What is fundamentalism? This is my take:

Fundamentalists know all there is to know, being generous and forgiving to those who follow their teachings, but harsh towards those who turn away. They are pre-occupied with condemning others and finding fault with others and give no attention to their own selves.

Being religious (or even strict in observing your religion) does not make one a fundamentalist and a fundamentalist is not necessarily religious.

The woman behind the niqab can be as much a moderate as a fundamentalist, with one proviso: the moderate living in the West may consider it too confronting for non-Muslims that it would do more harm than good.

I have met atheists on these forums who i would regard as fundamentalist. They seem to have hermetically sealed themselves with the notion “There is no proof God exists”, which strictly speaking is true.

But when you provide them with evidence (without any claim to absolute proof), they simply respond with the same mantra: “This is not proof that God exist.”.

Of course very few criminals would be convicted if the criterion was absolute proof rather than the weight of evidence (“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”).

One also finds plenty of examples of contempt and derision in the writings of some leading atheists, as well as very poor scholarship. One exception is Victor J. Stenger in “God: the Failed Hypothesis” who is a breath of air in that he adopts a strictly scientific approach to the issue.

Anyway, that is my personal take. I’d be interested in your thoughts and in particular what you consider to be examples of fundamentalism.

My example, contrasting fundamentalist with moderates, follows.

salaams

a fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamentals of their faith. A person who does not believe in the death, burial, resurrection of Christ and future judgement has not got a biblical belief. It is often a term used to demonize someone. A fundamentalist Muslim is one that believes in the teachings of the Koran and its prophet. A fundamentalist atheist has a belief in evolution, god denying and self righteousness.

Below is an example of how the Fundamentalist/Moderate divide is currently playing out in Somalia.

Both would say they "believe in the fundamentals of their faith" (to paraphrase Runner), but one represents a fundamentalist mentality (offensive and harsh to others who disagree and corrupting the teachings in a bid to rationalise this harshness) and the other a moderate approach yielding to 'harshness' as a last resort means of self-defense:

FUNDAMENTALISTS:
http://www.smh.com.au/world-cup-2010/world-cup-news/football-fans-executed-for-watching-world-cup-20100615-ybrj.html

<< Two Somali football fans have been killed by Islamic militants after being caught watching World Cup matches......
....Sheikh Mohamed Abdi Aros, a spokesman for the militants, said Somalia should respect their ban on the World Cup and focus on pursuing jihad.
"We are warning all the youth of Somalia not to dare watch these World Cup matches," he said.
"It is a waste of money and time and they will not benefit anything or get any experience by watching mad men jumping up and down.">>

MODERATES:
http://muslimvillage.com/2010/05/29/somalias-moderate-muslims-rise-up-to-fight-extremism/
<< .....For centuries, the Sufis were men of peace. They followed a spiritual current of Islam that emphasizes moral education, tolerance and a personal link to God. When Somalia plunged into clan wars after the collapse of the central government in 1991, Islam’s extremist Wahhabi strain gained strength amid the anarchy.
But the Sufis engaged in neither the conflict nor politics. When neighboring Ethiopia invaded Somalia in 2006, with covert U.S. backing, to suppress a hard-line Islamist movement, the Sufis remained on the sidelines.
The invasion sparked the rise of the ultra-radical al-Shabab, which swiftly took control of large patches of southern and central Somalia. Al-Shabab fighters soon set their sights on the Sufis, whom they branded as heretics, assassinating Sufi clerics and burning down Sufi shrines. They opened Sufi graves and pulled the bodies out.
“In this world, they kill you. And when you die, you still cannot escape,” said Abdullahi Abdurahman Abu Yousef, a senior Sufi commander.
An uprising begins.....>>

Yes..fundamentalists.

Doesn't it boil down to the 'fundamentals' of a particular faith?

For Christianity.. the 'fundamentals' would be the Nicene Creed for a formulation of the Christian belief about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use

We could then go deeper...to the character and teaching of the One who gave us this final revelation of God. Jesus of Nazareth.

Of one thing we may be sure.. Nowhere in Jesus teaching did he EVER provide for himself any 'sexual benefit' which of course would be a sure sign of falsehood.. as per Moses David Berg of the Children of God (1960s) as his daughter relates.

This cult shares some other interesting 'personalities' which might surprise some.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/files/images/p17_7.jpg
Miss Indonesia...Kerenina Sunny Halim

Berg communicated with his followers through more than 3,000 published letters written over 24 years, referred to as "Mo Letters" by members of the group. By January 1972, Berg introduced through his letters that he was God's prophet for this time, further establishing his spiritual authority within the group. (wiki)

Characteristics of fundamental (inner circle) followers of Berg.

-Group sex
-Child sex
-Regard Berg as 'The Prophet' for his time.

-"Flirty Fishing"
In 1974, David Berg introduced a new proselytization method called Flirty Fishing (or FFing), which encouraged female members to show God's love by engaging in sexual activity with potential converts. Flirty Fishing was practiced by members of Berg's inner circle starting in 1973, and was later introduced to the general membership. By 1978, it was widely practiced by members of the group.

They were very 'fundamental' ..but to Bergs teaching or misunderstanding of the Bible.

A fundamentalist is

Someone who would force others to agree with them.
Someone who will ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs.
Someone who hates people who dont agree with them.
Someone who will hurt those that dont agree with them.
Someone who will lie to support their beliefs.

It is intersting that both Islam and Christianity refer to other beliefs as corrupt teachings. They both cannot be right but both might be wrong.

Alarm bells ring for me in regard to religion (fundamentalism) when various cults separate themselves from mainstream society by rules that disallow contact with others who do not share the same belief (even family members), strict rules about marrying outside the faith, restriction of information to members and the self righteousness or arrogance that goes with thinking your choice represents the only truth.

Mikk's list mirrors my own. Those who persecute others for adopting a different belief is the fundamentalist we should all fear in a secular and democratic society.

My own judgement always comes down to the 'do no harm' test. As an atheist I have no issue with someone's choices despite what I may personally think. It is the abhorrent behaviours and judgements that might be borne from those faiths that people take offence.

Responsibility falls directly to the leaders and mentors within the various faiths to promote the universal good and not be tempted by self righteousness and arrogance, to punish those with whom you disagree.

Grateful

I agree entirely with both Mikk's and Pelican's posts.

For AGIR:

If you want to see a fundamentalist, read Mikk's list and go look in a mirror. That is how the majority of people see you.

HI Fraccy.. good to see ur active again :)

I'm not sensing the warmest of vibes from you though.. but.. we can work on that eh.

MIKK
A fundamentalist is

Re Mikks list.

I have to disagree.

Fundamentals of Islam

* Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
* Establishment of the daily prayers;
* Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
* Self-purification through fasting; and
* The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

Fundamentals of Christianity.

Nicene Creed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use

Fundamentals of Hinduism
http://submit.thinkquest.org/TQ0013320/hfund.html

Fundamentals of Buddhism
http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud4.htm

Fundamentals of Bahai
http://www.googobits.com/articles/2605-fundamentals-of-the-bahai-faith.html

I don't find in any of those lists any of the things Mikk said.
Some are implied.. when exclusive truth is claimed. At that point one must look deeper at what the faith actually teaches about how to relate to non 'us'.

The term fundamentalist when it comes to Christianity arose as a identifier term in the 17th Century. They believed they had the true understanding and interpretation of Scripture. Fundamentalist Muslim is a more recent term as anyone who worships Allah is a brother Muslim but is a term used by the West to identify a group who literally interpret and practise the Kor'an. It generally refers to one who adheres to the fundamental principles that define the religion, code or rules of a game etc.

Fundamentalism?

For most Australians that would mean resisting any move by another religion to move us back to where we were with the Catholics and other controlling religious nutters in the Fifties.

Australia is a secular State. That was hard won and we are not completely there yet. Nobody just nobody wants more regulations and more concessions to give religions more voice and more power in Australia.

If citizens don't realise that our secularism is under attack they really haven't been watching.

For once Runner actually made a sound definition of a fundamentalist in each religion.
Though a fundamentalist atheist would be hard to define, as the only fundamental would be you don't believe a god exists.

Although I think a fundamentalist is probably someone who adheres rather closely to their (extensive) way of doing things, especially to the point they throw on all the shackles required- or, an easy definition, on a spectrum of where secular conduct separates from the conduct of your religion, where you would sit closer to (although keep in mind that it also requires the religion itself be far-removed from Secularism, and demand a lot of inhibiting conduct).

Mikk's definition actually describes evolutionist to the tee not to mention global warming alarmist. Well done Mikk.

Dear Grateful,

I used to associate "fundamentalism"
with the movement in American Protestantism that
arose in the early part of the 20th century in
reaction to modernism and that stressed the
inerrancy of the Bible not only in matters of
faith and morals but Christian faith belief in
such doctrines as the virgin birth, physical
ressurection, atonement by the sacrificial
death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Fundamentalism has had an influence on all
Protestant denominations, particularly such
groups as the Church of God, Assemblies of God,
Pentecostal churches. Television evangelism has
also been influenced by conservative fundamentalist
beliefs. Organisations within a movement called the
New Religious Right have adopted social and political
positions based on a literal use of Biblical texts.
The infallibility of the Bible remains an important
fundamentalist issue today.

Therefore "fundamentalism" is a commitment to,
and reliance on, the traditional basics of
religious doctrine.

Richard Dawkins, on the other hand,
in his book, "The God Delusion,"
sums up fundamentalists in the following way:

"Fundamentalists know they are right because they
have read the truth in a holy book and they know,
in advance, that nothing will budge them from their
belief..."

Dear Foxy, yes I liked that definition of a fundamentalist from Richard Dawkins.

I looked up fundamentalism on Answers.Com, and it stated:
"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

So, basically, one can be called a fundamentalist if they will hear absolutely no argument against their very strongly held beliefs in their particular God or religion.

The vast majority of Australians are nowhere near fundamentalist.
I read in the paper yesterday that there has been a huge swing away from church-going and religion in Australia in the past decade.

Obviously, the fundamentalists among us are not being listened to anymore. Thank God.

According to the “New Dictionary of Theology” the word, fundamentalism, originated in the USA in 1920 as the designation that Curtis Lee Laws used for his anti-modernist party in the Northern Baptist Convention. A fundamentalist is:

1. An evangelical Protestant

2. One who subscribes to supernaturalistic biblical Christianity

3. Opposed to certain aspects of secularization.

Although no one list is standard, the commonest points are:

1. Inerrancy of Scripture

2. Deity of Christ

3. His virgin birth

4. Substitutionary Atonement (taking on the sins of the world)

5. The Resurrection

6. The Second Coming

Many fundamentalists see teaching evolution in the schools as undermining the authority of the Bible in American life and fostering moral relativism. Marxism, Romanism (Catholicism), alcohol, tobacco, dancing, card playing and theatre attendance were other major targets for fundamentalist attacks.

Racism, militarism, violence, destruction of the environment, war, corruption and exploitation did not concern them.

Grateful...you raised some very important points in your post before my last one which escaped me.

They deserve further scrutiny...you said:

// 1/ one represents a fundamentalist mentality (offensive and harsh to others who disagree and corrupting the teachings in a bid to rationalise this harshness) and the other a moderate approach yielding to 'harshness' as a last resort means of self-defense://

Pericles, foxy .. CJ... do you see it ? The last line. What have I been banging on about for oh.. perhaps 4 yrs now ? I've focused on the core doctrines and values..... BEcause.. of that very last line in Grateful's post...where he freely and clearly admits the very thing I have been harping about.

"Moderates will surcumb to the Radicals" (if not by persuasion, then at the point of a gun)

THUS... it behoves us to know, in our public interest..what those 'radicals' are likely to bring with them.
You know now (as if you didn't already) why I've written 1000s of posts on such things. (as has Proxy and a few others)

GRATEFUL also said:

//Sufis were men of peace. They followed a spiritual current of Islam that emphasizes moral education, tolerance and a personal link to God.//

Yes..indeedy..and for their trouble they are declared "heretics" by their fellow Muslims. (rightly so as far as I can see, doctrinally)

Grateful says:

//When Somalia plunged into clan wars after the collapse of the central government in 1991, Islam’s extremist Wahhabi strain gained strength amid the anarchy.//

Ummmmmmm....exactly. (Pericles, Foxy and CJ.. refer to my opening point)

Chaos..anarchy..... power.. dominance... 'totalitarian' control.

It's the standard Socialist wish list and the Muslims don't mind it too.

Thank-you everyone for your contributions, not withstanding more sour grapes from AGIR.

I relate strongly to Mikk characterisation

<<A fundamentalist is

Someone who would force others to agree with them.
Someone who will ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs.
Someone who hates people who dont agree with them.
Someone who will hurt those that dont agree with them.
Someone who will lie to support their beliefs.>>

I found another definition of fundamentalism by Andrew Dawkins:

<<Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.>>

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4688-intelligence-squared-debate-is-atheism-the-new-fundamentalism

This was part of a debate over the question "Is atheism the new fundamentalism."

I think his description adds an important element to that of Mikk: <<blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence>>

Although, I would add that the fundamentalist also rejects reasoning.

However, i have seen cases where atheists clearly do NOT have <<a commitment to exploring evidence>> and so can be characterised a fundamentalist in terms of Dawkin's definition.

salaams

david f

Who would use the New Dictionary of Theology? Maybe that suits your purpose and theirs, however English is a living language and preference should be given to the common usage and in the present.

Dawkins comes as close as any to present usage having spent recent years arguing the toss. I gave a Dawkins definition in another thread in response to Grateful.

Here is Encarta's, also relevant to today:

fundamentalism

1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles

2. support for literal explanation: the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted.

Grateful

This is all a bit of a red herring.

I for one don't care whether you are a "fundamentalist" or any other kind of "ist"?

You are free to believe what you want.

Within very broad limits you should be free to say what you want. The only exception to your right of free speech should be outright incitement to violence narrowly defined.

All I and most people worry about is the first of mikk's points.

"Someone who would force others to agree with them."

Frankly I don't give a rodent's rectum whether you hate me or any other unbelievers. Hate away.

For all I care you can reject evolution, believe the Earth is 6,000 years or 6 months old and think that an angel called Gibril transmitted a compendium of 7th Century codswallop to a merchant warrior called Muhammad who most likely never existed in the first place.

You can believe that on the "last day" stones and trees will help you kill Jews.

You can wear a burqa or a bikini.

You are free to propound whatever taurine fertiliser you like.

What you may not do is resort to force or use intimidation to impose your will.

That is all.

Cornflower,

I endorse your post of 16 June 2010 1:59:13 PM

fundamentalism
a/ Strong and consistent belief in and following of the teachings of a faith
b/ A hardline intepretation of selected portions of your faith and associated traditions of that faith with a fundamental dishonesty when it comes to admitting that the teachings and traditions have been cherry picked

The only fundamentalists I've known have been christain. Some have given the impression that they treat their belief with integrity and honesty, others make a mockery of the whole thing. Not sure i

I'd agree with grateful's point that some athiests act like fundamentalists although it's a lot harder for an athiest to claim divine mandate for their hatred.

R0bert

The best definition I’ve heard for “fundamentalist” in today’s world is the strict adherence to a literal interpretation of a religious doctrine.

Which is why the insinuation that there is actually such a thing as an “atheist fundamentalist” is such an insanely asinine suggestion that it reeks of a desperate desire to drag the lack of religious belief down to the same level as the presence of a belief.

Many theists have difficulty accepting that they have a belief system that is dogmatic, when other more rational thinkers are 'freethinkers'.

Of course, there are many there who try to tie communism to athiesm in an attempt to make atheism appear dogmatic, but anyone who has read my posts over the last couple of months would have seen me systematically destroy this deliberately malicious and misleading pile of steaming bull... - even when they come from those who have lived in communist countries!

Grateful, ALGOREisRICH, mikk, pelican, Severin, david f

And others,

Would you or someone else explain to this no doubt senile poster:

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD?

Does the precise definition of the word "fundamentalist" matter?

Does it matter whether someone is a "fundamentalist"?

Surely in the end what is important is whether someone, whatever their beliefs, is willing to play by the rules of liberal democracy? That means, inter alia, that they do not:

--Resort to violence and intimidation

--Attempt to limit free speech

--Claim special privileges for their belief system.

It also means that they DO respect the right of others to differ and to express their differences freely without let or hindrance

I don’t know about other posters here; but these are the things I care about. Whether a particular belief system may be labelled "fundamentalist" seems to me to be a boring argument about semantics. What is more, since the definitions are fuzzy, it is an argument in which no resolution is possible.

stevenlmeyer
We shouldn't get too bogged down in the semantics of 'fundamentalism'. The world has no doubt been misused to infer in some part to radical extremists who don't respect the rights or freedoms of others.

Most posters would appear to agree with your sentiments as expressed below.

"Surely in the end what is important is whether someone, whatever their beliefs, is willing to play by the rules of liberal democracy? That means, inter alia, that they do not:

--Resort to violence and intimidation

--Attempt to limit free speech

--Claim special privileges for their belief system.

It also means that they DO respect the right of others to differ and to express their differences freely without let or hindrance."

I don't know much about fundamentalism, but I know it when I encounter it.

It's invariably ugly, and often noisy.

Steven.. bear with me a moment :) (I'm not picking on you here)

GRATEFUL.. r u in Victoria?
Look at Stevens words below....

//For all I care you can reject evolution, believe the Earth is 6,000 years or 6 months old and think that an angel called Gibril transmitted a compendium of 7th Century codswallop to a merchant warrior called Muhammad who most likely never existed in the first place. You can believe that on the "last day" stones and trees will help you kill Jews.//

He (steven) is clearly holding your faith up to public ridicule..and mocking you and your faith.
That's not a problem for me.. even if he were to similarly mock or ridicule my own faith (which he does from time to time)

QUESTION.. do you support the Victorial law which makes such utterances from Steven illegal ? (RRT2001)

Do you support the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) moves in the U.N. to make ALL such mockery illegal in ALL countries who are signatories to the UN convention on Civil and Political rights ?

IF...you had the chance.. or power.. WOULD you make such laws and try to supress criticism of both Islam and it's so called prophet ?

DO...you wish to live under Sharia law ? If not..why not ?

Steven..as to Grateful's point ? I think it's just giving himself a platform to promote his version of soft da'wah/Islamic evangelism.

CORNFLOWER... you said:

1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine

Actually 'Doctrine' is...interpretation. A "literal" interpretation of certain "doctrines" could be disastrous.
The Bible is not mean't to be understood 'literally' in all places.
"If you hand sins...cut it off"

Steven

I agree with Pelican's definition.

I don't give a rat's about others beliefs either, until they infringe on the freedom and well-being of others.

Two obvious examples of a harmful fundamentalist attitude, here and now, from both Christian and Islamic camps, would be George Pell and Al Hilaly, neither of whom respect differing beliefs or equity for women.

I don't think I need point out the more glaringly obvious harm caused by abortion-clinic shooters or bombing planes into buildings, do I?

However, if you don't see the encroachment of fundamentalism into the world's largest religions as requiring vigilance, well fine by me. Just live how you want - but don't step on me while you do it.

:D

I really appreciate everyone's input and endorse Pelly.

I agree wholeheartedly with CJ Morgan. I think the ugliness is not just in the language but the attitude or mentality. This is what I'm grappling with in trying to arrive at a meaningful understanding of what people are referring to when they talk about fundamentalism

Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.

I was going to give a list of examples relating to different religions as well as atheism but perhaps I should stick to my own religion and suggest others consider how they would define a fundamentalist from within their own tradition or (non-) belief system.

For a Muslim, the Qur'aan is considered the word of God. So a fundamentalist in Islam would be someone who would adhered to the belief that the Qur'aan was the word of God despite clear and unequivocal proof to the contrary (for example due to contradictions which could not be explained other than it being the handiwork of man).

Having said that, I have not observed this sort of fundamentalism. The fundamentalism that arises from our ranks is referred to as the Kharajitism, but that's a long story. Essentially they adhere to certain beliefs and do so despite clear proofs (from mainstream Islamic scholarship) to the contrary. Their arguments are invariably self-contradictory and their views on the nature of God lead to a type anthropromophism (they will actually argue about how many hands God has!). Of course they are uncompromising and Muslims that disagree with them are libel to being labelled a kafir (unbelievers), which perhaps is symptomic of some form of cognitive dissonance (one for the psychologists!).

Another explanation that I've come across
is again given by Richard Dawkins, in his
book, "The God Delusion,":

"Our Western politicians avoid mentioning
the "R" word (religion), and instead
characterize their battle as a war against
"terror," as though terror were a kind of
spirit or force, with a will and a mind of
its own. Or they characterize terrorists
as motivated by pure 'evil.'
They are not motivated by evil. However
misguided we may think them, they are
motivated, like the Christian murderers of
abortion doctors, by what they perceive as
righteousness... they are not psychotic; they
are religious idealists who, by their own lights,
are rational. They perceive their acts to be good,
not because os some warped personal idiosyncrasy,
and not because they have been possessed by Satan,
but because they have been brought up, from the
cradle, to have total and unquestioning 'faith.'"

Voltaire got it right long ago:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities." So did Bertrand
Russell: "Many people would sooner die than think.
In fact they do."

"As long as we accept the principle that religious
faith must be regarded simply because it is
religious faith, it is hard to with-hold respect
from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide
bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that
it should need no urging, is to abandon the
principle of automatic respect for religious faith.
This is one reason why I do everything in my power
to warn people against faith itself, not just
'extremist' faith. The teachings of 'moderate'
religion, though not extremist in themselves, are
an open invitation to extremism..."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Richard Dawkins goes on to tell us:

"It might be said that there is nothing special about
religious faith here. Patriotic love of country or
ethnic group can also make the world safe for its
own version of extremism... As with the kamikazes in
Japan and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. But religious
faith is an especially potent silencer of rational
calculation, which usually seems to trump all others.
This is mostly because of the easy and beguiling promise
that death is not the end, and that a martyr's heaven
is especially glorious. But it is also partly because
it discourages questioning by its very nature."

"Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that
unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the
case for what you believe. If somebody annouces that it is
part of his 'faith,' the rest of society, whether of the
same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained
custom, to 'respect' it without question; respect it until
the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre... "

Dawkins asks the interesting question that if we try to
explain this extremism as a perversion of the 'true'
faith... how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith,
lacking objective justification, doesn't have any
demonstrable standard to pervert?

The questions that Dawkins raises are interesting.
What he tries to say is that (and this applies to
Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really
pernicious is the practice of teaching children that
faith itself is a virtue. Dawkins feels that faith is an
evil precisely because it requires no justification and
brooks no argument. He states that teaching children
that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them - given
certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by -
to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future
crusades or jihads..."

Food for thought.

Though most here have identified popular use of the term as it presently applies to Religion. The fact is a fundamentalist is one who upholds a principle or codes with passionate obsession. Like the Football fanatic who vehemently takes a Referee to task over the application of a rule that they believe the Ref has not properly applied. They become obsessed about such fundamental matters.

However I personally have not found Christian fundamentalists I have met agressive or controlling. Most of Western culture owes many of its social advances to Christian Fundamentalists; Wentworth in his endeavour to bring freedom to slaves, Salvation Army's work in prisions and welfare to the poor are just a few.

Philo

The gulf of difference between a football fanatic and a religious fundy, is that the footy fan doesn't except everyone to play football.

Yes, we know there is some good in religions - that doesn't excuse trying to impose a religious dogma on everybody, for example banning contraception or denying entry of female clergy, setting strict dress codes, telling lies about the natural world in order to match ancient text to reality, preventing critical thinking, questioning status quo. Ooooh I'd better stop, I hope you are getting the picture.

