Slashdot Mirror

Islam is a religion of oppression and hate. We can all sit in a happy circle and sing kumbaya wishing for peace, but that is a fantasy. The stated goal of Islam is to convert the entire world, by the sword if necessary.
I agree with the above statement, but try to back it up with evidence from koran such as:

What do you think about Koran 04:34, which instructs men to beat their disobediant wives and koran 09:29, which orders believers to fight non-believers until they pay tribute tax called jizya and feel themselves subdued: Koran 09:29 rejects Brown vs Board of Education and the decision of Thurgood Marshall and the concept of equal rights for all.
By accepting Koran and Koran 09:29, you are rejecting Brown vs Board of Education and the decision of Thurgood Marshall. Both Koran 09:29 AND Brown vs Board of Education cannot be SIMULTANEOUSLY TRUE.
I challenge you to answered my post at http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t= 8784
(This is from your idol quran ):
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html..00 9.029
009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Thougt Control quran style:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html..00 4.1442">
Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves ? http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html..00 3.0282">
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. QUESTION:would muslims accept to check a box in their income tax form and pay an extra $5000/yr and feel themselves subdued. if they are muslim? This is what koran (09/29) instructs them to do to others. QUESTION:WHAT WOULD MUSLIMS SAY IF THE BOOK OF ANOTHER RELIGION REVEALED TO THEIR PROFIT Mickey Mouse BY THEIR F FICTITIOUS SUPREME FASCIST Minnie Mouse SAYS: Fight those who believe not in Minnie Mouse nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Minnie Mouse and Her Messenger Mickey Mouse, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) muslim, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?i dx=516
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=362
Short Article to the heart of the subject by a former muslim: Can Islam, Koran and Muhammad Command Unqualified Respect from the Westerners? http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/MAKhan60207.htm
http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/islamandu nbelievers.htm
http://www.geocities.com/humandecency
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submissio

This interview and Atheist Richard Carrier's article explains that the world famous now former atheist Antony Flew believes in a non-interfering creator. Creator may be too strong of a word for him. First cause might be better. His god is a minimal god, but it is the complexity of life, especially DNA, that caused him to acknowledge that science can not explain the origins of life. But here is a someone, a famous atheist, that is now convinced that there is some Intellegent Design.

Taken from The Secular Web

My review of this book is irrelevent. I could sooner review Newton's Principia Mathematica or the Book of the Subgenius. My point being, this is a book that should be read by everyone, if not for enjoyment then for cultural reference; moreover, anything I have to say about it would neither add to or detract from the book, and would only make me look like an ass (the braying kind). --Hoopy Frood (06/06/2001)

All I can say is, read the articles.

Actually, I'll do you one better. I'll quote from the most recent one on infidels.org.

"Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell."

If I were lying, it would of course be knowingly, because there is no other way to lie. But to the best of my understanding, I'm neither lying nor wrong. Would you care to further explain?

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

Anthony Flew is still an atheist.

I trust you will amend your .signature, after all, we wouldn't want to Bear False Witness would we?

This Anthony Flew thing has evolved into a new creationist meme.
Here's an article about what he actually has said:
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

One quote from the page:
"In fact, he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next year. He hasn't completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the evidence and thinking things over. Anything he says now, could change tomorrow."

Flew also admits he hasn' really kept up on the latest research: "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

Of the two options you mention, Special Creation usually connotes the first (intervening), whereas Theistic Evolution connotes the second (fine-tuning in creation). Intelligent Design, in the strict use of the term, does not necessarily make any claims about origins, but rather studies intelligent action as the best explanation for different kinds of order.

Generally, Christians working in the natural sciences are mostly commonly Theistic Evolutionists, then IDers (long ages), and only very occassionally into Young-Earth Creation (YEC), in which case they will belong to an organization like Answers in Genesis. The first two perform meaningful research IMHO, whereas AIG spends most of its time promoting YEC in churches as the only possible option for Christians.

Something like the Anthropic Principle is consistent with either ID or Theistic Evolution, as is Antony Flew's recent adoption of some kind of Aristotelian Deism (not Theism but no longer strictly Atheism, even by Flew's usual agnostic definition) which appears to have been motivated by ID concerns (requiring intelligence as an information source for DNA). See the following interview:

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

Of particular interest is the bold claim at the end that Ayer and Russell would have agreed with him had they lived as long. As Richard Carrier summarizes at SecWeb:

...he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover."

Source: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Flew is not, of course, a scientist, a point Carrier makes several times, and his views should be understood rather as those of a (respected) philosopher.

About Mother Theresa's integrity and morale, see e.g. this or this...

Not that much karma to lose, anyhow! :-)

Their audits are a little different, they're after atheists and homosexuals. I think I prefer the Business Software Alliance.