ted presentation, so at the very worst, you'll waste ten minutes of your life you're never getting back. However, those ten minutes just might change your view of Islam..., drastically. (Don't get Islamic extremists confused with Islam itself!)

Regarding obscurantism:
Go read up on the Arabic world, from around 500 CE to 1500 CE or so; it was the scientific centre of the world! (Of course, reading up on *Europe* at that same time would reinforce your idea. Then again, that just might be were you got the idea in the first place...)

Regarding misogyny:
That's just ludicrous; by that same reasoning we could say that democracy promotes murder. After all, can you name a single democratic country where no murders have been committed? Also, let's keep things civilised and keep it at "the recent Christian record isn't exactly perfect either".

Regarding homophobia:
A yes, because your life would've been just peachy if you had been born in, oh I don't know, how about Texas? Also, twenty years ago nobody would have expected that from any country with a mainly Christian population any time soon either and look where we are today.

|> I am happy to identify myself as Islamophobic (not racist at all, though, my ex-boyfriend is Indian and black as a crow).

Ah, so you don't discriminate based on the colour of a person's skin, but only based on their religious believes...!? How on Earth is that better than someone who "only" discriminates on, let's say, a person's sexual orientation?

|> I even tricked one once into eating pork.

Why...!? Or should I ask, how would you feel if he tricked you into having sex with a girl? (Yes, I know that's a rather ridiculous question; luckily it's a rhetorical one.)

Missed me?

CONFIDENTIAL TO EVERYONE: I don't care if you don't read this, I wouldn't if I were you. I happen to be conversing with some people however, so I should really address them.

----------------------------

Views =/= beliefs. I have no beliefs, so I cannot be a hypocrite, but I sometimes contradict myself, so excuse me.

Excuse me also, re: apartheid, however "accusation" implies a disbelief on your part. "Statement" would be a more neutral alternative.

Leviticus forbids hundreds of things, it is truly ridiculous. If anyone thinks the word of God said they shouldn't wear clothes with mixed fabrics, I am sorry, but they are thoroughly dense.

I read that not eating pork is a thing because of tapeworms. Your religion says don't eat pork, you don't get tapeworms, you survive to teach that religion to your kids. Even a creationist might see the logic behind that one. Hitchens said the tapeworm thing was bogus, though.*

*I just read you say the same thing, as a defense of religion. Well, the moth will fly into the flame of a candle.^ I don't believe humans are better than moths, but I view things that way sometimes. If anything, I'm not cynical enough.

^On further thought, this surely means that you aren't so far from recognising it as being a maladaptive trait. Unless that creationism crack you made was in fact a serious detail.

----------------------------

RVW: "which were the first parents to teach their children religion?"

OK, I'm not talking about sunday school here. Children learn behaviours from their parents, as infants, and when they are older they learn traditions.

Your comments imply that religion was developed upon stones that God cast down on us. Religion is a construct of the human mind, and early religion was primitive and involved 'witch doctor'-type things, voodoo, praying to Sun Gods and so on. Not theologies. I assure you the Aztecs did not choose to sacrifice humans of their own volition. (note: i do not believe in free will.) It came and went. Most people who kill children or animals for religious reasons aren't isolated cases. it is culturally bound.

Religions survive through their offspring. I refer you to the first command God gives in the bible: "Go forth and multiply". I also refer you to meme theory, which I'm not well-versed in, but is related to what I am saying.

Your question makes as much sense as "Which were the first parents to teach their children art?" One cave painting had the honour of being the first. Its composer has the honour of being that parent. The details are irrelevent.

---------------------

"However, I still disagree with your apparent believe that all religion is bad"

I do not believe in "good" and "bad". I rarely believe that all x is y. I like gospel music. I like Anna Karenina. Yet I dislike Diego Maradona's goal against England in the World Cup. I dislike female genital mutilation.

My contention was, in short, religion, overall, retards humanity, by common standards. No longer need for you to paraphrase now.

-----------------------

"many people at some point chose to become religious, so it must have something to offer."

