Slashdot Mirror

First of all, trying to untie Koran from the Bible doesn't really work cause it contains the same damn stories and same damn people.
Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.
So that "Islam by one hand" is a crock of shit regardless if that one hand is Allah's or Uthman's as you put it.

Second, saying shit like that "Islam is the work of one man. (Not counting nameless scribes, no one ever credits them.)" is basically proof that you don't know jack shit about Islam.
Or you would have known of hadith.
Which is basically an attempt to expand the Koran after the death of its writer - by compiling quotes attributed to him by various sources.
All of which are specifically and strictly credited because... well... some might choose not to believe some sources.

There are many flavors of Islam. Just like with Judaism or Christianity
Painting it with a generalization-brush of "one Islam by one hand", particularly in today's climate of CLEAR AND OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of Shia-Sunni divisions is beyond ignorant or retarded.

Third turd... Just like the Bible which was not written in modern languages it suffers from transcription and translation errors.
Which compound when most of the text is metaphoric in nature - as is the case with all religious texts.
Saying it is consistent requires more than just belief - it requires blind faith.

Fourth... The Bible is plentiful with DIRECT commands to murder anyone from witches and gays to infidels.
And both Koran and Bible, old testament and new give even more reasons for hate and murder of everyone.

Fifth... Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion, cooked up by schizophrenic hermits in a cave, desert or jungle somewhere, edited by lunatics, crooks and child molesters and left "unchanged" for thousands of years.
You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism...

Not that newer religions cooked up by loons and crooks are any better!
Mormonism, Scientology and Moonism are the same kind of shit.
Just with fewer genocides to their name.
So far.

First of all, trying to untie Koran from the Bible doesn't really work cause it contains the same damn stories and same damn people.
Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.
So that "Islam by one hand" is a crock of shit regardless if that one hand is Allah's or Uthman's as you put it.

Second, saying shit like that "Islam is the work of one man. (Not counting nameless scribes, no one ever credits them.)" is basically proof that you don't know jack shit about Islam.
Or you would have known of hadith.
Which is basically an attempt to expand the Koran after the death of its writer - by compiling quotes attributed to him by various sources.
All of which are specifically and strictly credited because... well... some might choose not to believe some sources.

There are many flavors of Islam. Just like with Judaism or Christianity
Painting it with a generalization-brush of "one Islam by one hand", particularly in today's climate of CLEAR AND OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of Shia-Sunni divisions is beyond ignorant or retarded.

Third turd... Just like the Bible which was not written in modern languages it suffers from transcription and translation errors.
Which compound when most of the text is metaphoric in nature - as is the case with all religious texts.
Saying it is consistent requires more than just belief - it requires blind faith.

Fourth... The Bible is plentiful with DIRECT commands to murder anyone from witches and gays to infidels.
And both Koran and Bible, old testament and new give even more reasons for hate and murder of everyone.

Fifth... Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion, cooked up by schizophrenic hermits in a cave, desert or jungle somewhere, edited by lunatics, crooks and child molesters and left "unchanged" for thousands of years.
You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism...

Not that newer religions cooked up by loons and crooks are any better!
Mormonism, Scientology and Moonism are the same kind of shit.
Just with fewer genocides to their name.
So far.

First of all, trying to untie Koran from the Bible doesn't really work cause it contains the same damn stories and same damn people.
Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.
So that "Islam by one hand" is a crock of shit regardless if that one hand is Allah's or Uthman's as you put it.

Second, saying shit like that "Islam is the work of one man. (Not counting nameless scribes, no one ever credits them.)" is basically proof that you don't know jack shit about Islam.
Or you would have known of hadith.
Which is basically an attempt to expand the Koran after the death of its writer - by compiling quotes attributed to him by various sources.
All of which are specifically and strictly credited because... well... some might choose not to believe some sources.

There are many flavors of Islam. Just like with Judaism or Christianity
Painting it with a generalization-brush of "one Islam by one hand", particularly in today's climate of CLEAR AND OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of Shia-Sunni divisions is beyond ignorant or retarded.

Third turd... Just like the Bible which was not written in modern languages it suffers from transcription and translation errors.
Which compound when most of the text is metaphoric in nature - as is the case with all religious texts.
Saying it is consistent requires more than just belief - it requires blind faith.

Fourth... The Bible is plentiful with DIRECT commands to murder anyone from witches and gays to infidels.
And both Koran and Bible, old testament and new give even more reasons for hate and murder of everyone.

Fifth... Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion, cooked up by schizophrenic hermits in a cave, desert or jungle somewhere, edited by lunatics, crooks and child molesters and left "unchanged" for thousands of years.
You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism...

Not that newer religions cooked up by loons and crooks are any better!
Mormonism, Scientology and Moonism are the same kind of shit.
Just with fewer genocides to their name.
So far.

You are right. The Quran does advocate for genocide. Here's just some of those verses, straight from the horse's mouth:

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Oops! Sorry about that. Those are from the bible.

The Old Testament was obsolete since the founding of Christianity. The whole point of Christianity is the New Testament, otherwise we would have stuck with Judaism. What you are doing is the equivalent of quoting the Magna Carta as if it was modern US law.

Oops! Sorry about that. Those are from the bible.

No theologian would use the Old Testament as an example of Christian beliefs. The Old Testament is there for historical context, and as contrast to Jesus's message.

Show me where Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have passages advocating genocide. Jesus's message is about love and compassion.

