TR, you would have to be fundamentally ignorant of the progenitors of human conceptualization to even remotely suggest that people believe in God because of mans written word. Then again listening to your arguments against belief one can not help think that if you believe in the forces of gravity it is only because you read of them in a book and that is the extent of your ability to conceptualize. "If I haven't read it in a book, it does not exist unless I want to believe it, and if I don't want to believe it, it must be proven in spite of my adamant denial."
Here's a little something for thought. As best science can discover. A belief in God predates even effective tool making in the annals of human history on conceptual thought.
Any fool can use the Bible to attack just like any fool can use science to destroy. It's not the book. It's the interpretation sought by specific readership.

I have warned you, goodthief, that if you take the "so, what do you mean by..." route, you will end up with big handfuls of nothing, just like Derrida and co.

Meaning has to start somewhere.

This is where "experience" becomes important. If you can hear, see, touch, taste or smell something, it is an experience. If you can't hear, see, touch, taste or smell something, it still can exist, but it only in your mind, right?

Your mind collects, marshals and files away ideas, but these do not arrive out of nothing - you must have experienced something in order to create knowledge from them. Without experience, nothing can exist.

As I mentioned before, the best way to test the "axiom" position is to try to imagine a situation, an item of awareness, anything, in fact, that can be described as "knowledge" without there having been some prior experience. If you cannot do this, then it would be fair to say that experience axiomatically precedes knowledge.

I am puzzled why you should feel threatened by this concept.

You keep reminding me that you have been unable to address my musing "I'm particularly interested in how you cope with the idea that God made man in his own image"

Man is a highly transient concept. We didn't exist a short (cosmologically speaking) time ago, and we will cease to exist a short time hence. In between, we have taken a number of physical shapes, but also grown through a vast number of mental/developmental stages.

My concern for people who think in terms of "God making man in his own image" is which version of "Man" do they pick, and why?

Pericles, "My concern for people who think in terms of "God making man in his own image" is which version of "Man" do they pick, and why?"

I think your fundamental issue here stems from your interpretation of "man vis a vis Gods image". It isn't that we resemble God in appearance. It is that we are Gods creation or made in his image of what man is to be.

Evolution is a very slow process. Is there any evidence that man has stopped evolving? Who knows what Gods final image of man will be except God.

Mans advancement is an equally slow process with many a backward step. however, I would suggest that that is little reason to move even slower in order to maintain the status quo. Confident Muslim integration is equally relevant as is confident Thai or Vietnamese or Ukrainian integration.

I don't know just what Muslims think in this regard but my personal take is that these next 20 years will be a great turning point for Muslims and by definition Islam and .... considering that we have progressed in our general thinking (fingers crossed) that we should all help make that transitional experience for Muslims as painless as possible. Not for reasons of religion but, rather for reasons of humankind and universal brotherhood.

I'm not advocating appeasement. I don't like concessions to established law nor social norms. Societies are different and should be respected for that and understood as part of the integration process. Moving to Australia should mean just that (in the totality of that society) as should moving to the United States or Russia or Argentina. Each of those countries named bring forth their own image just by saying the name. "Argentina" BAM an image pops into your head. "Russia" BAM a different image. "Australia" BAM, different again. Vive la Difference.
So far I think Muslims who have emigrated to Australia enjoy that difference. Lets not have the few ruin it for everyone else.

I had trouble with the terms resurgence and renaissance used in the article. It seemed to me the renaissance was already here as the terms were synonymous. Macquarie Dictionary confirmed my thought.

I have already posted info in an attempt to debunk the 'small minority' myth.

Just this week a poll in the USA discovered that 24% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified. This is on the back of the UK survey finding that 40% of UK Muslims believe an Islamic state is preferable to democracy. In addition, we have seen the attempts to install Sharia Law in Pakistan.

So when will we experience a renaissance? Apparently, when 80% of Muslims believe what the very large minority (throughout the world)now believe.

Renaissance or resurgence is playing semantics -- the rebirth, rise, revival, resurgence or renaissance is already here. Debating whether or not humans were created in God's image or likeness does nothing to address the core problems.

Others seem to be able to identify more cogent concepts, hence the new business of informing corporations on how to establish Muslim friendly workplaces. Some on OLO may benefit by hopping on the bandwagon -- by marketing courses on establishing Christian friendly workplaces. No lying, cheating and adultery -- wouldn't that be an interesting business environment.

PALE.. if you emailed me b4 about this, please do it again, but I'll keep an eye out for the other thread you make on that. Can you explain exactly what you are hoping for from me? I'm certainly against cruelty to animals.
Sorry if I seem to have faded, I have a lot on my brain at present :)
Patience..

George...
Yes.. I do see where ur coming from. But you seem to have missed a differentiation I make between 'Muslims' (who I generally refrain from condemning directly) and 'Islam' which I condemn outright and describe as 'abhorrent'... yes, it is an adjective and an opinion.
To me, its more of a fact though, in the sense that Pablo Escobar's wild parties with underage girls and his murder of all rivals and law enforement officials who opposed him in Columbia is also 'abhorrent'.

I fail to see how this is simply 'an opinion'. We speak based on our moral sense... and unless we want to 'invert' our morality, it is quite accurate to describe Escobar as 'abhorrent, evil, scum' though, I hasten to add, until his dying breath expires, he is als a sinner for whom Christ died. Perhaps I should simply call his 'code of life' abhorrent. Few would disagree with me on that..would you?

To me, we have an inalienable right to describe moral/spiritual codes as we see them. This is a right conferred by the Almighty (read Galatians 1 for info about 'a different gospel').
It could also be described as a prophetic responsiblity. (Prophetic in the sense of 'forthtelling' the Word rather than 'foretelling' the future)

To not only deny Christ's Sonship, but to claim that to assert it is blasphemy.... is abhorrent. To then call for the destruction of those who assert Christ as 'Son of God' is beyond abhorrent.

Ooook.. the axe is pretty sharp now :) I'll stop grinding it.

TO ALL ... the standard of debate/ discussion here is heartwarming.
All we need now to put the icing on the cake is for Pericles and TR to see the light :)

'All we need now to put the icing on the cake is for Pericles and TR to see the light :)'

Boaz, I take it that when you refer to 'light' you are not referring to electromagnetic radiation.

Rather, you are using a well worn religious metaphor used to describe a phenonomen whereby nonsensical propositions are believed without proper supporting evidence.

The general process is;

1) Switch of mental faculties
2) Replace reason with faith
3) Embrace unsubstantiated dogma
4) Reinforce delusion by parrot like repetition of dogma. Preferably at a temple, church, or mosque with people of the same mindset.
5) Inoculate the mindset from free-thought by branding non-believers as gentiles, pagans, kafirs or dhimmis. That is, dehumanise the perceived threat.