I am talking about austrolepithicides (sp). I am talking about Homo *erectus*. We are monkeys. We have had religion since we were even more monkey.

Just because a proto-human 'chose' something, does not give it merit. I don't have time to review all their choices anyway, especially ones so counter-intuitive and with inherent contradictions.

---------------------

"However, I think you are also taking it out on religious people who are far more "relaxed", following the core of their religion (be a decent human being, pray every once in a while, wear a cross necklace / headscarf / kacchera / whatever), without hurting anyone else."

I do not care to analyse other's jewelry or other such trifles. I do maintain that their beliefs psychologically damage their children.

Religion is the opiate of the people. Opiates can be used as medicine. They can make people docile. More important, they hurt people in the long term. It's a rich analogy, unfairly derided. I have nothing to take out, and I would not take it out on them. When I don't have pathos for them, I envy them. They happen to be wrong, however.

-----------------------

"Not sure about algebra, but did the invention have anything to do with religion?"

Presumably. I know my irreligion and my philosophy (or denial thereof) has had a very large effect on my life. (I'm not sure about it either by the way, I know he was from the middle east a very long time ago, so I guess he was a Muslim.)

-----------------------

"Galileo getting sentenced to house arrest on the other hand was definitely very much related to religion."

Are you starting to agree with me?

-----------------------

"if you and a friend of yours leave the bar in the middle of the night and you make a detour to walk her home, you're doing the exact same thing"

Oh, so reason, good judgement and compassion are the exact same thing as perpetuating a society which makes women submissive. I'll bear that in mind.

-----------------------

"I've been told the Saudi air force employs female fighter pilots. Sure, they've got to be driven to work by their husband (Quran forbids women from driving a cart, and by extension a car), but it never said they can't fly a plane (that's what you get for writing your holy book a thousand years before the invention of the plane :p ), so piloting is allowed."

What a charming tale. I'll accept the first fact, though I find it doubtful (no judgement on you. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence). I don't know why the sharifs don't also forbid "air-carts" to be driven by women, they really dropped the ball there. They forbid cars, might as well go the whole hog (no offense #dontrockthecasbah).

You seem to pleasure in the small things, when it comes to religion. If anyone is guilty for ignoring one side instead of the other, it is you. If I were to give religion a Humanity Grade, it might get around 10%*. 10% good, 90% bad. You say I overlook that 10%, I believe (words can be subtle) that you overlook the 90%.

*Don't make a big deal of that number, you can substitute it for whatever you like, as long as it's less than half.

-----------------------

Julkorn: "So it is just belief against belief and neither strikes home with proof."

I agree. It is one reason I am a nihilist. But that's a very different (and more fun) argument, one I tried to initiate with one of my posts here.

"The point with all this suffering in this world is according to the bible that this world has itself parted from God by Adam's fall."

There are many interpretations of the Bible. It is all things to most people.

-----------------------

RVW: "Google "falsifiability" " etc

Science also has philosophers behind it. Whatsisname, Karl Popper. It is possible to dispute the philosophy of science: Descartes set out to prove his own existence. That is an demonstrable questioning of science. If you can hardly prove that *you* exist, how can you prove anything? To say that anything is meaningful requires a defense, philosophically speaking.

There are even different philosophies of science. Bing verifiability, bing vienna circle. They both concern science: and you have to reject one to accept the other. So, you don't believe in one kind of science, and I don't believe in either.

-----------------------

dunga: "For example, Astrology was subject of thousands of years of knowledge and educations in cultures like China and India. There is lots of lots of studies and well educated people in this matter in this both countries.
But now IGNORANT teenagers and young adults, or elder fundamentalists won't take even a 5 minutes study on the subject and already feel free to condemn all the subject and believers."

Well sure astronomy was -- wait, astroLOGy!?

"I for one i prefer to first really understand what great spiritual minds have to say, and not trying to shut them up with my ignorance. They for sure had much more going on on their minds than i had. I didn't move the life of billions of people, and I wont."

Not enough time in the world to understand everything everyone said. Gotta pick and choose.