Yeah, Inquisitions, Crusades... Dark ages. Those Muslims and their evil ways... gosh darn it'

http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...

You are right. The Quran does advocate for genocide. Here's just some of those verses, straight from the horse's mouth:

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Oops! Sorry about that. Those are from the bible.

once again I have to remind you that the bible compels both jews and Christians to ALSO use violence if necessary to spread their word.
someone who's actually read both the bible and the quran (something you should try sometime) actually tallied it up.

there are ~330 violent exhortation in the Quran... and ~840 of them in the Bible. .
( http://www.skepticsannotatedbi... )

Both of which pale compared to the number of verse detailing love of one another and taking care of eath other.

And once again you patently ignore that marginalized peoples, forever being told to "go home", even when they are home being native born, being told they are evil (by people like you), are an almost natural source of extremism. you ostracize them from your society long enough, why should you be surprised that they become radicalized? you feed the very violence you claim to abhor with your every bigoted statement.

You are now, and forever, an ignornant bigot.

Specifics? Lots. Start here.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...

The core book of Christianity contains the new testament, which abolishes the old testament, and supercedes the passages you linked to. There is no such thing in Islam. Nothing trumps the quran.

As to nuance in approaching Islam, that is haram. Anyone with a nuanced approach to Islam is a heretic.

A quick read through your link does not come up with any quotes requiring abhorrent behaviours by true believers, but mostly passages saying "those other guys are doomed, but our guys are saved". Sure, it is "intolerant", but pretty similar to much of the New Testament Revelations: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. "

The history of Christianity is filled with abohrant behaviour against "heritics". There are multiple passages in the New Testament which are abhorrent, to think that the New Testament is purely peace and joy is an indication of how unfamiliar most people (even most self-proclaimed believers) are of the actual text.

http://backyardskeptics.com/wo...
http://skepticsannotatedbible....

Most modern believers do not adhere to the objectionable passages of their holy books.

I am not saying that people don't shitty things in the name of their religion, and it is quite possible that a careful analysis of the holly texts of the great religions could objectively rank them in some sort of order based on acceptance of abhorrent actions - maybe the Koran would rank below the New Testament. Even if this is the case, it would be a matter of degree rather than fundamental character.

What I am trying to point out is that almost 23% of the world's population is characterised as a follower of Islam. If 1.6 billion people actually believed what you seem to think they believe, the Paris attacks would be the least of our worries. Heck, if even 1% of them held this belief than the world would be a much different place. The VAST majority of those individuals do not hold the same beliefs as the Paris attackers. Similarly, most of the 2.2 billion Christians would condemn the actions of the "Army of God" or the philosophy of "Christian Identity", even though they both find support of their actions in the Christian scriptures.

Army of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Christian Identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The modern problem of fundamental extremists is not a problem of exactly which holy texts they use to support their extremism. Blaming the texts or the overall religion is unproductive, and quite likely counterproductive.

Specifics? Lots. Start here.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...

The core book of Christianity contains the new testament, which abolishes the old testament, and supercedes the passages you linked to. There is no such thing in Islam. Nothing trumps the quran.

As to nuance in approaching Islam, that is haram. Anyone with a nuanced approach to Islam is a heretic.

A quick read through your link does not come up with any quotes requiring abhorrent behaviours by true believers, but mostly passages saying "those other guys are doomed, but our guys are saved". Sure, it is "intolerant", but pretty similar to much of the New Testament Revelations: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. "

The history of Christianity is filled with abohrant behaviour against "heritics". There are multiple passages in the New Testament which are abhorrent, to think that the New Testament is purely peace and joy is an indication of how unfamiliar most people (even most self-proclaimed believers) are of the actual text.

http://backyardskeptics.com/wo...
http://skepticsannotatedbible....

Most modern believers do not adhere to the objectionable passages of their holy books.

I am not saying that people don't shitty things in the name of their religion, and it is quite possible that a careful analysis of the holly texts of the great religions could objectively rank them in some sort of order based on acceptance of abhorrent actions - maybe the Koran would rank below the New Testament. Even if this is the case, it would be a matter of degree rather than fundamental character.

What I am trying to point out is that almost 23% of the world's population is characterised as a follower of Islam. If 1.6 billion people actually believed what you seem to think they believe, the Paris attacks would be the least of our worries. Heck, if even 1% of them held this belief than the world would be a much different place. The VAST majority of those individuals do not hold the same beliefs as the Paris attackers. Similarly, most of the 2.2 billion Christians would condemn the actions of the "Army of God" or the philosophy of "Christian Identity", even though they both find support of their actions in the Christian scriptures.

Army of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Christian Identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The modern problem of fundamental extremists is not a problem of exactly which holy texts they use to support their extremism. Blaming the texts or the overall religion is unproductive, and quite likely counterproductive.

Specifics? Lots. Start here.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...

The core book of Christianity contains the new testament, which abolishes the old testament, and supercedes the passages you linked to. There is no such thing in Islam. Nothing trumps the quran.

As to nuance in approaching Islam, that is haram. Anyone with a nuanced approach to Islam is a heretic.

> Wow. What kind of fucked up bible are you reading that makes you think that Jesus would support abortion?

This fucked up bible

It's pointless (I'm certain) to point this out to you, but you are confusing your translations. You need to be reading Isaiah 7:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...

Note well that the translation in question is from the hebrew old testament, not the Greek new. Isaiah did not prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin in the first place. The verse in question does not refer to Jesus. Jesus was never called "Emmanuel".

