The brief appearance of Islamic members.

well then you should construct your arguements better, rather than claiming people to be irrational. when you make claims like that, back them up, and have the decency to admit that not all muslims are like that.

the IRA point is valid, as not only were they fighting the uk establishment, they were fighting between protestants and catholics. admittedly the sectarian battles were separate from the issue of sovereignty, but no less relevant, seeing as we are talking about religion inspired violence. the violence continues to this day. look it up.

i mean no offence, and apologise if i have caused any, but it came across as you labelled ALL muslims as extremist and unintellectual, whereas no other religion could be. if you are going to make sweeping statements, that only support your point of view, expect someone to disagree.

i should take a leaf out of my own book, and i can only apologise. my reference to non-believers was about the "militants"...the dawkins' of the world as it were.

i guess i got a bit frustrated at the apparent anti-islam sentiment running through the thread. there have been bad arguements, and statements of blind faith presented as fact from all sides, myself included if i'm honest, and it winds me up.

ok so islam has extremists, and a number of muslims seem very vocal in their dislike/distrust of the west and their "christian" values. however if you look around you, you will see that a growing number in the west, and not just the religious whackos, are vocal in their hatred of all things muslim. it's a vicious circle.

there are underlying root causes here. U.S. foreign policy, i.e. constant meddling in the affairs of a completely different culture, trying to impose their own values using military force, and unwavering support of Israel (the state, which is seperate from judaism, before i get accused of anti-semitism) despite Israel's (and america's for that matter) blatant breaches of several treaties, and international human rights legislation, and the over-reaction (for want of a better word) of the victims of U.S meddling. i know i'm glossing over a lot, like many arab countries human rights records, but, as i make clear at the start of this paragraph, they are for those countries and their people to sort out. not for the U.S. to meddle in...maybe it's staring to sink in though, as they have certainly been less heavy handed during the ongoing arab spring. (one extreme to the other though if you ask me. it's ok to help, just dont try and impose culturally alien values on people.)

the issues are many, and complex.
hatred, from any side, for whatever reason, is abhorrant.

I suggest that what I "come across as" is a function of your own simplistic preconceptions.

As for "irrationality" my view is that ALL theists are irrational, and that Muslims statistically tend to be the most entrenched on that dimension. As one celebrated atheist pointed out, ALL believers in "an after-life" give intellectual succour to those extremists who would devalue this life. Hence, I do not pay lip service to the charade of "respect for irrational beliefs" especially when those beliefs have directly or indirectly adversely affected us all on a daily basis (e.g. by security inconveniences at airports and other venues....the expense of policing or providing global counter measures to terrorist threats....etc). .

firstly i didnt say YOU came across as anything, i said what you SAID came across that way...i was not attacking you personally.

you are entitled to your view, of course you are. are other people not entitled to theirs too though? you labelling someone's belief as "irrational" is just plain disrespectful, and then you wonder why people get upset.

may i point out that modern science is effectively based on faith...albeit with a VERY high probability of being fact, but that's the point...even physics works on probability, and is not 100% provable.

just allow people their faith, whether you agree or not....some day, all we think we know about physics could look irrational, as it has done many times in the past. admittedly it will be replaced by a more accurate theory, but the one we have faith in today could look a little silly, and by extension so will all who placed blind faith in it and proclaimed it true.

and if we allow people their faith, instead of treating them as fools, and trying to impose our values on them, they may be less inclined to resort to the tactics used by a substantial minority.

I suggest you need to do a bit of reading, especially in the philosophy of science, and semantics. And I note the irony of your "democratic stance" which is totally alien to the theocrats you intend to defend.

i am defending no-one. i'm saying don't tar all with the same brush, have respect for others, and don't put all you eggs in one basket.

just because evidence of something appearing in the frequency range where we would expect to find the higgs boson for example, to a sigma 5 level of probability DOES NOT PROVE it's existence, for that we need a little faith. that is all i'm saying, and is largely irrelevant to my main point, which is show some tolerance for other peoples values and cultures. is that really so hard?

sorry, i really don't mean to be so hard on you. it's like the age old adage...