Incidentally, I don't hold many humans at such demi-god status. They are only wo/men. I don't care much for the billions they "move", for that matter. I'm not wholly convinced on movement itself.

-----------------------

moros: "I'm a multi-agnostic. There are multiple gods I don't know anything of."

Gods essentially share the same properties. This is because he is man-made. Trite point anyway.

-----------------------

rvw: "Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if similar examples exist in Christianity"

Violence is an early part of religion. Tribes against tribes. If you think you're fighting for a place in Heaven, you might fight harder, you're more likely to win (not die), more likely to pass your belief on to kids. Crusades, Old Testament wars.

Also, prosyletising, shagging (as I mention above), etc.

"9 out of 10 religions fail in their first year" - God (from the Simpsons). It's evolution, but meme theory to be specific.

-----------------------

onto the next page :|

This is gonna be fun :P

Yay, next page!

...why?

That was longer than it seemed in the little box.* Sigh.

*4.5 page lengths! I could write a book that no-one would read or publish!

-----------------

RVW
"@i-like-swords:

Thank you for being so kind to provide us with a real-life example of a tolerant, open-minded Christian. :)"

I'm afraid he denied the word of God. He is no Christian, but a heretic. What's that smell, i-like-swords? Might it be brimstone? "Is it hot in here"? Why no, I don't find it hot in here, it is just you.

"Of course, with God never having created more people than Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain being Eve's children and your mother not being Eve..., something rather messed up must've happened somewhere along the line."

Someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, blah blah blah. I wish I could gat the guy who came up with that thrilling passage. Never has humping been so tedious.

---------------------

"Ah, so you don't discriminate based on the colour of a person's skin, but only based on their religious believes...!? How on Earth is that better than someone who "only" discriminates on, let's say, a person's sexual orientation?"

Because gays don't stone Muslims. And according to you at least, religion is a choice, whereas I didn't choose to be not gay. An analogy to religion would be politics, not sexuality. I am prejudiced to conservatives, for example.

"A yes, because your life would've been just peachy if you had been born in, oh I don't know, how about Texas? Also, twenty years ago nobody would have expected that from any country with a mainly Christian population any time soon either and look where we are today."

And why do you think that is? <sarcasm> Because of religious people like, um, Dan Savage? I wonder if the people who try to impede this progress might possibly be religious? I recall an atheist group, the Westboro Baptist Church who protest against gay rights. </sarcasm>

Well look at that, you can still be sarcastic even without formatting! (Oh man that joke will not age well)

@x:

|> |> "which were the first parents to teach their children religion?"

|> Your question makes as much sense as "Which were the first parents to teach their children art?" One cave painting had the honour of being the first.

The reason I asked about the first was to show a problem with your reasoning. You stated that people are only religious because their parents were. So, why were their parents? Because *their* parents (the grandparents) were religious. You can extend that all you want, but sooner or later, you will run into a generation which did *not* get religion from their parents (I'm simply applying the induction principle here).
I don't really care about *which* were those first parents; the point is they must've existed, I care about them (whoever they were) breaking your argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> |> "if you and a friend of yours leave the bar in the middle of the night and you make a detour to walk her home, you're doing the exact same thing"

|> Oh, so reason, good judgement and compassion are the exact same thing as perpetuating a society which makes women submissive. I'll bear that in mind.

No, that is *not* what I was saying. The origin of the rule was "good judgement and compassion". I don't deny there are people who (deliberately??) misunderstand it and abuse it to force women into being submissive. However that does not make the rule itself bad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> You seem to pleasure in the small things, when it comes to religion. If anyone is guilty for ignoring one side instead of the other, it is you. If I were to give religion a Humanity Grade, it might get around 10%*. 10% good, 90% bad. You say I overlook that 10%, I believe (words can be subtle) that you overlook the 90%.