And last (and my favorite part of the whole thing) Isaiah's entire prophecy was to Ahaz, king of Judah, who was very worried about the kings of Syria (Rezin) and Israel (Pekah) who were getting a whole lot stronger than he was an acting increasingly warlike. Isaiah was supposedly instructed by God to travel to Judah just to reassure Ahaz that God was going to smite Rezin and Pekah and allow Ahaz to die of old age, his kingdom intact and the whole birth of Emmanuel to a young woman was supposed to be the sign that this would be so!

Sadly, Chronicles 2 tells us what actually happened (for whatever meaning of "actually" you want to ascribe to a story from a book of mythology mixed with legend and even a tiny bit of history): "God delivered him [Ahaz] into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter."

Oops. Guess that prophecy didn't work out too well. Smote him with a great slaughter does not sound like Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people."

I guess Isaiah wasn't such a great prophet as all that, huh. Kinda got that one wrong. But hey, he left all sorts of lines in his failed prophecy that could be put to good use, and whoever wrote Matthew obviously found one to repurpose according to his needs.

rgb

The qur'an is full of vile language for not just Christians & Jews, but for followers of all other religions. Between that and the hadiths, they call for the elimination of all infidels. So people do have a good reason to insult Islam. Not that Charlie Hedbo did it for that reason - since they took pot shots at ALL religions, which I disagree with. Since none are as vile as Islam

>The New Testament is all about "turning the other cheek"
http://skepticsannotatedbible....

Except, have you read his holy book? He's doing exactly as commanded, that's why his imam finds it hard to protest. The whole idea that "jihad" might mean something else than murdering and subjugating non-believers is an invention of an 11th century scholar, with no basis in the Koran.

There's a large amount of people who self-identify as Muslims yet find jihad to be abhorrent. That doesn't make the Koran any better, though -- it just makes those people not evil, unlike what their holy book demands. You're confusing the Koran with the Bible -- the latter is a large collection of often unrelated works, with hardly any internal consistency. Try for example Psalms 82:1 which says "Jahveh sits on the court of the God of Gods, and passes judgmements to other gods in his name." -- it's really interesting how various translations try to wiggle this statement around towards the current religion. The Koran has no issues of this kind: it's a highly consistent work edited by one man (Uthman) (ok, ok, plus a bunch of scribes doing his bidding). It does deliver a consistent message -- and I really don't like what the message says.

More reading: Skeptic's Annotated Koran, an analysis of references to "jihad" in the Koran.

Muslim is a religious choice

So it's a choice to believe:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing..."
and
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
and
"Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

and a million worse things.
http://www.thereligionofpeace....
http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...

Is that what you are saying? That these people freely chose to believe in this hateful garbage?

Makes me feel better.

Yes but he also makes the claim that he Bible is full of scientific knowledge and a good historical document therefore we should not be quick to dismiss it. That is obviously and demonstrably false. http://skepticsannotatedbible.... There is only 1 real use for the bible, unfortunately I think the paper would be a little rough on my skin.....

" There are asshats who will do this for a thrill, or to get back at a neighbour for a real or perceived slight."

welcome to the real world. there have been many films documenting how bad people are. have you ever heard of tom green? what about jackass? hell why not watch 'telling lies in America' or maybe 'stand by me' the internet is no more immune to asshats than real life is. or are we all supposed to do nothing wrong? get real, people are not morally pure. the bible to mention one popular source says that no man has ever been good. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ec/7.html#20 the bible conflicts itself on the matter, but it is in there.

You are supposed to read it and think "people should act this way",

Yes, with the genocide and the slavery and the misogyny and the mock executions of sons by their fathers, what a fine world it would be if we followed the moral example of the Bible.

Prop 8 was about establishing homosexual gulags and working gay people to death in the name of Jesus!

Everybody knows that.

This! Indeed, it is exactly why I don't support it! If you've ever been married, you'll know that's exactly what it's like! I wouldn't wish marriage on my worst enemies and you want me to help get those beautiful Gays and Lesbians subjected to the evil that "only the dead can know peace from"? Sorry, look, it's nothing personal, but I'm not going to help you leap into a volcano or make a financial commitment to divorce lawyers either.

Now that I'm not married I'm FREE! It takes so little money to sustain myself I don't have to work a single hour of overtime ever again! I can give the finger to any boss on the planet, because I don't have to worry about shit! No more yolk for this jackass! I can eat grass where I want and sew wild oats when I please, and when I break it off for greener pastures there is no penalty fee! Now I finally understand why my unmarried friend was always the happiest out of all of us at get togethers. That marriage shit is just designed to make you hate people. It's dangerous too! Would you play Russian roulette with a 6 shooter that has 4 chambers filled?! THAT'S MARRIAGE! It's a raw deal at best, at worst it's a torturous prison with an emotional terrorist as a warden, where you get to watch all your dreams and fun slowly die as your life drains away, and if you survive the ordeal you may never see your kids again, and the skyrocketing suicide rate among divorced men shows what option many choose to take. Marriage is the death penalty with it's skirt hiked up over its head.

I support gay marriage, but I do not support the state meddling in our personal lives. Instead of state recognized marriage for gays I support ending state recognition of all marriage. Marriage should be between two people. Recognition of marriage is about 1 thing: Extracting money from you via the human propensity to increase genetic diversity by finding a new mate after the children are past the tender years. That over 2/3rds of marriages end in divorce. This is not a problem, it is a symptom of the nature of humanity. See also: The Ancient Greeks, The biblical tribes, nearly every native people not tainted by "civilization".

