I agree that god is not the problem, whatever name you may chose to assign to this mythical non-existent being. The problem is the belief in god - a belief that is impervious to rational analysis, and provides an excuse for the most hideous examples of cruelty and suffering of our fellow persons. People kill people - people save people. It is up to us - there is nothing and nobody else.

The beauty of atheism is that one is solely responsible for ones actions - there is no non-existent deity to defer to and to blame for one's actions. Conversely, religious belief gives zealous maniacs an out clause.. 'I didn't do it, it was Allah acting through me.. hang on while I collect on my 72 virgins...'

I used to agree with Mr Goth, and argue that atrocities committed in the name of religion were not the fault of religion itself but the fault of those who would seek to advance their political ambitions through turning others into cannon (or suicide belt) fodder.

These days though, it seems apparent that 'faith' will always be used by the bin Ladens of this world to manipulate idiots into committing grotesque acts of violence. Religous zealotry is an inevitable consequence of religion. Bin Laden is no more religous than I (an avowed atheist) am. He just knows how to pull the right strings to achieve his ends.

I wonder why these men, who die for other men and not for God, blindly believe their religious leaders in a similar way as they believe in their god.

If I had faith in a god (which I don't) and if I thought that this god was all good and loving, then why would I not question those leaders who claim that this god wants dead and violence, oppression and destruction?

Is it that they have been taught and brainwashed into believing that having blind faith is a good thing in the first place?
Religion (any religion) does that- training people to believe things for which there is no evidence, training people to never lose faith not even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Is that why they do not to question things for themselves? Because they have been taught to accept things as long as it comes from religious leaders or a holy book?
Have they been taught to submit themselves to religion, to a god, without question?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

I want to question why OLO contains so many articles sympathetic to Islam. Is this reflective of the readership? I don’t think so. If we look at the comments above it would seem that the largest faith position amongst OLO readers is atheism.

I am not particularly favourable to Islam myself. I could never understand what would attract a non-Muslim to the faith. This article says nothing further to make it appeal to me. The article tries to rationalise or contextualise the calls to violence from the Holy books or from twisted leadership. But after such calls to violence are stripped away, what is left? Is there anything in Islam which gives us an example of the way to peace?

The article says God is silent and dumb. The same with this article, in terms of showing the way to peace

Hey Mick V

I think it comes back to the fact that OLO will publish what is newsworthy and what is of interest to the most people. I think most people are currently very interested in Islam and the impact it is having worldwide. I don't think it really matters what viewpoint is espoused as people will post extensively when they disagree..

Irfan is the most-published OLO apologist for Islam - there are plenty of people on the forum who are willing to debate with him and the whole process seems healthy to me :)

Cheers.

Bashir

You say:
"I am unaware of any occasion or record in which the Prophet or even the holy Koran sanctioned people to kill innocent children, women, elderly and non-combatant civilians in their homes, work places, mosques and schools."

Those nasty infidels and disbelievers could'nt possibly be innocent, could they?
You must have missed this little gem in Alhadith.

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

What about the verses in Quran that refer to me and my family as filthy (9:28) or command that we be crucified and cut at the neck (5:33 & 47:4)?

You are apologising for the disgusting dictates of a mentally insane man.

The proposition that God is somehow simultaneously omnipotent and helpless is confusing to this little atheist.

>>It is unfortunate that God cannot speak for himself to expose those conmen who slaughter innocent creatures in his name. I wish he could.<<

According to others on this Forum, God has performed some pretty neat tricks in his time, both off his own bat when Moses was around, and subsequently through Jesus.

So what exactly is preventing him from withholding some power from the bad guys, and beefing up the defences of the good guys?

How about reaching out with a pair of celestial pliers to defuse the suicide bomber's explosives, just before he blows up a few more innocent women and children?

How about a small vision or two, appearing behind the dais of the preacher in the process of inflaming a mob to wreak murderous havoc on their neighbour, and wagging an admonishing finger?

Am I missing something here?

Pericles
No I think you have just about got it covered.
Here Here - We second that motion.
Well said!