No, I'm aiming for hearing both sides of the story. As opposed to just spouting your believes, subtly presenting them as facts and spending 10% of your time on reading (not understanding, merely reading) other people's posts and 90% on writing a reply based on poorly-understood quotations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> |> "Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if similar examples exist in Christianity"

|> Violence is an early part of religion. Tribes against tribes. If you think you're fighting for a place in Heaven, you might fight harder, you're more likely to win (not die), more likely to pass your belief on to kids. Crusades, Old Testament wars.

How on Earth does that reply even make sense...? Here's a quick recap on the conversation that quote referred to:

antiloopje wrote:
|> If God exists, I don't think he is both all-knowing and all-good. If he is all-knowing and all-good then why did he never taught us the basics of hygiene?

RvW wrote:
|> From what I understand, Islam tells you not to eat pork because it used to be a bad idea (pigs carried diseases which could transfer to humans if they ate the meat (without properly cooking it...!?)). So in a sense, that's God (or Allah, what's in a name) telling his followers something about hygiene.

antiloopje wrote:
|> Interesting opinion, because I wasn't thinking of eating pork, but you're right on that. I was more thinking about epidemies like Plague. Perhaps we may conclude that Allah is better then God? :) (as far as they're not the same)

RvW wrote:
|> Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if similar examples exist in Christianity / the Bible (I just don't know any off the top of my head).

How is tribal violence even slightly related to this...!?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> Someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, someone begat someone, blah blah blah. I wish I could gat the guy who came up with that thrilling passage. Never has humping been so tedious.

Man, is it really so difficult to connect a few dots. Okay, I'll spell it out for you: only one woman was created by God. She and her husband only had two children. Explain to me where person number five came from (or, more to the point, who where the father and mother of that fifth person).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> And why do you think that is? <sarcasm> Because of religious people like, um, Dan Savage? I wonder if the people who try to impede this progress might possibly be religious? I recall an atheist group, the Westboro Baptist Church who protest against gay rights. </sarcasm>

The discussion was on whether Islam or Christianity is "more evil" than the other; one measure of that evilness being homophobia. Hence the comparison to Texas (which has a reputation for being home to some rather fundamentalist Christians, no offence to the countless sane Texans).

Now, I don't have the vaguest clue who this "Dan Savage" is, but if he's a Christian homophobic (and Texan?) you just told me I used a great example. Also, "Baptist Church" does not sound all that "atheist" to me; am I missing some joke here...?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> Well look at that, you can still be sarcastic even without formatting! (Oh man that joke will not age well)

Meh, not like markdown has any formatting to denote sarcasm anyway. Besides, this thread will (presumably) die at some point and be purged six months after that..., quite possibly before the majority of people have forgotten about the forum issues of yesterday.

"I'm simply applying the induction principle here"

I know what you are applying, and I am fully aware that is it simple. It does not work. Here were the first christians: Jesus and his disciples. An insane man and his small cult. I do not understand how this invalidates the proposition that parents do not pass on their beliefs to their children, and this is primarily how religions are propagated. I ask you again: why are so many Christians born to Christians? Why are so many Jehova's Witnesses born to Jehova's Witnesses? Shintoism is relatively popular in the world. So why is there not a proportional number in every country, if people are freely choosing their religion, irrespective of their parents?


"No, that is *not* what I was saying. The origin of the rule was "good judgement and compassion". I don't deny there are people who (deliberately??) misunderstand it and abuse it to force women into being submissive. However that does not make the rule itself bad."

This is precisely the problem with religion! It makes these crazy rules and they survive for centuries! They thus impede progress!

"No, I'm aiming for hearing both sides of the story. As opposed to just spouting your believes, subtly presenting them as facts and spending 10% of your time on reading (not understanding, merely reading) other people's posts and 90% on writing a reply based on poorly-understood quotations."

Shame that one side is so much larger than the other. The rest is beneath both me and you.

"How is tribal violence even slightly related to this...!? "

You asked for similar instances of religion having an adaptive function. I gave you several. Tribal violence is one.

They are related in the same way that the pentadactyl limb is related to bioluminescence. They both help organisms survive and reproduce. If you would like to know more about evolution, consult your local wikipedia.