Why the fuck is the Victorian Model of relationships the state approved one? Where's the science that says that is the best model? Oh, there's none? Ah, right, so where did it come from? Oh getting married in a church? Ah, so what about separation of church and state? Hmmm?! You do realize that marriage only being recognized by an authority, say a church, was simply about forcing membership via leveraging your human drive to copulate and reproduce via outlawing unapproved fucking, right?

Without the state screwing with our relationships, then you get Gay Marriage for free: No restriction on who can have a marriage ceremony. If the existing religions refused to perform the ceremonies of gay couple union (on the grounds that less babies = less future tithers, see also catholic condoms and abortions[1]) then the demand for such ceremony would drive supply, and everyone would be happy.

We already have contract law so that people can decide how their wealth is distributed. In fact, the current marriage system makes provisions for women to keep their properties after divorce, but men are not granted "sole and separate property" by default on the property and wealth they bring to a marriage. We should just ditch marriage laws altogether because it's sexist. If that makes gays hate me, then fuck them hard because that's stupid! Mozilla CEO may not support prop.8 for a different reason, but I assure you that it doesn't take a bigot to love homosexuals enough to save them from the state meddling in their marriages!

[1] - protip: The bible describes God's magic abortion process,

Curious about which apparent contradictions you see there.

He means this. Genesis directly contradicts itself. Bare in mind that some sects hold that the bible is the literal word of God, yet apparently God can't quite remember which order he did things in.

The more likely explanation is simply that Genesis is an amalgamation of various pre-biblical creation stories, hence the differences in them.

Steel swords, steel mines and other metals have been known to exist, recovered in mass heaps under burial mounds all along the great finger lakes region in upstate new york. That is common knowledge in the north now.

You're not LDS? Really? Curiously, I happened to live in Skaneateles for a decade or so, and I say that you are -- let's put this politely and simply say "mistaken" rather than full of metabolic digestive byproducts up to your eyebrows.

Rather than taking the trouble to detail the specific, multiple instances in which you are mistaken, let's just cite one pretty good reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

that collectively proves you wrong, in detail, in nearly every possible instance of the many, many instances of anachronism and complete, utter failure of archeology to find anything that even the most dedicated LDS fanboy could interpret with all of the world's best hermeneutical exports as be "verification" of the absurdities in TBOM.

Or you can visit one of my other favorite sites:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

and work through a very, very detailed, line by line critique.

Personally, sir, I am suspicious of your claim not to be a Mormon, if you are sufficiently credulous that you think that there were sheep and horses and elephants and steel swords and that the Nephites sailed to the Americas using magnetic compasses and all the rest. But then, there are people who believe that it rained 40 days and 40 nights and covered the Earth with water to the top of Mount Everest (6 inches of rain per minute on every square foot of the Earth's surface) while all of the species that would have been killed by this (which is pretty much all of the Earth's species) were preserved from death in a wooden boat the size of a Wal Mart ventilated by a single carefully described window roughly 1 square meter in cross-sectional area. There is apparently little to no limit on the folly of fools, is there?

rgb

GRRRRR my link didn't come out right. Try again

if you knew anything about Islam you would know that it has only one "holy book" :) but there you are - in the land of the free - and totally uninformed :))

And if only you knew what's in that 'holy Quran'

"The problem is that none of the mythologies make any sense unless you are already a believer." Kindly wish to back that up? Simply repeating ignorant arguments that you've heard like a parrot is meaningless. Including your next bit of ignorance:

It's a statement of fact and demonstrable. Virtually every religious text makes assertions of the supernatural, of things which are not supported by the available evidence, things which are almost by definition contradictory to other religious texts. Often these texts aren't even consistent with themselves and replete with contradictions and absurditites. Websites like the Skeptics Annotated Bible (which has a section on the Quran) list thousands of them should you be in any doubt.

Simply put the Quran, Torah and Christian Bible have as much reason to believe they are the word of god as every other. Which is to say precisely zero. They all require people to buy into the story, in its truth and invest themselves in that story despite the absence of evidence. To have faith in other words. I wonder if there will be people fighting and killing each other in 2000 years over whether Harry Potter, Yoda or Gandalf is the one true lord.

Except that they both use the same original scriptures.

Again, this is another claim of Islam that simply is not true. There are *numerous* differences between Islam and the Torah & Christianity. The evil warlord Mohammed used Arian Christian heretics to base some of the superstiton in the Qur'an on - but these guys plagiarized several *major* things incorrectly. Here, please allow me to enlighten you with numerous additional sources that show that the Qur'an is not the direct and eternal word of God (another bold yet provably false claim, even when you don't consider the Sa'ana Qur'an), because it is plagarised from material written 500 - 1000 years earlier, gets it wrong, and then throws in a bunch of anti-scientific stuff to boot (that is, modern science *proves* statements in the Qur'an to be *false* - its claim to be *perfect* is simply rubbish):
http://www.1000mistakes.com/1000mistakes/index.php?Page=007_003_001_001
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

Now, you can choose to believe in an anti-scientific falsehood if you like. I'd rather not. It is clear that Islam makes many claims. Upon close examination those claims are *simply not true*. You can deny the sources I've given, but that is simply denial of reality because you would rather cling to the lie of the mythology you were born into. Making that choice is perfectly valid, (although stupid in the 21st Century, IMHO) - you just have to understand that you are choosing to deny all the evidence that shows the various claims of your superstition as false. Fortunately, as the wikiislam site shows, many people are realising the falsehood of religions and choosing to live a Free People (not slaves under Islam) and having to be virtuous because they want to be - not because they fear the nightmares of Bronze Age desert barbarians.

