This thread seems to be suffering from an excess of what Stephen Colbert (the American comedian) labelled as "Truthiness":

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that’s not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. …What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

Truthiness is “What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possible be true.” It’s not only that I FEEL it to be true, but that I (emphasis) feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality”.

The complaint of "rudeness" levelled at BD, Paul L and stevenlmeyer - is this not really a complaint of "logical rudeness", while KT meanwhile employs every logical fallacious device to AVOID answering and to distort and misinterpret the Qu'ran rather than speak the truth?

If you would like to ponder the way forward in this debate, here is an article which poses exactly the dilemma before us:

"(This) whimsical case is an easy way to raise a serious question: in the name of cooperative truth-seeking, can we expect believers to put aside their beliefs or compromise their loyalty?"

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

"Rudeness insulates the believer from expounded criticism. The rude believer need not answer criticism, but may deflect or explain it away. In legal terms, the rude believer's refusal to answer his opponent is a refusal to recognize a burden of going forward created by the critic's criticism."

"rudeness follows from unobjectionable, even praiseworthy, features of believers and their beliefs. True as well as false theories, if believed true with good faith, will be applied to all relevant contexts and will not be compromised to salve the feelings of dissenters or to serve their ideas of inquiry."

The whole essay which ends with an appeal to courtesy, to "create the ethics of argument" in debate is worth a read.

Keysar: "The onus is on you to disprove me... disprove that the Qur'an is the words of God."

Based on your argument, I have a written statement jointly signed by you and me, that your Islamic association borrowed A$1,000,000 from me. If you disbelieve, the onus is on you to disprove me. Pay back if you fail to disprove me.
After you successfully disprove this claim, there's another written statement that you owe me A$5,000,000. Again the onus is on you to disprove me or pay up smart. And wait... a heap more written statements for you to disprove, even after this.

The point is, requirement that I disprove you is stupid. It tantamounts to a "sin" in reasoning, a fallacy, a failure to think logically.

Your intellectualism...is in tatters...is out the window. Your statement confirms what I've said about intellectualism in Islam:

"There is no such thing as a Muslim intellect, which is a contradiction in terms. Muslims are at best pseudo-intellect, something that's proven again and again."

( Stevenlmeyer, Here is a clue. Islamic intellectualism was never up to scratch in science.)

Keysar, Not to worry though, you're doing a fine job of a spokesman of Islam, just what I expect. Still you compare favourably to CJMorgan who cowardly ran away with tail between his wobbly legs, saying "I'm not going to respond to....GZ".

But still you have not provide clear evidence that Mohammad had met with an angel.
The onus was on Mohammad (and hence Muslims) to prove such a claim. Not for me to disprove.
Failure to provide an evidence tantamounts to conceding that such angel claims are null and void.

Games over... << Islam's foundation is based on Mohammad's lies>>.

Bushbasher,
Islam's threat to freedom and democracy is, well... as clear as the day sky is blue.
I assume you don't wear rose-tinted glasses and is capable of discovering Islamic threats for yourself.
Islam is a threat not simply because it's based upon lies.
A lie is only a temporary threat. What is truly threatening is lies that are "self-replicating", which Islam is.

well, that was a productive little exchange. i must try it again sometime.

yes, GZ, game is over. and yes, you won. unfortunately, you've been playing solitaire. i've gently tried to indicate to you why, but you are clearly too busy with your game to take notice. enjoy yourself.

katieO, i'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. if you're suggesting that a polite manner doesn't imply correctness or honesty or logical integrity, then of course you're right. if you're suggesting that "logical rudeness" (if i understand the term - bluntness?) can be confronting but nonetheless logical and reasonable and fair, then of course you're right.

but if you're suggesting the only "rudeness" on this thread is in the form of "logical rudeness", i think you must be kidding. and if you're suggesting that K trad is alone in using rhetorical tricks to avoid answering questions in a meaningful way, i think again you must be kidding.

early on in this thread, i tried to indicate why i thought the text-based attacks on islam here were in bad faith, and probably meaningless (certainly for a non-believer such as myself). you took me up on a point, and i clarified it. as i far as i can tell, you didn't respond again. so, i don't know whether that left you agreeing with me or not.

but i think what i said has been demonstrated ad nauseum. what we're not getting here is strong but fair backing of K trad into a logical corner. what we're getting is simply a bad faith badgering, of an intensity and an absurdity that disgraces everyone involved.

as i said in my very first post, i'm no fan of k trad. but when it comes to this kind of shameful and pointless bullying, i know whose side i'm on.