------------------

"Man, is it really so difficult to connect a few dots. Okay, I'll spell it out for you: only one woman was created by God. She and her husband only had two children. Explain to me where person number five came from (or, more to the point, who where the father and mother of that fifth person)."

This just reminded me of a particularly silly section of the Bible. I was only having a joke, man.

"Now, I don't have the vaguest clue who this "Dan Savage" is, but if he's a Christian homophobic (and Texan?) you just told me I used a great example. Also, "Baptist Church" does not sound all that "atheist" to me; am I missing some joke here...? "

Yeah, you are. To learn more about sarcasm, consult your local blah blah blah.

"The discussion was on whether Islam or Christianity is "more evil" than the other; one measure of that evilness being homophobia."

I was making a very narrow point about what you said, precisely, that homophobia exists in Texas and was widespread not long ago. I asked you whether religion was not a hinderance in your own examples of the advancement of gay rights. Which has clear overtones to the larger discussion, which is that religion retards the progress of humanity, a point which you have now made several lengthy posts disagreeing with. So, I'm not sure how I can make this more clear to you.

"quite possibly before the majority of people have forgotten about the forum issues of yesterday."

That's cool. Socrates didn't care for posterity either.

"Meh, not like markdown has any formatting to denote sarcasm anyway"

That was the joke. I admit that one wasn't very funny.

-----------------------------------------

Seems like you just woke up or something, or maybe my post was just too damn long, or maybe I'm not being clear enough. I wrote 'sarcasm' twice there, and you are a computer programmer or something, so I didn't expect you to misunderstand the context. Not sure.

I'm not gonna respond to anyone right now because the discussion is too fractured and crazy for me to want to trawl through it. I'm just gonna outline what I think on religion, briefly.

I'm an atheist. I believe in a concept of god. There is no deity/man in the sky etc. There is no supernatural entity. That's why I'm an atheist. The next bit is harder to explain. What I see god as is everything. The universe, the way in which it works, the way life works together, the way planets orbit stars, everything. Just the way the world works. There is no purpose other than existence itself.

I didn't realise that this is called pantheism until just there now :P you learn something new every day!

Oh! And I don't think there's an immortal soul.

If you've read from the start of the thread, my views have changed quite a bit in the interum.

ace, you promised to disagree with me! and then you didnt even mention that i informed you of pantheism :( i wonder if the particles which constituted shay given's head, the football, the post, and the air between them were also god :(

-----------

anyway. mea culpa. i claimed buddhists were responsible for the caste system. i only really know about the principles of buddhism, and i made some incorrect assumptions about their practices (and about how common buddhism was in india). i intended to say they were responsible in part, but really they have no important effect on the caste system. sorry.

my views actually coincide with the philosophy of buddhism, and buddhists really do seem to be peaceful. the world would be a better place if everyone was a buddhist. but i think it is the philosophy which makes this true and not the religious aspects: reincarnation, afterlife, the dalai lama being reborn, and many other things, are all negative.

so sorry, buddhists. life is suffering i guess.

@gayprince
Your post:
you first of all quoted a sura and a 'translation'.
First of all there are different translations for the quran as different scholars believe it says different things. Second of all what you posted just describes Hell. So whats violent about that? Its showing what will happen :\

Then you started giving 'reasons':
My reply s to them:
A- Who said Islam tampers with Education? Education is called a necessity to going forward in life by Islam (although after your daily duties such as praying 5 times a day). Islam is going back to its golden age again: for example Iran and Turkey. I know Iran might be spark a debate, but nevertheless it is making lots of things by itself as a result of sanctions.

B-Islam is not a misogyny. Islam tells woman to hide some parts of them, to protect them, to show honour for them. A widely known quote from our prophet is 'Heave in under your mother's feat'. And also Islam DOES NOT permit genital mutilation. Under Islamic law whoever does this has a heavy penalty.

C- I follow Islam to the bulk. (Not the Islam you guys 'know' about) I am a shia. I dont have problems with gays. If i can change their opinion I would but if i cant, live and let live.