Foxy,
Dawkins is a fool. People act in faith every day because they believe unquestionably in certain taught principles. For instance you always believe 12+12=24, you do not have to question it each time you use it. Someone taught it to you.

I have a friend in West Papua whose family only had identifier words for numbers up to 3, he while studying here in Australia developed a whole mathmatical cirricullum for his tribe in their language so they when taught could carry on commerce with outside communities. They had no knowledge of algerbra but they could learn it and apply it once taught, without question.

We all apply faith each day to the things we do; or don't do. People who achieve have faith in what they do some fail others achieve through belief alone. Achievers apply faith, loosers do not apply.

Grateful asks:

Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary.

No..we cannot.. you are referring there to a 'bigot'.

A fundamentalist is simply a person who adheres to the fundamentals of their faith.

Think 5 pillars.
Nicene Creed.

There is no such thing as 'evidence' to the contrary really, but if there was.. it would just change the nature of that which the fundamentalIST is committed to.

For example..

Eastern Orthodoxy is divided from Roman Catholicism by one phrase.

The Spirit.. proceeding from the Father AND the Son. (catholic)
The Spirit.. proceeding from the Father.... (Orthodox)

Both are fundamentals.. just slightly different.

"Another explanation that I've come across is again given by Richard Dawkins, in his book, "The God Delusion,":"

Some might call it his rationalisation.

"They perceive their acts to be good, not because os some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning 'faith.'"

In my experience with the Christian religion religious converts tend to be more enthusiastic than those brought up from the cradle - like reformed smokers. Other religions might be different.

"Voltaire got it right long ago: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.""

He certainly did. That is exactly what happened in communist countries.

In response to the proposition that:

"It might be said that there is nothing special about religious faith here. Patriotic love of country or ethnic group can also make the world safe for its own version of extremism... As with the kamikazes in Japan and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka."

He differentiates it from religious faith because:

"But religious faith is an especially potent silencer of rational
calculation, which usually seems to trump all others."

Isn't this just an attempt to slip in a dodgy premise?

"This is mostly because of the easy and beguiling promise that death is not the end, and that a martyr's heaven is especially glorious. But it is also partly because it discourages questioning by its very nature."

Foxy. You purport to hold a religious faith. Does it stop you from questioning?

"Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that
unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the
case for what you believe."

The Christian belief is more nuanced than he admits to know:

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Unless you make the case for what you believe it is hard to see how you could be prepared to give that answer.

CONT.

"...until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre... "

Actually as a Christian I'm trying to cut down on those apparently inevitable massacres. They are so darn strenuous.

"Dawkins asks the interesting question that if we try to
explain this extremism as a perversion of the 'true'
faith... how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith,
lacking objective justification, doesn't have any
demonstrable standard to pervert?"

How ironic. People of faith claim that Dawkins is wrong because he refuses to accept objective justification for beliefs.

"The questions that Dawkins raises are interesting. What he tries to say is that (and this applies to Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that
faith itself is a virtue."

I can't help suspect a certain disingenuousness in such an argument. If there is a God (which there is) then trusting God is a virtue not something pernicious. Dawkins just doesn't want kids to get the other side at home so that they have no choice but to accept the anti-religious barrage from the mass media and most educators.

"Dawkins feels that faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."

Obviously faith in a religion guarantees the need to justify and is often the catalyst for debate.

"He states that teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them - given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future
crusades or jihads..."

He leaves out the inconvenient words "in God" after unquestioned faith. There is a difference in having a faith in God and having so much faith you can be an atheist. Indeed one of Christ's apostles called Pauls advised Christians to "test everything". (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Dawkins places his faith in the laws of nature and it seems to be a very unquestioned faith. Have you known him to vacillate and consider God?

Dear Philo,

Wilberforce not Wentworth was antislavery. The “Arrogance of Faith” by F. G. Wood tells how slaveholders defended the practice by claiming they were bringing Christianity to the slaves.

Slaveholders justified slavery by the Golden Rule. They claimed that if they were not Christian they would want someone to bring Christianity to them. Thus they were doing to others what they would have others do to them. I doubt that they ever consulted the slaves.

They also justified slavery on the grounds that it was an accepted practice in the Bible, Jesus said nothing about the practice and many sayings of Paul (eg Romans 13:2, Titus 2-9:10, Ephesians 6:5-8) supported it.

Ephesians 6:5-8 especially served the slaveholders' purposes.

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

The most costly war the USA ever fought in terms of American casualties was the Civil War. The South was more thoroughly Christian than the North, but they fought very hard to keep slavery.

John Hope Franklin, a black historian wrote “From Slavery to Freedom” which includes:

"In West Africa, where the population was especially dense and from which the great bulk of slaves was secured, Christianity was practically unknown until the Portuguese began to plant missions in the area in the sixteenth century. It was a strange religion, this Christianity, which taught equality and brotherhood and at the same time introduced on a large scale the practice of tearing people from their homes and transporting them to a distant land to become slaves."

Unfortunately Christians often cite Wilberforce’s efforts to end slavery and ignore the role of Christianity in promoting and sustaining it. Dishonest?

david f,
Memory lapse there. You are correct.
Wilberforce was a fundamentalist upholding "all men are equal".

Though the opponents to freedom used Biblical texts they were not founded in the context of Christ's attitudes. The word slave in the NT is a servant of an employer. Paul taught that in the Church there is not to be discrimination on race, gender or employment; all persons are equal Gal 3:28.

The fact is under Roman rule slavery was applied during the Early Church period and persons were commondeered by Rome to work as slaves. Paul encouraged those working as slaves to remain faithful and good workers for their masters as this expressed the true character of Christ. Christians did not have slaves, though some were slaves. Christian employers had voluntary workers who were remunerated by supplies.

Dear mjpb,

I was citing Richard Dawkins' take on
religion not my own, simply to broaden
the discussion of this thread.
Questioning however, is something
rational people tend to do at all times.
That was the way I was raised by my father,
who in turn was raised by the Jesuits.

By the way,
your posts as always, are extremely well
argued, and I enjoy reading them, as I enjoy
reading the posts of George,Oly, David F.,
Severin, CJ, Poirot, Pelly, and many others.

mjpb,

<<There is a difference in having a faith in God and having so much faith you can be an atheist.>>

Wow, enough faith to be an atheist? How do you justify this when atheism doesn’t require any faith to begin with?

Unfortunately you can’t.

The it-takes-more-faith-to-be-an-atheist argument is simply a weak and asinine attempt to drag the lack of religious belief down to the same dogmatic level as religious belief because, as I mentioned before, many theists have difficulty accepting the fact that they are intellectual slaves to a dogma, while those who exercise reason get to be the freethinkers.

What you need to understand, mjpb, is that theists are the ones making the claim, not atheists. Atheism is simply a response to that claim - no faith involved.

If someone were to ask you if you believed in fairies, how much faith are you holding by saying “no”? Is it more than saying “yes”?

<<Dawkins places his faith in the laws of nature and it seems to be a very unquestioned faith.>>

No, Dawkins - like many others - simply accepts the fact that objective reality is all we’ve ever been able to rely on to acquire any real knowledge about reality.

No faith required.

<<Have you known him to vacillate and consider God?>>

Dawkins once believed in god until it occurred to him that he was only a Christian because of a sheer accident of birth.

Rational thought is religion’s kryptonite.

Dear AJ Phillips...

nice to see you active and enthusiastic.

would you mind commenting on how a fundamentalist might act in the light of the following opinion ?

http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/065.htm

scroll down to the part where it shows 65:4 against blue background.

Then.. after reading the text (verse) please follow the argument, but with special emphasis on the part indicated by *13 and beginning from the 10th line down in that section... see what this fundamentalist commentator says about a certain category of 'female' and what can be done to them in the name of the faith he represents based on their holy book.

Do you see any weaknesses in his argument or understanding of the text as written ?

If there are no obvious weaknesses..then one would assume that this understanding forms part of the fundamentals of that faith correct?

If so.. and such values were embraced by say ...Grateful... would it be in order to criticize his faith on the above grounds in the interest of public order and social balance?

Are you brave enough to spell out openly what this text is permitting and justifying?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Dear Philo,

You are a slippery fellow. You cited Wentworth when you meant Wilberforce for his opposition to slavery. You acknowledged my correction, but when I went on to point the many Christians who supported, condoned and promoted slavery somehow those Christians weren't real Christians since they weren't following the words of Jesus. Since Jesus never said anything about slavery one way or another that doesn't wash.

However, according the Bible Jesus didn't find excuses the way you do and say that those who did bad things weren't really his followers. Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

That's reasonable. Christians promoted, justified and profited from slavery. They reaped the fruits. I know them by those fruits.

Grateful

I would be, well, grateful, if you were to answer ALGOREisRICH's question.

Would you like to see legislation enacted that outlawed "defamation" of religion?

A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

To me your lack of an answer to such a simple question implies that you would like to see such legislation introduced in Australia but think it politic to refrain from saying so.

Severin,

"However, if you don't see the encroachment of fundamentalism into the world's largest religions as requiring vigilance, well fine by me. Just live how you want - but don't step on me while you do it."

I do not need convincing that, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That is why I believe it is necessary to defy ALL totalitarian ideologies including those that are considered to be "religions."

Right now I believe the greatest danger to liberty comes from misguided attempts to appease Islam.

Note, not from Islam itself but from attempts to appease Islam.

I consider especially dangerous the tendency to apply the label "racist" anyone who expresses a loathing for Islam or to conflate CJ Morgan's favourite word, "Islamophobia," with racism.

I for one am an Islamophobe for the same reasons that I am a Stalinist-o-phobe and a Nazi-phobe.

If you feel that Christianity poses a greater threat so be it. I'm a bit of a Christian-o-phobe myself all though at present I do not think Christianity pose nearly as great a danger as the appeasement of Islam.

Foxy,

Dawkins notwithstanding there are non-religious ideologies that are every bit as loathsome as some religious ones. Stalinism comes to mind.

Hi Boaz,

I’m curious as to why you’ve specifically asked for my comments here. If it’s because my tell-it-how-it-is style has you curious about whether or not I’d still be willing to tell-it-how-it-is with Islam, then I’ll think you may be pleasantly surprised.

I didn’t need to read *13. I read 65:4 and knew immediately which part specifically would be concerning you.

<<would you mind commenting on how a fundamentalist might act in the light of the following opinion ?>>

To “spell out openly what this text is permitting and justifying” as you have challenged me to do:

The verse is clearly permitting and justifying paedophilia.

How might a fundamentalist Muslim act in light of the verse? They could potentially use it to justify raping a female child in a so-called “marriage” that would, thankfully, be illegal in Australia.

<<Do you see any weaknesses in his argument or understanding of the text as written ?>>

No, I think he has interpreted that passage quite (literally) accurately.

<<If there are no obvious weaknesses..then one would assume that this understanding forms part of the fundamentals of that faith correct?>>

Well, that would depend on the inclination of the fundamentalist. If they had paedophilic tendencies, then yes. But if they were a good person, then they would probably use similar excuses used by Christians to brush-off the bad parts of their holy book - that they’re just old instructions that were okay in that cultural time and context.

Theists of all religions pick and choose what they want from their holy book depending on their own personal agendas and bigotries.

Christians, luckily, aren’t burning heretics anymore because of the shifting moral zeitgeist, that Dawkins mentions, that appears to change (and so far - improve) the way theists interpret their holy books. Unfortunately though, Islam is still experiencing its Dark Age while Christianity was lucky enough to be dragged kicking and screaming out of theirs with the assistance of the secular values of Western societies.

Continued...

...Continued

<<If so.. and such values were embraced by say ...Grateful... would it be in order to criticize his faith on the above grounds in the interest of public order and social balance?>>

Absolutely. If there’s anyone on OLO who’s all for the criticizing of faith, it’s me. Criticising faith is important for a healthy society.

If I knew more about Islam; if Muslims were posting here on OLO as much as Christians are; if they were the ones with powerful lobby groups influencing our government; if they were the ones pushing their religion into our state schools; if they were the ones with big, rich, flashy cults like Hillsong that seem to like drawing in the youth by impressing the ones that like shiny things , only to pollute their minds; if they were the ones knocking on my door while I’m still asleep on a Saturday morning; if they were the ones opposing reforms in this country based on an unprovable and unfounded belief system; if they were the ones inventing Trojan horses like Intelligent Design to sneak religion into science classrooms; then I would be criticizing them more.

Don’t get me wrong... I think Islam is a violent and primitive religion and I have still confronted grateful when I felt he was committing crimes against logic. Heck, I even uploaded my own submission, for the first annual Everybody Draw Mohammed Day on 20th May, on the web and will continue to do so every May 20th from now on in defence of free speech.

But so long as Christians are the noisiest theists on OLO, and continue to throw their unjustifiably heavy political weight around, Christianity will remain my main focus.

Dawkins quoted by Foxy:

"Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that
unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the
case for what you believe. If somebody annouces that it is
part of his 'faith,' the rest of society, whether of the
same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained
custom, to 'respect' it without question; respect it until
the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre... "

Dawkins is wrong here. I tell my children to use reason, the Qur’aan and the Prophet tell us to use reason, so we use reason. Dawkins is apparently ignorant when it comes to Islam but does not hesitate to generalise based on his experience with Christianity.

Returning to my suggested definition:
<<Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.>>

The difference between this definition and that of Dawkins is that it does not refer tied fundamentlism to a religious belief, as Dawkins would. The reason is that i can see no justification for excluding atheists.

I think it is fair to ask those atheist who adhere to Dawkin’s definition, what would be the justification for excluding atheist beliefs? How could you justify DEFINING away the possibility of an atheist being a fundamentalist, in the above sense?

More generally, is there anyone here willing to characterise a fundamentalist from their own tradition. For example, if you are an atheist what would constitute a fundamentalist atheist, if a Protestant, what would be a fundamentalist Protestant and so on.

Its a challenging exercise because it requires one reflect on whether they would be willing to say: “Yes, if i was shown ‘this or that’ evidence then i would be prepared to admit that i was wrong."

I don’t really hold out to much hope of a constructive response, but its worth a try. :-)

stevenlmeyer: i'm aware of the issue but haven't given it much thought. besides its way off topic

AGIR (oh sour grapes) & AJ Phillips: Consult your wives, who will be able to explain to you a bit about irregularities in menstruation and menopause (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=4857&CATE=220). For example, my wife didn't have her period for at least 7 months after one of the pregnancies. In addition, in Islam the marriage can only be consummated after puberty. If married before puberty, the girl must remain with her parents. Is this 'primitive'? Yes, by our standards, but that was the norm in those days and obviously it is becoming increasing less common (in either Muslim or non-Muslim communities) as countries develop. The Shariah scholars obviously have had to lay done rulings cover all sorts of contingencies for innumerable societies over 1400 years. Is it paedophilia? Obviously not.

Back to topic please.

grateful wrote: "<<Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.>>

The difference between this definition and that of Dawkins is that it does not refer tied fundamentlism to a religious belief, as Dawkins would. The reason is that i can see no justification for excluding atheists."

Dear grateful,

If I was presented with any credible evidence of the existence of any supernatural being I would accept it and no longer be an atheist.

Religious believers confuse their belief with evidence.

Kant, the German philosopher, examined all the proofs for the existence of God and found them all faulty. However, he believed in God. There were no proofs that God didn't exist.

However, I think that the burden of proof for the existence of an entity rests upon those who assert that existence. There simply is no evidence for the truth of the assertion of the existence of any god or gods, and the proofs by reason are untenable. One can find them in any good philosophic encyclopedia.

Since neither reason nor evidence exists to challenge the stance of an atheist, an atheist by your definition cannot be a fundamentalist.

Dear AJ... that was most incredible :)

a) you actually read it
b) You arrived at the same understanding as I
c) You had the balls to SPEAK openly about it.
d) You agree the commentator did not 'misunderstand' the verse.
e) You say it justifies paedophilia.

It's the last one I would modify just a tad. Paedophilia is more about a person who 'prefers' children for his sexual focus (correct me if I'm wrong there) the term I would use in this case is 'child sexual abuse'
They amount to the same thing.

BUT NOTICE....how quickly 'Grateful' leaps/pounces/springs to the defense of his religion with the all to predictable "Islam" this and "Islam" that.

Which is standard truth-a-phobia by Muslims who have been caught up in this sick cult but didn't realize at the beginning just what it all mean't.

Grateful... you are misled.... it is patently rediculous to claim "Islam teaches" or... his exact words "Consult your wives about menopausal irregularities" :)

Ohhhhh Grateful.. you funny boy... that is also 'all2predictable' and is standard Islamic apologetics.

The Quran given to me by Da'wah missionaries specifially connected "Those who have not yet had their menstruation" (65:4) with the statement "Because they are immature".

I can even spell out where they get that explanatory note from...

It's a hadith which says as much.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.063

." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

So...here you have the saying of Muhammad..with some explantory bits referring to the SAME VERSE in the Quran.

So..on the basis of the evidence.. it is absolutely clear that "Islam teaches" that a man may 'marry,sexually consumate and then..horribly..DIVORCE a child who is prepubescent.

Gratefuls pleas and whinings and blurtings to the contrary will not shake this rock solid factual situation.

PERICLES ! read AJ's post..and weep..then apologise to me.(CJ..u2)

AJ...one more thing...I don't mind my own faith being criticized.

All I ask is that it be based on sound facts :) ie..the same approach we just worked through.
Thanx.

Boaz, as a recovering Christian AJ is apparently more inclined to indulge your comparative mythology game. To me it's something akin to comparing Mickey Mouse with Donald Duck comics.

Indeed, AJ expresses very well why some of us are less concerned with Islam than with Christianity in Australia:

<< if Muslims were posting here on OLO as much as Christians are; if they were the ones with powerful lobby groups influencing our government; if they were the ones pushing their religion into our state schools; if they were the ones with big, rich, flashy cults like Hillsong that seem to like drawing in the youth by impressing the ones that like shiny things , only to pollute their minds; if they were the ones knocking on my door while I’m still asleep on a Saturday morning; if they were the ones opposing reforms in this country based on an unprovable and unfounded belief system; if they were the ones inventing Trojan horses like Intelligent Design to sneak religion into science classrooms; then I would be criticizing them more. >>

I've said something similar to one of your previous incarnations, before I stopped playing your game.

AJ Philips wrote:

"Christianity was lucky enough to be dragged kicking and screaming out of their[dark ages] with the assistance of the secular values of Western societies."

Absolutely spot on.

And that is why Europe surged ahead in science and technology while the Arab world, still the heart of Dar-ul-Islam, remains technologically backward. What is the sometimes called the "golden age" of Islamic science is really the dying embers of a PRE-ISLAMIC spirit of scientific inquiry that Islam killed.

I am glad that you understand the importance of "draw Muhammad" day.

Grateful wrote:

"stevenlmeyer: i'm aware of the issue but haven't given it much thought. besides its way off topic"

It is NOT "off topic" because, as a number of posters here have pointed out, one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalists is the desire to impose their beliefs on others by force or intimidation.

In the light of controversies such as the Muhammad cartoons your assertion that you "haven't given it much thought" beggars belief.

Do you really expect anyone with a functioning brain cell to believe that statement?

In any event your EVASION answers my question. If you were truly prepared to play by the rules of liberal democracy you would not have to think about it.

Grateful,

You are just another Muslim seeking to impose his beliefs on the rest of us. I suspected as much from the start and your evasiveness has confirmed it.

Steven

I take your point regarding "appeasement". However, I find Christianity to be of equal concern, more because of its insidious nature. While Islam is has all the subtlety of a hammer, Christianity operates under tacit approval. We have a complete religious nutter in the form of Steven Fielding, right now being given air space that does nothing to help anyone and simply stultifies any enlightened progress.

AJ has already summarised my views extremely well and CJ has beaten me to the punch by quoting him.

We cannot lose our autonomy by appeasing ANY religion. Nor can we manage religion through force and alienation.

It is a fraught and difficult path between rational tolerance and outright discrimination. There is no magic bullet - and in a predominately 'christian' nation our vigilance needs be focused on Christian fundamentalists.

grateful you asked about Atheism in light of this meaning of fundamentalism: "Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable"

The difference is an Atheist is not upholding a view other than to say they do not believe in a supernatural deity of which there is thus far no proof or evidence. Religion is faith-based belief and as such implies a lack of evidence in definition.

Faith is not evidence and the view is only non-negotiable due to lack of evidence.

If I can use a simple example, ie. not believing in the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny does not make someone a fundamentalist non-believer.

The scariest thing about faith based beliefs is there is always the potential to lead vulnerable people to commit atrocities without reason or question, whether it be in the name of Allah or God, recognising that most mainstream Muslims and Christians do not support violence.

The idea that people are born corrupt is inane frankly, and if that were true even religious beliefs would not save us from ourselves.

Boazy,

Your comments to grateful...*sigh*

An example of fundamentalist religion stultifying reason has been generously provided to us by Philo:

>>> For instance you always believe 12+12=24, you do not have to question it each time you use it. Someone taught it to you. <<<

12 + 12 will always equal 24, because it is a fact; not a matter of faith. Irrespective of whether the equation is expressed in English, Cantonese or in the original Arabic; 12 items added to 12 items will result in a total of 24.

Such confusion between fact and faith is another unfortunate result of fundamentalist thinking. We can never know if there is a god - there is no substantial evidence, merely beliefs. That Philo confuses maths with faith is very disturbing and another reason to keep religion out of schools, and why we must remain vigilant to the constipation that religious dogma places on the path to reason and knowledge.

Dear Steven,

You state:

"Dawkins nowithstanding there are non-religious
idealogies that are every bit as loathsome
as some religious ones. Stalinism comes to
mind..."

Interesting...

That statement would need a lot more discussion
Steven than with the word limit that we're allowed
here. Of course there are many "isms" that would
qualify. However in regards to Stalin, or even
Hitler, I'm not sure that they did evil deeds
because they were atheists. That is an assumption.
It is also illogical. Even if we accept that Hitler
and Stalin shared atheism in common, they both also
had moustaches, as did Saddam Hussein, so what?

The question is not whether evil individual
human beings were religious or were atheists, but
whether religion or lack of it influences people
systematically to do bad things. There is no
evidence that Stalin's atheism motivated his brutality.

David f,

Wilberforce was a Christian upholding Christian beliefs. Given the title of the book FG Wood would focus on that rationalization. In reality it was just one of the things they used to rationalize the barbaric practice. They also argued based on economics, history, legality, social good and humanitarianism but would you criticize those other things had a role in promoting and sustaining it? Christianity doesn’t support that type of slavery. Philo pointed out that the scriptures that, according to FG Wood, slave owners used to justify slavery clearly don’t apply to the type of slavery involved.

Even if (and I haven’t seen it before but it could explain the current situation) the South had a higher proportion of Christians than the North that doesn’t mean that Christianity can be blamed for their fighting hard to keep slavery. I suspect the economic convenience would be a more logical explanation. That is like saying that Christianity condones divorce because in the same area divorce rates are higher for Christians than others. Charles Carroll's wrote “The Negro, A Beast”. That doesn’t mean that African Americans are beasts. Like the slave owners it is a dodgy rationalization.

John Hope Franklin is probably correct that West Africans had that perception of Christianity if that is when their slavery commenced. However I note that there is some controversy on that point.
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/p/SlaveryTypes.htm

In any case people in a better situation to observe American slavery being the Southern religious organizations comprised of African Americans during the slavery period expressed a different view in their songs eg. “People Talk About Heaven Ain't Going There”

The issue isn’t whether or not the people were real Christians although some like those African Americans obviously have suspicions but what Christianity has to say on the topic and what the history indicates. Historically there is Paul teaching non-discrimination. One of the first Pope’s being a former slave. Slavery arising within Christian based societies and slavery within Christian based societies being abolished by Christians. The big historical picture shows as do the scriptures that slavery is inconsistent with the religion.

