Islam, the unexploded bomb

[nPeace]

In my experience, it's really hard to convey humor in discussions like this. The only approach that seems relatively safe is self-deprecating humor. Sadly, these forum discussions are rife with ad hominem attacks, so given that no one here is on par with Andy Borowitz attempts at non-self-deprecating humor usually fall flat. In my experience.



I usually frame questions like this by thinking of statistical Bell curve distributions. If that's not clear, I can elaborate. Assuming for now that I can use statistical framing, I would say that in the US, the number of christians who do not believe in evolution is significant. Put another way, they are not statistical outliers.

Given that, how is an atheist like me supposed to know that you @nPeace - an individual - have the "correct" view on christianity and that the large group of non-evolutionists have it "wrong"?

Of course it's true that christianity is not monolithic and there are many variations on a theme. But that defense does not stand up to statistics. A statistically significant number of christians have not only believed, but BEHAVED in support of:

- banning condoms in AIDs ridden Africa
- giving cover to widespread pedophilia
- harassing biology teachers
- supporting corporal punishment in schools
- limiting educational opportunities for women in developing countries
- supporting population explosion
- supporting homophobia

And on and on.

If I understand your argument correctly, are you telling me that they've all got it wrong, and you've got it right? Well I can say that if you agree with me that those behaviors above are horrible, then on those points we're in agreement. If I've understood you so far, then it seems to me that you need to label yourself differently. There is probably a denomination of christians who feel as you do and who disagree with the kinds of bad behaviors I listed above.

But icehorse, you can't pick and choose what to deem to be Christian, based on what you believe. Christianity is not determined to be good or bad, based on whether they believe in evolution or not, or whether they believe a man should marry his dog, or cat, or horse, or whatever.
That's not what this is about, is it?

I agree people have a right to disagree with, and hate what they consider to be bad, and I agree that adherents of religions all over the world has done bad things, that give people reason to question its integrity.
However, I also believe in fairness.
We don't blame a government, police, medical, educational institute for the immoral practices carried out by its staff members. So should the same standard not be applied, when looking at Religion and their holy book(s)?

You started off by saying this:

What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.

So I thought you were saying that these book were responsible for wrong conduct of people, past and present.
Then you also said:

I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said.
I try to take people at their word.
I tend to be concerned only with trends.

I'm arguing that it's not fair to blame the book for behavior of people that clearly go contrary to the book - no matter the claims they make. The only way to determine if their claims are true, is to know the true message about the books, and in so doing, one can see for themselves if the message is a good one, rather than judging it based on the actions of frauds.

Now though, there seems to be a bigger picture I am seeing. The impression I am getting - correct me if I am wrong - you seem to think that because some don't accept evolution, then that's a valid reason to blame their holy book, and view their holy book as wrong. ...and perhaps that may be the driving force behind other complaints.

That is a personal view, as is seen by your last comment.

I know that we're stuck with religion. Sad, but true.

So right there I think that's an admittance that you wish religion would disappear, or did not exist.
Nothing is wrong with having a personal view against something, as long as our arguments are reasonable, and free from a closed minded, and biased opinion.

A lot of people worry about Islamic terrorism. While It think it's cause for concern, it's not high on my list. When it comes to Islam, my primary concern is that - as an ideology - its core tenets run counter to modern secular society. And the number of Muslims who believe in Islam's theocratic approach to running society is - again - statistically significant. It's probably more than half of the world's Muslims.

You'll have to take that up with Muslims, but I am sure there are some Muslims that are concerned about Islamic terrorism, and would be saddened to hear that one of their Christian friends, were executed by them.
I'm sure you wouldn't be happy to hear news that one of your friends died in an attack by radicals.

As for my claim concerning christianity fighting against the teaching of critical thinking, I will try again:

ID and "creation science" are NOT science topics. They are religious topics masquerading as science topics. All of those christians (a statistically significant number), who work to have ID and CS taught along side biology are acting in direct opposition to honesty and logic. And their goal is to undermine honesty and logic by teaching children that ID and CS are science. These beliefs are religious, not scientific. Can you see how these ID and CS promoting activities are in opposition to critical thinking?

I know that we're stuck with religion. Sad, but true. But we do not have to allow the religious to get away with conflating their religious ideas with science.

Thanks for explaining. I think I understand.
How about getting on the other side of the table, and viewing it from the Christians perspective - an open minded approach.