You guys seriously dont know about Islam :\

@rvw. ahah u are right my english is very bad infact i think that u have misunderstand what i have said, unfortunately to be clear here i should write in my own language cos these are quite complex arguments to explain:P

just a short reply to Reza and Acy.

@Acy. I like your definition of god (always lowercase). I think it can be best described as "all we don't know/we can't control". From "What happens after death?" to "Why do I get sick".

So thinking a supernatural being controls all this is a lazy answer to all these questions. It's quite comfortable too, as you don't need to think about them much: a book, a priest or a church is going to tell you what you have to believe.

---

@Reza

I admit I don't know as much about Islam as I do about Christianity, although I strongly suspect it's the same shit in a different bottle. I am willing to learn though, honestly, as long as u allow me to keep being critical.

A- Translation: Being a translator myself, I admit translations can change a text a lot (Bible has many examples). But please do not insult my intelligence, I can understand anything through translation, from Shakespeare to Darwin. If you want, give the version of the Qran u like in English or Spanish and I will use it for quotes. Sadly I have not enough time and patience to learn Arabic, but seriously, can't Allah send a message that is understood in any language? Why would he make us speak different languages then? Do he want just some of us to understand it fully? Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

B- Hell: Yes, hell is a extremely violent idea. Threatening with eternal suffering for believing/not believing or acting in a particular way is especially hateful and dangerous. It can make people who believe it really miserable, and affects the way they think about others. ("what WILL happen?" Excuse me?) Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

C- Education: Qran, Bible and Torah have been an important tool of making people literate, I admit that. But the problem is they are (bad) fiction books that people take as real. So why shouldn't we use books that either are clearly fiction or teach something useful? Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

D- Misogyny: Well. what you describe is sexism in its core. Women are weaker, so they must be protected (by men, I guess). They have an honour to defend, they should cover parts of their body. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if it said the same about men? Why doesn't it say just "people"? Show me a holy book that says women, can study, work and be the head of a family or a community just as men can, and I will consider that religion to be good and reasonable. What you say is barbarism and insults all women and my intelligence. Btw, same can be said about Christianity.

C- Ok, i'm glad u don't have problem with gays. I have Muslim friends who don't have any problem with me being gay either and I have gone partying with them, so I have never said all Muslim people hate gays. Again do not insult my intelligence! About changing my opinion, I feel the same way about you, matey. I'd love to make you agnostic, but If I can't, I'm not going to do anything against u. Btw, how would you feel if your brother or son was gay and open about it? Would you be so tolerant? You know they are going to Hell! Please, be sincere.


And yes, I admit there is a lot I don't know about Islam, but I have taken the treuble of buying a Qran and reading it. I am willing to learn whatever you want to teach me about Islam. I a, willing to travel to mainly Muslim countries and make Muslim friends. No problem there! However, I demand the right of having my own opinion about it after that. Deal?

Are you ready x? I'm now going to disagree with everything you said. And I can't wait for England to crash out in the group stages in a blaze of pain and disappointment.

First you talk about Leviticus. To me, it really has nothing to do with what the religion is really about. How many people actually abide by this part of the bible? It is just an easy target for any atheist. Get to the heart of the question of the existence of god and issues relevant today and stop beating around the bush with cheap shots.

You dismiss early religion as primitive but it has the basic component, the heart of religion within it. A recognition of a greater power than themselves. And the fact that they recognised natural things as gods does not make them primitive, perhaps it even makes them more valid. You didn't deal with his argument which was that religion is not just self-propelling, it is borne from something tangible.

You try to dodge the accusation that you see religion as a very bad thing in the world using philosophical semantics, "I don't believe in good or bad." You then claim religion "retards humanity." I think we can all see what you're saying there.

You very quickly dismiss religion as a mistake made by early humans. "They don't have time to review all their choices." I have to say I thought it was funny that you assumed such an authoritative tone on proto-human timekeeping. You are familiar with the theory of evolution? Do you think that religion could possibly survive for so long, since neanderthals buried their dead until now, if it was not more positive than negative? That just sounds like your prejudice against religion rearing its ugly head.

