Scientists have the ability to be wrong:

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b] I don't know a single Theist
that believes they cannot be wrong,

so you accept that there is a chance God does not exist, correct?[/b]

I believe in God as I said I cannot prove it so there is of course that chance.
It is a matter of faith, I believe it to be true.
It is no different than those that don't accept God as real or even a possible
reality, they too could be wrong.

The OP appears to be a strictly one sided argument, because an anti-theistic mindset would not provide exemption from any certainty proposition leading to war.

The difference between atheism and most religions is that with atheism there is no inherent moral compunction to prevent people from going to war. Within this context (of what amounts to a moral vacuum) war actually has the same inherent negative value as adultery or any other vice, but this would be assuming any negative value could actually be identified... atheism (as a belief) doesn't need to justify itself, because there is nothing in atheism to be justified. It simply is what it is.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The OP appears to be a strictly one sided argument, because an anti-theistic mindset would not provide exemption from any certainty proposition leading to war.

The difference between atheism and most religions is that with atheism there is no inherent moral compunction to prevent people from going to war. Within this context (of what amounts to ...[text shortened]... to justify itself, because there is nothing in atheism to be justified. It simply is what it is.

I agree, it is a smear without specifics or justifications. Suggesting one
could think they are never wrong without even narrowing down the scope
of what they could be wrong about, is a sad laughable spiteful thing to say,
and having others jump in a agree just show how narrow minded they are
too.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree, it is a smear without specifics or justifications. Suggesting one
could think they are never wrong without even narrowing down the scope
of what they could be wrong about, is a sad laughable spiteful thing to say,
and having others jump in a agree just show how narrow minded they are
too.

Disagreeing with his assessment of theists being unable to think they can be wrong could (theoretically) protect his argument from criticism... because it reduces anyone opposing his argument to being an idiot who cannot effectively reason by virtue of his inability.

The idea that science is in direct conflict with theism is laughable as well. It's like comparing carpenters to tools, and saying carpenters are to theism as tools are to science... so it doesn't make sense for carpenters to use tools, because carpenters have beliefs about how to do a job whereas tools are specifically designed for doing those jobs. This demonstrates how science comes in direct conflict with personal beliefs, and how anyone who has personal beliefs is not qualified to engage in science.

Atheism is (of course) exempt from non-qualification, because atheism needs no justification. It is simply a belief that may stand in judgment of (and direct opposition to) any other belief by virtue of it not being a belief in anything other than not believing any other belief...

Originally posted by lemon lime
Disagreeing with his assessment of theists being unable to think they can be wrong could (theoretically) protect his argument from criticism... because it reduces anyone opposing his argument to being an idiot who cannot effectively reason by virtue of his inability.

The idea that science is in direct conflict with theism is laughable as ...[text shortened]... lief by virtue of it not being a belief in anything other than not believing any other belief...

Atheism is the belief about a variable, 0.
1 = God
>1 = gods
0 = lack of belief, or rejection of anything other than 0

You know, but I could be wrong. 🙂

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ira Lapidus (emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic history) spreads Islamic propaganda. 😏

Find more of this propaganda here:

http://islamicinsights.com/religion/clergy-corner/how-did-islam-spread-by-sword-or-by-conversion.html

Convert or get your head chopped off.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Ira Lapidus (emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic history) spreads Islamic propaganda. 😏

Find more of this propaganda here:

http://islamicinsights.com/religion/clergy-corner/how-did-islam-spread-by-sword-or-by-conversion.html

[b]Convert or get your head chopped off.[/b]

I'm not going to enter into a debate about whether Islam was predominantly spread peacefully or through violence, certainly there were cases of coercion [1, 2]. But there are any number of examples of Christianity being spread by violent means from throughout history. The crusade against the pagans in Prussia [3] is one example, of many. So I think that your position regarding Islam being spread through violence is fatally weakened by the way Christianity has been spread through violence.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Tegh_Bahadur#Execution_of_Guru_by_Aurangzeb
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#Establishment_of_Islamic_law
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Crusade

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not going to enter into a debate about whether Islam was predominantly spread peacefully or through violence, certainly there were cases of coercion [1, 2]. But there are any number of examples of Christianity being spread by violent means from throughout history. The crusade against the pagans in Prussia [3] is one example, of many. So I think th ...[text shortened]... g/wiki/Aurangzeb#Establishment_of_Islamic_law
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Crusade

I was responding to Islamic propaganda presented by Duchess64. So how any other religions were spread is not relevant.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not going to enter into a debate about whether Islam was predominantly spread peacefully or through violence, certainly there were cases of coercion [1, 2]. But there are any number of examples of Christianity being spread by violent means from throughout history. The crusade against the pagans in Prussia [3] is one example, of many. So I think th ...[text shortened]... g/wiki/Aurangzeb#Establishment_of_Islamic_law
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Crusade

The tenets of Christianity do not provide an excuse for promotion through violence and coercion, whereas the tenets of Islam do provide for itself permission to use violence and coercion for that purpose.