"why can't we all just get along?"

No offence taken.

Dwell on that word "existence" for a while. Its meaning is not axiomatic.The stated "existence" of an entity may be confined to its agreed functionality in a continuous flux of inter-relationships. "Proof" is a layman's term which has no status in ontology.

It is with ideas like this that you might do that reading I suggested .

lol i think too much about a lot of things...that's my problem :p

but i'm not here to argue over the existence of God. i think i've said enough already

As an atheist I can tell you that the concept "God" is co-existent with the concept of "a believer", and that is all that can be said !

as an agnostic, i'm not so sure.

just kidding, trying to be ironic

What do you hold to be true?
I think that you previously claimed that the Quran is the word of Allah.
Who is this Allah?

Allah is the supreme being who is the originator of the universe and life itself and all of creation.

I don't know what Fatihah has said but my understanding was that the Koran was dictated to the Prophet Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. Its claims to be divine are based on the supposed perfection of the writing in Arabic. Apparently the effect of the language is visual as well as auditory. There is a balance and a harmony that would collapse if even the slightest letter were changed.

That's the claim anyway, they also claim that if anyone doubts its divinity they should produce a piece of writing, and, so it is claimed, nobody has. I've yet to meet an expert on Arabic who has read the Koran, and is not a Moslem, so I can't say whether these claims are anything other than that.

Is that ALL that you hold to be true?

Concerning what?

Concerning what is true of the world/universe/creation.
Is this the only thing that you accept on faith (without requiring verification).

I don't accept it on faith. It's based on logicak evidence; thus facts.

Would you mind sharing that logical evidence and those facts?

Sure. Here is a previous response of mine regarding the existence of Allah(God).

A pattern that repeats itself can only originate from intelligence.

Let us further prove the existence of God by proving that unintelligence cannot originate a repeated pattern. To do so, we first have to analyze something that is uninteligent. Let's take the body of a dead person. Now if I ask the dead person to draw me a checkerboard pattern, what will be the result? Nothing. Why? The dead person cannot learn or comprehend what it is being told. In other words, it is unintelligent. As a result of its unintelligence, it cannot create intelligence or use it to create a pattern. Let us look at a new born baby. A baby is an intelligent species. Yet if I ask a new born to draw a repeating pattern with a paint brush, what will be the result. The answer is obvious. Nothing. Here, an intelligent being cannot create a simple drawing. Why? Because as we know, the child lacks the ability to comprehend what they are being told as a new born, thus lacking intelligence and from their lack of intelligence, cannot create a repeating pattern. Thus we see from two tested subjects of unintelligence and even slight intelligence that a pattern that repeats itself cannot be created, thus proving that it can only originate from intelligent design. Therefore, the solar system, water cycle, and other natural phenomenoms within the universe that repeat had to originate from intelligent design, further proving that God is the originator of the universe.

Thus we see that when tested, as provided above, unintelligence fails to create something with intelligence or repeated patterns, thus proving that the universe and life itself originated from God, who is the intelligent designer.

Creation by Chance causes disorder

A pattern that repeats itself as well as organization can only originate from one making a decision. This is also easily proven. Again, we need a test subject. Let's use ourselves. If one wants to draw a human face in a picture, one would first have to decide on which stroke of the brush to use, decide where each feature of the face goes, it's size, dimensions, ,etc. Without doing so, it would not be possible to draw the face. A decision is made first and the drawing is based on the decision and ideas. Now if one does not use their intelligence and make a decision or choice, then that means that a person is acting by chance. So what is the result of drawing a painting using no decision, judgment, or comprehension? Complete disorder. If I throw a bucket of paint on the wall, making no choice as to where the paint aligns on the paper, what are the chances that it will draw a face? Exactly. None. Not only will there be no face, but it will be complete disorder from even looking like a face. In other words, without using intelligence disorder was created. Thus we see that unintelligence and creation by chance creates disorder, thus proving that the order of the stars, planets, and all that exist in the universe did not happen by chance or unintelligence, but intelligent design. Thus proving finally that God is the originator of all creation in the universe. Thus proving finally that God is the originator of all creation in the universe.