Christians go to school, and they are taught evolution, and get this... many believe that evolution theory according to Darwin, is not science. In fact, many believe it's philosophy that is masqueraded as science - basically, a religion.
Do you see the picture, now that you are looking from the other end?
Some close their eyes when they go over to the other end, but since you say you are honest, I take your word... that won't be you.

So here is how I see it. Youth go to school, and are taught evolution even though they don't believe it. Others who don't believe, one way or another, are taught it. Both however, are still allowed to use their critical thinking.
They use critical thinking to determine what seems logical, and makes sense.
Many persons, have been exposed to both the creation view, and the evolution view.
Some conclude that creation makes more sense, others conclude that evolution makes more sense. Still others conclude that both make sense.
That to me, is critical thinking.

When one wants to just push one, and declare that it is unequivocally a fact, while restricting, in fact dismissing anything against it, that seems to a stifling of critical thinking.
It's more like an attempt at brain washing, in my opinion.

 

[icehorse]

But icehorse, you can't pick and choose what to deem to be Christian, based on what you believe.

I'm not picking or choosing anything. I'm taking the religious at their word. For example the young earth creationists (YECs), proactively volunteer the idea that the earth is 6000 years old because of their analysis of the bible. This is their claim, that the rest of us are having to deal with. I'm not doing any labeling here, I'm taking them at their word. Are you? Or are you second guessing them and declaring that you know the "true" christianity and they don't?

The only way to determine if their claims are true, is to know the true message about the books, and in so doing, one can see for themselves if the message is a good one, rather than judging it based on the actions of frauds.

How do you know that you know the "true message"? It's you against hundreds of thousands or millions. It's quite an extraordinary claim for you to say that you know the true message and that the YECs or the IDers got it wrong.

Christians go to school, and they are taught evolution, and get this... many believe that evolution theory according to Darwin, is not science.

No one gets to redefine words. If they think Darwin isn't science, they don't understand the word science. They can use a different word for their theories, but Darwinian theory is science and ID is not. That said, science is not perfect. But science is science.

If the IDers wanted to claim that ID is somehow "better" than Darwin, they are free to do that. But what they cannot do honestly is to claim that ID or YEC or CS is science.

 

[nPeace]

This is a good place to go from.

I'm not picking or choosing anything. I'm taking the religious at their word. For example the young earth creationists (YECs), proactively volunteer the idea that the earth is 6000 years old because of their analysis of the bible. This is their claim, that the rest of us are having to deal with. I'm not doing any labeling here, I'm taking them at their word. Are you? Or are you second guessing them and declaring that you know the "true" christianity and they don't?

How do you know that you know the "true message"? It's you against hundreds of thousands or millions. It's quite an extraordinary claim for you to say that you know the true message and that the YECs or the IDers got it wrong.

You take YECs at their word.
I would think you should also take OECs at their word.
This would be called fairness.

So now, would you say the book is responsible for what the YECs teach, or what the OECs teach?
How do you know?

No one gets to redefine words. If they think Darwin isn't science, they don't understand the word science. They can use a different word for their theories, but Darwinian theory is science and ID is not. That said, science is not perfect. But science is science.

If the IDers wanted to claim that ID is somehow "better" than Darwin, they are free to do that. But what they cannot do honestly is to claim that ID or YEC or CS is science.

Well I guess that debate will continue, but you said it, science is certainly science, and nothing is perfect - including science.

You didn't say if you agreed or disagreed that critical thinking would not be stifled by having two different ideas taught, where young ones can then reason on the issues, and come to an informed conclusion.
In fact, that's what critical thinking involves, doesn't it?
critical thinking
noun

1. the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

 

[icehorse]

You take YECs at their word.
I would think you should also take OECs at their word.
This would be called fairness.

when I say "take them at their word", that doesn't mean I agree, it means I trust that they're honestly conveying what they think is true. So yes, when a religious person says "I believe X is true because that's what my religion teaches me",I will take it face value that that's what that person believes.

You didn't say if you agreed or disagreed that critical thinking would not be stifled by having two different ideas taught, where young ones can then reason on the issues, and come to an informed conclusion.
In fact, that's what critical thinking involves, doesn't it?

In fact, I think we should teach comparative religion. Children should be exposed to how christians and muslims and jews and hindus and buddhists and so on think about the world.

