Is Islam an evil religion?

[Bill Thompson]

In any case, I have a poor view of the standard of your scholarship.

LOL ("scholarship").

Great. Good job. Now, what is your point?


If you are trying to exemplify a non sequitur logical fallacy, you are doing a very good job.


If you are trying to exemplify an ad homenim logical fallacy, you are doing a very good job.

One can also pick apart the biblical posts that are anti-gay and decide if they really are ones that demand violence towards gay people. I still only see one that does that.

Do all the passages you pointed out actually demand physical violence towards gays?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don't try to do jokes of sarcasm, or as you ask, jest, on forums because I understand they do not translate well in this medium.
No, I don't remember if I ever knew, what Tony Blair said about Saddam.

OK first of all if you find the Apostates of Islam's web site, you will find a different view from yours which seems to be saying God created Islam for good reasons.

Secondly, if you are saying that all religions are bad, I want to point out to you that people gave arguments to Tony Blair that because there were other dictators in the world, Saddam should ot be dealt with. He responded that the British people had a chance THEN to do something about THIS one and the opportunity should not be thrown away.

 

[Bill Thompson]

it refers to hatred based on nothing real.

WOW. You are brave to post your lack of understanding in a public forum.

No, that is not what the word "blind" in "blind hatred" mean.

Let's try one more time. What does the word "blind" in "blind hatred" mean?

 

[RandFan]

Do all the passages you pointed out actually demand physical violence towards gays?

Don't care. If god doesn't care enough to categorically tell human beings to like, you know, have a little humanity and NOT HURT PEOPLE including gays and lesbians then the book is fatally flawed as a divine moral guide book.

Given all of the evil in it we would really advance as a species to stop thinking of it in terms of a moral guide. It's used too often to justify beating and killing gays. When you call someone an abomination you are taking away their humanity. The Bible truly can be disgusting and ought to come with a warning sticker.

 

[RandFan]

...if you are saying that all religions are bad...

Any religion that teaches that faith is a virtue is per se bad.

 

[RandFan]

Let's try one more time. What does the word "blind" in "blind hatred" mean?

I have an answer but it doesn't matter. Thousands of years of religious wars, oppression, torture, brutality and BS like the divine rights of kings demonstrates plainly that religion largely serves to divide, subjugate and oppress. Not always but enough for us to determine we are far better off without it.

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

We don't need it. Hopefully soon we can jettison it.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Biker Druid, you are a intersting guy. How do you get from the word "blind" a definition that "something is not real"?

What you are saying really is you define "blind" as being something that is not real to you. You choose to ignore something and admit somethig exists, then if someone is against it, you label them as having blind hatred.

I have had two close loved ones die of cancer. If you have never been impacted by cancer, my hatred towards cancer would be labeled by you as "blind hatred".

No, man, that is not what "blind hatred" means. It means a hatred where someone has not been impacted by something and it means someone has not studied the issue at hand. Both has happened to me. I do not qualify as having blind hatred.

 

[FireGarden]

One can also pick apart the biblical posts that are anti-gay and decide if they really are ones that demand violence towards gay people. I still only see one that does that.

Do all the passages you pointed out actually demand physical violence towards gays?

Bill, if you want to claim something other than you initially claimed, then outright say it. That way people can know that you acknowledged your previous mistake and won't think you're trying to pretend your new claim is the same as your first claim, which was: "There are four passages in the Quran that at anti-gay. There is only one in the Bible."

 

[Bill Thompson]

Any religion that teaches that faith is a virtue is per se bad.

That is very interesting. I am serious about starting a new discussion thread. I am not joking or trying to sound ironic. It is a good topic to explore.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I would say that since they don't believe in Jesus, techically by Christian law, Islam is an evil religion. I would suppose that would go the same for the Jews too. Lets not even get into the eastern religions.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, if you want to claim something other than you initially claimed, then outright say it. That way people can know that you acknowledged your previous mistake and won't think you're trying to pretend your new claim is the same as your first claim, which was: "There are four passages in the Quran that at anti-gay. There is only one in the Bible."

Dude, few, if only one, of your passages called for actual death towards gay people.

I also notice I tell you something and you ignore it if it disproves you.

The Quran is the word of god, to Muslims. It is written in the first person almost completely. The Bible is entirely not. So the Quran will generate actual violence among Muslims who want to please Allah.

Muslims are actually right now, this very day, hanging people in the street for being gay. How you can ignore that is mind-boggling.

And the Bible is not interpreted literally among the mass of Christians. Google is your friend. Look it up. I am not doing your homework for you.

 

[bikerdruid]

Biker Druid, you are a intersting guy. How do you get from the word "blind" a definition that "something is not real"?

What you are saying really is you define "blind" as being something that is not real to you. You choose to ignore something and admit somethig exists, then if someone is against it, you label them as having blind hatred.

I have had two close loved ones die of cancer. If you have never been impacted by cancer, my hatred towards cancer would be labeled by you as "blind hatred".

No, man, that is not what "blind hatred" means. It means a hatred where someone has not been impacted by something and it means someone has not studied the issue at hand. Both has happened to me. I do not qualify as having blind hatred.

nope.
your hatred is blind, because it is based on extremely biased sources.
your hatred for all things islam, except your friend, of course, is unbalanced.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your admission that you are too lazy to look up facts is not a logical retort.