Because in those instances we're tying one nutjob murderer to larger groups that he is not a representative member of. So why do you make that same mistake with muslims,

Who are you to say it is a mistake with Muslims? The Koran tells Muslims to go to war against nonbelievers. Mecca is occupied by the house of Saud which indoctrinates hajj attendees with the Wahhabi doctrine that Muslims are the supreme people who must follow God's command to destroy everyone else. The bestselling book of the 20th century was Sayyid Qutb's Milestones, which argued for Muslims to quit living in peace with the West and start killing people again. Most importantly, those Muslims who do not believe that Muslims must be nutjob murderers have been getting wiped out by those that do, to the point where the "extremists" are now a majority in most Muslim-majority countries. Look at what happened after the nutjobs murdered Salman Taseer. The people of Pakistan came out in large numbers to celebrate the killing of a liberal.

... assuming they're all evil or that there's a vast muslim movement to destroy the US?

There is in fact a "vast Muslim movement to destroy the US" called the Muslim Brotherhood. You might know them as the Taliban, al-Shabaab, the Syrian "youth movement" "freedom fighters", the "Bosniaks", the "Palestinians", the "Arab Spring", Boko Haram, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. We used to call them "Nazis." They run the Muslim Student Associations on college campuses. Do some research. I recommend starting with Revolutionary Sudan by Burr and Collins, as it ties many things together.

Two additional "vast Muslim movement[s] to destroy the US" include the Khomeinists and the Lashkar e-Taiba, each of which is strong enough to conquer countries. You really ought to start paying attention to what is going on in the world before you start calling better-informed people ignorant.

Sorry, it seems you read but don't understand. Perhaps you could start here ...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html

Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:

Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."

What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".

How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?

You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?

Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).

Sorry, it seems you read but don't understand. Perhaps you could start here ...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html

Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:

Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."

What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".

How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?

You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?

Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).

Sorry, it seems you read but don't understand. Perhaps you could start here ...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html

Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:

Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."

What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".

How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?

You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?

Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).

Sorry, it seems you read but don't understand. Perhaps you could start here ...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html

Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:

Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."

What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".

How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?

You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?

Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).

Sorry, it seems you read but don't understand. Perhaps you could start here ...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html

Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:

Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."

What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".

How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?

You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?

Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).

Hey, did you ever check out the link I sent about contradictions between different parts of the Bible? Here's a nice list for you to consider:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

A lot of your rage seems to come out of guilt that can't be dealt with.

Rage? Guilt? no man, I'm happy - guilt is for the folks who can't reason and believe in an Invisible Man in the Sky despite there being no evidence for him other than a crappy self-contradictory and non-sensical book written by Bronze Age desert dwellers. Finally after doing my research I'm free of the bullshit and guilt. My only belief is that you are free to believe as you wish, as deluded and non-sensical as it is, provided you respect others (which you evidently and admirably do). Please check the link I gave the evidence of the Bible as bunk is strong, the evidence for evolution is strong (most Christians have a very poor grasp of the multiplicity of arguments for evolution).

The person who makes $5M a year isn't paying back what he earned, by and large. He is paying back what others have earned and he has taken for himself.

This is false. Without entrepreneurs to generate wealth there *are no workers*. The entrepreneurs generate a great deal of wealth for society as a whole and they happen to take a small slice of the generated wealth. Sometimes this adds up to $5M a year, sometimes it is a negative amount (since they carry the risk, unlike the workers). Yes, the mega-corps work differently, where CEOs obtain compensation by essentially robbing shareholders (though stock options and other scams). However, the number of megacorps is small compared to all the other businesses that generate the vast bulk of wealth.

History has shown that without the capitalist incentive of profit you end up with a system of "The workers pretend to work and the bosses pretend to pay them". The last century has shown the utter failure of the model you propose - waging war against capitalists/entrepreneurs (incidentally, most who are not rich to start with) simply brings misery to all, closely followed by loss of liberty and eventually economic collapse. Just like thermodynamics, where there must be an energy difference for work to be done, the economic systems require a capital difference in order for work to get done in a modern economic system (and any utopian who believes in going back to "the old ways" ought to visit Africa to see what their utopia is when put into practice).

But God is more powerful than that, and He can and does intervene. I will wait on him.

Cool, as long as you don't hold your breath while you wait. God is an interesting concept that unfortunately there is *zero* reputable scientific evidence for. The supposed evidence for God is self-contradictory works clearly written by men who had no additional "divine" knowledge more advanced than the period they were writing in eg. surely someone receiving messages from divine agents could point out useful truths such as the bacterial and viral causes of infection (that would have saved *billions* of lives over the millenia) rather than superstitious nonsense about demons (which, if they existed, apparently can be permanently banished by antiseptic alcohol swaps, antibiotics, etc). Here is an interesting visualization of the contradictions within the Bible:
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/
and here's a analysis of the Bible showing contradictions, falsehoods, counter-scientific statements and general nonsense in the Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon (all works of ignorant and superstitious men who didn't understand nature, and subsequently used by men to control other men and women):
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Once you understand that there is no god and that it is just us human animals, the other animals, and nature all battling each other then many mysteries are solved. Humans had morality before religion because it benefits us and we've evolved for it to gratify us too (an evolutionary survival trait). We don't need religion to be moral and look after each other and the animals under our dominion. We don't need superstitions that go against what we do understand about the universe. It's all ok. We have our one, precious life and have to make the most of it and help others to make the most of theirs too. We are free and no supernatural bogeyman is gonna get us - we don't need the threat of eternal punishment to be good and moral people. So relax, enjoy the time you have, and wish well for others :)

The person who makes $5M a year isn't paying back what he earned, by and large. He is paying back what others have earned and he has taken for himself.