You describe religion as psychologically damaging. Is it the parents fault, or the religion's fault? Do you really think that the majority of people have been psychologically damaged by religion? Yet more bold statements with nothing to back them up.

(Many things I don't know the context of)

"Violence is an early part of religion." I would say you are skipping over the earliest part of religion there. Community. That is the start of religion, that is its beginning and you do it an injustice to claim violence as an early part of religion. You claim the crusades were an early part of christianity then? 11th, 12th, 13th century? If you say so.

You make fun of religion by showing how I-like-swords would be condemned for a small transgression with his faith. But not all rules are of equal importance. He lives by the core principles of christianity and that is the most important thing. You do not know who is sent to hell.

I don't know why you tried to defend open hatred towards a group of people because of their religion. That was disappointing to say the least. I don't think I really have to say any more about it.

So there you go, I disagreed with you :) Happy now?

@x:

|> Here were the first christians: Jesus and his disciples.

Of course we were talking about religion in general, not merely Christianity. With Jesus himself was religious as well, he was Jewish.

Also, I never said your premise that many people get their religion from their parents. What I said was that it can't possibly be the only source. I wanted you to explain where the first religious people got it from, what is so difficult that you can't understand that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> |> "No, that is *not* what I was saying. The origin of the rule was "good
|> |> judgement and compassion". I don't deny there are people who (deliberately??)
|> |> misunderstand it and abuse it to force women into being submissive. However
|> |> that does not make the rule itself bad."

|> This is precisely the problem with religion! It makes these crazy rules and they
|> survive for centuries! They thus impede progress!

Context: Islam requiring a woman to never leave the house alone.

You yourself call it "good judgement and compassion" to walk a female friend home at night. Yet when Quran says you should it's a "crazy rule" and "impeding progress"...? That's an incredibly clear example of a double standard if you ask me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> If you would like to know more about evolution, consult your local wikipedia.

Everything in the paragraph before that is completely unrelated to anything I said.

Also, I know all about evolution; just for the record, you did figure out I'm not religious myself, right...? (You seem to think I believe in either creationism or intelligent design.) Ever heard the phrase "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it"? Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I can't defend it when I feel it's unfairly attacked.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|> To learn more about sarcasm, consult your local blah blah blah.

I *did* get you were being sarcastic (pretty hard to miss if you enclose the statement in sarcasm-tags), but that doesn't make me magically understand references ("Dan Savage" and your "atheist Baptist Church") within that statement.

agay you seem to use old testaments alot to attack christians who do not practice such things in levticus because it all changes in new testament.
@Islamophobics and agnostics Stop spreading your hate around you don't even know much about what you are arguing about get yourself a holybook ,read it front to cover maybe even talk with a person of faith and stop contradicting yours selfs

Hi Ironhearty,

You seem to be an expert about doing incorrect assumptions about people, even though I have explained myself more than once in this thread (like you saying I hate Islam because of terrorism when I haven't mentioned it once and is last thing of my list of "why to I despise Islam").

I am a Christian myself (Catholic), just an Atheist one. I have read the bible more than once, I know the new testament better than the old one, and I think I know quite a lot about Christianity and its history, from Saint Paul to American denominations. Now, haven't mentioned the old testament one single time in any point, but if you think I have done it, please tell me where exactly.

I bought and read the Qran (partially) to read it in planes and have a better understanding of what is it really about, and not to "work" with second-handed opinions. I admit I don't know everything about Islam, but I am willing to learn if someone is willing to explain.

I also have a great interest in Judaism, but rarely attack it directly cause it's not an imperialistic religion.

I am very interested in religions, both current and "dead" ones, and try to learn about them as much as I can, so I know what I'm attacking. For example I have listened to many college courses on the history of religions.

I have no problem in speaking with people of faith (whatever that means), many of my friends are believers, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. I can debate in a respectful manner with them and they almost never get offended because I almost never make it personal.

