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.