This is false. Without entrepreneurs to generate wealth there *are no workers*. The entrepreneurs generate a great deal of wealth for society as a whole and they happen to take a small slice of the generated wealth. Sometimes this adds up to $5M a year, sometimes it is a negative amount (since they carry the risk, unlike the workers). Yes, the mega-corps work differently, where CEOs obtain compensation by essentially robbing shareholders (though stock options and other scams). However, the number of megacorps is small compared to all the other businesses that generate the vast bulk of wealth.

History has shown that without the capitalist incentive of profit you end up with a system of "The workers pretend to work and the bosses pretend to pay them". The last century has shown the utter failure of the model you propose - waging war against capitalists/entrepreneurs (incidentally, most who are not rich to start with) simply brings misery to all, closely followed by loss of liberty and eventually economic collapse. Just like thermodynamics, where there must be an energy difference for work to be done, the economic systems require a capital difference in order for work to get done in a modern economic system (and any utopian who believes in going back to "the old ways" ought to visit Africa to see what their utopia is when put into practice).

But God is more powerful than that, and He can and does intervene. I will wait on him.

Cool, as long as you don't hold your breath while you wait. God is an interesting concept that unfortunately there is *zero* reputable scientific evidence for. The supposed evidence for God is self-contradictory works clearly written by men who had no additional "divine" knowledge more advanced than the period they were writing in eg. surely someone receiving messages from divine agents could point out useful truths such as the bacterial and viral causes of infection (that would have saved *billions* of lives over the millenia) rather than superstitious nonsense about demons (which, if they existed, apparently can be permanently banished by antiseptic alcohol swaps, antibiotics, etc). Here is an interesting visualization of the contradictions within the Bible:
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/
and here's a analysis of the Bible showing contradictions, falsehoods, counter-scientific statements and general nonsense in the Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon (all works of ignorant and superstitious men who didn't understand nature, and subsequently used by men to control other men and women):
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Once you understand that there is no god and that it is just us human animals, the other animals, and nature all battling each other then many mysteries are solved. Humans had morality before religion because it benefits us and we've evolved for it to gratify us too (an evolutionary survival trait). We don't need religion to be moral and look after each other and the animals under our dominion. We don't need superstitions that go against what we do understand about the universe. It's all ok. We have our one, precious life and have to make the most of it and help others to make the most of theirs too. We are free and no supernatural bogeyman is gonna get us - we don't need the threat of eternal punishment to be good and moral people. So relax, enjoy the time you have, and wish well for others :)

Neither is righteous!

The righteous stance is: rape no one, not: rape this person instead of that. Regardless the actual outcome, Lot's choice shows he clearly values one form of life over the other. (There's a similar problem with Abraham and Isaac. Sure, Abraham eventually didn't murder his son, but he would have, and therein lies something truly horrid.)

Lot is also making a judgement about sex. Anal sex is evil, but raping women is okay because, why? It's vaginal sex, of course! Oh, and because women aren't worth as much as men. Lot made a mutually exclusive statement: don't do this wicked thing (anal sex); instead, rape my virgin daughters.

It absolutely shows God condones rape (and commands it in many other stories). God sent these angels from the ether to earth. God can just as easily send them right back. That is in God's power, right? Oh, wait, that's right. We're trying to make some kind of sick point about sacrificing others.

I'm sorry, people who defend this story--and the other cruelty, injustice, and misogyny depicted by the Bible--are barbaric, morally depraved people. I'm deeply thankful we live in a society where we don't use this garbage as the basis of our moral code. Hopefully we can keep it that way, because we need only look to the middle east to see the horrors that come about when religion has a hand in governing and guiding people.

Neither is righteous!

The righteous stance is: rape no one, not: rape this person instead of that. Regardless the actual outcome, Lot's choice shows he clearly values one form of life over the other. (There's a similar problem with Abraham and Isaac. Sure, Abraham eventually didn't murder his son, but he would have, and therein lies something truly horrid.)

Lot is also making a judgement about sex. Anal sex is evil, but raping women is okay because, why? It's vaginal sex, of course! Oh, and because women aren't worth as much as men. Lot made a mutually exclusive statement: don't do this wicked thing (anal sex); instead, rape my virgin daughters.

It absolutely shows God condones rape (and commands it in many other stories). God sent these angels from the ether to earth. God can just as easily send them right back. That is in God's power, right? Oh, wait, that's right. We're trying to make some kind of sick point about sacrificing others.

I'm sorry, people who defend this story--and the other cruelty, injustice, and misogyny depicted by the Bible--are barbaric, morally depraved people. I'm deeply thankful we live in a society where we don't use this garbage as the basis of our moral code. Hopefully we can keep it that way, because we need only look to the middle east to see the horrors that come about when religion has a hand in governing and guiding people.

Neither is righteous!