[qimg]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Athono/moan.png[/qimg]

To whom are you replying?

No one said, "All Christians take the Bible literally". But you did say, "All the leaders of each Christian sects insist that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally", and, "Yes, all of them. I have heard this from a number of sources and from even a number of ministers". Notice that I used quotation mark because those are your actual words. Your above statements are so easily demonstrated to be false that I have difficulty imagining how you came to make them. I gave you a link regarding The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy attended and ratified by over two hundred evangelical Christian leaders. As for you presenting the fact that there are Christians who don't insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are countering an argument that no one has made.

 

[Foster Zygote]

...i will say my real name on here soon.

Tell me it's not "Jesus".

 

[Bill Thompson]

nope.
your hatred is blind, because it is based on extremely biased sources.
your hatred for all things islam, except your friend, of course, is unbalanced.

It is not.

We have already been over that and I have shown it is not biased at all.

I have listed my sources and they are not biased.

I asked you to tell me what you mean and you fail to tell me who is biased and why.

Wait. This is getting really good now. Do you know what "biased" means? What do you think "biased sources" are?

 

[bikerdruid]

It is not.

We have already been over that and I have shown it is not biased at all.

I have listed my sources and they are not biased.

I asked you to tell me what you mean and you fail to tell me who is biased and why.

Wait. This is getting really good now. Do you know what "biased" means? What do you think "biased sources" are?

as i already pointed out to you, but you ignored.....
an apostate is, by definition, biased.
your sources are, therefore, by definition, biased.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So. Let's review. You call me a bigot and a hateful person. I ask you whom you think I am bigoted towards. You do not answer. You avoid the question. I ask you whom you think I hate. You do not answer. You avoid the question.

Then you ridicule me personally. Nice. You imply that I am lying or not presenting the truth in some way. I ask you to man up and show me. Show me what I said was a lie. Then you don't. It seems you cannot.

All this goes on while I am keeping score of all the wrong and thoughtless things that you have made. First I count four, and then it eventually grows past ten.

So then you invent a new approach. You never apologize for all the horrible things you wrote, you just move on. Your new approach is that you claim I am presenting "blind hate". Then we find out you really don't know what that means.

So you try a different angle. Now you are saying that my sources are biased.

But then we find out that you really don't know what that means either.

If someone WANTS to be a Muslim, if someone’s intention is to embrace Islam because they were raised that way and all their friends are Muslim, but they find out that they cannot believe in Islam for logical reason, their views are not biased.

I am reminded of the Mormon researcher at BYU who found out that because of DNA, the Native Americans could have not been Hebrew. The LDS Church had to find a way to brush this aside. They tried their "anti-Mormon" smear on this faithful Mormon. It is pretty pathetic.

Calling people who speak out against Islam as being biased is equally pathetic.

 

[RandFan]

I am reminded of the Mormon researcher at BYU who found out that because of DNA, the Native Americans could have not been Hebrew. The LDS Church had to find a way to brush this aside. They tried their "anti-Mormon" smear on this faithful Mormon. It is pretty pathetic.

How do you brush aside the paucity of evidence for the exodus, Abraham, Issac, Moses? The lack of evidence for a resurrection or miracles?

 

[A'isha]

I am reminded of the Mormon researcher at BYU who found out that because of DNA, the Native Americans could have not been Hebrew.

He probably means Simon Southerton, who was a former-Mormon researcher in Australia (not BYU). He wrote a book in 2004 entitled Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, which is about how the DNA evidence contradicts the claims in the Book of Mormon.

I speculate that it's Southerton who Bill is referring to, since after the publication of his book, the LA Times published a major article about DNA evidence and Mormonism.

The LDS Church had to find a way to brush this aside. They tried their "anti-Mormon" smear on this faithful Mormon.

Southerton actually left the church voluntarily in 1998, long before he wrote and published his book. He was officially excommunicated in 2005. The LDS church said it was over an adulterous affair that Southerton doesn't deny, but Southerton says the adultery charge was basically an excuse to excommunicate him over his book while avoiding talking about it.

Another scientist who spoke about how scientific evidence contradicted the Book of Mormon as well as the issue of racism in the LDS scriptures, Thomas Murphy (this time a practicing Mormon) was apparently threatened with excommunication if he didn't recant, though the proceedings were dropped without Murphy backing down from his position at all. See Item 8 at this page.

As for the response of the actual BYU scientific community, you can read this collection of essays hosted at the BYU's Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

Needless to say, the issue of Mormon scientists (even BYU scientists) regarding DNA evidence vs. their religious beliefs isn't nearly as black and white as Bill would have everyone believe.

 

[A'isha]

Your admission that you are too lazy to look up facts is not a logical retort.

[qimg]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Athono/moan.png[/qimg]

Someone tell Bill that all those Christians who do interpret the Bible literally were pretty upset with the Pope for saying that, noting "It’s a direct attack on all who believe the inerrancy of the literal Scriptures as inspired by God!" (Italics for emphasis in the original!)

(Bonus: that article also states that there is no such thing as "interpretation" of the Bible by believers, that "the Bible interprets itself", and that the Bible itself speaks against any "symbolic and spiritual interpretation" of it.

You know, the thing he claims that Muslims believe about the Qur'an, but that Christians don't believe about the Bible.