Dear Severin,

You are one of my favourite posters, but I have to take issue with you.

You wrote: 12 + 12 will always equal 24 ... whether the equation is expressed in ... in the original Arabic.

Arabic numbers originated in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

The Arabic numerals ... are descended from the Hindu-Arabic numeral system developed by Indian mathematicians...and... were adopted by the Persian mathematicians in India, and passed on to the Arabs further west.

There is no evidence that the plus sign as a mathematical symbol existed before 1672.

http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/07305/symbols.htm#Plus

Hodder in 1672 wrote "note that a + (plus) sign doth signifie Addition, and two lines thus = Equality, or Equation, but a X thus, Multiplication," no other symbols being used.

The relationship is eternally valid, but it would not have been expressed in that manner until the seventeenth century. I don't know how the relationship was originally expressed.

One way in which mathematics has advanced is the use of symbolism to express complex ideas in a compact notation. If one studies the history of mathematicians one should take note of the primitive mathematical symbolism that the Greeks, Indians, Romans, Egyptians, Arabs etc. had available. Knowing that makes their discoveries even more impressive.

Dear mjpb,

My point to Philo was that he chose to mention the Christianity behind the opposition to slavery but chose not to mention the Christian support of slavery. That point is still valid.

The slave's inspiration from scripture for freedom comes almost completely from the Jewish Bible with its tale of the exodus.

Christianity absorbed those scriptures, but the New Testament does not question the instution of slavery.

It is fairly typical for Christians as well as other people to cherry pick instances when they want to make a case for their particular superstition. The incompatibilty between Christianity and slavery is a recent discovery.

mjbp....*sigh* ? ? err.. u lost me bro.. please expand a tad.

Steven

*one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalists is the desire to impose their beliefs on others by force or intimidation.*

I respectfully disagree mate. I have no desire whatsoever to "impose by force or intimidation" (though CJ might drag up my jibe about 'ur on the list for imposition' :)

That's not 'fundamentalism'.... it's 'extortion'... it might be a lot of things, but it isn't fundamentalism in the sense of people adhering strictly to a set of doctrines.

If those doctrines are like those of the Ahmadi Muslims for example.. they do not include 'violent jihad'...they are the only Muslim sect which has specifically disavowed violent Jihad.

A 'fundamentalist' Christian... even one of the worst examples of 'ungraciousness' Pastor Fred Phelps... "godhatesfags.com" never uses anything other than signs or shouts....

Those who have done worse.. abortion clinics etc.. well..I have no clue where they got their ideas from but it surely was NOT the New Testament (which is the framework for understanding the old for Christians)
So we cannot call such people fundamentalist 'Christians' they are something....but not Christian.

FRACCY... you say: "However, I find Christianity to be of equal concern,..it is insidious" (no generalized stereotyping or vilification there eh)

I find THAT of great concern.

Islam..permits child sexual abuse. (refer AJ Phillips brilliant and honest post)

Christianity specifically forbids child abuse. (Jesus words)

What do you fear from Christianity ? You have a phobia mate..
"irrational fear"... if we already have the Lords prayer opening parliament.. don't you think 'we' would have done our worst you by now ? if we were to be feared ? Insidious indeed... 'there for all to see' is more like it. Why do you vilify us without reason ?
Steve Fielding.. a religious NUTTER? nice stuff....and definitely not 'vilification'...right ?

Foxy: “However in regards to Stalin, or even Hitler, I'm not sure that they did evil deeds because they were atheists.”

Dear Foxy,

Hitler’s atheism is a myth.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
Compiled by Jim Walker
Originated: 27 Feb. 1997
Additions: 03 Jun. 2006

Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.

Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
________________________________________

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them...etc.

Hitler’s Christianity is an embarrassment to Christians.

Dear Foxy... with you being one who has repeatedly accused me of 'islamophobia' (or words to that effect).. would you mind reading AJ PHILLIPS post and then.. apologizing to me ? (unless of course you approve of a religion which specifically permits child sexual abuse)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729#90587

Being accused of 'irrational fear' and 'inciting fear, hate and loathing' is not very nice when my allegations are proven to be 100% correct by unreligious people such as AJ.

I await.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Before we get too excited, I need to make some clarifications here, but I'm unable to right now since I'm currently at work and far too busy to put together a well thought out post due to the end of financial year frenzie.

I'll post again after work.

David f,

Dear mjpb,

If you mean support of slavery by Christians perhaps he could have given a less absolute pronouncement.

The New Testament had no need to question it for two reasons:

1) It takes for granted the Old Testament
2) The type of slavery as Philo pointed out is nothing like the slavery that we are discussing.

"The incompatibilty between Christianity and slavery is a recent discovery."

I don't believe it is as recent as you might think.

Oh come on, Boazy.

<< FRACCY... you say: "However, I find Christianity to be of equal concern,..it is insidious" (no generalized stereotyping or vilification there eh) >>

What Severin actually wrote:

<< I find Christianity to be of equal concern, more because of its insidious nature. While Islam is has all the subtlety of a hammer, Christianity operates under tacit approval. We have a complete religious nutter in the form of Steven Fielding, right now being given air space that does nothing to help anyone and simply stultifies any enlightened progress. >>

I would have thought such a noted exponent of textual analysis should know that to misquote someone, out of context to boot, is tantamount to lying. Maybe I should go back to referring to you as Porky.

And of course Fielding is a religious nutter, and increasingly on the nose politically. From yesterday's 'Crikey':

<< Vote Last Steve Fielding

by Bernard Keane

There’s never been any doubt Steve Fielding is a prize idiot. His idea of senatorial behaviour has chiefly revolved around ludicrous stunts, apparently random voting and trying to inject himself into any debate going, frequently on the most offensive terms.

None of which would, under most circumstances, be an obstacle to a successful political career.

Yesterday, however, he managed to reach a new low beyond buffoonery, reaching into malice and gender hatred that appalled even right-wingers in the Senate. >>

Full story at http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/17/vote-last-steve-fielding-a-prize-idiot-in-the-maternity-leave-debate/ .

david f,

Saying that Hitler's atheism is a myth is putting it a little too strongly. From what I've seen the better view is that he is an athiest. However I acknowledge it is a controversial topic that neither side is in a hurry to concede. My understanding is that he gained support initially by giving lip service to Christian ideals and Jesus. However as soon as he got into power he turned on all religious (except Islamic perhaps but that could have been for purely pragmatic purposes). I have already said how I interpret that but acknowledge the other opinions.

All that said I would have referred to Stalin and Mao and Poll Pot perhaps to make the point rather than bringing in Hitler to avoid that complication.

Severin,

I'd also like to take issue with that post.

When people put faith in something they believe it to be fact. Faith can be defined as "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing". Faith doesn't have to be confined to religion. You don't subscribe to Philo's religion and don't consider God factual. However to Philo God is fact so you are hardly making any point to him.

Anyway, the point he is making is that most people accept that mathematical fact on faith. Someone they repose trust in taught it to them and they know it a long time before they would even consider checking it. Just because faith isn't misplaced doesn't mean it isn't faith. Neither Philo nor I would consider a faith in God misplaced but that doesn't mean it isn't faith.

Whether or not something is a fact is whether or not it is correct. Whether or not people hold something on faith is whether or not they are in a position to ultimately prove it (or could be bothered) or whether they accept on good reasons that it is correct and get on with their life.

Philo is not the one confused.

Dear DavidF

Curse your pedantry! Just quietly (between us) I knew that the Arabs co-opted numbers as we know them today from India. However, given the vitriol that issues forth on anything remotely Islamic, I used a bit of poetic licence - please forgive.

And yes, I agree that the complexities that were able to be explained and understood through mathematics is one of the most fundamental discoveries without which we would still be in the stone age.

Besides I failed to edify the non-edifiable just witness AGIR's response to my points.

But hopefully I entertained the enlightened.

PS

MJPB

If Philo believes that simple arithmetic is a faith system, then he is confused - extremely. But nice piece of sophistry.

A J Phillips,

"Wow, enough faith to be an atheist? ... exercise reason get to be the freethinkers."

Nah just perhaps too terse to avoid your initial paragraphs. I should have been more expansive. I should have started with "After considering the evidence"

Many people describing themselves as atheists are becoming intellectual slaves to dogmas. Both sides can and do exercise reason and get different conclusions. Given the message promulgated by contemporary powerbrokers only theists are clearly free thinkers. Atheists could just be going with the flow.

"What you need to understand, mjpb, is that theists are the ones making the claim, not atheists. Atheism is simply a response to that claim - no faith involved."

Atheists are making the claim that there is no God. If it is in response to theists than they must have moved past a mere absence of belief.

"If someone were to ask you if you believed in fairies, how much faith are you holding by saying “no”? Is it more than saying “yes”?"

I have never entered the controversy. I accept that there are no fairies purely on faith. I don't believe it is more than saying yes.

"No, Dawkins - like many others - simply accepts the fact that objective reality is all we’ve ever been able to rely on to acquire any real knowledge about reality."

Express it any way you like.

"No faith required."

How do you know that divine revelation hasn't created any real knowledge about reality?

"<<Have you known him to vacillate and consider God?>>

Dawkins once believed in god until it occurred to him that he was only a Christian because of a sheer accident of birth."

But he was an Anglican ... Anyway if the originally Middle Eastern religion hadn't been exported to Europe he wouldn't have been in that position. His ancestors converted. Many people convert today. I am one of them. My parents are atheists.

"Rational thought is religion’s kryptonite."

If you really believe that no theists give the matter any rational thought you need to get out more.

Dear David F.,

Hitler expressed virulently anti-Christian views,
as recorded by his secretary and given by
Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion,"

The following all date from 1941:

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity
was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism
is Christianity's illegitimate child...

The reason why the ancient world was so pure,
light and serene was that it knew nothing
of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity...

When all is said, we have no reason to wish
that the Italians and Spaniards should free
themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's
be the only people who are immunised against
this disease...

I could of course be argued that, despite his
own words and those of his associates, Hitler was
not really religious but just cynically
exploiting the religiosity of his audience. He
may have ahreed with Napoleon, who said, "Religion
is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet,"
and with Seneca the Younger, "Religion is regarded
by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful."

However, whatever his real motives for pretending
to be religious we shall never know I guess, as
mjpb points out. But his actions serve to remind
us that Hitler didn't carry out his atrocities
single-handed. The terrible deeds themselves
were carried out by soldiers, and their officers,
most of whom were surely Christian.

Dear Al,

I'll let AJ explain things to you himself.
He'll do a better job of it than I.

As for my apologising to you - for what?
You are responsible by your actions, in
the way that you are perceived. That is something
you have to deal with and no one else.

You're entitled to your opinions - but not
your own facts.

Dear mjpb,

Hitler’s atheism is pure myth. I am sick of Christian apologists assuming that because they don't like the actions of a person that person is not a Christian. Centuries of Christian hatred prepared the ground for the Holocaust.

Page 30 of “The Slave Trade” by Hugh Thomas shows Christianity justifying slavery.

"St Paul, like Seneca, thought that slavery was something external. So he recommended that slaves serve their masters 'with fear and trembling'. He thought that every man should abide 'in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a slave? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather' (the English Authorized Version curiously translates servus as 'servant', not 'slave'). The apostle believed, it is true, that the slave who receives the call to be a Christ is ‘the Lord's freeman'. But the implication was that that liberty could only be expected in the next world. The Epistle to Philemon the Greek described how the apostle returned a fugitive slave, Onesimus, to his master, though he did recommend indulgence. That action was later used by churches to reject the idea that escaping slaves had the right to sanctuary in their church, as common criminals did; and the eighteen French Huguenot trader Jean Barbot thought that the Epistle gave evidence that, though slavery was lawful, slaves should be well treated. An early Christian bishop, and a medieval one, could comfcrt himself with the reflection that Christ had, after all, come not to change conditions but to change minds - non venit mutare conditiones sed mentes. What, the 'bondsman was inwardly free, and spiritually the equal of his master'? No matter: in external matters, he was a mere chattel. Slaves could of course look forward to freedom in the next world. In time, they should endure their terrestrial condition for the glory of God, whose ways were inscrutable.

St. John Chrysostom advised the slave to prefer the security of captivity to the uncertainties of freedom. St. Augustine agreed.

Thomas cites many other references for Christian acceptance of slavery.

"If Philo believes that simple arithmetic is a faith system, then he is confused - extremely. But nice piece of sophistry."

He didn't say that he believes that simple arithmetic is a faith system? He was discussing the issue of particular arithmetic knowledge being held on faith as was I. He typed:

"Dawkins is a fool. People act in faith every day because they believe unquestionably in certain taught principles. For instance you always believe 12+12=24, you do not have to question it each time you use it. Someone taught it to you."

I think you are missing his point.

David f,

That is the first time Dawkins would probably have been accused of being a Christian apologist.

MJPB

Your attempt to defend Philo further undermines your credibility. First he claimed that Dawkins is a fool - there is no evidence of such, he presents as an extremely intelligent man. Then Philo uses a fact, 12 + 12 + 24 as an item of faith. He is contradicting himself.

When I was taught arithmetic, I could see immediately that it was true. No faith was required. Another example, being taught to brush one's teeth does, in fact, produce clean teeth.

Absolutely fascinating, MJPB, how you can pervert reason to support your claims. You are very good at it. I guess to continue believing in religion you need this ability.

Dear Foxy,

Possibly you have conflated three concepts - Christianity, the church and atheism. Hitler very much resented the fact that both the Lutheran and Catholic churches were power centres that conflicted with the totalitarian demand for unchallenged dominion. One can be anticlerical, oppose the churches as institutions and still be a believing Christian. One may reject Christianity but still not be an atheist.

To the best of my knowledge Hitler at no time expressed the idea that there was no God so it is not right to call him an atheist since there is, as far as I know, no substance for that charge. Whether he was a Christian is another matter.

His public pronouncements certainly paint him as a Christian. However, one changes through life, and Hitler, like other humans, also did.

I have read that Hitler as a youth considered being a Catholic priest. Generally that desire is confined to believing Catholics so Hitler was at one time a believing Catholic.

According to Dawkins (“The God Delusion”) p. 276 “Hitler was always adamant that Jesus was not a Jew.” If Hitler had rejected Christianity why would he care whether Jesus was a Jew?

Dawkins finds reason that Hitler believed in some sort of a deity. (“The God Delusion”) p. 276

“Even when he was railing against Christianity, Hitler never ceased using the language of Providence: a mysterious agency which, he believed, had singled him out for a divine mission to lead Germany. He sometimes called it Providence, at other times God. After the Anschluss, when Hitler returned in triumph to Vienna in 1938, his exultant speech mentioned God in this providential guise: ‘I believe it was God's will to send a boy from here into the Reich, let him grow up and to raise him to be the leader of the nation that he could lead back his homeland into the Reich.'”

Hitler opposed the institutional church, may possibly have remained a believing Christian and almost certainly believed in a supernatural power. There is no reason to think he was an atheist.

Dear David F.,

Thank You.

I went back to the book by Richard Dawkins,
and I rather like what Dawkins has to say
about the Hitler/Stalin debate:

"Stalin was probably an atheist and Hitler
probably wasn't; but even if they were both
atheists, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler
debating point is very simple. Individual
atheists may do evil things but they don't
do evil things in the name of atheism.
Stalin and Hitler did extremely evil things, in
the name of, respectively, dogmatic and
doctrinaire Marxism, and an insane and unscientific
eugenics theory tinged with sub-Wagnerian ravings..."

Thank-you David F and Pelican for responding to my last post.

David F i wouldn't class myself or Muslims in general as those who would use "faith" as proof.

Thank-you to others, notably Foxy and Severin, for their attempts to clear the way for a constructive dialogue.

I have replied to AGIR and AJ Philips concerning their accusations of paedophilia against the Prophet and even myself, but it does not appear management sees any need to put a stop to this sort of hounding and so there is no point pretending management is about to change their attitude.

salaams

What an eventful day! I’m not even sure where to start.

Okay firstly, I’m a bit puzzled as to why my opinion on the topic of religion is apparently so authoritative. After all, there are a few atheists on OLO who criticise Islam and stevenlmeyer, for example, criticises both Islam and Christianity. So I’m not sure what the difference is with me.

If I’d known that my opinion could cause me to be a 'poster boy' for a statement like, “Islam permits child sexual abuse”, then I probably would have worded my post a bit more carefully; My use of the word “paedophilia” instead of “child sex abuse” - as Boaz correctly pointed out - for example.

Boaz,

I’m glad you liked my post, but I feel a little uneasy having my opinion being used to reinforce a statement as blunt as, “Islam permits child sexual abuse”, without there being any context put to it.

Without a few sentences to provide some context, I would feel more comfortable with something like, “Islam’s doctrine contains verses that talk about child sex abuse as though there were nothing wrong with it”. There are several reasons as to why I feel uneasy...

Firstly, unlike the term “Christianity”, “Islam” can be used to refer to an entire people, and most Muslims wouldn’t condone child sex abuse (although I know that’s not what you meant).

Secondly, ostracizing a minority can only breed more fundamentalists and in my opinion, would be counterproductive. If Christians ever become a very small minority in the Western world, whose fundamentalists start murdering because of their disagreements with our way of life (I mean more than what already happens), then I will re-think my way of criticising their religion. But while they are (superficially) less of an IMMEDIATE - albeit insidious (as Severin mentioned) - threat, whose religion has become are far too big for its boots and needs to be put in its place in a modern society, I’ll be less likely to show a bit of sensitivity in my criticism.

Continued...

...Continued

Finally, criticizing a religion by pointing out nasties in their holy books isn’t really my style. I prefer to criticise religions by using pure reason and - if I have to point to their holy books - would rather do so to highlight inconsistencies rather than awful verses that the majority of them just explain away with fallacious arguments anyway.

But since I’m on the topic of nasty bits in holy books, the Bible filled with verses that would make even the hardened of today’s criminals blush, and no, saying that Jesus came to change it all doesn’t work for two reasons...

Firstly, because a perfect being like a god would remain perfect and unchanging. A humanoid form of that god wouldn’t be able to just come to Earth and change everything without seriously damaging their claims to omnipotence or the credibility of the existence of that god to begin with.

Secondly, while most of the words and sentiments of the alleged Jesus are an improvement to the evil god of the Old Testament, he did also say that he didn’t come to change god’s rules, but to uphold them:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Matthew 5:17 NIV

grateful ,

Yes, your interpretation was also mentioned at *13 of what Boaz linked to.

My initial interpretation of the verse Boaz directed me to was influenced by the fact that child sex abuse was more frequent and widely accepted back in those days, and considering this, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that the verse wasn’t condoning abuse.

If god is so perfect and the Qur’an is his inerrant word, then how could he be so gosh darned ambiguous there? One would think he’d foresee the possibility for misinterpretation and ensure the wording was clear.

In regards to your more recent post, I object to being painted as a bigot, and I fail to see how giving my interpretation of a passage in the Qur’an constitutes “hounding”.

mjpb,

Firstly, let’s be clear here that we are talking about “faith” in the religious sense: Belief for no good reason; belief against evidence to the contrary.

<<Both sides can and do exercise reason and get different conclusions.>>

Okay, so how would one exercise reason and come to the conclusion that the Christian god exists?

I’m genuinely interested because, of all my Christian friends, and all the posts on OLO and options I’ve read elsewhere, I’ve never seen it. In fact, I enjoy devoting my time to de-constructing and destroying this alleged 'reason'. So if you have something new, by all means, let me in on it.

Note that the fact that we are here is not evidence, and even if it were, it wouldn’t be evidence of the Christian god specifically.

<<Atheists are making the claim that there is no God. If it is in response to theists than they must have moved past a mere absence of belief. >>

The atheism of many atheists - including myself - has progressed past “mere absence of belief”, but that’s irrelevant as the original claim from which atheism as a response is derived is the original claim.

My point still stands.

<<How do you know that divine revelation hasn't created any real knowledge about reality?>>

Because practical knowledge (i.e. things we can objectively ‘know’- not just ‘believe’ - that we acquire from our day-to-day living) tells us otherwise.

Unless you think you’ve actually witnessed god or a real miracle?

<<If you really believe that no theists give the matter any rational thought you need to get out more.>>

Oh, I’ve gotten out a lot and I’ve seen a lot of the so-called “rational thought” that theists engage in and it all boils down to sophistry and obfuscation.

Feel free to challenge me with some of this rational thinking if you think I’m wrong.

Severin,

Re your post of Friday, 18 June 2010 9:58:38 AM

With respect I think you are missing an important point.

It is precisely because I fear the power of the CHRISTIAN churches that I think it important to combat any attempt to appease Islam.

How do you appease Islam without at the same time appeasing Christianity?

The above question is not rhetorical Severin. It goes to the heart of the matter.

How do you legislate to outlaw disrespect for Islam without re-introducing blasphemy laws?

Many of the Churches – this applies especially to the Church of England in the UK – are using Islam as a STALKING HORSE. Under the guise of preaching "love", "respect" and "tolerance" they are asking for laws that are more draconian than the blasphemy laws that were only repealed in 2008.

The front line in the never ending battle to keep religion at bay right now is in fighting any attempt to appease Islam. If we lose that battle we open the way for the Christian Churches to drag us kicking and screaming back to the dark ages.

Grateful wrote:

"I have replied … concerning their accusations of paedophilia against the Prophet (sic) and even myself, but it does not appear management sees any need to put a stop to this sort of hounding…"

LOL

Welcome to democracy and free speech. I'll give the Christian nutso's who post here credit for one thing. So far as I know they have not called on "the management" to censor posters who pillory mercilessly their beliefs and their persons.

More and more you reveal yourself as just another Muslim seeking to impose his beliefs on kafirs.

Foxy,

You seem to insist on reading into my posts things I never said.

I did NOT say Stalin was a bad man BECAUSE he was an atheist.

I said that non-theistic ideologies such as Stalinism could be just as loathsome as any theistic belief system. This is self-evidently true. I don’t see how any rational person could object to that statement.

In case anyone missed it, this was my earlier response to AGIR & AJ Phillips accusation that paedophilia is part of Islam:

Consult your wives, who will be able to explain to you a bit about irregularities in menstruation and menopause (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=4857&CATE=220). For example, my wife didn't have her period for at least 7 months after one of the pregnancies. In addition, in Islam the marriage can only be consummated after puberty. If married before puberty, the girl must remain with her parents. Is this 'primitive'? Yes, by our standards, but that was the norm in those days and obviously it is becoming increasing less common (in either Muslim or non-Muslim communities) as countries develop. The Shariah scholars obviously have had to lay done rulings cover all sorts of contingencies for innumerable societies over 1400 years. Is it paedophilia? Obviously not.

You just have to consult leading scholars of Islam, from the West, just to see how ludicrous this is. But if this is what people choose to believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then fundamentalism will have become the norm in Australia.

Pelican: regarding your curiosity (from Foxy's previous post) as how someone from an atheist background could become a believer. There was a need for foundation which i could not find in my upbringing and a sincere desire for the truth. I love truth and reason, which is what i believe i have found in Islam.

Salaams

Sorry mjpb,

I need to clarify/expand on a couple of points...

<<Atheists are making the claim that there is no God. If it is in response to theists than they must have moved past a mere absence of belief.>>

Whether or not some/many atheists make the claim that no gods exists is irrelevant as it is still only in response to the original claim that a god does exist.