I think I am entitled to have an opinion about any subject, even if some people don't like it, and I think I have the right to express it, don't I? Many people give their opinions on sports, history or politics, why can't I give mine about Islam or Christianity?

And I am very Gandhinian about this: "Hate the sin but not the sinner".

My biggest problem with religions is that they are based on lies, such as the existence of god(s), bad literature disguised as holy texts, alleged immutable truths... And it doesn't matter what you say: a lie is a lie is a lie.

Now, would you mind explaining me where exactly have I contradicted myself? Or is it just another of your void statements?

I still think u r cute, though :P

Just to be sure , in no way whatsoever do I mean to personally attack people or offend people in this post. I merely debate against what has been said and ask a few questions and things of my own. ;)


Translation was mentioned - You said 'can't Allah send a message that is understood in any language? Why would he make us speak different languages then?'. Most countries in the world speak different dialects and languages making it impossible for God to speak a language that everyone understood. But, to contradict that, God is supposedly almighty - If he has unlimited power shouldn't he be able to do the impossible ,just as Jesus (supposed Son of God in Christianity; wouldn't the 'Father' be stronger than the 'Son'?) apparently did?


Another religion I want to mention is Judaism - I can't understand why Jews are hated worldwide (especially by Christianity I think). I have been told that Christians hate a Jew betrayed Jesus. Is this not the same as 'sin'? We have all done so much 'sin' in our lives, does this mean that we should all go to Hell? What if a Jew asked for forgiveness, would he still be considered 'evil'?. Christians belive to 'Treat your neighbour like you would like to be treated' (close to that). Since this was something that Jesus supposedly said, it would be doing wrong to go against that (as Jesus is apparently God) but Jews have been hated against and discriminated against repeatedly still e.g the Diaspora and World Wars, but Christians wouldn't like to that being done to them? No offence to any devoted Christians or anyone else but I hardly see any Christians treating their neighbour as themself most of the time.


Another question - In Christianity, they only follow the new testament, may I ask why???
In the old testament, pork and many other animals Christians and many other people eat aren't allowed to be consumed. They are seen as 'dirty' animals according to Judaism and Islam. If you are a Christian, you would probably believe in Noah's Ark then. To get rid of the faeces (according to Islam and Judaism), pigs ate the faeces. I don't see a reason not to believe the old testament (it is still the word of God, only sent by other prophets) but to many religious Islamic and Jews, it looks like Christians disobey the 'food laws'.

Just an edifying aside: Islam requires escorts for women, and the veil and whatnot not because of the Qur'an, but because of the Sunnah al Muhammad. The Qur'an itself doesn't say much about how women are supposed to be treated, just as it doesn't say much on many moral subjects. The reaction to this was for the Muslims to say - The Qur'an doesn't provide enough instruction on how we should live our lives, so the safest way (the path or "Sunnah") is the way of Muhammad. If we strive to live our lives as Muhammad did, we know we are acting in accordance with the will of Allah. So then all the accounts of what Muhammad said and did (the "Hadith") were collected together and decided to be true accounts and part of the Sunnah, or false accounts that were to be ignored. This happened in the 8th and 9th centuries CE.

The problem was that during Muhammad's life, his various lieutenants and governors and whatnot were trying to use his wives as political pawns to gain power and standing with Muhammad. His reaction was to force them to primarily stay home, and to wear veils and be escorted when they went out. This was an expedient solution to ward off the gamesmanship that was surrounding his wives, but due to the nature of Islamic law and tradition, this solution became enshrined in the Sunnah al Muhammad and is now applied to all Muslim women.

It's important to note that Muhammad didn't treat all women with such protectiveness as Muslims treat their women today. Some women actually fought in his battles, even as officers. One of his daughters (the mother of his only surviving male progeny, Ali) even led a revolution against various power factions after Muhammad's death - those on her side were called the Partisans (Shi'a) of Ali, which is basically where the schism between Shi'a and Sunni began.

Anyways, interesting stuff IMO... The law of Sharia is Qur'an > Sunnat al Muhhamad > Fatwas.