Islam is foul

Originally posted by twhitehead
So God must take partial responsibility for Stalins count too as he necessarily 'let them' die.

We don't count "God's count" at all nothing happens without God letting it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I disagree. It demonstrates my point that I'm dealing with a bunch of retards.

Not really. Haven't you heard of the Gricean maxims? While an inference may not be a strict entailment, it could still be a valid implicature.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no interest in Hitler's opinion of Christianity. Or of anything else, for that matter

but my friend you have used them conveniently when it suits your own purpose, but when others have pointed out the flaws of such a one sided point of view, its expedient to dismiss their claims, or feign a disinterest in them at least. you profess belief ...[text shortened]... is be the case? are we not interested in trying to ascertain the truth of matters, regardless?

I have never been interested in Hitler's opinion of Christianity, other than to note that he was raised a Catholic. Whether he retained any of that in his Nazi ideology is of little concern. The fact is that most Nazis did retain their Christian faith.

I do not profess a belief in the Great Flood. I greatly doubt that it ever happened. I carp on about it all the time because many Christians DO believe in a literal interpretation of the flood. I use the story to demonstrate the hypocrisy and/or inconsistency of their beliefs. I am using their own book against them, so to speak.

Originally posted by rwingett


I do not profess a belief in the Great Flood. I greatly doubt that it ever happened.

By your failure to enumerate every single Biblical story that you doubt, you seem to imply that you believe all the other Biblical stories. You also seem to imply that you believe the flood account is less credible than all the others, such as that a woman was bodily transformed into a pillar of salt.

If I infer such things from your claim and attribute such positions to you, is it a mistake on my part or on yours?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
By your failure to enumerate every single Biblical story that you doubt, you seem to imply that you believe all the other Biblical stories. You also seem to imply that you believe the flood account is less credible than all the others, such as that a woman was bodily transformed into a pillar of salt.

If I infer such things from your claim and attribute such positions to you, is it a mistake on my part or on yours?

No. Because the various biblical stories are all of a similar quality. Doubt one and it may be inferred that you doubt them all. The various religions are dissimilar enough that to single out one could indicate an opposite or lesser feeling for the others.

Originally posted by rwingett
No. Because the various biblical stories are all of a similar quality. Doubt one and it may be inferred that you doubt them all. The various religions are dissimilar enough that to single out one could indicate an opposite or lesser feeling for the others.

don't you find it astonishing from the very beginning in the book of Genesis, right through almost 3000 years of history, the unveiling of the 'seed', would take place in due time, that about forty different writers from various backgrounds and differing epochs of time could lend themselves to the establishing and publishing of the identity of this 'seed'. You don't find that astonishing?

Originally posted by rwingett
DoctorScribbles is right, Islam IS foul. This is beyond dispute.

No I don't think it is beyond dispute.

I have here in my hands a manual on how to maintain my portable computer. It says it must not
get wet and it must be kept out of direct sunlight. Computers are important to me, and using this
manual I will now go out and take any computers from people working out in the sun, near the
water. For their protection, you understand. They obviously don't know any better and this is
extremely important. I will use this manual as my guide and any rules I set up will find support in
this manual through some means or other. People will get their computers back when they're
safely inside their homes, but only after I've made sure they won't use them near uncurtained
windows or dripping faucets (which of course can't be guaranteed, so maybe it's best I manage all
computers for my local community). As their leader (whether they chose me or not), I expect
them not to question my wisdom in this, even if some of my rules aren't entirely correlating with
this manual.

Is this manual foul? Does it suggest any of my actions are justified? I could make that argument,
but only people untrained in critical thinking would buy it, and those who do criticise with
conviction I can silence. Again, is it the manual that is foul, or is it in fact me?

Well, remove all religions, and you'll still have people manipulating and instigating the uneducated
masses as long as there is something to be gained on it, and what will you blame then? If no
religion exists, I suppose there will be some other equally arbitrary ideology that you can blame
for social disorder, injustices and abuse.

You can easily argue that the Qur'an teaches foul behaviour. At the same time as it speaks of not
doing harm to people but enlighten them and bring them closer to Allah through example, it says
that Jihad can be declared not only as a personal inner war on yourself to reach purity, but as a
war on the unbelievers to purge the world from them. Or does it? It actually doesn't. But it's very
common for Islamic leaders in the middle-east to argue this, and they expect their followers to
have faith in their interpretations of the Qur'an. Lesser Jihad (Jihad of the sword) does exist in the
Qur'an I believe, but is meant to support fighting oppression and injustice, not to excuse holy wars
for reasons of power and/or wealth.

If you read the bible, you can say that while God says: "thou shalt not kill", He Himself commits
mass-murder. How is that not supporting mass-murder? Well, it can easily be argued that the old
testament in this case tells a story that is meant to show how when we act out of a self justified
position of power we can do more damage than good, and then later God sent us Jesus to give us
a chance to be free from sin by following his example. You can argue that what God did in the old
testament didn't really happen, but are stories meant to be considered in the light of the new
testament. It's far fetched considering the history of these stories, but not at all a bad message,
and totally supported by the bible. Is Christianity, the religion based on the new testament, a foul
religion? Or is it the Christian leaders who used the uneducated masses for their own purposes,
and silenced dissidents through manipulation or force whom are foul?