If you are still unsure of what I mean here, then read through the following thread in which I had thoroughly explained this point to a couple of OLO theists who had a lot difficulty understanding this.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176&page=0

<<How do you know that divine revelation hasn't created any real knowledge about reality?>>

I don't know.

But I believe with a high degree of certainty, and the practical knowledge I've acquired from my day-to-day living gives me sound objective reasoning to reach this high degree of certainly.

Yes grateful, and in case you missed it, my rebuttal can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729#90710

<<You just have to consult leading scholars of Islam, from the West, just to see how ludicrous this is.>>

If it takes consultation with “leading scholars of Islam” to see how ludicrous it is, then the Qur’an is not the word of any god. It also suggests that any consultation with these leading scholars would result in pure sophistry and obfuscation.

Otherwise, you’d be able to summarise it for us right now.

Dear Steven,

Kindly re-read my posts.

I wasn't objecting to that statement,
in fact I was confirming it.

AJ Philips: 'hounding' was in reference to AGIR, so my apologies for the confusion.

Steven: the only thing that i have done to draw your anger (and that of others) is to be a Muslim. I love Islam...what to do?

salaams

Steven, buzz posters privilage:

Democracy: "Well may we say God save the Queen...for nothing will save the Governor General" I was in the car with Mum just after the intersection Park Rd and Doncaster Rd, travelling towards Doncaster when this came over the radio. So fear not..i know about Australian democracy

grateful

I have no idea what you're driving at with your last post.

All I know is that you've evaded a key question. You've given a "reason" for your evasion which is complete taurine fertiliser.

And so in a way you have answered the question. So now I know what you are.

Do we have anything more to say to each other?

To me a fundamentalism is a mind set, and an understanding of the fundamental principles governing a subject, what ever it may be, life, death, flying, welding, mechanics ecetra. The fundamentals of christianity are what is in the bible with nothing added or subtracted. Not what we believe it says. Narrow is the way, Life not death. Light not darkness. Understanding not misunderstanding. Mans opinion never changes the fundamentals or ruling principles for they are only opinions. eg If you do what is right and do it right it works. If you chose to do it your way and not follow the instruction manual you are always heading for the wrong way. It is not the thud at the end of drop that was the wrong choice but the defying of the law of gravity. The law of aerodynamics gets a different result. Man is a three part being. We are a spirit
(life, breath, force). We have a soul which is made up of our mind or interlect, our will or freedom to chose, and our emotions made up of our feelings or senses, ( touch, smell, see, taste)
and we live in an earthernware body. Without understanding we make incorrect or wrong choices leading to wrong conclusions. Incomplete knowledge can lead to unexpected concequences. Education takes time and if we had a 1000 years we would not have all knowledge so seek wisdom for if any man lacks wisdom ask God who gives generously to All as he is no respecter of persons, He does not have favourites only sons and daughters. God hates sin, not people as sin separates us from Gods best for our lives.
Regards Richie 10

Dear Richie 10,

It ain't no sin
To take off your skin,
And dance around in your bones.

Steven said: <<All I know is that you've evaded a key question. You've given a "reason" for your evasion which is complete taurine fertiliser>>

Your "key question" was totally off topic and only "key" for you. Despite this I gave you an honest answer and in return i receive abuse. You obviously didn't get the answer you wanted and your behaviour is akin to a child nagging the parents for an icecream.

People like yourself are like spoilt children who have nothing better to do than interupt other peoples conversations until it becomes impossible to have a sensible discussion. You have no idea what democracy entails in terms of responsibilities.

Management: For a good example on how to maintain a forum in which the 'kiddies' behave go to www.muslimvillage.com.

salaams

Dear Steven

What Foxy said. I have already addressed your question and provided reasons for my opinion.

AJ Phillips - the irrepressible.

Thank you for your time and patience addressing posters such as MJPB. I tire quickly of his/her game of obfuscation. Once I have made a clear and succinct point, I see no reason to rehash. That many religious folk deliberately confuse fact with faith is another example of religious dishonesty.

Grateful

I appreciate your kind comments. I do try to be rational - perhaps not always successfully, although I find ignoring AGIR's posts helps me to remain mindful (in the Buddhist sense).

stevenlmeyer: << It is precisely because I fear the power of the CHRISTIAN churches that I think it important to combat any attempt to appease Islam. >>

I think Steven's being more than a little disingenuous here. It's a good point, but I doubt very much if concerns about Christian influence and power are the principal drivers of his Islamophobia.

Severin,
You are an inspiration.

Perhaps we should be focusing less on manifestations of bad character (which i think fundamentalism represents) and more on what makes for good character.

It would be nice to have a properly managed forum where we could share what we understand about 'good character' and how it is attained.

take care

Grateful

For once we are in accord. I have been following Muslim Village Forums for some years and I have urged people who want to observer Muslims "au natural" to do likewise. I am a member of a discussion group that analyses MV threads of interest.

For other posters here is a quick definition of MV:

IT IS BOAZY ON STEROIDS

Here is a link to a recent thread:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/59530-ohio-jesus-statue-burned-to-ground-by-lightning/

A statue of Jesus in Ohio was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. A regular poster, Mango, has this to say (in post #3):

"SubhanAllah... bit hard for them to take a hint... Bible: Job 36:32 He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.

[…]

(Quran 24:46)

We have indeed sent down signs that make things manifest: and Allah guides whom He wills to a way that is straight.

What follows is a discussion on whether this is a sign from God. A kafir poster, Event Horizon, tries to introduce some scientific sense into the discussion. (#6) but mango is having none of it. It's all a sign from "Allah".

Event Horizon then links to a story describing how children five decorating a cross in Mexico were killed in a lightning strike.(#10)

Here is a quote from Mango's response (#11)

"... why would I be excited at the death of children decorating a cross? According to Islam, they are under or bordering the age of puberty, their death- at least most certainly for those under the age of puberty- from such an incident constitutes grounds for them to enter Heaven, regardless of what they were doing or their religious affiliation at that age. So on that level alhamdulilah Praise be to God. Because entering Heaven is something all theists want and work for."

On the whole MV posters like mango are great contributors to what Dr. Johnson called the "public stock of harmless pleasure."

On the whole MV posters like mango are great contributors to what Dr. Johnson called the "public stock of harmless pleasure."

Another worthy contributor to that stock of harmless public pleasure is a poster describing himself as "FatBoyMuslim" (FatHeadMuslim is a better description).

Here is FatBoyMuslim on the question of whether kafirs can get into heaven. A kafir poster called "Kristin" quotes some Muslim scholars saying it's possible.

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/58441-non-muslims-in-an-islamic-afterlife/

But FatBoyMuslim is having none of it (post #2):

"here is no mercy for kafirs in the next life. they are doomed to burn the fire of hell for ever and ever. this is the promise of allah, not a shura decision by a bunch of muslim elders.
[…]
"a lot of kafirs who call themselves muslims and who do not wish to upset their kafir masters, quote that verse blatantly out of context to assure their masters of a free ticket to heaven."

One of the most bizarre recent threads is this one started by a poster who calls himself "greenie".

Free Will Vs Allah's Plan

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/59466-free-will-vs-allahs-plan/page__st__30__p__894419__fromsearch__1&#entry894419

Here is FatBoyMuslim again:

your desire is also created by allaah. allaah is the creator of everything in the universe, tangible or abstract.

you cannot will without allaah's will.

But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.

[...]

He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be questioned (for theirs).

the root of such misguidance is anthropomorphism and applying analogies from creation to allaah

nonmuslims should firstly try to understand allaah's total ownership of everything and his divine attributes and that he has no partner or equal or superior. submitting to allaah's absolute supremacy over all creation (and everything other than him is creation) is islam.

In my wilder moments I wonder whether Muslim Village Forums was started by a Monty Python clone.

So Steven - how many discussion groups do you belong to that are devoted to analysing "threads of interest" on Christian forums?

CJ MORGAN asks:

"So Steven - how many discussion groups do you belong to that are devoted to analysing "threads of interest" on Christian forums?"

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. The discussion group in question follows a NUMBER of Muslim and Christian fora. It is not devoted solely to MV.

The criterion for inclusion in our discussion list is:

"Christian or Muslim fora in which Jews and Jewish matters are discussed frequently."

When we find a site of interest one person is assigned to follow any poster who mentions Jews frequently.

It actually started with discussing "Jews for Jesus" and other "Messianic Jewish" fora. However these tend to be boring and repetitious.

Interestingly Christian fora can go for weeks or months without Jews rating a mention. This seems impossible for Muslim fora. Participants on Muslim fora seem to be among the most "Jew obsessed" people on Earth.

None of the mainstream Christian fora we follow devote such a high proportion of posts to Jewish matters as do Muslim fora.

See for example:

http://forums.catholic.com/index.php

Which we may drop because Jewish topics come up so rarely in relation to the volume of posts.

I hope that answers your question.

Steven says:

<<For once we are in accord. I have been following Muslim Village Forums for some years and I have urged people who want to observer Muslims "au natural" to do likewise. I am a member of a discussion group that analyses MV threads of interest.>>

Excellent! I would also encourage people to go there and open a dialogue.

<<For other posters here is a quick definition of MV: IT IS BOAZY ON STEROIDS>>

What does this mean in normal English? What precisely is your criticism?

grateful
Thanks for sharing your reasons for choosing Islam. ie. "There was a need for foundation which i could not find in my upbringing and a sincere desire for the truth. I love truth and reason, which is what i believe i have found in Islam."

If you have found your 'truth' and reason in Islam and that works for you and improves your quality of life (and those around you) then that is a good thing - for you.

I have no issue with those who choose a particular faith but I do find the hairs stand up a bit when all the faiths are speaking 'truths'.

Truth is not subjective by definition, something is either hot or cold, green or yellow. We all use the term quite casually as though what one person has discovered is the 'truth' over what another believes. I would dispute what you found is not truth by definition, only a choice for you that works for whatever reason given our human differences.

As an atheist all I hope for is that people of any religious persuasion respect the rights of each other to practice their faith without imposing their will on others or eliciting special favours, in an equal and democratic society.

"I would dispute what you found is not truth by definition, only a choice for you that works for whatever reason given our human differences."

That part was poorly phrased on my part. I obviously meant to delete the word 'not' before 'truth'.

Dear Foxy,

The concentration on whether Hitler was a Christian or not overrides what is to me a more important question.

Hitler took power in a democratic society with a free press and free elections. Why did so many German Christians support Hitler’s rise and continue support after he took power? Christianity paints itself as a religion of love, but it actually has promoted a great deal of hate. Exceptional Christians like Franz Jaegerstatter, Paster Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not follow Hitler, but by and large Christians did. One can question why.

In my opinion two reasons are the centuries of Jew hatred and the unquestioning respect for authority promoted by Christianity. A sample from a Christian website:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn19/respect_wrestling.htm

“Regardless of the outcome of the crisis of the presidency, Christians are obliged to obey God by respecting government authority—the law and national and local leaders. Two of the apostles made this point in their letters.

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities," wrote the apostle Paul. "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Romans 13:1). This includes the payment of taxes and other obligations (verses 2-7). Remember that the Roman government of the time had its own problems with corruption and abuse of power. But such behavior does not give people an excuse to disobey the law or disrespect the authority of their leaders.

Peter gave his readers the same instruction: "Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors ..." (1 Peter 2:13-14). We are also to "honor the king" or chief ruler (verse 17). Paul echoes Peter's instruction to Titus: "Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no one ..." (Titus 3:1-2). Elsewhere Paul exhorts us pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).”

Unreasoning support for authority is antithetical to the healthy questioning essential to the democratic process.

<<Truth is not subjective by definition, something is either hot or cold, green or yellow. We all use the term quite casually as though what one person has discovered is the 'truth' over what another believes. I would dispute what you found is not truth by definition, only a choice for you that works for whatever reason given our human differences.>>

I'm not sure what you mean by "truth by definition", but it was not meant in the intolerant sense.

My reference to "truth" refers to a desire to know what is right and wrong..and why..along with the intuition that there must be a purpose to life other that "to relax and have fun". Then when i read the Qur'an it simply made a lot of sense. The fact that there was this criterion over and above the whims of individuals provided me with the foundation i was looking for. Finally, after living the religion, i find it works: the guidance for how we should conduct ourselves in our outward world is consistent with the purification of the heart and the development of good character. Its all about improving character and worshiping Allah as if you see Him and, if this is not possible, at least being aware that He is aware of all that we do.

salaaams

Well hello there Grateful... thought we lost you there for a bit.

You said:

//I have replied to AGIR and AJ Philips concerning their accusations of paedophilia against the Prophet and even myself,//

a) I did NOT accuse your prophet of Paedophilia. If you think I did..show me!

b) I did not accuse YOU of it... if I did..show me!

What I DID... is invite an atheist to read a section of the Quran and then to share with us that ISLAMIC opinion... by a recent scholar (he died only in 1979) and his opinion is abiding.. ie.. he was unpacking the 'eternal word of Allah' for us..in the here and now.

What he explained has nothing to do with 'back then' but everything to do with 'here and now'.

Which of course is the basis of my criticism. I'ts also why I draw comparisons with other cults where sexual abuse is practiced.. Children of god being one.

Let me repeat... I asked AJ to look... and see.. and he told us what he saw. If anyone had the honesty to check it for themselves..they would find the same thing.. including you, rather than give surreal spin to try to make a clear text say something it does not.

You refer to 'modern scholars'.. tripe.. absolute tripe. Maududi IS a 'modern and respected scholar' and another who was invited to Melbourne for a major conference by the mainstream Muslims here (Melb) is non other than Sheikh Bilal Phillips..and I can assure you..seeing him on video justifying old 50s or 60s Muslim men marrying 8 or 9 yr old girls.. was quite stunning.

If you (this includes other posters) have no problem with those kinds of values being promoted in Australia..then God help Australia..

AJ...sorry for making you feel a bit uncomfy :) Once you start focusing on the 'dark' side of Islam..it tends to explode in all directions, as per Gratefuls frenzied and hysterical denials.

Dear grateful,

In your post you seem to want others to accept your religion. I don't think there is an absolute morality which decides what is right and wrong for everybody. I have absolutely no argument with the fact that Muslims can have four wives. However, that does not mean that someone living in Australia can have four wives. What's right and wrong for you is not right and wrong for me. You asked that all should be aware that Allah is aware of all we do. I think it is nonsense that there is any entity that is aware of all we do.

Dear AGIR,

You wrote: "Once you start focusing on the 'dark' side of Islam..it tends to explode in all directions"

That is true for Christianity and many other religions. Why focus on the dark side of Islam and ignore the dark side of your religion? You find Koranic naughty bits but ignore Jesus’ advice to look at your own.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Bishop Spong tries to improve Christianity by looking at its bad parts and not following them.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theTerribleTexts.aspx
(go to the website for full text.)

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:

"No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6)
This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another.

ANTI-SEMITISM:

And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25)
No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed.

SEXISM:
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1Cor. 8-9)

The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil to their core and it was built on the story of Eve.

Grateful pushes his own religion but does not mention the evil in yours.

david f, "I have absolutely no argument with the fact that Muslims can have four wives. However, that does not mean that someone living in Australia can have four wives."

If you have supported same sex marriage why shouldn't grateful have his four wives? Individual rights and marriage as a recognition of love and commitment is as true for one as it is for the other.

Age of the person is another issue where some have sought relaxation based on lower ages for consent elsewhere. However in Australia there is relaxation of age for indigenous girls whether they like it or not, that is multiculturalism. Again, through multiculturalism policy grateful might feel he has more compelling reasons for numerous wives and underage ones at that than you might have for supporting same sex marriage, which is by coincidence abhorrent to grateful's beliefs in any event.

Dear DAvid F.,

As I've written many times in the past -
I don't pretend to have all the answers,
neither do I feel that what is right for
me is right for anyone else. I believe
in live and let live. I'm not looking
to converting anyone, and I certainly
don't have any sort of missionary
complex.

I used to think that I wasn't religious,
and perhaps I wasn't. I certainly didn't
like what organized religion had done to
the world. I still don't. However, I've
come to see that true religion is internal,
not external. The spirit within cannot be
blamed for the blasphemies carried out in its
name. What some have done in the name of
religion, projecting their neuroses, even
perpetrating evil on the world, to my mind,
doesn't make religion as a mystical
phenomenon invalid.

Dear cornflower,

Someone in Australia cannot have four wives because the law reflects the prevailing attitude in Australia. As far as I am concerned the law can be changed if enough people want it to be changed. Morality and law reflect the attitude of the community. That is the point I would like to make.

I certain would not object to anybody having four wives if there was no compulsion in the matter. My personal feelings reject compulsion.

Grateful and I differ in this matter. Of course polygamy like same sex marriage is a matter of acceptance. Neither is based on any absolute god-given morality.

AGIR: If you are saying Islam supports child abuse then you are wrong.

Furthermore, in a ‘primitive society’ (where there is no primary schools and children are tilling the soil by the time they are of age) brides could be very young. This does not amount to child abuse and has been the case irrespective of religion.

Why not ask the question: Is a child in Australia more likely to be abused in a Muslim household than the typical Australian household?

David f: << In your post you seem to want others to accept your religion.>>

I would like people to become informed about my religion.

David F said: <<What's right and wrong for you is not right and wrong for me. >>

This may be true on some issues and i suspect the main point of difference relates to balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of civil society: issues relating to how individuals should conduct themselves and how misconduct can affect the welfare of others (notably woman and children and the family) as well as undermine social structures.

On fundamental values such as racial equality, tolerance, human and animal rights, gender rights, the environment and so on you would find there is not much to argue about. In fact, your words reminded me of similar words in the Qur’aan (look up Chapter 109 AlKafiroon: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/). You may be surprised how much there is in common, although the approach to social issues can be quite different.

salaam

Dear Foxy,

Live and let live is a very different attitude from the missionary one. Unfortunately missionary religions are not content to live and let live. Therefore others want them to abandon their missionising.

However, pushing tolerance and acceptance to those who follow the missionary religions becomes a missionary action in itself. A missionary wanted to push his religion on me, and I objected. He accused me of wanting of being a missionary myself. I did not want him to abandon his religion as that would cut off his links with family and community. However, I did want him to abandon any missionising that others neither requested nor wanted. In asking him to change his attitude I was asking him to abandon a precept at the core of his religion.

You used the expression, true religion. 'True religion' seems to me to be only what the person who follows the 'true religion' feels to be true. I don't think there is such a thing as true religion.

You wrote: "What some have done in the name of religion, projecting their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the world, to my mind, doesn't make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid."

I think missionary religion is nothing but projecting neuroses onto others. It's not even one's own neurosis. It is somebody else's neurosis accepted in the name of faith. Although the beginnings of the concept of original sin were before Augustine he was the one who got it adopted as Christian doctrine. Augustine was a neurotic, guilt-ridden individual who succeeded in pushing his neurosis on others. “We are all corrupt” and “We are all born in sin.” are expressions of that insanity.

Mysticism does not have to be connected with any religion.

Dear grateful,

You wrote: “at least being aware that He [Allah] is aware of all that we do.

That is asking all to accept your religion. That is more than just wanting people to be informed unless you do not expect other people to accept an omniscient entity. Is it ok to be an atheist?

I don't really think there is any doubt that paedophilia is a mainstream part of contemporary Islam and that arranged child marriages are quite common in many Muslim countries.

David f & Co,

If it makes you feel better about yourselves to mention something bad about Christianity every time somebody brings you face to face with the "dark side" of Islam by all means do so. At least you don’t deny that Islam has a dark side which is progress of a sort,

Foxy,

I have to agree with David f. Evangelising religions all too often do not allow for live and let live.

Exhibit A for this propostion is grateful's evasion over the free speech issue and his BS excuses. Like all good little Muslims he is at heart a totalitarian who would crush freedom of expression.

I wonder what he would do to gays.

<<You wrote: “at least being aware that He [Allah] is aware of all that we do.

That is asking all to accept your religion. That is more than just wanting people to be informed unless you do not expect other people to accept an omniscient entity. Is it ok to be an atheist?>>

No. It is a poor attempt to paraphrase a hadith describing the spiritual state of the believer in their relation to Allah. It is part of a longer hadith, referred to as the Gibril Hadith which describes an occasion in which a stranger interrupts a gathering of the Prophet and his followers. He entered the room and proceeded to sit in front of the Prophet and quiz him on the fundamental tenets of Islam. When the stranger leaves the gathering, the Prophet is ask who the person is and he replies that it was the Angel Gibril.

Here is the part that i poorly paraphrased:

<<.... Then he further asked, "What is Ihsan (perfection)?" Allah's Apostle replied, "to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you cannot see Him, then be sure that He is seeing you."....>> http://www.livingislam.org/o/gh_e.html

Someone who worships Allah as if he sees him is ever mindful of Allah and does not breath without remembrance of Allah. Those of us who have not attained this level of imaan (faith) should at least be away that he sees us. If you read the whole hadith you’ll see that it refers to Muslims.

The reference i gave in the previous post makes clear that we do not impose our religion to others. Here it is in full:

<<Say: O disbelievers! (1) I worship not that which ye worship; (2) Nor worship ye that which I worship. (3) And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (4) Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5) Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (6)>> (chap 109, http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/)

Dear stevenlmeyer,

Certainly Islam has a dark side. I find AGIR objectionable in harping on Islam's dark side while making excuses for any of the ugliness of his own religion.

Religion is not separate from politics. With the exception of Turkey and Afghanistan all the Islamic countries were colonies of the imperialist European Christian nations. Those nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time.

I have just read a book called "Inside Jihadism." The author writes of the Muslim intellectuals who promote Jihad. He also mentions the 'revolutionary, utopian, religious intellectuals' of Christianity who disappeared in the late seventeenth century. The Jihadists are the reincarnation of the 'revolutionary, utopian, religious intellectuals' of Christianity.

As far as I am concerned the WW2 Holocaust remains applied Christianity. AGIR is a dirty pot calling a kettle black.

Dear Davidf,

I don’t know about the pot calling the kettle black part, but anyone who talks of :

“all the Islamic countries were colonies of the imperialist European Christian nations. Those nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time.”

Yet, neglects to mention the colonialism and brutality of Islamic entities in Africa, Asia and Europe.

And then talks of:

“Jihadists are the reincarnation of the 'revolutionary, utopian, religious intellectuals' of Christianity”(as if Jihadism only started in the 17th Century!)

Is either exceedingly one eyed, or, has been smoking pot

Dear Foxy,

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].” Mien Kampf – sort of sealed the Hitler – Christian thing for me.

And davidf is right about Germany's very Christian population aiding and abetting in the Holocaust as did other populations across Europe. However I have a slightly more nuanced view of the reasons than the “the centuries of Jew hatred and the unquestioning respect for authority promoted by Christianity.” offered by him.

There is something quite remarkable about the 20th century Germans and I have recently had the occasion to experience a little of it.

I recall somewhere you said you lived in Victoria and if this is correct might I invite you to get along to the NGV to view a remarkable collection of masterpieces from the Städel Museum in Frankfurt.

I was deeply struck by the degree to which the later works of German artists from the 1920's onward was so dark in comparison to the mid to late 19th century works. Actually this is not an accurate description, more lacking is life's spark.

The Monet's and other French works from similar schools were positively radiant in comparison.

Was the WW1 so devastating to the German psyche? It certainly was to Max Beckmann whose works show a real disintegration of spirit.

I remember Claudia Lady Bird Johnson's quote “Art is the window to man's soul. Without it, he would never be able to see beyond his immediate world; nor could the world see the man within.” and it has never been truer for me.

