For StephenC

One thing that REALLY bothers me is where Muhammad said that if a person embraces Islam and then turns away from it, they should be killed!

Is this some kind of Arabic mafia?

If Islam is so good, then why not let a person exercise free will?

Andulas:

"This is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. I knew I could count on you, and you did not let me down!"

I continue to hope that you will add to the discussion in an honest fashion.  You continually disappoint me, but I retain hope.....

Let us do this to keep the discussion civil and adult.

One of us asks a question or makes a statement.  The other rebuts the question or statement.  The first one then rebuts the rebutal, and finally the second party gives a final comment.  Afterwards the discussion moves to the next statement or question.  No insults.  No tangients.  Just honest discussion.

Fair enough?  Would you like to start or do you want me to go first?

StephenC wrote: Andalus wrote: StephenC wrote: Andalus wrote: StephenC wrote: Andulas: "How many times must I come here and find the questions of a ranting idiot?" Why must you engage in childish name calling behavior?  No one that I know of is forcing you to read or respond to my questions that have remained unanswered with logic and reason. Where is the Peace of Muhammad in your responses?  Does the Qu'ran advocate such hostility? The real question is, why must you engage in childish antics? I did not call you a name. Why do you insist on avoiding the problems in your questions and the reasoning in them? So far, I have yet to find a single, worthy contribution by you. That is a fact. By the way calling you out on your dishonest games is not unpeacful. Nice try. So is "ranting idiot" not name calling or did someone impersonate you? I wish you would spend this much effort in justifying your claims. If the shoe fits, then by all means where it. The label was toward the manner of questioning.   Be honest if you can.  You are a representative of Islam.  How can one trust Islam if its followers are not truthful? The issue is not my honesty. The issue is your intellectual dishonesty.  How is my asking questions (and your refusal to answer them) "intellectual dishonesty?"

This is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. I knew I could count on you, and you did not let me down!

No one has stated such a proposition. This is called a "strawman". Another misdirection from you.

You claim that Muhammad is a prophet from God and the Qu'ran (which allegedly was given by a "voice") is revelations from God. All I ask is for some proof to seperate Muhammad from other claimed prophets (like Joseph Smith, Jim Bakker, Clara Prophet, David Kresh, etc).

Actually, your demands for evidence have been completely unreasonable. Not even your own beliefs would stand up to such an ingorant demand for "proof". Not even Newton's Laws.

As for more of your "intellectual dishonesty", add in Moses and Jesus and Abraham and Noah to your list of people who claimed to be  Prophets, along with Jim Baker. Your exclusion, without argument/proof of the men you believe as prophets is "supposition" until you can argue this claim.

Apparently, the "intellectual dishonesty" is on your part in that you refuse to admit that Islam is another "blind faith" religion and there is no proof of the claims.

You have not proven that it is a religion of blind faith, or that it requires blind faith as does your belief that Moses was a prophet.

Given your nature of jumping from topic to topic and making assertion after assertion, and demanding that we accept the endless conjecture you put off as fact, I want to first establish the nature of your attempt at criticism. You are extremely confused about the nature of evidence and the nature of an inquiry. You have molested all bounds of "reasonable" evidence and proof.

It is not a matter of my refusal, it is a matter of you being "reasonable" in the attempt of an inquiry. So far you have been inept.

(in case you confuse this with a childish insult)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

inept One entry found for inept. < name=entry =/cgi-bin/dictionary method=post> < = value=inept name=hdwd>< = value=inept name=listword>< = value=Dictionary name=book> Main Entry: in�ept Pronunciation: i-'nept Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French inepte, from Latin ineptus, from in- + aptus apt 1 : lacking in fitness or aptitude : UNFIT <inept at sports> 2 : lacking sense or reason : FOOLISH 3 : not suitable to the time, place, or occasion : inappropriate often to an absurd degree <an inept metaphor>

My suspicions were confirmed during the discussion about the Kaaba.  The imperfections in the sizes of the sides are really not very significant, yet you refuse to accept this established fact!

Your suspicions, as everything else you bring to the table, are based upon your inabilty to draw proper conclusions.

I never denied that Ka'aba was not perfectly built.

So whatever suspicions you may have, they are based upon your inability to draw conclusions.

Why?  Is your faith so weak that you can not view it from an unbiased basis for fear that if you acknowledge the flaws you will lose your faith?

I have no worries about my religion. As I said, your above observation is "false".

Keep in mind that you are the only one here who has obfusctaed your own beliefs from the very beginning. I converted to Islam, after studying it, with the removal of presumptions.

My observations have been about your unreasonable stance that you have placed before us from the very beginning, a stance that would place doubt on Newton's Laws, or the postulates of Quantum Mechanics, or even completely dismiss your bible along with your current beliefs you derive from it.

Your faulted position as been obvious to everyone here. It is not about our religion, it is about your erroneous position.

Nothing of man is perfect.  God is perfection. To claim otherwise, in my humble opinion, is blasphemy against God!

I agree.  

Andulas

"I am sorry if my observations are disturbing to you. They should be. I would be disturbed if I had to play such a dishonest game of rhetoric.

1) The voice cannot be proven, given that it cannot be measured or recorded. So your demand for evidence is out of ignorance. Reasonable historical criticism does not demand or require such an unreasonable notion for proof.

2) I know it was Gabriel due to "confidence". Just as I have "confidence" in many of the major explanations and theories of mainstream secular history.

3) Provide "evidence" of the exodus as told in the bible? Where is the trash and ruins of the many thousands of Hebrews wondering around for 40 years? My request for evidence is completely reasonable, yet you cannot provide me with any evidence with respect to the bible, which you take as your proof for Moses as a prophet. Yet you want something completely unreasonable, even according to modern, historical criticism. "

Your observations do not disturb me.  Even your childish name calling does not bother me.  It disappoints me that you have to resort to such measures when honest discussion would be better.

Andulas:

"1) The voice cannot be proven, given that it cannot be measured or recorded. So your demand for evidence is out of ignorance. Reasonable historical criticism does not demand or require such an unreasonable notion for proof."

Finally, an honest response.  Thank you for admitting that the voice cannot be proven.  Was that so hard?  Did the pillars of Islam fall?  No.  However, asking for evidence (or the admission that it is a "blind faith" issue) is not out of ignorance but something everyone who is considering any religion, should ask.

Andulas:

"2) I know it was Gabriel due to "confidence". Just as I have "confidence" in many of the major explanations and theories of mainstream secular history."

What is the difference between "confidence" and "blind faith?" 

Andulas:

"3) Provide "evidence" of the exodus as told in the bible? Where is the trash and ruins of the many thousands of Hebrews wondering around for 40 years? My request for evidence is completely reasonable, yet you cannot provide me with any evidence with respect to the bible, which you take as your proof for Moses as a prophet. Yet you want something completely unreasonable, even according to modern, historical criticism. "

I have admitted that my acceptance of Moses as a prophet is based upon the fact that the THREE major mono-God religions accept it and there is (to the best of my knowledge) no one disputing it.  Not even pagan religions (to the best of my knowledge) deny this "fact."

However, TWO THIRDS of the major mono-God religions DENY that Muhammad was a prophet from God.  Remember when I suggested (in humor) that we take a world wide vote?

If you asked three people about how good a certain movie was, and all three said it was "great," would you tend to think it was a good movie?  And if two of the three claimed that another movie was bad, which movie would you most likely go see?

At least I, am inquiring more about the unpopular movie (like the plot, the actors, etc) so that I can make a better decision - and you critize me for it?