A religion is not in and of itself a bad thing, and I think you'd have to be either a fool or a man
with a personal agenda to suggest otherwise. In fact, every single major religion today at the core
teaches people to be compassionate, generous with their material possessions, forgiving on those
who do them wrong and learning to deal with their own shortcomings. Those are not bad qualities,
and if followed by all people would completely end world conflicts. If every Muslim, Christian, Jew,
Zoroastrian (my favourite) and Buddhist (to name a few) actually followed the core teachings of
their own religions, there would be no wars, poverty, injustices or inequalities between them. That
is the main goal of every religion: to unite people and teach them how to live in peace with one
another. You think that no atheists can act foul, because they don't follow any religious doctrine? I
think you'd be the first to admit that atheists can't easily be labelled as a coherent group. What
makes you think that all Muslims must be exactly the same, or that their Qur'an must necessarily
teach foul behaviour because intelligent leaders has written large amendments to the Qur'an
detailing everything from how to wipe your ass after a toilet visit, to how you should treat
your wife, and found ways to argue their point in case using the Qur'an?

At most you can argue Islam as being unclear or incomplete as the Qur'an gives room for
manipulation and disagreement among its readers, but you can't argue that it's by definition foul
based on the self-justified actions of some Muslims.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
don't you find it astonishing from the very beginning in the book of Genesis, right through almost 3000 years of history, the unveiling of the 'seed', would take place in due time, that about forty different writers from various backgrounds and differing epochs of time could lend themselves to the establishing and publishing of the identity of this 'seed'. You don't find that astonishing?

No. The bible is a collaborative effort put together over time. So what?

Originally posted by Jigtie
No I don't think it is beyond dispute.

I have here in my hands a manual on how to maintain my portable computer. It says it must not
get wet and it must be kept out of direct sunlight. Computers are important to me, and using this
manual I will now go out and take any computers from people working out in the sun, near the
water. For their protection, ...[text shortened]... finition foul
based on the self-justified actions of some Muslims.

The time you spent on this post could have been put to better use elsewhere, I'm sure.

Religion teaches unquestioning belief. If religious instruction were done away with, we could spend the same time and effort teaching critical thinking skills. Mankind would be better off for it.

Originally posted by rwingett
No. The bible is a collaborative effort put together over time. So what?

Someone on this thread claimed to be intelligent? I can refute that! The bare fact that they have posted to this forum disputes that! All this thread proves is that humankind will inevitably sit around arguing about who is right and who is wrong about something that no one has any more knowledge about than the next until the big rock hurtles from the sky and closes out our inconsequential conversation. When I think of the actual suffering that is every day allowed to take place on this planet and the very simple things we could do to stop that suffering (starting with not caring about what someone believes) then I am sure that we will not be missed by the universe and since (to prove this, read the thread) we don't really care one single bit about each other then even in the last microseconds of human life there will not be a glimmer of awareness that stretches beyond the childish edifice of ego that underlies our every thought, feeling and action. But, of course, better that this world should perish than for a single human to have to come terms with the stark fact that there will be no special meaning for all of our lives unless we find a way to actually care about each other regardless of our differences. Don't worry tho, if your beliefs depend on life being snuffed out, nothing in this thread suggests that it will not be.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Someone on this thread claimed to be intelligent? I can refute that! The bare fact that they have posted to this forum disputes that! All this thread proves is that humankind will inevitably sit around arguing about who is right and who is wrong about something that no one has any more knowledge about than the next until the big rock hurtles from the sky ...[text shortened]... beliefs depend on life being snuffed out, nothing in this thread suggests that it will not be.

Sorry, I honestly cannot tell what the point of your post is. If you are expecting a reply, you'll have to clarify.

Originally posted by Jigtie

You can easily argue that the Qur'an teaches foul behaviour.

At the same time as it speaks of not
doing harm to people but enlighten them and bring them closer to Allah through example, it says
that Jihad can be declared not only as a personal inner war on yourself to reach purity, but as a
war on the unbelievers to purge the world from them. Or does it? It actually doesn't.

It actually does.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

A search on "disbeliever" on this page yields over 100 results.

Here is a sampling:

- Disbelievers will be burned with fire.
- For disbelievers is a painful doom.
- Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire.
- Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
- Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire.
- Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day.
- Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire.
- Disbelievers will go to Hell.
- Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil.
- Muslims that make friends with disbelievers will face a doom prepared for them by Allah.
- Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah.
- Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway.

And on and on and on. Would you not characterize these teachings as foul?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It actually does.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

A search on "disbeliever" on this page yields over 100 results.

Here is a sampling:

- Disbelievers will be burned with fire.
- For disbelievers is a painful doom.
- Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of ...[text shortened]... r them by Allah.

And on and on and on. Would you not characterize these teachings as foul?

Thats no so dissimilar to a lot of 'christians' views.
If Islam was so radically different from christianity I'd say fine ,point out the differences.
But they have been so similar historically,I find it very hard to put one down and not the other.
Remember you are looking at the extreme end of Islam. Which is, admittedly, misguided. Just like the extreme end of christianity. But I wouldn't call it foul. 'Misguided' is a more costructive word.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
But I wouldn't call it foul.

Could you give some examples of teachings that you would characterize as foul?

Teaching that some people ought to be charred and tormented in fire sure seems foul enough to me. What more do you think is required of a teaching to characterize it as foul rather than misguided? For example, if "Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day" were amended to "Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day, and their eyes will be pierced with hot pokers, the label 'INFIDEL' will be branded on their chest with an iron, and a hot piece of coal will be inserted into their rectum," would that be foul?