In this case it was Art is the window to a country's soul and the view is quite disconcerting.

To fundamentalism, it is most of the things described by posters above, it is also a gift of deep security to those whose lives require it and a bulwark against a very uncertain world.

David f wrote:

"...With the exception of Turkey and Afghanistan all the Islamic countries were colonies of the imperialist European Christian nations. Those nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time."

OK I get it. You are now making excuses for Islam just as you accuse AGIR of making excuses for the dark side of Christianity.

Presumably if Muslim nations had not been colonised there would, for example, be no child marriage in Muslim countries.

Got it.

With that logic would I as a Jew be justified in letting off bombs in the Berlin underground or blowing up a Polish airliner?

I always tell my fellow Jews that they cannot excuse everything they do because of CENTURIES of persecution at the hands of Christians AND Muslims* culminating in the Holocaust. But, using your logic, it seems they can.

*Please spare me the politically correct version of history that says Muslims treated Jews well. Sometimes they did. Mostly they didn't

Hi Grateful.

my goodness, you are leaving yourself wide open to soooo much there.

You say:

//AGIR: If you are saying Islam supports child abuse then you are wrong.//

Then you say:

//I would like people to become informed about my religion.//

On the first point...you are in deep denial... sadly so. (for you)

"does Islam support child abuse"? Actually, that wasn't the issue, it was "Child SEXUAL abuse

For this we must first define what 'Child sexual abuse is.

You can spin it however you like Grateful, but the simple and inescapable fact is.. you are ducking and weaving with all your might to avoid the clear and unmistakable FACT that "Islam teaches/permits child sexual abuse" unLESS you redefine sexual abuse to be NOT old men
-marrying
-consummating
-divorcing

PRE pubsecent children!

I went very patiently through an exercise with a number of people on this, related to the meaning of surah 65:4 (in the bigger context of issues about 'divorce')

You will be aware now..that you are up against.

-My own setting forth of the plain meaning of the verse.
-Another (non religious) posters agreement, and concurring on the plain meaning of the verse.
-The scholarly opinion of a MAJOR Islamic scholar on the meaning of the verse...

All of whom concurr that the verse clearly and unmisakably permits the abovementioned treatment of pre-pubescent children.

Now..IF..you wish to declare for all the world and OLO to see that marrying, sexually invading and then casting aside in divorce of small pre-pubescent children is NOT child "abuse"...then go for it...but don't expect any sane person to have much sympathy for either you or your religion.

I wonder how many of the usual suspects will be so bold as to support such behavior? OR...manifest hyper irrationality by claiming that to expose such things is 'an irrational fear' (Phobia)

Steven quotes David F saying:

"Those (Christian) nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time."

Wellll... let's also remember that from 1199 to 1683.. what's that ? errr 484 yrs...the Ottomans were slashing and burning through southern Europe in the name if Islam, and if they had not been stopped by Polish hero Jan III Sobieski on SEPTEMBER THE 11TH 1683.... it would have been game over for all the world.

It should be remembered..that the British/so called Christian nations never demanded an annual 'tribute' of 500 'boys' to be trained as Jannisaries as the Muslims did.

Yes..that 'hurt' lasts a long time in memory.

Given the obvious political agendas of stevenlmeyer and AGIR i do not think they can claim any credibility as reliable sources. Perhaps they see themselves as contributing to the global neo-con effort: http://muslimvillage.com/2010/06/19/neo-conservatives-lead-charge-against-turkey/

Since this will be my last time here let me reiterate what i said to david f: i want people to be informed about Islam. All i say is that when reading about Islam just be sure that the author is, or relies upon, serious scholars in Islam: scholars with publications in peer reviewed journals (therefore recognised for their scholarship and a scholarly reputation to protect in Islamic studies) and choose non-Muslims to be free of any potential doubts over partiality.

Those who would fit the above description include:

John L. Eposito, editor of the Oxford History of Islam (and contributors therein); and

Prof Thomas Arnold 'The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching' (Arnold was prof of Arabic at Cambridge and knighted 'for services to learning')

When you look at the posts of AGIR and stevenlmeyer you notice one thing: they cannot offer serious scholarship to support their claims. If OLO is willing to allow a type of Greshams law of information to prevail (good, reliable information being driven out by the bad) in the case of Islam then presumably they also support this agenda and the persecution that this invariably fosters.

For those of us who do not support this political agenda, i can suggest you visit the forums offered by muslimvillage.com. You'll find Christains, Jews and Zionists there who are able to propagate their views and provide critical opinion.I remember a Christian who actually posted an invitation to Bible studies class and this was allowed to run, a good indicator of the level of confidence we have in our own religion as well as the scope for constructive dialogue and debate. The MV moderators are strict in terms of people's conduct and you'll find the Muslims are strict on themselves in terms of requiring support for any controversial statements.

PS: David f. thank-you for the sensible discussion. Also a typo in my last post: The "No" in my previous post did not refer to your last question, but to your interpretation (which i think would have been clear from what i wrote). All the best.

salaams

Dear Grateful,
Your posts are starting to sound more and more like an RSPT advertisement –though, I suspect it’s not a super profits tax you’re trying to sell us on but a super prophets tax: a dhimmis tax

You say:” I want people to be informed about Islam”
And so do we all!

But it seems you only want (or know) the sanitised version of Islam’s past told –hence your apparent support of Vic The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. And its elder, brother injunctions to be found in most Islamic societies.

And I bet you stole this little gem straight-out of the AGW proselytizers handbook: “When reading about Islam just be sure that the author is, or relies upon, serious scholars in Islam: scholars with publications in peer reviewed” Quanda would be proud!

Again I am in agreement with Grateful. Do join in the discussion at Muslim Village.

A link to the rules:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/46311-muslimvillage-forum-rules/

QUOTE:

"- We require our Members to respect Islam at all times. You may not speak ill of our Creator, Allah, the Almighty, our beloved Prophet Muhammad and all other Prophets and Messengers of Allah, Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon them, and his Companions, May Allah be pleased with all of them."

A link to some supplementary rules for kafir members:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/27829-all-new-members/

QUOTE:

"As Admin. Sam likes to say......There is no free speech on this forum. Posting is a privilege not a right."

However we have observed a more liberal attitude in the past nine months. I think the admin's realised they had chased all the kafirs away which made for a boring forum.

Grateful quoted quranexplorer.com in one of his posts. Another popular site that posters on Muslim Village regard as authoritative is sunnipath.com. Here is a link to sunnipath's statement on the Danish Cartoons.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=9528

The statement is worth studying. It counsels against outright violence but has this to say:

"6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration CRIMINALIZING any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure."

(Capitalisation added)

In other words, the EMINENT SCHOLARS who signed this statement want to see the introduction of global blasphemy laws.

This statement and those like it have been discussed a number of times on MV. You will now understand why I regard grateful's assertion that he has not given the matter much thought as the purest equine excrement.

The admins on MV exert a subtle kind of pressure. Because they are so ready to suspend or ban posters there is quite a lot of self-censorship going on among kafir posters. This is not guesswork on our part. We have spoken to some of the kafirs who post there

I oppose all antivilification legislation. Speech can lead to undesirable action, but I believe the danger of suppressing speech is greater than that of allowing it.

Although I differ greatly with Graham Young on some issues he has neither censored me nor penalised me in any way for the expression of that disagreement. That’s the way it should be if one sets up a forum for discussion, and I greatly appreciate this forum.

Free speech is not absolute, but the restrictions in this forum are minimal.

stevenlmeyer cited:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=9528

"6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration CRIMINALIZING any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure."

The above completely opposes democracy. This eliminates not only serious biblical criticism but also any questioning of the elaborate fictions of religion.

Moses, if he existed, is portrayed as almost superhuman in the Bible although subject to human failure for which he was not allowed to enter the Holy Land. The story is mostly fiction.

The statements of faith of Jews & Muslims: “Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One.” “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” To Christians Jesus is more than a prophet, he is Lord. The Christian view of a humanoid God is blasphemous to Judaism and Islam.

My view of Muhammad is that he was a charismatic, religious nut.

What penalty for the above statements?

I asked grateful, “Is it ok to be an atheist?”

It was significant that he didn’t answer. It apparently is not ok. I do not think it ok to missionise people who don’t want it. I doubt that AGIR agrees.

At this time there are two law suits in Australia based on Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. One would eliminate the National School Chaplaincy Program and the other would eliminate funding for non-public schools. I support them both.

david f

What about the biggest scam of them all - tax breaks for religious organisations?

grateful
Truth by definintion means a wrong or a right answer. It cannot be used in my opinion with regard to religion. Someone's truth is another's lie in matters of faith.

This is much the same as trying to argue religion with Christians. There is no argument one can offer to faith based beliefs we can only plead for rationality and that those who choose to believe in the supernatural don't impose their will or force others to do likewise. If someone needs their religion or a higher power to set the standards of their behaviour well and good, but not everyone requires that framework or the fear of punishment after death to behave well.

david f said
"I oppose all antivilification legislation. Speech can lead to undesirable action, but I believe the danger of suppressing speech is greater than that of allowing it."

I am leaning towards this myself david, thinking much of the harassment in racial villification can be dealt with under the current laws in relation to abuse and harassment.

Will need to do a bit more thinking on this one. It would be counterproductive if villification legislation had the effect of scaring people who might criticise or make a complaint against a person of a minority ethnic group if there was fear of villification accusations. eg. as in the neighbourhood dispute examples outlined in discussions with Banjo.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

The following section contains all the references to religion in the Australian Constitution.

Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

To the best of my knowledge exemption from taxation is decided by administrative decision rather than by legislation. Neither administrative decision nor legislation can counter the Constitution.

All you have to do eliminate religious tax exemption is to elect a government willing to make that decision.

If you can make Phillip Adams prime minister rather than Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd he might do it, although even Adams might hesitate. Make me prime minister. I'll do it.

Graham,

I join David f in thanking you for allowing free and open discussion on this forum. Your "light touch" moderation is much appreciated.

David f & Pelican

Like you are I am totally opposed to so-called "antivilification legislation". Mostly the threat of action under such legislation is used as a club to intimidate critics of noxious belief systems.

The mere existence of such legislation can have a profound chilling effect on open and honest debate.

David f

There is no need to take the radical step of electing YOU as Prime Minister to get rid of tax breaks for religious institutions. Elect ME and I'll do it asap.

A QUESTION FOR ALL POSTERS

There is an interesting phenomenon I've noticed on this and other threads. Whenever someone points out some nastiness in Islam someone feels it necessary to point out sone nastiness in Christianity.

So here is the question:

When someone points to nastiness in Christianity do you feel an equal need to point out nastiness is Islam?

Is it only attacks on Islam that bring out this desire to in you to some how "level the playing field"? If so, why?

Actually this represents progress of sorts. At least we've moved past the "Islam is a religion of peace" BS that dominated discussion in the wake of 9 / 11.

ANOTHER QUESTION

I've noticed certain posters just love the "I" word as in "Islamophobe".

Why do they never use the "C" word as in "Christianophobe".

Do such posters understand that in legitimating the use of nonsense words like "Islmophobe" to demonise people (like me) who find Islam loathsome they are opening the way for the demonisation of people who subject Christianity to critique, analysis, satire and scorn?

Is that what they want

Steven you ask "Is it only attacks on Islam that bring out this desire to in you to some how "level the playing field"? If so, why?"

There have been no attacks on Christianity by Islamic people on OLO as far as I can remember which is why one is more likely to see atheists in particular, point to corresponding Christian scriptures or identify the 'cherry picking' as it suits a one-sided argument.

It seems an Aussie trait to defend the underdog if the reasoning is not sound or to feel sympathy with Muslims who get a bit sick of being tarred with the 'terrorist' brush.

One does not have to be either a Christianophobe or an Islamophobe, one would hope most of us would aspire to being a radicalophobe.

Dear Pelly

you said:

"There have been no attacks on Christianity by Islamic people on OLO as far as I can remember"

Only one who is not a Christian would say that :) without the belief background, you would not even know when it is being attacked in some cases. (not all)

There have been many..how about Ruby Hamads effort "the bible records numerous commands by God to kill and rape" remember that one ? :) I gave her repeated opportunities to apologise and retract..and she would not..
I tried.. very hard.. to give her an 'out'....but she refused.

Would it suprise you to think one might take sufficient offense to such repeated and wilful vilification, to launch a complaint? (rrt)

STEVEN. for the record..I welcome Christianity being criticized.

If you want to say "according to the Bible, God commanded the Israelites to commit total genocide on a number of tribes" I won't argue..it's absolutely true.

I have actually noticed rare occassions where Pericles has stood up against the vilification of Christianity on one of the Atheist threads.. I was in the sin bin at the time so I guess my absense made it easier for him :)

Al
I don't remember the Hamads comment and I bow to your superior knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity overall. I cannot comment on any commands to 'kill' and 'rape' by God - if you say they don't exist I take your word for it.

There are some passages in the Bible and Koran that do give one pause for thought. Some have been mentioned in various threads such as the 'genocide' one you raised and various ones about women. Some of the language is not surprising given the barbaric times these texts were written. As a Christian of course you cannot see these texts the same way as an atheist ie. Bible and Koran, as simply creations of man.

I don't see this as villification - it is just a different viewpoint and discourse of that nature should not be stifled. On that I do agree with you Al.

Dear David F.,

You seem to have misunderstood my post,
and my reference to "true" religion.
As for missionaries - that was why I
made that reference. Anyway back to
"true" religion.

I was referring to the genuine religious
impulse, the internal experience. Because
our religious institutions have
far too often become handmaidens of the
status quo, while the genuine religious
experience is anything but that.
It's a force by which we burst out from
what is cold and calcified into a higher
mode of being. Spirituality is an inner
fire, a mystical sustenance that feeds
our souls. The mystical journey drives
us into ourselves, to a sacred flame at
our center. The purpose of the religious
experience is to develop the eyes by which
we see this inner flame, and our capacity
to live its mystery. Religion means "to
bind back." Its purpose is to turn back
into ourselves, to the well inside from
which we are endlessly creative.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinions.
And as you said in an earlier post -
what is right for you, may not be right
for me, and vice versa. We can criticize,
religions left right and center. The fact
remains though that for many people, there
are still gaps in their understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately
important questions - of the meaning and
purpose of life and the nature of morality...

Few citizens of modern societies would
utterly deny the possibility of some higher
power in the universe, some supernatural,
transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here
to stay.

Why do I counter criticism of Islam with mention of Christian atrocities? To me the most significant event of religious hatred is the Christian Holocaust inspired by years of Christian hate for Jews and climaxing with the Christian attempt at extermination. Nothing Islam has done or is likely to do will equal that. Christians tend to see it as just a German aberration.

csteele wrote of the darkness of the post WW1 German spirit as shown in German art. That darkness existed. However,the German effort in WW2 was a multinational effort in which many people of many nations joined in.

I see the Holocaust as more a product of Christian darkness than of German darkness. Japan was an ally of Germany but gave refuge to Jews who could get there in contrast to many western Christian nations not allied with Germany who turned away Jewish refugees. They were not going to exterminate Jews, but they were not going to counter the extermination by giving refuge.

Germany actually was not the worst although that’s where the impetus came from. France eagerly cooperated with the Germans in deporting Jews to the camps. France was a country divided in two by the French Revolution. The Catholic church, the nobility and other members of the conservative camp opposed the revolution. Vichy got them back in power. They vented their anger on the Jews. Communicants of Orthodox churches also had a hatred for Jews promoted by their religion. To a large extent Ukrainians composed the guards of the camps. Vichy France, the Ukraine and Austria were all more unrelenting in their hatred than Germany. The pope kept silent when the Jews of Rome were rounded up.

Some books by Catholics telling of the Christian role – “German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars” by Gordon Zahn, “Constantine’s Sword" by James Carroll, "A Cross too Heavy: Egenio Pacelli" by Paul O’Shea, “The Anguish of the Jew” by Edward Flannery who wrote, "the Jewish people did not find in the Christian churches an ally and defender but one of their most zealous detractors and oppressors."

Look up http://www.therefinersfire.org/christian_apology.htm

Dear Foxy,

I know people have spiritual feelings, and it touches something deep in them. It gives a feeling that they are at one with something outside of themselves. So they say, and I believe they are sincere. Yet I don’t have those feelings.

This afternoon I was at St. Stephen’s Cathedral and heard six young women with beautiful voices singing. I was very moved and cried. http://www.belladivaopera.com.au/home.cfm is their website. You can hear something approximating their voices, but you have to hear them in person.

A lot of other things besides music, my family and descendents move me deeply. Mathematics, nature, reading the narrative of history, reading poetry etc.

However, I don’t have that religious feeling. I read about religion because I am fascinated by the way it can apparently reach deep into people. Science has tried to explain religion from various standpoints. I eagerly read those books which are based on anthropology, sociology, evolutionary biology etc. Right now I am reading "The Story of God" by Robert Winston who is a medical scientist. He brings in the possibility that religious feelings have a genetic component. There will be many more books on the subject, and I will enjoy reading them.

You wrote: “The fact remains though that for many people, there are still gaps in their understanding that science can never fill. On the ultimately important questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the nature of morality...”

Science cannot fill many of the gaps in our understanding. However, that does not mean that religion has answers. I accept that our understanding will always be limited. I don’t think life has any intrinsic meaning and purpose. Morality just seems to be a way that our particular society has worked out as a reasonable way to deal with each other. It is part of our culture that has evolved.

I used to be very religiously observant when I was young. However, it was with a feeling that it was something I was supposed to do. However, I never had what I think you are talking about.

Dear Pelly

you said:

"As a Christian of course you cannot see these texts the same way as an atheist ie. Bible and Koran, as simply creations of man."

You are quite right :) but the other side of that coin is this. "A Muslim also sees his holy book, as the Christian sees the Bible"

and I think this is why a lot of well meaning atheists tend to leap to the defense of Muslims (even when "islam" is being criticized) because the Quran is not very important to them as Atheists.

A totally understandable situation.

Thanx for your understanding about the genocide and rape :) Genocide? It's definitely there.. absolutely.. commands to rape? nope..not a syllable. The genocide needs to be understood in historical context, there were specific reasons for it, and the only way to see them would be to read Genesis and Exodus, possibly Numbers and Joshua would help also. What there is NOT though..is any hint of generalized command for 'the people of God' (which would include the Old Testament Jews and NT Christians) to wage war against unbelievers. This is most important because there is in the Quran. (Surah 9:29)

Those books and incidents 'live' to me in special way because of having lived in tribal areas where this kind of thing was 'par for the course' just 2 generations ago..and some of those living today still have the scars to prove it :) Literally.

You can see how David F is very passionate against Christianity, and his words could indeed be seen as 'inciting hatred'....but he and I agree to disagree.. I don't think he causes too much harm or that suddenly people are going to jump up and start harassing Christians because of his words. David might reflect though....how he would feel if Christians were 'now' expressing the same tones about Jews.

..do for others.....

Interesting argument. Which is worse? Christianity or Islam?

Well here's my two cents worth.

Regardless of what Christians have done in the past I think I would find life tolerable in a place where people practiced some approximation of the teachings attributed to (probably non-existent) Jesus.

I think we would all find life INTOLERABLE in a place in which people practiced the teachings attributed to "Allah" via a (non-existent) "angel" called Gibril and the (probably non-existent) merchant warrior called Muhammad.

As an aside much more of the koran is devoted to how bad kafirs are and how Muslims should treat kafirs (badly) than on how to be a good Muslim. That is simply not the case when we look at the teachings attributed to Jesus.

One of the more bizarre features of the koran is the interest Allah seems to display in Muhammad's personal sex life. As a perusal of Sura 33 indicates, basically Muhammad has special dispensation to have sex with whoever he wants including his daughter in law. (See specifically 33:37 & 33:50)

33:50 is worth repeating:

"O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; "

All this seems to support my theory that if Muhammad existed he was in reality an early incarnation of Monty Python.

Steven

For Chrissakes which is worse? Islam or Christianity?

The extremes of both are downright dangerous. Along with a plethora religious cults which continue to ruin lives.

But Islam is a perverse holy grail for you. You can't just discuss religion in a comparative sense, can you? Always with the mozzie bashing. Careful, you'll wind up like AGIR.

Regards m'dear

To add to what David f has said in regards to religion providing (or more accurately: asserting) the answers: just because there are unknowns, that doesn’t mean that we just make something up. Concluding with, “I don’t know”, is a lot more honest than choosing/inventing something that makes us feel good.

Oh, and Boaz, the Bible does condone rape. It even goes into how men can treat their sex slaves.

When I was about 25 I read most of the Bible (I think it was the Old Testament). Half way through I was was put off by the aggressive and primitive nature of the language, not having been raised with this as the 'norm'. It was quite foreign and a bit disconcerting. The bits gleaned from the Koran resonate the same.

Many of the Christians posting on OLO argue that the harshest references in the Bible must be understood in context. I believe the Koran must also be read in context - a product of the times it was written.

Most Christians I know are true to the positive ideals of their faith and are not going around committing atrocious acts on their fellow man in the name of God, although some Presidents are happy to involve God in decisions about Defence matters.

Most Muslims I have met are the same. They are not planning jihad on non-believers.

I do believe that Christianity is more evolved than Islam, only in that cultural practices influence perceptions about Islam and this is more about modernisation and education than dogma. Dogma and ignorance can be a dangerous combination in any faith.

In countries where Islam is dominant I would dress appropriately lest I be attacked or set upon by fundamentalists, the same walking through some parts of Israel where Orthodoxy has a strong hold. Thus far in Australia I have not been set upon by any religious folk, although I know of some cases where women not in hijab have been verbally abused by Muslims, and women in hijab have been verbally abused by non-Muslims.

Like stevenmeyer, as an atheist I am more comfortable in a Christian dominated society, because it is what I know having been born and raised within this culture. But I try not to make uneducated assumptions about Muslims and find most of them equally as secular, democratic and fair minded as most Christians.

Thank Pelican.

For your wonderful critique. Stevenlmeyer take note.

I too prefer to live in a Christian dominated country rather than an Islamic one. Simply because Christianity has evolved a bit more than Islam. However, it still has a long way to go while people such as Pell, Nile, Fielding, Abbott are still highly influential in the lives of Australians.

I don't believe that the Old and New Testaments offer anything superior to the Qur'an. Rather it is the interpretations that are made with a higher level of sophistication. For example, Christian women no longer have to cover their heads in church, whereas Muslim women are urged to cover up even in public.

I believe Islam will accommodate itself into contemporary mainstream eventually. This process could be hastened if all the perks (tax breaks etc) were eliminated from ALL religions. This habit of treating religion as 'special', above criticism is way past its use-by date. As a philosophy, religion is in no way superior to other ideologies and as it is based on faith rather than fact, continues to limit itself and increase its irrelevance in contemporary society.

Dear David F.,

As stated in 'The New KGB,' :

"There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
Holocaust. But it is equally important to be as
aware of the accomplishments of the Soviet secret police,
which brought death to at least four times as many
Russians, Poles, Jews, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians,
Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Gypsies, and Romanians, as
Hitler did in his eleven years as a leader of the
"1,000-year Reich..."

Mention should also be made that there were also,
numerous courageous men and women who refused to
participate in the subjugation and destruction of
the targeted groups and individuals. There were
Christians who died in their attempts to save Jews,
there were Jews who interceded with their lives
to save persecuted Christians. They died, some
along with their entire families, or accepted their
fates in concentration camps rather than betray
their fellow men. Some are known, but most perished
and are known only to God.

These heroes embody human nobility in its highest form
and stand as beacons in the other wise bleak history
of World War II.

