Keysar,
Are you still here??
The conclusion of my challange on Islam so far:
(1) No, Mohammad never proved that he met with an angel from God.
(2) You are not able to provide an evidence of such a meeting.
(3) Mohammad lied about his angel encounters. Such lies led to a false religion.
(4) Islam's foundation is based on Mohammad's lies.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Bushbasher wrote: <<...your answers...silly. the logic wasn't tough, but you missed it.>>

Perhaps you've been a tutor for too long. You need to learn too, not just your students.

Apparently you did not learn from my last post. You continue to make circular assumptions, put words in my mouth, but worst - you set up a strawman (Good,loving,charming students that no-one could possibly want to hurt).

First, your strawman:
1 - Please tell your lovely Muslim students that GZ is attacking Islam as being a false religion.
2 - They can come here to defend Islam against GZ.
3 - How then will you defend those lovely Muslim students?

Next...
1 - Don't assume you pose clever but subtle questions. (I don't answer your tutorial questions and get marks for them.)
2 - If you don't get the answer you expect, perhaps (i) your questions are not clear (ii) my expectation is not the same as yours.

Next...
Earlier I wrote: "...So your sympathy goes to Muslims"...
I did NOT say you "defend muslims because islam is attacked". You told a little lie.
But after your comments, I now become interested to know how exactly you'd defend Muslims? How will you support their arguments and endorse Islam religion?
I'd like to determine how much of a Yo-Yo is your sense of principle.

Lastly...:
I am not "preaching to the converted".
1 - I challenged a prominent Muslim in Australia.
2 - The outcome highlights the falsehood of Islam now, for the future.
My intention is not tough logic...but did you miss it ??

( I would compliment katieO & BD. I find them, among a few others, intellectual and post beautifully.)

GZ, do i have "a touch of presumptuousness, self-conceit and arrogance". more than a touch! am i "not a principled person"? i'll let others judge.

i didn't knowingly set up a strawman. but i do think something like that is the key, distinguishing A from B.

for me the A and B are:

A. attacking the evidentiary foundations of islamic beliefs

B. arguing that islam is a threat

are you arguing the detrimental effects of muslims' beliefs (B), or the truth of muslims' beliefs (A)?

1) you seemed to be engaging in (A), and i couldn't see why, so selectively. the same charge of (A) can presumably be applied just as well to other religions.

2) in response, you claimed "islam is the greatest threat to freedom and democracy".

3) to that, i responded that you weren't actually arguing for that.

i could summarize the rest, but i think it's already clear why we're arguing at cross purposes.

your implicit argument seems to be that (A) somehow implies (B). if that's not the argument then, again, i don't know what the point of your arguing (A) is.

the trouble is, i don't simply accept that (A) implies (B). you have to argue it, or argue (B) directly. and yes, you're under no obligation to do that: i am explaining my criticism.

in fleshing out my criticism, i gave two examples:

i) other religions satisfy (A). so, if your argument applies, why are they not also a threat? if they are a threat, why do you not show the same concern?

ii) i know many muslims who are good people. true, you didn't say i "defend" muslisms. but the pertinent question is, are you attacking them? that is, does your claim (B) constitute an attack on muslims in general? you have made broad derogatory comments about muslims, but i'm honestly not sure. my point is, to the extent that (B) constitutes a general attack on muslims, i feel that my good friends are evidence against that. and, i will defend my friends against such an attack.

Bushbasher,

On one hand you didn't knowingly setup a strawman...but on the other, you think a strawman is needed for distinguishing (A) (B)??
Ummm...I'm too precise and exact to not notice your conflicting tones.

You could have simply stated (A)(B) previously, without making a condescending remark. A strawman is never needed.

I now understand your doubts revolve around (A) & (B):
(A). attacking the evidentiary foundations of islamic beliefs
(B). arguing that Islam is a threat

But then you completely muddied the water by saying:
<<...muslims who are good people....are you attacking them?... does...(B) constitute an attack on muslims in general? you have made broad derogatory comments about muslims, but i'm honestly not sure...>>
<<...to the extent that (B) constitutes a general attack on muslims...i will defend my friends against such an attack>>

Is it disingenuity on your part, or your comments were unintentionally muddled??
Either way, I think you now owe me a clarification before I will reply your doubts.

First, I do NOT accept that (B) constitutes a general attack on Muslims. Do you agree?? (One is religion, the other human)

If you agree (YES), please explain why your above comments seem to suggest otherwise (NO).
If you do disagree (NO), then you need to seriously explain your attitude towards freedom of speech.

Let’s apply the same test to your texts Boaz. The words of interpreters rather than the text itself.

I already quoted to you Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This alleged command from Moses has been interpreted by the ancient bible scholars to indicate that they can take a girl as young as three years and one day. Refer: Sanhedrin 7/55B, Abodah Zarah 36B-37A and Mishnah Niddah 5:4, there are more references, but this should be enough to highlight your double standards.

KatieO, I really hate to say this, but you should also think about the above before you cast aspersions on me. Also, some people may not like to stoop into the gutter of rudeness, it is like the person who eye-gouged me in a ruck in schoolrugby, or the one who elbowed me in the collarbone in C-grade club league, then there was the dude who dug his studs in my shin and did a spin whilst I was on the ground, this shames them not me. I play clean, this is my life-code.

GZ, your logic should even astound you. If you have a test, or a means of proving or disproving, come out with it, you have not even suggested what type of proof you would like in order to believe? Which means that you are trying to play games with us or with yourself, God knows. You’ve proved nothing and disproved nothing, your trick of asking a question and refusing any logical answer merely betrays gameplay and possibly deceit.

PaulL, really now, am I suppose to cower into answering your questions purely because of your insults and rudeness, I don’t think so? Had most of these questions been asked politely by another person, they would have been answered like they were answered on radio on several occasions, too late for this post. But as irritating as this may be to you, your attempts at bullying will get you nowhere.

The purpose of this comment is not to appease GZ, he seems to have made up his mind before asking the question, I deal with the issue for the benefit of the objective readers.

The test of whether a person saw or did something is one that is tested by contemporaries, just like the miracles of Christ or Muhammad, peace be upon them both. Were contemporaries convinced?

In both cases, not all contemporaries were convinced, certainly not on the surface, in both cases, converts were won over a period of time and the veracity of these converts is one that is judged by their contemporaries, because in such cases, the person can stand up for himself and defend himself or try to.

When the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him first saw the angel, he was not certain himself as to whether or not he should believe his own vision, he went to his wife Khadija, she was 55 at the time whilst he was 40. She was the person to apply the first test, she said, next time he comes, if I am around, let me know. Sure enough, he saw the vision when she was around, so she uncovered a part of her head and the angel left. She said, surely this cannot be a demon, because demonic spirits do not care for modesty.

Then she took him to her uncle Waraqa, Waraqah was a Christian who knew the scriptures. Waraqah was old and had lost his eyesight. He said to the prophet: This is the same angel that spoke to Moses, I wish that I would be alive when your own people turn on you and force you to leave. Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him said: Would my people force me to leave? Waraqah said: never has anyone come with such a vision, except that his people turned on him.

People do this because they like to be set in their ways.

These were the first two witnesses in favour of the prophet’s vision of the angel, there is more.

Love and best wishes

I've always regarded angels as being an imaginative expression of a deeper truth. Am I to believe that both the Muslims and the Christians on this thread believe that angels actually exist as some sort of sentient being?