It would be okay to compare religious thinking to scientific thinking, but we would want to be careful that the two ways of thinking are not equated. Religion is about faith, science is about repeatable, predictable evidence. That doesn't make one better than the other, it simply makes them different.

To me it's a bit like comparing carpentry to plumbing. We wouldn't say one is better, only that they're different.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Imagine that there is an unexploded bomb or mine or some such buried in your back yard. You know you must walk carefully to avoid triggering an explosion, that the bomb might go off by itself, or that the brat next door might chuck a stone over the fence, blowing up your yard.

Most Muslims are good people, but they follow a religion that explicitly calls for the extermination of non-muslims. Fortunately almost everyone is more moral than their religion, so that is rarely a problem.

However, the chance of an explosion is always there. For example when the metaphorical brat throws a cartoon over the metaphorical fence, the result is an explosion of threats, murderous riots and killings.

How can Muslims allay the suspicion of themselves that this situation produces?

Do you ask the same sort of hypotheticals about non Muslim extremists, or only the Muslim ones?

 

[nPeace]

when I say "take them at their word", that doesn't mean I agree, it means I trust that they're honestly conveying what they think is true. So yes, when a religious person says "I believe X is true because that's what my religion teaches me",I will take it face value that that's what that person believes.

Good.
I understand it's not that you agree.
So it is what the religion teaches that impacts the believer then, if they believe it.
Is that what you mean?

In fact, I think we should teach comparative religion. Children should be exposed to how christians and muslims and jews and hindus and buddhists and so on think about the world.

It would be okay to compare religious thinking to scientific thinking, but we would want to be careful that the two ways of thinking are not equated. Religion is about faith, science is about repeatable, predictable evidence. That doesn't make one better than the other, it simply makes them different.

To me it's a bit like comparing carpentry to plumbing. We wouldn't say one is better, only that they're different.

Me personally... I think that certain things should be left to parents to teach their children, and when the child is old enough to make choices, they should be able to choose the subjects they like, which may be in harmony with their goals.

I remember when I was going to school, certain subjects were compulsory - some of them I wish I didn't have to do, and I had to drop certain subjects I really wanted to do, because a limited amount of subjects were allowed.
I didn't like that.

When you leave school, half of those subjects are no use to you.
That's the system.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi paarsurrey,

For the sake of this discussion, I'll grant you that perhaps every time the Quran preaches intolerance towards nonmuslims, there is a specific context. So we could simplify the situation and make a list of those 500+ times the book is intolerant:

nonMuslims are bad in situation #1, nonMuslims are bad in situation #2, nonMuslims are bad in situation #3, nonMuslims are bad in situation #4, nonMuslims are bad in situation #5, nonMuslims are bad in situation #6, nonMuslims are bad in situation #7, nonMuslims are bad in situation #8, nonMuslims are bad in situation #9, nonMuslims are bad in situation #10, nonMuslims are bad in situation #11, ...

nonMuslims are bad in situation #501, nonMuslims are bad in situation #502...

Human children learn how to survive in the world by observing the world and seeing patterns. When a child learns about dangerous things, they learn one experience at a time. A knife can cut me in this situation, a knife can cut me in this other situation, a knife can cut me in yet another situation. Pretty soon the child makes a generalization that "knives can cut me".

This is the problem I'm discussing with the book. Any human who reads the Quran ABSOLUTELY WILL come away with the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims. Human brains WILL make this generalization. That's how human brains work.

It is a HUGE problem that the Quran criticizes nonMuslims over 500 times.

It is not a problem. It is already settled in Quran. One should select ONE,verse and discuss it with the context verses. One by one, we may discuss all the verses, there will be no problem left. Please don't misrepresent Quran.

Regards

 

[England my lionheart]

It is not a problem. It is already settled in Quran. One should select ONE,verse and discuss it with the context verses. One by one, we may discuss all the verses, there will be no problem left. Please don't misrepresent Quran.


Regards

How about a whole sura, an nisa has it all, fighting unbelievers,slavery, booty, it's OK to have sex with your slave right?, what your right hand possesses, the context is all there.

 

[Looncall]

Do you ask the same sort of hypotheticals about non Muslim extremists, or only the Muslim ones?

I'm not aware that other religions so systematically inveigh against outsiders as Islam does.