Among those who, out of greed or cowardice, chose to
collaborate with the evil minions of the NKVD (KGB)
and the Gestapo were Christians, Jews, Germans and
Russians, members of all nations caught in the
merciless war. No faith, no nationality, no race was
free of cowards or collaborators. No group was spared
from killers and traitors in their midst.

While half of the criminals, the Nazis, have been pursued
all over the world for their crimes, the other half,
the communist criminals, were allowed to go free.

They were in effect given tacit permission to continue
the operation of their concentration camps to expand their
draconian systems to include psychiatric wards, thereby
raising torture, suppression, and murder to a science.

The fact that this process persisted was vividly disclosed to
the free world by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his book,
"The Gulag Archipelago."

For once I have to agree with Foxy. When it comes to sheer evil Stalin and his henchmen are the equal of Hitler.

Truly those on the Left who sought to deny or minimise Stalins' crimes may best be described as "useful idiots".

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Of course the useful idiots have outlived Lenin, Stalin and the system they built. There is never a shortage of useful idiots.

Dear Foxy and Stevenlmeyer,

We should consider not only the crimes of Stalin, but the crimes of the communist world. It is estimated in the "Black Book of Communism" that at least 100,000,000 people were murdered as a result of that ideology. The original Marxist criminal was not Stalin but Lenin. He restored the secret police,set up the first gulags, presided over the Cheka reign of terror etc. Stalin inherited a reign of terror which he amplified. Part of the emphasis on Stalin comes from Marxists such as the Trotzkyites who revere Lenin but want to portray Stalin as the evil man who hijacked a revolution rather than recognising that it was rotten to begin with.

However, the point of my post was not to whitewash the Communists. I didn't mention them because they were not relevant to the point.

The point was the lack of most Christians to understand the role of their religious teachings and their responsibility for the Holocaust. Like the Bolsheviks I feel there was much that was rotten in Christianity to begin with.

Although there were Christians who opposed it as there were communists who opposed Lenin and Stalin by and large the Holocaust was applied Christianity.

David f

I am not going to argue with you about whether the Holocaust is applied Christianity.

But, by the same logic, is honour killing, female genital mutilation and the oppression of women in Muslim countries generally and 9 / 11 applied Islam?

Is "Event Horizon" and the collapse of Lehman Brothers applied capitalism? Perhaps the last-named could best be described as "misapplied" capitalism."

To me the problem is totalitarian ideologies generally. Nazism and Communism are both examples of totalitarian ideologies as is contemporary Islam.

Whatever may have been the case in the past, taken as a whole, contemporary Christianity does not seem to me to have the characteristics of a totalitarian ideology. That being said, just as there are liberal strains in contemporary Islam so there are totalitarian strains in contemporary Christianity.

However, I stand by what I said. If we compare the character of (probably mythical) Jesus to the character of (probably mythical) Muhammad there is really no comparison. People who ignore this difference are revealing their own biases. That is not to excuse the horrible deeds perpetrated by individual Christians or to deny the good done by individual Muslims.

stevenlmeyer wrote: "But, by the same logic, is honour killing, female genital mutilation and the oppression of women in Muslim countries generally and 9/11 applied Islam?"

The 9/11 atrocity is applied Islam as its origins can be traced to the Jihadist mentality which sees the world outside of Islam as an entity which must be subjected to Islam. I agree with Severin that Islam can be tamed by merely being treated as another religion in a pluralistic society, but 9/11 definitely has its origins in Islamic theology and practice. It is therefore applied Islam.

However, I would not say honour killing, female genital mutilation and the oppression of women in Muslim countries are applied Islam. These attitudes predate Islam and are not found in all Islamic countries. The most populous Islamic country is Indonesia which, as far as I know, does not engage in these practices. In countries which practice female genital mutilation the practice is not restricted to Islamic believers and is cultural rather than Islamic.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm:

During 2007, FGM was banned in Eritrea. The Egyptian Health Ministry is seeking a law banning FGM in that country. That would leave Somalia, which lacks a central government, and Sudan as the two main countries where the practice will remain legal.

Were it considered Islamic it could not be banned in Egypt or Eritrea.

As far as the oppression of women goes it is only within the last hundred years that women have attained the right to vote in most western countries and have been regarded as other than male chattels.

Like female genital mutilation honor killings are not restricted to Muslims.

They indicate the low status of women and also perpetrated in India and Latin America by non-Muslims.

Christianity and Islam are missionary religions which share the belief that they have the truth and an obligation to spread that truth to unbelievers. Sometimes they murder nonbelievers. Where Christianity is tamed as it is in the secular democracies it is mostly reasonable. However, outside of those areas it can be as unreasonable as Jihadist Islam.

Dear David and Steven,

Thank You for your comments.

David, I had always assumed that
anti-Judaism was not an exclusive
Christian stance historically. I never
thought that Christian society alone has
marjinalised and oppressed Jews. I had
thought that Anti-Judaism preceded
Christianity.

I had also believed that Stalin and Hitler,
both despised and mistrusted democracies.
Both were not religious, and both.
abhorred Christians, Jews,
and organized religion.

As for the world ignoring the plight ot the
Jews. As I tried to point out, many Christians
tried to save Jews, and vice versa.

Let us also not forget the veil of silence that shrouded
the tragedy of Soviet occupied Nations in both the
East and the West. Let us not forget that the policy of
Western democracies, although formally was one of
non-recognition of the Soviet occupation, (for example,
of the Baltic Nations), the reality as their people found
out the hard way was a totally different story. Western
democracies did not want to offend the Soviet Union.
They closed their eyes and ears to those people's suffering.

This attitude prevailed up to the 1990s.
Lithuanian President V. Landsbergis, was told to
"Negotiate," that "unruly Lithuanians should respect and
follow orderly Soviet constitutional procedures."
And this, despite the fact that the world recognized
that Lithuania was illegally incorporated into the
Soviet Union.

In other words, that Lithuania was not seeking to
establish independence. It was seeking to restore an
independent nation that was illegally suppressed by a
foreign power and its army.

As President V. Landsbergis pointed out, "This was not
a legal nicety, but the basic and non-negotiable
premise of the March 11th 1990 declaration of independence."

But, President Landsbergis was still urged by the West,
"To find, a fair and objective way out!"
and as he continually confirmed, "the offered solutions were
neither fair nor objective."

After all, Lithuania (and other
nations) were betrayed by the agreement entered
into on Feb. 11th 1945,
at Yalta, by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, which sealed the
fate of all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe!

csteele respectfully reaches out to give davidf a gentle tug on his sleeve.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2952&page=0#68552

Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 August 2009 9:05:06 AM

Quote

csteele wrote: "Rather I am with respect making the point that you are in danger of directing the same stereotyping and sweeping generalisations toward Christianity that you would condemn them of directing at Jews."

He objected to my statement: “Hitler was a Christian who used the hate inspired by hundreds of centuries of Christian bigotry to order the Holocaust which was applied Christianity.”

To call the Holocaust 'applied Christianity' is inflammatory, and I apologise for it. It was unnecessary and a sweeping generalisation. ...

End quote

Foxy,

Antipathy to Jews predates Christianity. In fact, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never before have so few been hated by so many for so long.

Robert Wistrich documents the history of Jew hatred in his newly published "A Lethal Obsession".

http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Obsession-Anti-Semitism-Antiquity-Global/dp/1400060974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277094398&sr=1-1

I completely agree with you about Yalta. It was a dreadful tragedy.

David f wrote:

"Where Christianity is tamed as it is in the secular democracies it is mostly reasonable…"

Just so.

And I have no doubt that Islam may be "tamed" in the same way but with one qualification. We must not go down the path of appeasing Islam.

Christianity was not tamed through appeasement. It was tamed because it was confronted. And, to tame Islam, freethinkers must be prepared to CONFRONT Islam.

It is not helpful to muddy the waters of every critique of contemporary Islam by referring to what Christians may or may not have done in the past or to use MEANINGLESS words like "Islamophobia" or phrases such as "whack a mozzie". Nor should we ever conflate expressions of loathing for Islam with racism.

As I have said ad nauseam, the danger stems not from Islam but the appeasement of Islam.

And again I repeat my warning; give in to Islam and you will soon confront a newly UNTAMED Christianity. Open THAT Pandora's box once and you have no idea what horrors will escape.

Remember, you cannot make concessions to Islam without making those same concessions to Christianity.

But at least we have passed the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" phase. I don't think anybody on OLO still believes that tripe

Foxy,

Thank you for your kind comments way back when. There has been 12 pages of posts since I was last in here so there is a fair bit to read to get up to speed.

Since I was so tardy in acknowledging your kind words previously I though I should respond to you first.

I agree with what you said in your most recent post. The Roman Catholic nun Dr Edith Stein PhD is probably one of the best known examples.

David f,

"Some books by Catholics telling of the Christian role – “German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars” by Gordon Zahn, “Constantine’s Sword" by James Carroll, "A Cross too Heavy: Egenio Pacelli" by Paul O’Shea, “The Anguish of the Jew” by Edward Flannery who wrote, "the Jewish people did not find in the Christian churches an ally and defender but one of their most zealous detractors and oppressors."

That of course can be contrasted with other books by Catholics and the book by Rabbi David G Dalin "The Myth of Hitler's Pope".

Severin,

"Your attempt to defend Philo further undermines your credibility. First he claimed that Dawkins is a fool - there is no evidence of such, he presents as an extremely intelligent man. Then Philo uses a fact, 12 + 12 + 24 as an item of faith. He is contradicting himself.

When I was taught arithmetic, I could see immediately that it was true. No faith was required. Another example, being taught to brush one's teeth does, in fact, produce clean teeth.

Absolutely fascinating, MJPB, how you can pervert reason to support your claims. You are very good at it. I guess to continue believing in religion you need this ability."

With such a lack of credibility I guess there is little to lose so that might explain my confort with my perversion of reason/sophistry as you describe it. Are you saying that the reason particular mathematical knowledge/this particular mathematical knowledge isn't held on faith is because you personally didn't require any faith for it so noone else could?

CONT.

You reinforced your argument with an example where anyone would know the fact without recourse to faith. How do you know that everyone gets mathematical facts as easily as the tooth brushing example? When I was at school some kids struggled to even retain them.

Also, I note that I quoted Philo's full paragraph in spite of discussing only Philo's arithmetical assertion. I apologise if this misled you to think I was arguing about Dawkin's intellect.

A J Philips,

"Firstly, let’s be clear here that we are talking about “faith” in the religious sense: Belief for no good reason; belief against evidence to the contrary."

You seem to be referring to blind faith. That is not my understanding of faith in the religious sense. However if that was the definition the rest would flow from it.

You repeatedly request reasons supporting God generally and the Christian god specifically and suggest anything proposed as rational reasons is obfuscation and sophistry. You also like linking to previous discussions to save time. To avoid repetion have you got a link where you addressed the standard lines of proof that Boazy has put forward?

"The atheism of many atheists - including myself - has progressed past “mere absence of belief”, but that’s irrelevant as the original claim from which atheism as a response is derived is the original claim." (because of http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176&page=0 )
I'll look into it.

"<<How do you know that divine revelation hasn't created any real knowledge about reality?>>

Because practical knowledge (i.e. things we can objectively ‘know’- not just ‘believe’ - that we acquire from our day-to-day living) tells us otherwise."

Can you expand further?

Dear csteele,

Thanks for your gentle tug.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

We should have insisted that we have a right to treat Islam as we treat any other religion. We can tell others to be brave.

Dear Foxy,

You are right. Anti-Judaism proceeded Christianity, and Lithuania has been betrayed.

Probably the first incident in history of anti-Judaism was the polemic of Manetho, an Egyptian priest, in the third century BCE. However, I was not outlining a history of anti-Judaism. I was writing of the influences that led to the Holocaust.

My mother's father came from Latvia, and her mother came from Lithuania. My uncle wrote a family history of which unfortunately I don't have a copy. He concluded that after the partitions of Poland in which Lithuania and Latvia were absorbed into czarist Russia there was a progressive lowering of spirits and increasing meanness of the people in those countries as a result of czarist oppression. As part of the Polish-Lithuanian Lublin union they were a fairly free people. Lithuania has a tragic history. The Teutonic Knights mounted a series of Crusades against Lithuania as it had a pagan ruling house. In 1386 the ruling house became Christian, and Jogaila married the Polish Christian princess, Jadwiga. After that pagans, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christian people in Lithuania became second class citizens. Lithuania was a genuine multicultural society with freedom for all before 1386. It became Polonised and Christianised. However, life was still much better than it became after the partitions. After WW2 when western European countries were liberated from the Nazis Lithuania remained an occupied country. You know all that. I am stating that I know it, too. Most of the world ignored the plight of the Soviet occupied countries.

However, I am a tribal creature and what happened to the Jews concerns me.

I think it’s a mistake to talk about Stalin and Hitler as though they personally did the dirty. They had millions of helpers, and we can ask why they helped. I also think it’s a mistake to concentrate on Stalin when Lenin started the evil system.

Dear stephenlmeyer,

Also stated, incorrectly, by Winston Churchill;

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.”

csteele

Actually Churchill was not entirely wrong. For some Jews the Bolshevik revolution was payback time for the pogroms that the Czar's Cheka initiated.

In fairness I don't think most of the early Bolsheviks foresaw how the Bolshevik revolution was going to turn into a monster.

I am afraid such is the fate of most revolutions. The French kings and aristocracy were execrable; but were Robespierre and Danton an improvement?

Rhodesia's White Supremacist regime is replaced by Robert Mugabe.

Is Iran better of today than it was under the Shah?

I think we should have a thread on the efficacy of revolutions in bringing about benign change.

In South Africa the transition away from Apartheid was relatively peaceful. It remains to be seen what the successor to the Apartheid regime will make of South Africa but, behind the hype, the omens are at best mixed.

By coincidence I saw this after completing my last post:

It is about South Africa and the transition away from Apartheid. Do read it.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=112333

Let it be understood that Thabo Mbeki was a wannabe Robert Mugabe. However the rest of the ANC tossed him aside.

Mbeki's refusal to face the facts about HIV probably caused more misery and premature death than 50 years of Apartheid.

As I said, sometimes all that happens is that a bad regime is replaced by one that's worse. However, in the case of South Africa I'm still hopeful that will not be the case.

Steven says: “As I have said ad nauseam, the danger stems not from Islam but the appeasement of Islam.”

I say: Hear, hear!

Comments like: “all the Islamic countries were colonies of the imperialist European Christian nations. Those nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time.”

Do not add balance, they serve mainly to affirmed the one-eyed,see no Islamic-crimes hear no Islamic-crimes view of some of our Fellow Humans.

While nowadays few Westerners can escape being confronted by the worst aspects of the imperialism and colonialism, or Christianity’s checkered past.Few Muslims seem to be aware of –or even care to know that Islam and its host societies have had a similar or worse past --- it just isn’t halal, apparently.
(you see Grateful , because he started hearing a few home truths he didn’t like , has now run off back to his village)

And it’s this one dimensional view of history and current affairs which more than anything else feeds jihadism & other forms of Muslim non-Muslim antagonism.
TBC

David may for his own personal reasons be fixated on the holocaust and the Hitler–Christianity bind.But Hitler for all his ambitions and crimes didn’t in the end prevail --what is there left of the Third Reich today?

Islam on the overhand has imposed itself far and wide, and has kept its spoils ---have a read of the below:

This is V.S Naipaul talking through one of his characters in Magic Seed [ ps 43-44]
“We are in one of the saddest places in the world. Twenty times sadder that what you saw in Africa. In Africa the colonial past would have been there for you to see. Here you can’t begin to understand the past , and when you get to know it you wish you didn’t…We are on the site of the last great Indian kingdom . and it was the site of a catastrophe. Four hundred years ago the Muslim invaders ganged up on it and destroyed it…They levelled the capital city …They killed the priests and the philosophers , the artisans , the architects and the scholars. They knew what they were doing . They were cutting off the head . The only people they left were the serfs in the villages and they parcelled then out among themselves . This military defeat was terrible . You cannot understand the degree to which the victors won and the losers lost, Hitler would have called it a war of annihilation , a war without limits and restraint, and this one succeeded to a remarkable degree"

mjpb,

<<You seem to be referring to blind faith.>>

Faith IS blind. We’d call it “knowledge” otherwise. Faith is hope and desire mistaken for knowledge.

<<To avoid repetion have you got a link where you addressed the standard lines of proof that Boazy has put forward?>>

I’m not sure which “standard lines of proof “ you’re talking about, sorry. Could you point out exactly which ones they are?

<<I'll look into it.>>

You’ll look into it? What do you not yet understand?!

Is it possible to respond to a claim that has not been yet made?

Theism is the claim; atheism is a response to that claim. Even though some forms of atheism contain a claim, it is a counter claim serving as a response to the original claim.

Did theism originate because someone at some point in history - just out of the blue - claimed that no gods exist? And if so, how would the soon-to-be-theists know what the atheist was taking about when he/she first made the claim? Did they consult the atheist as to what it is they need to start believing in, in order to give a negative response the claim?

<<Can you expand further?>>

I’m glad you asked.

By “practical knowledge”, I mean that which we can know (yes, ‘know’, not just ‘believe’) because of the practical experiences in our day-to-day lives. A simple example is the fact that we avoid touching the stove plate while it’s on because we know from our experiences that hot stove plates burn.

You asked: “How do you know that divine revelation hasn't created any real knowledge about reality?” So given what I’ve said above, I could ask how you know it has. What knowledge (again, ‘knowledge’, not just ‘belief’) have you acquired that enables you to conclude otherwise? Have you ever received a phone call from god letting you in on what he has in store for you?

Oh I know, I know... god doesn’t work that way. No, he only ever seems to work in ways that can be better explained by more rational means.

Continued...

...Continued

As a side note though, if divine revelation HAD created any real knowledge about reality, we’d all know about it. Again - ‘knowledge’, not ‘belief’. Theists confuse these two so often.

I’ll give you a lengthier example using religion...

Many Christians claim that the Gospels are reliable because Paul risked his life in writing them, and what crazy man would do that if he really didn’t believe what he was writing?

There are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn here:

1. Paul was telling the truth and Jesus did actually exist and perform all those miracles;

2. Jesus never existed - or at least never existed as the bible claims he did - and there is a perfectly rational explanation for why he wrote what he wrote - even if it’s just: He was a madman.

Now unless you witness the odd verifiable miracle from time-to-time, based any sort of practical knowledge you’d have to conclude that 2 was far more likely.

In fact, you could go on forever with different possibilities for why Paul wrote what he wrote, and so long as the supernatural isn’t invoked, they would always be more rationally sound than 1 because we have never had any verified accounts of supernatural occurrences.

I’ll give you another example...

One of the points Lee Strobels uses to argue for the reliability of the scriptures, is the fact that it was written that women discovered the empty tomb of Jesus. Stobels’ point is that, if someone were lying and they wanted to fool people, why would it be written that women discovered the empty tomb considering women were thought of as second-class citizens back then and their testimony wasn’t considered as reliable?

Again, we have two possibilities:

1. The scriptures were recorded accurately and women really did find the tomb empty;

2. The author had an ulterior motive or it just slipped his mind.

There is no rational reason to believe 1 is the case because none of our practical experiences would suggest that a guy just got up and walked out of his tomb.

I am so glad that this thread hasn't continued to explode. I have no time at the moment but want to contribute.

My intended plan is:

1. Type in an extract from a book with the intention of discussing it in due course with Foxy (not too important but it can be done quickly and lets me put the book away)

2. Revisit the Hitler thing.

3. Be responsive to AJ Philips.

4. Chat with Foxy

Right now I'll knock off 1 and hope that I get a chance to do the other things before the thread closes off.

This is from Budziszewski's "Ask Me Anything":

"I mean that people deceive themselves about their motives - and not just about dating. People plan all sorts of things they don't admit to themselves."
Chad asked, "Like what?"
"Planning to lose their virginity, planning to fall out of love with their wives-"
"I don't see how you could do those things without knowing it. How could you plan to change your opinions?"
"By associating only with people who hold the opposite opinions. haven't you ever seen that happen?"
"Well, yeah. And I guess I do see how you can plan to lose your virginity."
"Sure. By putting yourself in the way of unnecessary temptations."
"But I still don't see how you can plan to get pregnant."
Mary rolled her eyes. "I'll explain it to you later."
"Do that," said Chad. "And I don't see how you can plan to fall out of love with your wife either."
"That's because you're not married yet,"I said. "There are lots of ways. For instance, you might hire a beautiful assistant and take her with you on business trips."

AGIR wrote:

"You can see how David F is very passionate against Christianity, and his words could indeed be seen as 'inciting hatred'....but he and I agree to disagree.. I don't think he causes too much harm or that suddenly people are going to jump up and start harassing Christians because of his words. David might reflect though....how he would feel if Christians were 'now' expressing the same tones about Jews.

Dear AGIR,

Some Christians posting are saying far worse things about Jews than I have been saying about Christians. In addition to your denying what Christians have done in the past you are denying the present.

Dear David :)

This morning I had the joy of meeting the Hon John Anderson in person.

What a wonderful morning. (Outer eastern prayer breakfast). he was the guest speaker.

It was a thrill to share in such a broad based community moment.. gee even a Catholic chap said 'grace' before our meal. Very ecumenical I guess.

But John was very down to earth and warm in person.. quite big too.
"I'm just a farmer" he says.. indeed.

You have a wonderful day.

Dear AGIR,

So glad you had a good morning. The ixora is blooming outside my window, and the poinciana is still as there is no wind. My wife is off visiting a lady in her nineties. Will give her a hug when she gets back. Just had an email from my granddaughter in Delaware. It is a wonderful day.

As Cleopatra said to Antony, "Mark, I'm not prone to argue."

Indeed dear David :)

glad all is well with you.
cheers + xaris and irene' :)

<<Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.>>

grateful,
There is a certain cringe factor involved in watching someone
painstakingly hoist themselves on their own petard.
Nevertheless you have succeeded.
Well done.

STEVEN says:

"And, to tame Islam, freethinkers must be prepared to CONFRONT Islam."

Careful Steven...'hati hati' :)... the forces of darkness are gathering around you for that most reasonable of comments.. CJ will send his minions and Pericles will be apoplectic, Ginxy will turn to substance abuse and Foxy will need therapy ..

I'm using a less confontational method these days- "Persuasion..through evidence"... but there are times when direct action is needed, such as when 'they' try to take control of a multi faith centre at a major university. grrrr....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6llkmjOGyyA

I think the ugliness of fundamentalism is not just in the language but the attitude or mentality. This is what I'm grappling with in trying to arrive at a meaningful understanding of what people are referring to when they talk about fundamentalism

Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.

I was going to give a list of examples relating to different religions as well as atheism but perhaps I should stick to my own religion and suggest others consider how they would define a fundamentalist from within their own tradition or (non-) belief system.

For a Muslim, the Qur'aan is considered the word of God. So a fundamentalist in Islam would be someone who would adhered to the belief that the Qur'aan was the word of God despite clear and unequivocal proof to the contrary (for example due to contradictions which could not be explained other than it being the handiwork of man).

Having said that, I have not observed this sort of fundamentalism. The fundamentalism that arises from our ranks is referred to as the Kharajitism, but that's a long story. Essentially they adhere to certain beliefs and do so despite clear proofs (from mainstream Islamic scholarship) to the contrary. Their arguments are invariably self-contradictory and their views on the nature of God lead to a type anthropromophism (they will actually argue about how many hands God has!). Of course they are uncompromising and Muslims that disagree with them are libel to being labelled a kafir (unbelievers), which perhaps is symptomic of some form of cognitive dissonance (one for the psychologists!).