The righteous stance is: rape no one, not: rape this person instead of that. Regardless the actual outcome, Lot's choice shows he clearly values one form of life over the other. (There's a similar problem with Abraham and Isaac. Sure, Abraham eventually didn't murder his son, but he would have, and therein lies something truly horrid.)

Lot is also making a judgement about sex. Anal sex is evil, but raping women is okay because, why? It's vaginal sex, of course! Oh, and because women aren't worth as much as men. Lot made a mutually exclusive statement: don't do this wicked thing (anal sex); instead, rape my virgin daughters.

It absolutely shows God condones rape (and commands it in many other stories). God sent these angels from the ether to earth. God can just as easily send them right back. That is in God's power, right? Oh, wait, that's right. We're trying to make some kind of sick point about sacrificing others.

I'm sorry, people who defend this story--and the other cruelty, injustice, and misogyny depicted by the Bible--are barbaric, morally depraved people. I'm deeply thankful we live in a society where we don't use this garbage as the basis of our moral code. Hopefully we can keep it that way, because we need only look to the middle east to see the horrors that come about when religion has a hand in governing and guiding people.

Oops, missed some links that might help enlighten you:
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Good on your for not resisting :)

I agree with you - I just didn't want to get side-tracked on the fact that none of the claims of religions are scientifically verified. Unfortunately some of the people resisting True Evil (tm) also known as "The Ideology called Islam" just happen to be hard-core Christians and Hindus. They are right about Islam, even if it is what an atheistic might consider the wrong reasons (atheists/humanists see Islam as a dire and increasing threat to liberty; other religious just claim Islam is wrong). At this stage of the game I'll accept them into my camp.

Once we defeat "The Religion of Peace" (ha, what a joke - this is such a lie as shown by the facts: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) then we can have reasoned debate with those with religious delusions (eg. show them the massive amount of contradictions documented in the Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

At the moment most of the Free World are not aware of the 57-country Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) control of the UN (they are the largest single voting bloc, and dominate outfits like the UN Human Rights Council). The OIC claims jurisdiction over any country that has Muslims (that's right, their claim includes where you live). Since they dominate the UN HRC they are slowly but steadily making progress in implementing Islam-friendly laws. Then we have the muppets in the Free World going along with this to be 'nice' (eg. Hiliary Clinton's abject sell-out of the US First Amendment when she co-sponsored the Sharia-compliant UN HRC Resolution 16/18; disgusting behaviour for a US leader). The Muslim Brotherhood has just taken the chair of the OIC. Their plans are proceeding quite nicely and the West mostly remains asleep. A few do notice but are mostly stiffled by those with an ideological Left bent (part of the Red-Green Alliance; where the political Left support the Islamist goal of bringing down the existing international order that has maintained some semblance of international stability).

So yeah, I agree with your anti-Religious 'rant'. However, I think it is prudent to use all the Allies we can muster to defeat the rising tide of Islamism. If we stay balkanized in factions (atheists vs Christians, Catholics vs Protestants, Democrats/Progressives vs Republicans/Libertarians) then we remain divided and weak against the single biggest and focussed ideological threat to all of us: devout Islam.

It is important to note that while Christianity may be wrong, it is definitely a mistake to assert it is equally wrong as Islam. Islam is much more wrong because it is totalitarian and covers all aspects of life (especially political). Islam claim full dominion over non-adherents (that means *you*, Slashdotters) whereas Christianity does not make this claim (not these days at least).

Analyses of the Innocence of Muslims video has shown it to be mostly factually correct
http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/

Now it might be a crummy video, but don't mistake poor production values for being factually incorrect. The video is based on statements in the Qur'an and hadiths - please go and check these things for yourself: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm [Skeptics Annotated Qur'an].

It gets worse though. Both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama were opposed to the video to cover up their arming of Al Qaeda elements in Libya through the embassy in Benghazi - and this backfired because the Obama Admistration are in total denial about jihad as a motivation of Islamism (as *mandated* by the Qur'an). The foreign policy of the US Administration is unbelievably misguided - because the political Left (which this State Department and Administration is) will not let the facts on the ground get in the way of their narrative. They are denying reality but the reality is rapidly catching up - and the securitry of the Free World is being traded for appeasement (in the hope that Islamists will be "moderate" - which is a ridiculous idea if you have ever read the Qur'an, hadiths and have an understanding of Islamic history for the last 1400 years).

Appeasement will not work with Islamists. Selling Israel out will not work (the jihadis have been in business for 14 centuries before Israel was established - you can't blame the joos for the actions of the jihadis). Making concessions to Muslims will not work (since the Islamists do not believe in quid-pro-quo; they believe they are right, the Free World is wrong, and its their way *only*). The Obama Administration abandoning the rest of the globe comes at exactly the wrong time - but perhaps this is no surprise given the number of Muslim Brotherhood members in the Administration influencing policy (which is why they are so afraid of Michelle Bachmann calling for an investigation - such an investigation would reveal that the Administration is so thoroughly penetrated it can barely be trusted to lead the Free World).

Fortunately there are signs of hope. Florida just passed a bill to outlaw Sharia. If other US states and other sovereign nations do the same then the Free World will remain Free. Then we only have to convince the wannabe dhimmis in the West to actually check the facts of what is going on - and not rely on the narrative they have been fed - they are in the Matrix and resist the truth of what is happening - preferring to *factual* arguments as some kind of 'racism' [absolutely crazy; Islam is a violent and totalitarian ideology, just like Naziism and Soviet Communism, it has nothing to do with 'race'].