In any case, I regard all religions as scams. Some are just more noxious than others.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not aware that other religions so systematically inveigh against outsiders as Islam does.

In any case, I regard all religions as scams. Some are just more noxious than others.

I didn't ask about religious extremists, I asked about extremists in general. Is there a reason you answered a question I didn't ask?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry I'm late to reply, just got this...

I'll ask someone to verify though, to be sure.
@Hockeycowboy, could you look at the last paragraph of Post #114, and tell me if icehorse has explained what was meant by "having a negative impact on teaching our children critical thinking skills" exactly, especially the part about "critical thinking skills". Thanks.

Well, @nPeace, I think @icehorse believes he has.... you know, many think that if someone is pro-ID, then they're anti-science. As if that means they lack critical thinking skills. Which couldn't be further from the truth, because there are many modern critically- thinking scientists that are IDers, some that even teach, like Dr. Behe. (You're well aware that I'm on your side of the issue, so maybe I'm not the best one to ask.) To me, "Ex nihilo, nihil fit" is thinking critically.

Here's a video, tho, that deals with the issue of whether ID is science...the whole video is great, but the issue in question starts @ about 15:00 mins. in:

 

[Looncall]

I didn't ask about religious extremists, I asked about extremists in general. Is there a reason you answered a question I didn't ask?

I disapprove of any kind of extremism, if what you mean is unshakeable dogmatism..

I dislike the fundamentalist christian who terrorizes his children with threats of hell just as much as I despise the Muslim who sends his child out with a bomb strapped to his body.

I think there is a lot to be said for the ancient Roman principle of "what a reasonable person of good will would deem to be correct", especially in contrast to wildly variable interpretations of ancient books written by ignorant savages.

 

[icehorse]

It is not a problem. It is already settled in Quran. One should select ONE,verse and discuss it with the context verses. One by one, we may discuss all the verses, there will be no problem left. Please don't misrepresent Quran.

Regards

Hi paarsurrey,

It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole. Sadly, one of those bigger patterns is the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry I'm late to reply, just got this...

Well, @nPeace, I think @icehorse believes he has.... you know, many think that if someone is pro-ID, then they're anti-science. As if that means they lack critical thinking skills. Which couldn't be further from the truth, because there are many modern critically- thinking scientists that are IDers, some that even teach, like Dr. Behe. (You're well aware that I'm on your side of the issue, so maybe I'm not the best one to ask.) To me, "Ex nihilo, nihil fit" is thinking critically.

Here's a video, tho, that deals with the issue of whether ID is science...the whole video is great, but the issue in question starts @ about 15:00 mins. in:

Thanks bro, and thanks for the information.
I would prefer anytime to ask a person I am sure would give an honest answer.

Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Hi paarsurrey,

It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole. Sadly, one of those bigger patterns is the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims.

First, let me say icehorse, I appreciated the discussion we had, since we were able to keep to the topic, and narrow it down to almost a conclusion.
I would have liked it if we had reached a conclusion, but I feel we could still do so even though I find there is a bit of inconsistency in your argument.
Let me just explain.

Take your statements here.

It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole. Sadly, one of those bigger patterns is the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims.

This sounds like what I was explaining to you.

It seems to me that one who is interested in how these books impacts people today would want to first be familiar with the message of the Bible, and not just what the spokesperson(s) of the religion dictates.

However, what you said above is inconsistent with... sorry to have to repeat it again, but it's important I do so.

I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said.
I try to take people at their word.
I tend to be concerned only with trends.

Also please refer back to your post here.

That's conflicting, don't you think?
Now here you have paarsurrey, a spokesman for the Quran, but to me, you do not seem to be taking his word for it. In fact you constantly challenge his word and others, and instead resort to the books, and what you believe to be the message.

So here is what I can only conclude.
Going with what you say here...

It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole.

To your claims here...

While I'm sure such people exist, in my experience many of us critics can easily point out massive flaws in popular scripture. And when we do point out the flaws, apologists defenses usually seem very weak to me.

I apply your statements made above.

As an answer to what you said in response to my statements:
Is the Bible to blame for the inquisitions, the rapes and sodomizing of young girls and boys, the tortures, the drugs and guns trade, the terrorist attacks, the civil and world wars, the genocides, the pollution of the planet...?

...where you responded with this: "Sadly, to a large degree, I'd say yes it is."