I wrote the above a while back. Although I suggested "others consider how they would define a fundamentalist from within their own tradition or (non-) belief system.", this was apparently overlooked or ignored.

So is there anyone who will to give it a try, applying the definition of a fundamentalist as "someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable."

And if you disagree with the definition i would be interested in your reasons.

salaams

stevenlmeyer,

i have thought about the notion of outlawing vilification a bit more (i was being honest before when i said i hadn't thought about it..perhaps because i don't live in Vic). I'm really undecided.

On the one hand it is a restriction of freedom of speech. On the other it is usually used as a means of restricting informed discussed and often leads to injustice. For example, would you defend Martin Luther's right vilify of Jews in light of the Holocaust?

So its a matter of balance and taking the least of the two evils: restricting free speech versus allowing vilification which can suppress informed debate, cause division and incite violence.

So that's where i'm at. If you are keen to teach me and others more about the Victorian laws then start a separate post.

salaams

To counter the vilification of Stevenlmeyer and innuendo of AGIR about the Prophet, Muslims and the treatment of children here are several hadith

Allah’s Messenger kissed Al-Hasan ibn `Ali while Al-Aqra` ibn Habis At-Tamim was sitting with him. Al-Aqra` said, “I have ten children and have never kissed one of them.” The Prophet cast a look at him and said, “Whoever is not merciful to others will not be treated mercifully.” (Bukhari)

Ayesha, wife of the Prophet, told how a bedouin came to the Prophet and said,

"You (people) kiss the boys! We don't kiss them."

The Prophet said, "I cannot put mercy in your heart after Allah has taken it away from it." (Bukhari)

The Prophet once said, “When Allah blesses people with children, and they give their children love and meet their parental obligation, Allah keeps them safe from the fires of Hell.”

Miranda Divine has written a piece today which begins as follows (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/evil-were-too-afraid-to-confront-20100702-zu0m.html):

<<How did we arrive at a circumstance in which a 56-year-old man is convicted in the NSW District Court this week of sexually abusing eight children aged from 12 months to 14 years, videotaping thousands of unspeakable crimes, and barely a comment is made?
How did we arrive at a circumstance in which such a story is too dark for the front pages of our newspapers, but is buried inside, a few bloodless words to capture a social epidemic so catastrophic we ignore it?
We ignore it because to acknowledge the truth is to acknowledge our collective guilt for the plight in which these children found themselves, for the blind eye of tolerance we turn to the chaotic and increasingly commonplace family arrangements which make protecting children from predators like David Shane Whitby impossible.>>

She goes on to argue...
<<It is the community's responsibility to rebuild social norms destroyed through the social revolution of the past 40 years.>>

As i have mentioned before, i was raised in an atheist family, but i'm now raising a Muslim family. I have a full appreciation of the practical side of both lifestyles. Islam is fully equiped to respond to the challenges thrown up by the modern world which is why you will find Muslims in ME and countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as Australia, turning to Islam for real practical guidance on how to protect children and foster good character.

As Miranda's article suggests (and there are similar views ranging across the political spectrum), atheism and what Pelican would described as "a more advanced" Christianity is failing to combat the real challenges to civilised society.

Under such circumstances it is not surprising to find people desperating seeking scape-goats to avoid some pretty tough questions and choices.

But these are issues for a separate post, if anyone is game.

salaams

Almost forgot,

David F

I did respond to your question about atheists by quoting a verse from the qur'aan which basically states "live and let live" and respect each others differences.

Also, your idea about voting on what is right and wrong is untenable. Would genocide be right if the majority voted for it?

Dear grateful,

I never wrote that voting decides what is right and wrong. Voting cannot decide that. Laws decide what is permitted and not permitted in a society. That is not the same thing as what is right and wrong. If we feel a law is wrong and it is not a trivial wrong then our conscience bids us to break the law.

Genocide was allowed and ordered under Nazi law. Franz Jaegerstatter, an Austrian peasant, was beheaded because he refused service in the army since he thought what the government was doing was wrong.

Sometimes to do what is right we must break the law.

I have looked at what I wrote and cannot find any place where I claimed that voting decides what is right and wrong.

Grateful asks:

"For example, would you defend Martin Luther's right vilify of Jews in light of the Holocaust?"

Absolutely! Free speech includes the right to say things I personally detest.

Would I defend Martin Luther's right to INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS?

Here's the thing. Luther did NOT simply describe his loathing for Jews. He advocated violence against Jews and their property.

Here are some quotes from Part XI of "On the Jews and Their Lies" published in 1543 by Martin Luther (1483-1546)

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews?

[…]

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools

[..]

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. [Luther didn't like gypsies either]

[..]

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings… be taken from them.

[..]

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

[..]

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

This, as any sane person can see, goes beyond merely saying I find your religion loathsome. It is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is, rightly, considered a crime in almost every civilised jurisdiction.

You've quoted a number of ahadith. How about this one from Sahih Muslim:

Book 041, Number 6985:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."

Does this hadith and those like it constitute incitement to violence?

On a lighter note see:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/026.smt.html

Scroll down to chapter 35

Cont'd:

When it comes to Jew baiting Luther has his rivals among Muslims. Unlike the long dead Luther many of these are still in the land of the living.

Would I in the light of the Holocaust defend the right of Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, the Saudi government appointed imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca to say:

"read history," in order "to know that yesterday's Jews were bad predecessors and today's Jews are worse successors. They are killers of prophets and the scum of the earth. Allah hurled his curses and indignation on them and made them monkeys and pigs and worshippers of tyrants. These are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, evil, and corruption...."

Absolutely I would. He is not inciting violence merely expressing an opinion. However unhinged I would consider that opinion, he has a right to express it.

Of course I draw my own conclusions when the Imam of the Grand Mosque expresses such an opinion. But that's another matter.

Now grateful,

Would you forbid the Imam of the Grand Mosque from having his say about us Jews?

Or are you perhaps simply going to deny he ever said it?

So there Grateful sits blowing his booboozella – barracking for team Islam.

He protests that he hasn’t given the Victorian anti-vilification legalisation much thought & is undecided.It all sounds strangely reminiscent of “honest ref. my hand didn’t touch the ball” or “Gee ref that wasn’t offside”.

If Grateful hasn’t given thought to the Vic legislation , he could hardly have failed to be cognisant of similar injunctions in most Muslim societies. And the recent attempt by many of the same societies to enshrine similar injunctions as international law, through the UN (as well outed by Steven ).

But perhaps I’m too harsh in my judgement, perhaps he’s telling the truth . He may just have been so preoccupied cheering leading for his team he genuinely didn’t have time consider changes to the rules, like the Vic legislation, or similar elsewhere . And after all, why should he , none of it seems to have any impacted on his teams performance . His teams is still at it printing fanmail which portrays opposition team members as monkeys and morons. And in their recent friendlies in Darfur , southern Thailand and Mindanao , his team has been literally slaying the opposition.

Grateful implores us that his team always plays by the rule book –and his copy of the rule book doesn’t have anything contradictory or untoward! And, anything unsavoury that happens could only have been done by unregistered players –called fund-a-mentalists.
What’s really weird though is, many of those unregistered players sat for a long time on his teams bench, and scored many goals for his team –goals which have never been disowned or subtracted from his teams score-sheet.

Sorry Grateful, I don’t buy it – it’s a red card for you and your whole team –FIFA off!

Horus

Like you I have great difficulty in believing a Muslim living in a Western country has not thought about laws that outlaw "vilification"

As I understand it Foxy referred to Hitler as an atheist.

David F claimed Hitler was a Christian and claimed that Christians are trying to conceal that:

“Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
________________________________________

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them...etc.”

I expressed the view that:

“My understanding is that he gained support initially by giving lip service to Christian ideals and Jesus. However as soon as he got into power he turned on all religious (except Islamic perhaps but that could have been for purely pragmatic purposes). I have already said how I interpret that but acknowledge the other opinions.”

Foxy concurred:

“Hitler expressed virulently anti-Christian views,
as recorded by his secretary and given by
Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion,"

The following all date from 1941:

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity
was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism
is Christianity's illegitimate child...

The reason why the ancient world was so pure,
light and serene was that it knew nothing
of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity...”

David F described Hitler’s atheism as a pure myth and likened it to denying Christian responsibility for slavery. I picked up on his attributing it to Christian apologists and said that it was the first time Dawkins had been described in that way.

David F then gave an expansive answer. I will start a new post with it.

David F,

“One can be anticlerical, oppose the churches as institutions and still be a believing Christian."

Of course if you were a believing Christian it is hard to believe that you would liken Christianity to a pox so that is probably why you went in the direction you did after that.

"One may reject Christianity but still not be an atheist."

I'll get to that in the next post.

True. Most Muslims etc. would probably do that.

"To the best of my knowledge Hitler at no time expressed the idea that there was no God..."

"His public pronouncements certainly paint him as a Christian. However, one changes through life, and Hitler, like other humans, also did."

Talk about a quick change.

"I have read that Hitler as a youth considered being a Catholic priest. Generally that desire is confined to believing Catholics so Hitler was at one time a believing Catholic."

Generally but of course not always so I don't accept your "so". Some paedophiles have been known to hunt there. Only recently a priest very publically hostile toward the Catholic Church who said he didn't believe in God or life after death was in the news in Brisbane. Some people see the priesthood as a means to an end.

"According to Dawkins (“The God Delusion”) p. 276 “Hitler was always adamant that Jesus was not a Jew.” If Hitler had rejected Christianity why would he care whether Jesus was a Jew?"

Perhaps he might have rejected Jews early but in a predominantly Christian country might have tried to stay on side with Christians. Since the founder of the Christian Church was a Jew it would be necessary to do something like that.

CONT

“Even when he was railing against Christianity, Hitler never ceased using the language of Providence: ...‘I believe it was God's will...'”

"Hitler opposed the institutional church, may possibly have remained a believing Christian and almost certainly believed in a supernatural power. There is no reason to think he was an atheist..”

There are issues with taking his public speeches at face value given his audience. Nevertheless the apparently open question of his atheism remains.

I believe his privately expressed attitudes are more helpful on that question. According to Traudl Junge his personal secretary:

"Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps its going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity,' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.'
Until the final hour p 108.

Junge's claims about Hitler's privately expressed beliefs do seem very compatible with his actions.

Dear mjpb,

Whether Hitler was a Christian or not he was appealing to the bigotry that centuries of Christian hate had encouraged. Hitler could do nothing by himself. Millions of believing Christians apparently found nothing in those beliefs that would prevent fulfilling his aims.

Hitler's actions were apparently quite compatible with the millions of Christians who followed him. The German armed forces had Christian chaplains. German soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us") on their belt buckles.

Hitler used Christian language in public. That we agree on. Apparently most German Christians found nothing in their religion to prevent them from following Hitler.

You maintain that privately Hitler was not a Christian. Were all the Christians who followed him really not Christians also?

OK since there i noone willing to apply to their own view, religious or irreligious, the definition of a fundamentalist as "someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable." then i'll give it a go, in particular to atheist.

A fundamentalist atheist would be one who says, quite rightly, "the burden of proof for the existance of God is on those who make the claim". However their non-negotiable position would be: "There is no evidence"

A fundamentalist is not interested in evidence. Perhaps we could say they are more interested in promoting a political agenda rather than seeking an understanding. I recently read an Guardian article by Madeleine Bunting entitled "The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it" which made this point about the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.

Her comments on Sam Harris are also of interest because they tie in with the distinction between vilification and advocacy of violence

<<But it [Harris' argument] tips over into something much more sinister in Harris's latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we're familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance.>>
ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/07/comment.religion
cont..1/2

cont..2/2
Earlier remarks on this thread that the majority of Muslims are child abusers are more than just nasty remarks: there can be no other intention but to incite hatred against Muslims and the discrimination and violence that invariably follows. For while there is no explicit corollary to the effect saying "therefore attacking Muslims is justified", as in the case of Harris, we all know that these words will raise the level of violence and discrimination against anyone to whom these accusations are leveled. The intention is obviously not to promote an informed discussion but to push a political agenda.

As another example, the French legislation against the niqab (and similar legislation proposed by Fred Nile) sends the message that someone wearing a niqab is threat to public order (see Guardian editorial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/15/france-niqab-veil-ban-law). Again, we all know that this will increase the likelihood of Muslim women coming under attack. At least the effect is to increase their insecurity and cause husband and wife to decide the risks of wearing the niqab are too great, particularly when Mum is with the children. The legislation will achieve its aim not through the threat of fines, but through the real threat of violence that this sort of legislation promotes. I would describe this as the result of the fundamentalism arising out of French secularism and Fred Nile's brand of Christianity.

David F,
Thanks for the clarification. Then you ascribe to a notion that right and wrong are absolute and not contingent on 'public opinion'? How would an atheist support this position?
salaams

Dear grateful,

I do not subscribe to the position that right and wrong are absolute. It is an unreasonable inference to assume that because I do not recognise right and wrong as determined by public opinion then I must accept that it is absolute. We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong. This may differ from what somebody else in their conscience thinks is right and wrong.

You wrote: "A fundamentalist atheist would be one who says, quite rightly, "the burden of proof for the existance of God is on those who make the claim". However their non-negotiable position would be: "There is no evidence""

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. That is the basis for legal proceedings. Anyone making an assertion must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a reasonable position to demand evidence. It is not fundamentalism.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

David f & grateful

I put it to you both that the existence, or non-existence, of God is UNDECIDABLE. There is no way of knowing whether there exists some entity that could be described as the "creator of the universe."

Personally I doubt such an entity exists but I cannot disprove the entity's existence.

I also put it to you both that for the purpose of every day life the question is UNIMPORTANT. It is of NO CONSEQUENCE. It is an IRRELEVANT QUESTION.

The REAL issue that taxes us all is the CLAIMS various religions make about the nature of that entity and what that entity WANTS FROM US assuming it exists.

Here is my challenge to you grateful, and to any other representative of any religion.

Let us assume for the sake of argument ONLY that the universe has a creator.

Prove that YOUR understanding of what the creator of the universe wants is the correct one.

Grateful, in the case of Islam that means proving that the creator of the universe transmitted the koran VERBATIM to an actual person called Muhammad via an angel called Gibril over a 22 years period. It means explaining, inter alia, how the creator got some basic facts about mammalian reproduction and geology wrong.

It seems to me we CANNOT know that we are the purpose of creation. We may be a by product of creation. The real purpose of creation, if any, may exist beyond our event horizon.

The reality is that the creator may be as indifferent to us as we are indifferent to the doings of bacteria that inhabit some other planet orbiting some other sun.

So, how do you know that YOUR religion is the correct one?

How do you know that the creator of the universe, assuming such exists, gives a rodent's rectum about us?

Why do you think WE occupy some special position in this creation?

Aren't you all making completely unwarranted assumptions about the importance of a Johnny come lately species that probably will die out when our sun turns into a red giant?

<<I do not subscribe to the position that right and wrong are absolute. It is an unreasonable inference to assume that because I do not recognise right and wrong as determined by public opinion then I must accept that it is absolute. We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong. This may differ from what somebody else in their conscience thinks is right and wrong.>>

When you say WE "decide in our conscience what is right and wrong" do you have an explanation for this process? In the Qur'an we are told that our soul is inspired by Allah as to what is wrong and right:

<<By the sun and his brightness, (1) And the moon when she followeth him, (2) And the day when it revealeth him, (3) And the night when it enshroudeth him, (4) And the heaven and Him Who built it, (5) And the earth and Him Who spread it, (6) And a soul and Him Who perfected it (7) And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it. (8) He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow, (9) And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it. (10) >>
(Chap 91: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/)

David you go on to say:

<<The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. That is the basis for legal proceedings. Anyone making an assertion must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a reasonable position to demand evidence. It is not fundamentalism.>>

I have always ascribed to the criteria of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". My point was that there are atheists who are fundamentalist not because they demand proof but because they say "There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God" as a premise rather than the outcome of a serious investigation.

cont..

cont..2/3
David do you know of an explanation for the Qur'an other than it being Divine revelation?

Have you read the Qur’an?

The above quote is considered by Muslims to be the words of God (or more accurately they are a rendering of the original Arabic, the language in which the Qur’aan was supposedly revealed). How would a Muslim support this case?

At the very least a Muslim would have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that

1. The Qur’aan we have today is what was claimed as revelation over 1400 years ago

2. That the Muhammad was honest and reliable, for it was he who claimed it was revelation from God

3. That there is nothing in what the Qur’aan says that is a clear falsehood (e.g the world was created 5000 years ago, the sun revolves around the earth)

On the other hand for you they are the words of man.

You may want to argue that there is reason that this COULD NOT be the words of God. Or you would want to provide authorative evidence that Muhammad was unreliable or dishonest.

Or you may even want to argue that it has been corrupted. There is a verse in the Qur’aan which clearly predicts (and is interpreted by all scholars as saying) that the Qur’aan will not be corrupted:

"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9

Anyone who has played the kids game Chinese Whispers, will know how easily information gets distorted when passed on by word-of-mouth.

So you would just need to find a serious scholar in Islamic studies who would argue that the Qur’aan has been corrupted or at least argue that no authority is prepared to support this claim.

cont...

cont..3/3
We obviously have a lot of common ground

<<Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams>>

I invite you to read the above verse (one set of facts), or any other, then listen to their recitation (another fact) (for both you can go to : http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/).

Then ask yourself: Who has come up with a satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon?

Grateful wrote:

"I have always ascribed to the criteria of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

But you haven't provided any evidence that the compendium of seventh century claptrap you call the koran is what Muslims claim it to be.

Not only have you not proved it "beyond a reasonable doubt", you haven't even proved it on the basis of the preponderance of evidence.

I, on the contrary, can say that at very least the creator of the universe would have got the fact about mammalian reproduction and geology right if he had caused an "angel" to transmit his "recitation" verbatim to the (probably non-existent) Muhammad.

I challenge you in the same way I challenge all Muslims. Offer me some EVIDENCE of you claims. Does not have to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Just prove it on the basis of the preponderance of evidence.

And explain why the creator got the facts about mammalian reproduction and geology wrong.

I find it terribly frustrating debating with Muslims who keep reciting koranic poppycock without ever producing a scintilla of EVIDENCE!

At least Christians are prepared to acknowledge they believe on faith. They don't try to bamboozle me with pseudo-science.

>> At least Christians are prepared to acknowledge they believe on faith. They don't try to bamboozle me with pseudo-science. <<

Au contraire.

Immaculate conception? The resurrection? Without either there is no Christianity.

Intelligent Design - the biggest con of religious adherents ever.

LOL
I admire your persistence Steven, but he can’t hear you. He’s sleep walking just like this guy on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlQRiGSy1o4

He appears to be conscious as he goes through his routine –but he can’t hear or see you.

And take heed of the voice over : “You can never wake up someone who’s been sleep walking, they’ll have a heart attack or freak out”

I suspect that’s what happen to Osama –he was in this nice comforting fifth century dream. Then dastardly globalisation and modernism woke him, and he freaked out and morphed in a fundaMENTALIST”

“let him sleep. For in dreams, we enter a world that's entirely our own.” Dumbledore (Harry Potter)

Severin,
Speak for yourself, that you prefer to be identified as neither intelligent or designed to operate with cordination as a unit maybe your preference. That you wish to be identified as a blob of incoherent protein may be your desire but it is not mine. My body and its function is merely a vehicle wherby my real life is manifest.

Thank you Philo for demonstrating just how Christians use pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Steven - pseudo-science is not the exclusive preserve of Islam.

Could not have invented Philo... the gift that keeps on giving.

OK Fair comment Severin. Though I have to say that none of the Christians I know personally believe in intelligent design or creationism.

But now I have a confession:

READING THE KORAN MADE ME BELIEVE IN GOD

Yep, really.

It happened like this. I had my first serious encounter with Islam on Tuesday, 28 September 1965 at 5pm. How this came to be is another story. Suffice to say I bought a koran and studied it. I spent SIX MONTHS on it. And I realised here was PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

Absolute, definite, PROOF.

Proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

I should explain that at the time I was a student majoring in physics. What I realised was this:

Only a supernatural being could cause to come into being a species that is SIMULTANEOUSLY:

--intelligent enough to come up with general relativity and quantum mechanics; and

--CRAZY enough to believe that the koran could be a VERBATIM message from the creator of the universe.

I realised that God exists and he is the DIVINE COMEDIAN.

God is not the God of the bible or the koran. He is the DIVINE COMEDIAN.

Let us all pay homage to the DIVINE COMEDIAN by appreciating the joke he has perpetrated. Grateful, you are a true and faithful servant of the DIVINE COMEDIAN.

Steven

Naughty, naughty boy you only included Grateful; Philo believes in the same religious foundation shared by Jews, Christians and Islamists - the Old Testament - where most of the "divine comedy" starts.

Not going to let you wiggle off this hook - the topic is about "fundamentalism" not just Islam.

PS

I don't know any fundamentalist anybody - just the ones I encounter here at OLO.

Severin

There are many paths to the DIVINE COMEDIAN.

I have found one path. You have found another. The important thing is that we both found the glorious, the one and only DIVINE COMEDIAN.

Let the joyous laughter commence as we both appreciate the COSMIC JOKE.

You are indeed a schmoozer.

I like that.

Grateful asked, “David do you know of an explanation for the Qur'an other than it being Divine revelation?”

Dear grateful,

One obvious explanation is that a human or humans wrote it without divine intervention in the same way as scriptures of other religions for which believers claim divine intervention have been written.

I have read parts of it and have even discussed it with Muslims. I sat in at a service in the West End mosque in Brisbane and was invited to join a group in discussing a bit from the Qur'an after the Muslims (all men) prayed.

You seem no different from the believers of other religions. Most believers in any religion have selected that religion because the sperm and egg whose union engendered them were produced by individuals who accepted that religion.

Are you an exception? Were you the child of non-Muslims and having examined many religions decided that Islam is the true one and others were false? What religions besides Islam have you examined? If you have why did decide those religion(s) were false?

<<Grateful, you are a true and faithful servant of the DIVINE COMEDIAN.>>

Steven you are way too clever for me!

By the way, you remind me of my cousins who also happen to be Jewish and atheist.

take care :-)

Grateful,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the difference between Christianity and Islam.

Christians say if I reject Jesus I'll go to hell but come and have a barbeque with us. But if I reject Islam Muslims want to barbeque me.

See:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/309925/june-01-2010/ayaan-hirsi-ali

Whatever may have been the case in the past, that puts it in a nutshell today, 2010.

<<Are you an exception? Were you the child of non-Muslims and having examined many religions decided that Islam is the true one and others were false? What religions besides Islam have you examined? If you have why did decide those religion(s) were false?>>

In your words i must be one of those exceptions. I grew up in an atheist household and my relatives are atheists. I grew up believing religion was a crutch and raised on the explicit view that there is "no right or wrong". I used to ridicule believers in my younger years but as i matured became more circumspect. I only started to investigate religion when i started questioning the purpose of what was a fairly hedonistic lifestyle. I read part of the Qur'aan with an attitude of arrogance. It was only when i came to the Qur'aan with a sense of humility, alowing it to speak to me in its own terms that i realised the words on the pages accorded with what i new in my heart.

<<Grateful,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the difference between Christianity and Islam.

Christians say if I reject Jesus I'll go to hell but come and have a barbeque with us. But if I reject Islam Muslims want to barbeque me.>>

lol! Steve, you're too much.

How about saying something relevant to the thread.

Since you have a Jewish background, why not provide us with some examples of Jewish fundamentalism.