Wake up folks. The biggest enemy of Freedom and Liberty in the World is the ideology of Islam (and those who apologize for it, eg. Obama and the political hard-Left). The video the Innocence of Muslims was a clumsy (but factual) attempt by an Egyptian Coptic to highlight the evils of the ideology and its warlord founder. To bad so many people simply ignored the film based on the lies of Islamist apologists (as in, the narrative from the Left-biased media). If you checked the facts you'd see the video was right - Mohammed was evil and against every the Free World stands for (but not against what the political Left now stands for - destruction of the system of the Free World).

Why be anonymous? You are what we term a cultural' Muslim'. Would the Salafis agree that you are a Muslim. No they wouldn't, in their eyes you are an apostate and deserve to die like the rest of us. If you really believe in Free Speech then why aren't their million-Muslim marches in the streets of the West support the Free Speech rights of atheists? Where are the million-Muslim marches condeming jihadis? Why did not a single placard in Tahrir Square say "No Sharia!"? I'm afraid my friend you are a rare and tolerant beast. The vast majority of your co-religionists don't agree with you. The statistics say the majority support jihadi shahids and support imposing Sharia across the globe (which as anti-Free Speech as you can get).

Hopefully one day you'll realise that you are a cultural Muslim just because of your environment. If you start looking hard at any religion (not only, but including, Islam) you will find them full of nonsense, anti-scientific statements, and an agenda that suited keeping their ancient authors (and successive clergy) in power. Here's a good start for you: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Come and join us reason-based people - we only accept things that have credible evidence. You don't need faith, you just need morality that balances the needs of the individuals with the actions that benefit society. Morality and rationalism has been around far far longer than the Abrahamic religions. You don't need the non-sensical constructs to make you submit as a slave. Walk and reason as a Free Man free of Fear - and do good for your fellow creatures.

This sounds too hateful for my tastes. A majority of people who call themselves muslims are good, reasonable people who are capable of living well next to infidels -- they pay only lip service to their religion, same as most christians do. I do say Islam is irredeemably evil, and trying to excuse it is fooling oneself, yet that doesn't say anything about people whose parents' ancestors happened to live in a particular place. It's only actually believing in what Islam says what's bad.

It's consistency what damns Islam: the Bible contains so many contradictions that there's no such thing as "the christian faith" -- you need to go into massive cherry-picking and willfully ignore parts of the Bible. Some parts of it include outright calls for genocide, thus at least some variants of christianity are inexcusably evil. The Koran leaves no such wiggle room, and it even explicitly provides a resolution in case of contradictions (revelation given later overrides that given earlier) -- and even if we did not have such a resolution, if you take Skeptic's Annotated Quran's list, drop literary devices and "how many angels came to $FIGURE", what's left is: 1. permissibility of alcohol, 2. whether angels and jinn are the same, 3. will Allah forgive the same sin (other than disbelief) more than once?, 4. Epicurean problem (no deity may be both omnipotent and benevolent). Yes, that's the entire list.

The Koran is more internally consistent, having a single author and single editor, and is read in its original language

Ignorant Bullshit. The Qur'an was not created until 150 years after Mohammed's death (assuming he existed, there is little evidence). There were many competing versions of the Qur'an and a single version was taken as canonical and alternatives were burnt. The discovery (and subsequent suppression by uncomfortable Mulims) of the Saa'na Qur'an in 1972 in Yemen shows how inconsistent the Qur'an is. Then the Qur'an has 'satanic versus', then the hadiths have 'weak' hadiths that may or may not be accurate. Your position is ignorant of the facts and therefore bullshit. Do your homework:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm [shows how incredibly *inconsistent* the Qur'an is]
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ [this one rips the Qur'an apart and is funny]

Get a clue. Stop repeating the falsehoods made up by the evil Islamist supremacist. Your ignorance has led you to be an unpaid shill for evil.

It's not supposed to go in your finger, silly. The correct place for a bar code tattoo is on the right hand or on the forehead, as is described quite clearly in Revelations 14:9.

Not to offend anyone (or, sorry that I WILL) basically every organized religion is wacky

True. Take a look at the Skeptics Annotated Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon to see the inconsistencies, inhumane oppression and barbarity highlighted in these man-made books. It is astounding that in the 21st Century that anyone follows these works of ancient superstitious crazy men - especially when our understanding of the world is so much better (in science, philosophy, human relations, national relations, marriage, psychology, economics, nutrition/diets, health and hygiene etc etc)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

Not to offend anyone (or, sorry that I WILL) basically every organized religion is wacky

True. Take a look at the Skeptics Annotated Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon to see the inconsistencies, inhumane oppression and barbarity highlighted in these man-made books. It is astounding that in the 21st Century that anyone follows these works of ancient superstitious crazy men - especially when our understanding of the world is so much better (in science, philosophy, human relations, national relations, marriage, psychology, economics, nutrition/diets, health and hygiene etc etc)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

Not to offend anyone (or, sorry that I WILL) basically every organized religion is wacky

True. Take a look at the Skeptics Annotated Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon to see the inconsistencies, inhumane oppression and barbarity highlighted in these man-made books. It is astounding that in the 21st Century that anyone follows these works of ancient superstitious crazy men - especially when our understanding of the world is so much better (in science, philosophy, human relations, national relations, marriage, psychology, economics, nutrition/diets, health and hygiene etc etc)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

It does, in many places. I was going to cite Deuteronomy 13:5-10 but a Google search lends a better compilation:
What the Bible says about stoning