...and later with...
"What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today."

I conclude that such claims are inaccurate, since the overall message of the Bible (which one who has not read the entire bible, but have only read large chunks of it, cannot know) is a very good one, then it had a good impact on those who follow its message, both in the past, and present.
There is much evidence of this.

Those who have not followed its message are the ones whom it has not impacted, but instead they have followed their own ideas - the less extreme, as well as the extreme.
These are the actions you are criticizing, for which the Bible is not to be blamed.

Thank you.

 

[icehorse]

I conclude that such claims are inaccurate, since the overall message of the Bible (which one who has not read the entire bible, but have only read large chunks of it, cannot know) is a very good one, then it had a good impact on those who follow its message, both in the past, and present.
There is much evidence of this.

I'm going to try to summarize a bit here. My intention is NOT to dodge any of your questions or points, so if you feel my summary has missed any key points, let me know.

1 - There is no doubt that *sometimes* scripture has a positive effect on a person's life. If the bible has helped you and the quran has helped @paarsurrey, I'm happy for you both.

2 - In these discussions, I'm usually not interested in individual anecdotes. They can be useful on occasion, but in general I think they add more confusion than clarity - at least for my goals.

3 - I'm interested in the bigger picture. I'm interested in questions like "is religion now doing more harm than good?", does the quran convey a message of intolerance towards nonmuslims?", and so on. All of these discussion can occur only from the perspective of statistics. Attempts to discuss them on an individual basis are inconsistent with "big picture" discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing individual situations, but they're usually not appropriate in "big picture" discussions.

4 - There is overwhelming historical evidence that a small percentage of people can cause immense change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

For example, depending on what polls you study, somewhere between 30 to 70% of the world's muslims want sharia to be a part of the law of the land. Even if it's only 30%, that represents a huge threat to secular society. And if you're worried about minority groups like muslims living in the west, remember that a secular society makes them safer than any other political system.

Another example is the one I've mentioned earlier, the example of christian activists harassing biology teachers. I would bet a lot of money that these harassers represent only a small percentage of christians in the U.S., but this small percentage is doing real damage to our country.

5 - As far as analysis of the quran goes, again I'm relying on cognitive science and statistics.

6 - As far as relying on church representatives, they are... representatives. When the vatican issues a proclamation they are representing a statistically important group of their constituents. So again, when we discuss the proclamations of representatives, we are discussing statistical claims, not individual anecdotes.

==

I don't expect you to agree with me on these points, but I wonder if I've cleared up any inconsistencies you think you saw in my previous posts?

 

[nPeace]

I'm going to try to summarize a bit here. My intention is NOT to dodge any of your questions or points, so if you feel my summary has missed any key points, let me know.

1 - There is no doubt that *sometimes* scripture has a positive effect on a person's life. If the bible has helped you and the quran has helped @paarsurrey, I'm happy for you both.

2 - In these discussions, I'm usually not interested in individual anecdotes. They can be useful on occasion, but in general I think they add more confusion than clarity - at least for my goals.

3 - I'm interested in the bigger picture. I'm interested in questions like "is religion now doing more harm than good?", does the quran convey a message of intolerance towards nonmuslims?", and so on. All of these discussion can occur only from the perspective of statistics. Attempts to discuss them on an individual basis are inconsistent with "big picture" discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing individual situations, but they're usually not appropriate in "big picture" discussions.

4 - There is overwhelming historical evidence that a small percentage of people can cause immense change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

For example, depending on what polls you study, somewhere between 30 to 70% of the world's muslims want sharia to be a part of the law of the land. Even if it's only 30%, that represents a huge threat to secular society. And if you're worried about minority groups like muslims living in the west, remember that a secular society makes them safer than any other political system.

Another example is the one I've mentioned earlier, the example of christian activists harassing biology teachers. I would bet a lot of money that these harassers represent only a small percentage of christians in the U.S., but this small percentage is doing real damage to our country.

5 - As far as analysis of the quran goes, again I'm relying on cognitive science and statistics.

6 - As far as relying on church representatives, they are... representatives. When the vatican issues a proclamation they are representing a statistically important group of their constituents. So again, when we discuss the proclamations of representatives, we are discussing statistical claims, not individual anecdotes.

==

I don't expect you to agree with me on these points, but I wonder if I've cleared up any inconsistencies you think you saw in my previous posts?