What about Zionist fundamentalism?

Grateful says:

"...why not provide us with some examples of Jewish fundamentalism.

"What about Zionist fundamentalism?"

Be my guest grateful. I'm sure you can do it better than me.

Dear grateful,

You must have been raised by unusual atheists. All the atheists I know have a strong sense of right and wrong. One does not have to believe in a religion to see a difference between right and wrong.

If you can't tell right from wrong without a religion then religion is your crutch.

Some of the things that religion sees as right or wrong have absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. A Muslim is not supposed to eat pig. However, eating pig is no more wrong than eating cow.

Steve:<<Be my guest grateful. I'm sure you can do it better than me.>>

Steve,

After all the strigent rhetoric against Islam and attempts to characterise Muslims as the "new Jews" to be despised, marginalised and ridiculed, when it comes to examining fundamentalism among your own kin you demure. Why? Do you believe there are no Jews or Zionists who can be described as fundamentalists?

David F,

What is your background? What has shaped your opinion of religions? I'm presuming you come from a Christian background. Do you feel up to providing your perspective of what would constitute a fundamentalist atheist? Would Hitchens or Dawkins fit the bill? If not what would be the key reason?

David F. <<If you can't tell right from wrong without a religion then religion is your crutch.>>

But earlier you said there is no objective right or wrong. Its all subjective. So how can you now find fault in someone for not being able to find right and wrong by there own devises when, according to you, it has no objective existance?

As a reminder, here are your exact words:

<<I do not subscribe to the position that right and wrong are absolute. It is an unreasonable inference to assume that because I do not recognise right and wrong as determined by public opinion then I must accept that it is absolute. We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong. This may differ from what somebody else in their conscience thinks is right and wrong.>>

In Islam, there is right and wrong and we do have a conscience and the reason why our conscience can be a guided to right and wrong is because it is inspired by God. This explanation is coherent and logically consistent.

In contrast, your latest remark is premised on there being right and wrong which you deny has any objective existance. You should reconsider the logical coherence of your own position.

Dear grateful,

You quoted my words, "We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong." Isn't that enough? If in an Islamic society you believe that eating pig is wrong others don't have to believe the same thing. Not having an objective morality is not the same as having no morality. You have made a false equation. In society our standards of right and wrong cannot differ widely or we cannot live together. However, they need not be the same. Morality exists and is real. An objective morality would be the same for everyone on earth. That is unreasonable. Before Judaism, Christianity and Islam were invented people got along together one way or another. The three religions did not invent morality. Morality is merely a means people have worked out for getting along with each other. It's that simple.

You wrote: "In Islam, there is right and wrong and we do have a conscience and the reason why our conscience can be a guided to right and wrong is because it is inspired by God. This explanation is coherent and logically consistent."

The above is a statement of belief not logic. Judaism and Christianity also claim they are inspired by God. However, what is allowed and forbidden in all three religions is different. It is reasonable to assume that neither Islam, Judaism nor Christianity is inspired by God.

You used the words, fundamentalist atheist, and then asked me to define those words. I know of no fundamentalist atheists.

Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism for a definition of fundamentalism. It generally applies to religious believers.

I was raised in a Jewish home and have had a Jewish education. However, I am now an atheist who is interested in promoting separation of religion and state.

When I was a little boy I heard the story of Abraham and Isaac. (I know the Qur'aan has a different story) I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I couldn’t believe in such a God.

David, you wrote: << "In Islam, there is right and wrong and we do have a conscience and the reason why our conscience can be a guided to right and wrong is because it is inspired by God. This explanation is coherent and logically consistent."

The above is a statement of belief not logic.>>

Correction: the above statement is an explanation. You have not offered an explanation of morality which is free of contradiction.

You continue..
<< Morality exists and is real. An objective morality would be the same for everyone on earth. That is unreasonable. Before Judaism, Christianity and Islam were invented people got along together one way or another. The three religions did not invent morality. Morality is merely a means people have worked out for getting along with each other. It's that simple.>>

Yes “morality exists and is real”, but you cannot provide an explanation for it. An objective morality is one that does not depend on the whims of any human being and cannot be “merely a means PEOPLE have worked out for getting along with each other.”

To emphasise my point consider a few examples. The Incas were a people who followed their whims and worked out that as part of getting along with each other they would have an annual sacrifice of virgins to appease their gods. In Mecca before Islam people followed their whims and “got along” by burying their female babies alive and treating woman as chattel, with no rights over their husbands nor to inheritance. You would want to say “This is absolutely wrong”, but with your notion of morality who are you to tell others what is right and wrong?

In other words your explanation of morality is incompatible with your own inclinations and your inclinations are a reality that you have yet to offer an explanation for.

cont...2/3

I can only think of three ways of responding. The first: demonstrate there is no conflict. The second would be to acknowledge the conflict between your explanation of morality and the facts, and then seek an explanation that does not conflict with the inclinations that arise when you consult your conscience.

The third would be remain with your own belief that morality is “a means PEOPLE have worked out for getting along with each other”, despite its incoherence and live a double life: professing one thing, but practicing another in everyday life.

The third path is a path to a type of fundamentalism: adherence to a belief even if it is incompatible with reality.

Steve, do you believe atheists cannot be described as fundamentalist? I know what the dictionary says, but why should the mentality that underpins fundamentalism be limited to people who ascribed to beliefs because of a religion and not also acknowledge that atheists may adhere to beliefs that are in conflict with reality.

cont...

cont 3/4

For example i know atheists who would ascribe to beliefs about Islam no matter how much evidence was thrown at them. Consider the following example: Bernard Lewis, the eminent Islamic scholar and history, who falls into the neo-con camp and was advisor to Pres. G. Bush Jr. on matters Islam. He likes to use the term “Islamofacism” so he cannot be said to belong to the PC brigade. Yet in his book, co-author with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, "Islam: The Religion and the People" he has said:

"At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition)."

"Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements."

"The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion." [pp. 53]

"The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible." [ page 146]

"Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[page 146]

David you say you have not come across a ‘fundamentalist atheist’. But surely you would want to deny the existence of atheists who would cling to the myths that even Bernard Lewis is prepared to say are just that: MYTHS.

cont..

Dear Grateful,

Morality is a code, implicit or explicit, worked out by humans as a way to deal with each other and live together. Those like Mohammed who invent religions put forth their moral code as the word of God. I gave a good explanation of morality. The fact that you don't accept it merely means that you subscribe to your religion which gives a supernatural explanation of reality.

You wrote: "To emphasise my point consider a few examples. The Incas were a people who followed their whims and worked out that as part of getting along with each other they would have an annual sacrifice of virgins to appease their gods. In Mecca before Islam people followed their whims ..."

The above statement shows your prejudice. The Incas and the people in Mecca before Islam followed their religion as you follow your religion. You want respect for your beliefs yet you call the religious beliefs of other people 'whims'. I think it better to say that the Incas, the people in Mecca before Islam and the Muslims all have or had their beliefs. It is also reasonable to assume that as the beliefs of the Incas and of the people in Mecca before Islam have been replaced the beliefs of the Muslims will also be replaced. Religious beliefs may last a long time, but eventually they go.

I object to the term Islamofascism as fascism was an early twentieth century ideology which does not describe the present Islamists. I doubt that Lewis would use such a term, but maybe I'm wrong. Please cite a reference where he used that term.

You wrote: "Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[page 146]

That is absolutely true. I have argued that point with many who condemn Islam.

The fact that atheists may be wrong in what they think does not make them fundamentalists. I think none of us can be entirely correct.

Grateful

I am well acquainted with the works of Bernard Lewis. Prior to the emergence of Wahabbism as the dominant strain of Islam he had a certain respect for your religion.

From my perspective this is NOT about a code of ethics. Islamic ethics has much in common with the ethics of most major religions. To me it appears that, from the ethical perspective, what's good in Islam is not new and what's new is not good.

This is EMPHATICALLY not about terrorism. Most Muslims are NOT terrorists. Islamic terrorism is less of a threat than Melbourne drivers.

From my perspective it is this:

--The claims Islam makes about the koran are DEMONSTRABLY untrue. You are perpetrating a LIE.

--Sharia law in PRACTICE is horrible. It IS a totalitarian ideology plain and simple.

All that being said I do not perceive any danger from Islam. I DO perceive a danger in APPEASING Islam. You are free to do and say as you please. But I must be free to do likewise which includes describing the true nature of your loathsome totalitarian belief system.

And now I ask you to consider this.

Why did Europe leap ahead of the Muslim world in science and technology?

It is not a rhetorical question. I really would like you to provide an answer. Bernard Lewis among others has written extensively on this topic.

You might start with the works of Al-Ghazali.

Oh, and BTW, what did Muhammad have against geckos? Why did he say those who kill geckos will get a reward in heaven?

I like geckos.

David F.

I'll pick up on a few points briefly. i hope to return later, but Ramadan will be starting soon and this means a lot of prayer, Qur'aan recitation, not mention friends and food (all in the evenings of course for a month :-))...its a beautiful religion.

To say " I gave a good explanation of morality." is not a defense. I said your explanation contradicted our own experience on an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong.

You say: Muhammad invented the religion, but i would doubt you have every sought to explain how this explanation could be reconciled with what we know of him, the people around him and the events.

You can begin by considering what your statement implies. It implies that Muhammad was a liar. I can provide support for the view that he was, on the contrary of a character that earned him the nick-name of al-Siddique (the truthful) and al-Alameen (the trustworthy), including testimoney from his enemies. Again, can you provide grounds for saying that he was in fact a liar (which are not simply founded on your belief that there is no God)?

The term Islamofascism is used in the book Lewis co-author with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, "Islam: The Religion and the People", p166.

must go,
take care

Dear grateful,

Mohammed may have been completely sincere. He may have been merely hallucinating and believed he was telling the truth. You demand that other people believe what you belive. That is an unreasonable demand. Maybe Mohammed was a liar. I don't know. I certainly didn't call him a liar or infer that he was a liar. I don't even know that there was such a person as Mohammed. His existence may be a fiction.

You believe in the truth of your religion. Other people believe in the truth of their religion. Fine. You may believe what you like.

When you demand that I believe in the truth of your religion that is unreasonable.

I make the same statement to any believers in any religion - not just to Muslims.

You don't have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. You believe in your religion's view of morality and are demanding that I accept your view. You do not have any innate knowledge. You have belief and call it innate knowledge. Every society has to develop a morality to live together. That is not just true for humans. That is true for other species, too. Wolves generally don't attack another wolf in the same pack. That is necessary for wolves to live together. That is part of the wolf morality. The difference between your morality and the wolf morality is that wolves don't claim their morality comes from God or Allah.

When you say 'you know' you really are saying 'I believe'. Christians have said the same thing. They ask others to believe in the resurrection of Jesus because there were many 'witnesses' to that event. One can make up stories about witnesses just as one can make up stories about Mohammed earning the name of al-Siddique (the truthful) and al-Alameen (the trustworthy), including testimony from his enemies.

Thank you for your reference.

I received in my mail box a pamphlet on Islam which is both deceptive and laughable.

It claims that "Islam does not permit terrorism" which is a blatent lie and deceitful as most terrorists acts performed upon innocent people today are done in the Name of Allah.

It claims "Islam poineered rights for women long before the modern era". Again a lie and deceitful. Why is it that women are discouraged from education in countries where sharia law is enforced i.e. Afganistan. Why is it that Islam upholds the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man. Why is it that the only honour killings happen on muslim women in a free country like Australia. Why is that Muslim men treat non Muslim women as no better than prostitutes to be raped in the name of Allah? Ask female teachers in schools how Muslim youth treat them. Yes they poineered female rights and decided to treat them as second class.

David F
The only thing i have 'demanded' of you and others is a discussion based on reason and statements backed by evidence. In terms of the evidence that would expose my own faith to critical examinantion, i have laid it on the line explicitly and in detail.

On the other hand, when i simply ask you to defend your statement that "Muhammad invented the religion", you describe this as a <<demand that I believe in the truth of your religion>>. Does this mean your belief that God does not exist is non-negotiable? What happened to evidence and reason, not to mention 'proof beyond a reasonable double'?

Philo,
The pamphlets are quite accurate. Prior to Islam woman were treated as chattel to the extent that the father could inherit his son's wife! Female babies were buried alive, and of course there was not right to inheritance.
As the following verse from the Qur’aan makes clear, Islam eliminate these injustices:
<<O ye who believe! It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the women (of your deceased kinsmen), nor (that) ye should put constraint upon them that ye may take away a part of that which ye have given them, unless they be guilty of flagrant lewdness. But consort with them in kindness, for if ye hate them it may happen that ye hate a thing wherein Allah hath placed much good.(4:19)>>

Islam guaranteed the wife and daughters claims on inheritance, rights to divorce and requires of the husband that they share the housework (following the sunnah of the Prophet). In a number of verses of the Qur'aan, such as the following, woman and men are explicitly spoken of a equals:
<<For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patent and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise-- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward. (Qur'an 33:35)>>
And there are a number of verses defending the honour of woman. So the pamphlets are quite accurate in their claims.
cont..

Philo,

Concerning your remark <<Why is that Muslim men treat non Muslim women as no better than prostitutes to be raped in the name of Allah>>

This tells me you have little concern for rape victims..otherwise you would want people to seriously examine the real causes. You might start with your local newsagent then the TV, before proceeding to the material that is freely available on the internet.

This is the real impact of an atheist ideology: it leaves the community defenseless against a 'culture' that fosters the attitude that people are objects of sexually gratification.

Atheists have a lot to say about peoples rights (particularly those of adults), but they are generally silent when it comes to responsibilities (notably towards children).

Finally, Philo

Concerning education and woman please read the following article : http://www.elanthemag.com/index.php/site/featured_articles_detail/muslimahs_leading_the_science_revolution-nid913348720/
Here is an excerpt:

"According to the latest report by UNESCO, women in Saudi Arabia now outnumber western women in worldwide university enrollment and graduation rates. Furthermore, 13 Muslim countries produce a higher percentage of women science graduates than the US and up to 40% of Saudi doctors are women."

You may also like to take a walk through any of the main university campuses and notice the number of "hijabis". From my own experience, at the postgraduate level, it was not uncommon to find the wife studying for a PhD while the husband supported both financially and with the children...and i'm referring to international students.

Dear grateful,

You wrote: "it leaves the community defenseless against a 'culture' that fosters the attitude that people are objects of sexually gratification.

Atheists have a lot to say about peoples rights (particularly those of adults), but they are generally silent when it comes to responsibilities (notably towards children)."

You are prejudiced against atheists. Atheists can be moral and have respect for human beings without having to invent an Allah or a God to tell them to be good.

Possibly 40% of Saudi doctors are women. They can only examine female patients, and male doctors can only examine male patients. The Saudis are so sexually obsessed that they can't accept that a doctor can be professional and can examine and treat a patient who has a different sex from them. Female doctors can treat male patients, and male doctors can treat female patients. However, even if 40% of doctors are women I doubt that many, if any, are in positions of authority. I doubt that they supervise male doctors in Saudi Arabia.

I looked up your article. I clicked on the link to the UNESCO report, and it was unable to get there. I doubt that the article accurately reported it or that there is such a report.

Atheists have not blown up schools like the Muslim Taliban have.

You are asking me to believe your religion when you want me to accept that Mohammed had a divine revelation. ALL religions are invented. Nobody has a divine revelation. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha and others invented religions. Mohammed invented Islam, and the others invented their religions. People who follow religions claim that their religion is the word of God if it is Bahai'i, Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Buddhist, Hindus and other also have a belief in the supernatural. There is no such thing as divine revelation because ther eis no such thing as divinity.

Mohammed and the others invent religions and want other people to believe it. One doesn't have to prove all religions are invented. There simply is no proof that they weren't.

<<You are prejudiced against atheists. Atheists can be moral and have respect for human beings without having to invent an Allah or a God to tell them to be good.>>

This is the second time you have accused me of being prejudiced. I have not pre-judged atheists. If anything you have pre-judged me. i know what i know of atheists from those i have grown up with and certainly realise that one does not have to believe in Allah to "be moral" and "have respect for human beings". In any case name-calling doesn’t help unless you’re trying to dodge an issue..

My criticism is this: atheists are not in a position to DEFEND the community against a 'culture' that fosters the attitude that people are objects of sexually gratification. In addition, i would argue that generally atheists are in no position to exercise the moral authority necessary to guide children away from this sort of behaviour (as well as failing abysmally with regard to alcohol and drugs).

cont...

cont..

<<Mohammed and the others invent religions and want other people to believe it. One doesn't have to prove all religions are invented. There simply is no proof that they weren't.>>

I did not ask for it to be proved “for all religions”. Anyway, we are back to the statement: "Muhammad invented the religion", but now anticipating that I will ask you to support your statement, you assert you have no need to because "there is simply is no proof" that the religion was not invented.

Similarly your other assertion <<There is no such thing as divine revelation because there is no such thing as divinity.>> rests on the notion that there is no evidence.

The problem here is that just because you have not seen any evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence. Furthermore, in light of my previous posts you should be a bit more modest in your claims.

Your statement can be questioned on several grounds. The first is the evidence that we have of the honesty and integrity, not to mention sanity, of Muhammad.
Secondly, there is the evidence the Qur'aan has not been corrupted for over 1400 years, conjoined with the fact that this is what is predicted in the Qur'aan itself (i.e. the Qur'an explicitly states that it will not be corrupted). This is quite an achievement!

Thirdly, the Qur'aan itself is an evidence, both in terms of its content and its unique style.

So in short, you are wrong to say "there is simply is no proof" since there is prima face evidence which casts doubt on your assertion. And since the evidence conflicts with your explanation of events of over 1400 ago, then you should be prepared to show how your statement that "Muhammad invented the religion" can be reconciled with this evidence. From what you have previously said, you have no idea how to do this and therefore no grounds for making such a statement.

cont..

cont..

<<You are asking me to believe your religion when you want me to accept that Mohammed had a divine revelation>>

This is far from the truth. Far from insisting you believe because of this or that reason, I've laid bare what i think are key areas in which Islam's claims can actually be UNDERMINED and invite people to try. That's it. Please do not distort what i have said.

BTW: I do not support Taliban or the Saudi government, and as my very first post in this thread highlights, Islamic fundamentalism is as much an enemy of Islam as it is of Western civilisation. After-all , this thread about examining the meaning of fundamentalism!

cont..

cont..
In relation to woman, as i said to Philo, have a bit of a wander through a university campus and you'll notice quite a few hijabs and quite possibly a niqab.

<<I looked up your article. I clicked on the link to the UNESCO report, and it was unable to get there. I doubt that the article accurately reported it or that there is such a report.>>

As the author of the following article (Farkhonda Hassan, a Professor of Geology at the American University of Cairo), male chauvinism should not be conflated with the teachings of Islam: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5489/55.

<<In many Muslim countries, gender-based discrimination, coupled with social and cultural barriers, limits access and participation of women in higher education. Some people attribute these barriers to the teachings of Islam, but this is false. The teachings of the Holy Prophet of Islam emphasize "the acquiring of knowledge as bounden duties of each Muslim from the cradle to the grave" and that "the quest for knowledge and science is obligatory upon every Muslim man and woman."* One-eighth (that is, 750 verses) of the Quraan (the Muslim Holy Book) exhort believers to study nature, to reflect, and to make the best use of reason in their search for the ultimate truth.>>

cont..

Dear grateful,

You have cited no evidence. You have told stories about the honesty and goodness of Mohammed. There are similar stories about Jesus, Buddha, Moses and other religious leaders. Stories are not evidence.

The Qur'aan is true because the Qur'aan says it is true. That is circular reasoning. Bible bashers say the same thing about the Bible.

Certainly atheists are in as much a position to make moral decisions as anybody else. One does not have to believe in a God to make moral decisions.

Some of the prejudice against women in Islamic countries is cultural. However, such matters as valuing a woman's testimony as only half of a man's and having a woman inherit less than a man I thought were from the Koran. Correct me if I am wrong.

In any western country a person is free to become a Muslim. In many Muslim countries a Muslim is not free to reject Islam. Is that fair?

LOL grateful

I'll give you credit for persistence with the rider that persistence in folly is no virtue.

The EVIDENCE points to the koran being the work of humans. If it really is what Muslims claim for it I would at the very least expect the creator of the universe to get the facts about mammalian reproduction and geology right.

QED

END OF DISCUSSION.

David f

You have allowed yourself to be sidetracked into a discussion about virtue. That is not the point. Neither is the existence of God the point.

The point is whether the SPECIFIC claims that Islam makes about the koran and the ahadith are correct. Plainly they are not. See my comments above.

Do you know what an octopus does when cornered david f?

It squirts out black ink and hides behind that.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqTsIyD7dSA

In this thread you are the eel and grateful is the octopus.

In a logical, rational debate grateful cannot best you so he eludes you by squirting out a lot of black ink.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I have not been sidetracked. I have no illusions that a believer in nonsense will admit that he or she believes in nonsense. If I wanted a logical, coherent discussion I would stay away from olo altogether. Tuesday night at the mycological society I will engage in such a discussion.

However, the idea that atheists are somehow less virtuous than religious believers is a bit of nonsense that I want to disgree with for the benefit of any lurkers.

I don't think grateful is susceptible to reason any more than the other theists in olo.

David f wrote:

"However, the idea that atheists are somehow less virtuous than religious believers is a bit of nonsense that I want to disgree with for the benefit of any lurkers."

I think its mostly the other way around. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot notwithstanding I think the AVERAGE atheist tends to be more virtuous than the AVERAGE believer. Of course in both cases the variance about the mean is large and the distribution of virtue is fat tailed.

How did you come to be interested in fungi? I am sure they are more interesting than the rants of a seventh century psychopath called Muhammad.

Y'know David f I have always been sceptical about the historicity of Jesus; but I thought Muhammad at least existed. Now I'm no longer so sure. Turns out the evidence for his existence is quite weak.

The koran itself seems to be a bit of a hodge podge of ancient Christian and Jewish texts. Some parts of it - eg the appearance of the crow in the koranic version of Cain and Abel - are most likely taken from Jewish tradition.

If Muhammad did exist he was probably a previous incarnation of Monty Python. The fact that so many people think the koran is a "recitation" dictated by the creator of the universe would be hilarious if it weren't also so dangerous.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

There is not a good term in general currency for one who rejects not only theism but any form of belief in the supernatural which exists even in non-theistic religions such as Buddhism. When Christianity originated during the Roman Empire Christians were called atheists as they rejected belief in the Gods. In that sense atheism is currently worldwide. Non-Christian theists have been called atheists by Christians as they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. I reject faith itself and respect the sanctity of doubt.

I see belief in unprovable propositions such as the eventual classless society of the Marxists as just as unreasonable as faith in the supernatural. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot seem to have been true believers. True believers are a danger to all whether the true belief is religious or ideological garbage. The enemy of reason is faith, and faith in the supernatural is only one subset of the enemy.

I am 84 years old and would like to make a contribution to natural science. Mycology has lagged behind the study of other branches of life because of religion. Many naturalists have been Christians who have the idea that they are exalting the work of God by studying nature. However, their theology, especially in England, regarded fungi as the work of the devil so that study has lagged behind the study of bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants and animals. There is more to be done in the study of fungi. Like all life fungi become more fascinating the more one learns about them.

>>> True believers are a danger to all whether the true belief is religious or ideological garbage. The enemy of reason is faith, and faith in the supernatural is only one subset of the enemy. <<<

Hear! Hear!

On a thread that is about fundamentalism - not Islam V Christianity - Davidf has summarised the issue succinctly.