The fact that some Christians have violated tenants of their religion and many (if not most) Muslims have chosen to ignore a provision for violence in theirs, says more about some people than it does about what those two religions actually teach. You can find bad people in a good religion and good people in a bad religion, so I think it's a bit specious to judge a religion (any religion) by people who don't, won't or maybe can't afford to take their own religion seriously enough to follow all of its tenets.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The tenets of Christianity do not provide an excuse for promotion through violence and coercion, whereas the tenets of Islam do provide for itself permission to use violence and coercion for that purpose.

The fact that some Christians have violated tenants of their religion and many (if not most) Muslims have chosen to ignore a provision for violence i ...[text shortened]... t or maybe can't afford to take their own religion seriously enough to follow all of its tenets.

My understanding is that there is no provision for spreading Islam through coercion. Having said that without reading the Koran I can't say that with any certainty. I've heard commentators hostile to Islam make that kind of claim, but they would, wouldn't they.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My understanding is that there is no provision for spreading Islam through coercion. Having said that without reading the Koran I can't say that with any certainty. I've heard commentators hostile to Islam make that kind of claim, but they would, wouldn't they.

Some passages from the Koran are very explicit, and leave no room for alternate interpretations or explanations. It's basically convert or die. ISIS goes a step further and insists that even Muslims (who are not a part of their particular group) convert or die. So even from the Korans perspective ISIS is too extreme... Muslims converting Muslims to Islam? I don't think so, they operate more like a street gang than they do members of traditional Islam.

Edit: But just to be clear, many Christians and Muslims have over time developed conditional provisions that work to water down their particular tenets. An Islamist for example might say "Okay, you won't have to convert if you keep your mouth shut and don't oppose us". And a Christian might say "It's okay to sin a little bit, as long as you don't make a habit of it"... in my opinion some Christians are Christian in name only. (Chinos?)

Originally posted by lemon lime
Some passages from the Koran are very explicit, and leave no room for alternate interpretations or explanations. It's basically convert or die. ISIS goes a step further and insists that even Muslims (who are not a part of their particular group) convert or die. So even from the Korans perspective ISIS is too extreme... Muslims converting Muslims to Islam? ...[text shortened]... don't think so, they operate more like a street gang than they do members of traditional Islam.

Here's an interesting take on it by Ira Lapidus quoted at wiki which pretty much aligns itself with the picture I've built up living in a Muslim majority country for many years: "The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary. (...) In most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended together. Moreover, conversion to Islam did not necessarily imply a complete turning from an old to a totally new life. While it entailed the acceptance of new religious beliefs and membership in a new religious community, most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came."

While dynasties and empires were led and built by Muslim kings and conquering generals, conversion ~ in so far as it occurred ~ was mostly at the hands of missionaries and traders. Islam has of course lived side by side for centuries and centuries basically at peace with and in a state of mutual accommodation with Jews and Christians, and the chaotic mess that the Koran is, commands that it be so.

Originally posted by FMF
Here's an interesting take on it by Ira Lapidus quoted at wiki which pretty much aligns itself with the picture I've built up living in a Muslim majority country for many years: "The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of t ...[text shortened]... dation with Jews and Christians, and the chaotic mess that the Koran is, commands that it be so.

Voluntary conversion was always the first step, and the implied threat of forced conversion would usually work to prevent someone from not wanting to join.

Free will was still on the table if fear of death wasn't a problem for you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Voluntary conversion was always the first step, and the implied threat of forced conversion (convert or die) would usually work to prevent someone from not wanting to join.

I've only seen this kind of claim made on far right Christian blogs and web sites but not much that substantiates it. There are millions and millions of non-Muslims in countries where Muslims are predominant and dominant and there always have been. Millions and millions of people did not want to join and didn't join. Millions and millions of people just pottered along with their religions regardless. This is the case now. This has always been the case. This rather undermines your theory. Having said that, I agree with you that ISIS is an aberration in this respect.