Thank you. Actually it seems to me you have now made your argument more unclear, with #3 especially.
Maybe if you make yourself clear on what you are really interested in, then that would help.

1.

1 - There is no doubt that *sometimes* scripture has a positive effect on a person's life.

How do you work out that sometimes scripture has a positive effect on a person's life? Are you looking at particular verses, or the overall message?
If the overall message is what is being considered, how can that message sometimes impact positively, and sometimes impact negatively?
...keeping in mind that...

2 - In these discussions, I'm usually not interested in individual anecdotes.

...and...

It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole.

2.

3 - I'm interested in the bigger picture. I'm interested in questions like "is religion now doing more harm than good?"

So now, which is it?
a. what official spokesmen for the church (keep in mind that there is no one spokesman for all churches/religion) said (their actions and beliefs)
b. the bigger patterns - the message - in the book as a whole (how it impacts its followers)
c. the bigger picture - is religion (is that all religion which use different books and ideologies?) now doing more harm than good
d. None of the above (Please make it as clear as possible in very brief expression)

 

[icehorse]

It's not a single, multiple choice question. I can't tell if you're having me on or not, again, attempts at humor in such an online conversation are fraught with misunderstandings. So I'm going to proceed assuming you're operating on good faith.

There are several ideas in the conversational mix at the moment, I don't think of them as a single idea, I think of them as separate, but related ideas. Your attempts to reduce this to a single multiple choice question have nothing to do with any arguments I'm making.

 

[nPeace]

It's not a single, multiple choice question. I can't tell if you're having me on or not, again, attempts at humor in such an online conversation are fraught with misunderstandings. So I'm going to proceed assuming you're operating on good faith.

There are several ideas in the conversational mix at the moment, I don't think of them as a single idea, I think of them as separate, but related ideas. Your attempts to reduce this to a single multiple choice question have nothing to do with any arguments I'm making.

I'm being 100% sincere.
Thanks for having a positive attitude.
I am merely trying to understand you clearly.
I am having a hard time doing so, because your statements are neither consistent, or coherent.

So instead of continuing that route, I'll try another.

There are thousands of religions, with thousands of different beliefs, from a number of different books, and ideologies.

If you want to know if the "holy" books have a positive or negative impact on those who follow them, you cannot put them all in the same box, along with all the religions, to reach your conclusion.

I'll refer to the Bible, since that's what I use.
If you want to know if the Bible's message has a positive or negative impact on those who follow it, you must first be familiar with the Bible's message - which I concluded you aren't, then you must look at those who are following the message, and see if they actions are in harmony with that message.
To do otherwise defeats the objective - which is, to find out if the Bible's message has a positive or negative impact on those who follow it.

To reach your objective...
You cannot look at the conduct of the masses of religious worshipers in order to determine if the message in the book is good, or bad, and has a positive impact or not. You yourself admitted this, I think.

It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole. Sadly, one of those bigger patterns is the message that Muslims should be intolerant of non-Muslims.

Besides that, all the ideas/beliefs have not been taken from the Bible.

You cannot judge the book on the actions of those who claim to be spokesmen for the book, because they may not be using the book, as some of those spokesmen in many cases are what you refer to as outliers, and the levels of extremism vary.
They are also those I referred to as frauds. The Bible calls them apostates.

The same applies for the Quran, and any other book.
You can't judge the actions of a Muslim, and Christian from the same book, because they are not guided by the same book.

Does this help?

 

[icehorse]

Does this help?

It helps in so far as it's clear that there are many miscommunications between us at this point. Overall, you should know that you are not understanding my points. No need to place blame, it's just that so far we're not understanding each other.

So I want to start with one idea and grow from that idea, okay?

Recently a large, worldwide poll was conducted, concerning what Muslims believe. The results of this poll were that overall, of the 40,000 or so Muslims polled - from many countries - something like 50% of those Muslims would like to see Sharia be a part of the legal system where they live.

This is an example of the sort of statistical claim I've been making. A person doesn't need to have any knowledge of any Islamic scripture to determine that 50% of Muslims want to live in at least a partially theocratic country. Does this much make sense?

Would you agree that as far as this poll is concerned, no knowledge of scripture and no knowledge of what individual Muslims think is necessary to come to this "50% want Sharia" conclusion. Agreed?