For StephenC

StephenC wrote: Quote: We all should know the paganistic history of the site (we can rehash it if someone does not recall it).   "The city of Mecca achieved its major religious significance following the birth and life of the Prophet Muhammed (570-632AD). In 630 Muhammad took control of Mecca and destroyed the 360 pagan idols, with the notable exception of the statues of Mary and Jesus. The idol of Hubal, the largest in Mecca, was a giant stone situated atop the Ka�ba. Following the command of the Prophet, Ali (the cousin of Muhammad) stood on Muhammad�s shoulders, climbed to the top of the Ka�ba and toppled the idol." http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/saudi_arabia/mecca.ht ml Andulas> "More amazing. You have yet to make a point. Will you continue to waste everyone's time with childish dribble or will you make a point?" I am sorry that you find the history of Islam to be "childish dribble."  As a non-muslim, I find it educational to learn the basis of a religion to better understand the beliefs.

and yet another childish, and juvenile deflection. There was only one author of childish dribble, that was you, unless you are now authoring Islamic history texts?

I have provided Islamic information to make my point by giving the reader information from reliable sources.

No one said anything about your sources. Unless you are as illiterate as you are now leading on, one could hardly believe that someone with any education could mistake the direction of my comment. It was clear. Your thinking is not. 

Perhaps you should start with basic reading skills, and then move on to basic logic, before you try your hand at islamic education.

Hope this helps?

In case you really can not understand the point, I will try to make it as simple as possible. My point is: "The source of Muhammad's revelations are unprovable as to whether the "voice" existed or who provided the revelations.

Now you are changing the nature of the thread. Never did you make such a comment.

You are also ignorant as to what evidence is, the nature of proof, and the nature of inquiry. If you did recieve an education, you should reutrn to the institution and demand a refund. Seriously.

Your statement is very giving about your lack of education and lack of training in critical thinking. Your statement was imply "ignorant".

By the way, when will you reply to my request at the beginning of this thread? Face it Stephen, you are a coward. Thats ok.

(finally you did come out and tell us that not only do you believe in one prophet, you believe in many! I am dying to discover the hard, critical, concrete evidence that you have found)

While Muhammad's revelations, regardless of the source, are for the most part good information, but contain inaccuracies and errors.  These inaccuracies and errors could have been intentional by the "voice" to deceive Muhammad, but most likely are the results of the rewriting, editing, translating, and clarifying of the Qu'arn by individuals and committees long after the death of Muhammad.

Poor deranged fellow. You are unable to keep focused for even a thread. You ranted on about the ka'aba, not making any sense, and now you feel the point was about revelation and the nature of prophethood, which you have diluted your extremely sophomoric understanding of proof and evidence. 

Nothing new. Deflect, add in assertions irrelevant to your post that was replied to, and then babble out something incoherent.

In your convoluted sophistry, you have convinced yourself that you are throwing daggers, yet sadly you have only loobed a barrage of helium ballons. Trust me when I say, that no one is fooled. 

Islam is a "blind faith" religion, just like all the other organized religions.  No better, and no worse."

Irrelevant to the topic that was replied to.

Also, proof by assertion, which you continuously push forward, is not proof.

Please put me out of your intellectual misery and pick up a basic book on introductory logic.

Is that simple enough?  If I am wrong, please, please, provide something other than childish name calling to educate me.

Yes you are wrong. Your first post was about a building. And your irrelevant rant was problematic. I pointed it out. Instead of replying with more nonsense, at least pretend that you have read it and reply directly to it. Denial, and the rest of your usual games is getting old.