KTRAD,

You are just plain gutless. You can avoid personal questions about your family, that’s reasonable, although only one of the questions I asked could be considered personal. But the things you say in public spheres, perhaps where you didn’t expect to be reported, are overwhelmingly our business. Your attempt to suggest that these are somehow personal is patently ridiculous and a further sign of your unwillingness to be open and honest.

I was actually hoping that you had reasonable explanations for some of the disgraceful things you are reported as saying. But by your blunt refusal to discuss these things you've shown that you have little interest in real dialogue.

You say >>”Insulting people with whom you disagree does not prove your point.”

Really? And here I was, sure that it did.

Hiding doesn't prove it either by the way.

You say>>” The ball is my present argument, deal with it if you have the wit,”

I might not make the rules around here but you sure as hell don’t either. You can try and limit the discussion to only those topics you are comfortable with but I’m not going to meekly submit. I fully believe that most of the questions I have put to you are well within the scope of this topic. This is a thread on secular democracy and I for one am concerned that radical Islam is a threat to such a system. I think, given your inability to be open, that there is no way you are as moderate as you claim.

CJ

you say>> “Paul.L is most definitely NOT A BIGOT... I must have been led astray by all the Islamophobic, prudish and generally intolerant far-right comments ….

I am just flabbergasted that you can suggest with a straight face that I insult people.

KTRAD has politely engaged in meaningless discussion with the Christians whilst refusing to answer the tough questions regarding

1) his support for one of the most intolerant men in Australia, Hilali.
2) any of the inflammatory things he has said.

Politeness-is-an-overrated-virtue-anyway. The-truth-is-far-more-important.

GZ: << ...CJMorgan who cowardly ran away with tail between his wobbly legs... >>

Paul.L: << I am just flabbergasted that you can suggest with a straight face that I insult people >>

I'm afraid that in this thread I've strayed from the teachings of St Mark (Twain):

" Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. "

My apologies to anybody still reading this thread who's not a fool.

This has been an interesting thread.

K.TRAD the "well-mannered Muslim" uses every possible rhetorical trick to avoid answering the hard questions.

K.TRAD, why has Keith Moore's amazing discovery of scientific miracles in the koran never appeared in a QUALITY PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL? (No reply that actually addresses the issue.)

K.TRAD, do you have any evidence that an angel transmitted the koran to Muhammad other than the unsupported words of Muhammad and his followers? (No reply that actually addresses the issue.)

Meanwhile the usual gang of "useful fools" and apologists run interference for the well-mannered K.TRAD against those of us who are so impolite, wicked and ill-mannered as to demand K.TRAD provide some CREDIBLE evidence for his extravagant claims.

"Why," they wail, "do you focus on Islam. You must be guilty of that worst of all thought crimes, Islamophobia. You must be a racist. Call the thought police."

And then we have the usual Christian nuts, that includes you BOAZY, who maintain that theirs is the "true superstition" and Islam the false one.

All this reinforces my belief in "GOD THE DIVINE COMEDIAN." (No relation to "Allah," "Yahweh," the Trinity or any of the numerous Hindu godlets.)

Those of you with cash to spare may wish to donate to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust. See:

http://www.ayaanhirsiali.org/Security.html

The lady needs protection from some of the practitioners of the religion of peace. Seems they want to kill her.

Here is a link to an article on Islam by Sam Harris, author of the best selling "Letter to a Christian Nation." The title of the article is:

LOSING OUR SPINES TO SAVE OUR NECKS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

And here is a link to Sam Harris' home page:

http://www.samharris.org/

BOAZY, spare me a riposte about peaceable, loveable Christians. WHEN CHRISTIANS EXERCISE POLITICAL POWER THEY'RE AS BAD AS MUSLIMS.

The reason Europe advanced in science and technology while the Ottoman Empire stagnated is that Europeans got out from under their religion. In Dar-ul-Islam the people lost their battle against their religious authorities and were condemned to backwardness.