Reynard wrote: "Actually it's more for agnostics than atheists, but too many people don't know the difference. Really I would have to say that anyone who claims to be an atheist is as deluded as anyone who claims to know there is a god. The bottom line is that no-one knows, and no-one can know. Not until they die, anyway; and I'm quite uncertain about post-death epistemology!

Perhaps there has been a name change - Agnostics Against Bigotry! "

There are degrees of atheism though Reynard - Richard Dawkins uses a scale in "The God Delusion" (great read, throroughly recommend it) ranging from a 1 being an utterly devout religious adherent, to a 7 being someone who is utterly atheist and believes that there can be no god. I would class myself as a 6 - someone who does not believe because I have no evidence to do so, leaving me room to amend my position should the state of the evidence change... I am not holding my breath.

So anyway, long story short, count me in to the non-believers guild against bigotry, or how about the secular humanist guild of Australia?

Other than the occasional racist rant in here, there has been some interesting interfaith and intercultural dialogue. Irfan, you seem mainly to be responding to the extremist stuff, how about some feedback on some of the more constructive posts re: Islamic enclaves in non-Islamic countries?

Yvonne said: "Islam is part of the whole Judeo-Christian thing. They all stem from the same source and desire the same outcome. To please One God in order to be admitted to Eternal life on Judgment Day. Actually, Islam is far more tolerant in their belief in that non-Muslims can also be allowed in, unlike the Christians. Muslims actually believe that Jews and Christians have a good chance in pleasing God".

Hmmm. I was actually under the impression that Muslims believe that Jews and Christians only have a good chance in pleasing God if they convert to Islam. If Muslims are so tolerant Yvonne, why is it that even in 'moderate' Malaysia ethnic Malay people who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles? Indeed many Muslims who have converted to Christianity lead "double lives", hiding their new faith from friends and family. In April 2000, the state of Perlis also passed a sharia law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and apostates to one year of "rehabilitation". At the federal level the leaders of the PAS, the opposition Islamic party, have stated that the penalty for apostasy — after the apostates are given a period of time to repent and they do not repent — is death.

I suggest Yvonne that you also read up on the position of the severely repressed Christian minority in Pakistan. If you Google Pakistan + Christian you will find plenty of references to the appalling repression that they face. The BBC News article "Pakistan's Christian minority" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1625976.stm) is a good place to start.

Where would religious folk be without the NAZI's? Apologists for reckless and idiotic comments by Popes, Sheiks and Rabbis would be absolutely lost.

Let's stick to the main points of this thread. Namely, Sheik Hilali's 'catmeat' comments are completely wrong, unjustified and boof-headed. This fact has been dodged by most Muslim commentators in the usual cowardly fashion.

And Irfan is sticking to the typical Muslim script by deflecting blame and excusing the unexcusable by pointing the finger and yelling, "Look at that Jew, he's just as bad, or even worse than my Sheik!"

It's all smoke and mirrors Irfan. Your Sheik should hand in his badge and resign - but I have a feeling that arrogance will dictate otherwise. After all when you have god on your side it is very easy to delude oneself.

As I said before. The reason Prof Israli"s comments did not attract a lot of attention is that most people did not find them offensive, but thought the comments reasonable and probably correct.

End of story!

Why are atheists deluded Reynard?

An Atheist is somebody who thinks Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show.

An Antitheist knows Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show but is all aware that the purpose for the television series Star trek was to entertain a television viewing audience.

An agnostic is somebody who thinks we can never know if Leonard Nimoy is an actor and we can never know if Leonard Nimoy if he ever existed did play a fictitious species and we can never know if Vulcans are fictitious and we can never know if it was on a television series. Agnostics believe it is better to err on the side of caution incase vulcans are real and they will refuse to beam up non-believers.

Theists believe Leonard Nimoy never existed that it is a belief in science that misguided people come to the conclusion Mr Spock was a character played by an actor. Theists believe Mr Spock is a true Vulcan and we need to have faith in vulcans to be saved by vulcans. The proof is the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck. Theists assert that through the the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck faith in the series will literally lead us to an ever lasting space journey where we will go where no man has gone before.

A spiritualist (naturists, animists, positive thinkers ) believes there is no Vulcan or actor playing a vulcan but there is plenty of beaming up going on. A spiritualist believes we dont have to go where no man has gone before because we are already coming and going where no man has ever come or departed from before. A spiritualist believes vulcans are mearly symbolic.

aqvarius says I am comparing "a Muslim cleric, the representative of all Muslim of Australia, speaking the most ugly and racially abusive trash against his\their adopted society to his\their religious\cultural community".

1. Where is your proof Islam has a clerical class?
2. In what sense does Hilaly represent all Muslims? Have they elected him? If so, why do so many openly reject his authority on even the simplest matters such as moonsighting for determining religious festivals?
3. How can Hilaly represent Aussie Muslims when he doesn't speak the language (i.e. English) which the majority of them speak?
4. Do clergy represent even the most nominal followers of a religion?
5. Does it make sense to hold even luke-warm believers responsible for what clerics say? Do the Jensens speak for all Anglicans?