Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Constantinopolis]

No, the government doesn't create genocide, war, famine, etc. it is people who create those things, and who staffed the government.

Absolutely correct.

And the same thing is not true about religion because...?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Religion, in itself, is an evil, and one that can be demonstrated by a quick peek into their religious texts.



It is.



"I come not to bring peace, but the sword" "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." " And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

Sounds pretty damn evil.

The Romans and the defenders of Capernaum wiped themselves out and destroyed the area during the Great Jewish Revolt. So it is hardly evil when it has already been done and the place rendered a historical desert.

Regardless of what has been done to Capernaum, it is not befitting for one's Lord and Saviour and Prince of Peace to curse an entire city of people, and damn them to the same fate of Fire and Brimstone above, and endless perdition below. Certainly would count as evil in my book.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

No, the government doesn't create genocide, war, famine, etc. it is people who create those things, and who staffed the government.

And the same thing is not true about religion because...?

Because, unlike a government, Religion isn't simply a tool and a system of organisation, it is a series of beliefs that is usually structured around a text, which can usually be found wanting.

[Benuty]

The Romans and the defenders of Capernaum wiped themselves out and destroyed the area during the Great Jewish Revolt. So it is hardly evil when it has already been done and the place rendered a historical desert.

Regardless of what has been done to Capernaum, it is not befitting for one's Lord and Saviour and Prince of Peace to curse an entire city of people, and damn them to the same fate of Fire and Brimstone above, and endless perdition below. Certainly would count as evil in my book.

Given the Capernaum burned to the ground it really is not evil but mere hindsight of things to come. This was not the first time the Roman legions had man handled this region [the Hasmonian civil war intervention] and it would not be the last. Either way perdition is merely another word for grave and the city has been since its destruction a grave as no humans are currently living there at all.

[Constantinopolis]

And the same thing is not true about religion because...?

Because, unlike a government, Religion isn't simply a tool and a system of organisation, it is a series of beliefs that is usually structured around a text, which can usually be found wanting.

You do realize, I hope, that there are many texts (not just religious ones) which people hold in high regard and which can be found very wanting. There are many theories, philosophies, ideologies, world-views etc. which can be accused of promoting nasty things, or which have extremists that promote nasty things.

Should they all be wiped out? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument: you say religion should be wiped out because it can be used to justify murder, genocide, oppression and denial of human rights. Well yes, it can be used to justify that. So can a lot of non-religious beliefs, too.

Should we therefore have some kind of Thought Police to ensure that no people are religious, or racist, or sexist, or believe in anything objectionable at all?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because, unlike a government, Religion isn't simply a tool and a system of organisation, it is a series of beliefs that is usually structured around a text, which can usually be found wanting.

You do realize, I hope, that there are many text (not just religious ones) which people hold in high regard and which can be found very wanting. There are many theories, philosophies, ideologies, world-views etc. which promote nasty things, or which have extremists that promote nasty things.

Should they all be wiped out? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument: you say religion should be wiped out because it can be used to justify murder, genocide, oppression and denial of human rights. Well yes, it can be used to justify that. So can a lot of non-religious beliefs, too.

Non-religious beliefs are not the dogma that religions are, many philosophical texts, say, for example, Thomas Hobbes, Han Feizi, or Jean Paul Satre, for example, can be found wanting in many ways, and be criticised, because they are not dogma, and are not intended to be treated as dogma. A religion demands that their view be accepted and their recommended course of action be taken by fiat of some Great Supreme. Whereas a philosophical text attempts to make an argument for its position, even if its position is a undeniably stupid one, and so, with such philosophies, political or otherwise, one can beat them back by showing the unsoundness of their arguments, religions do not argue, they mere claim that their validity derive from whatever deity it proclaims, and then tell people this is how to behave or that is what you must do.

It is fundamentally different, and must be destroyed.

Should we therefore have some kind of Thought Police to ensure that no people are religious, or racist, or sexist, or believe in anything objectionable at all?

We should beat back religion, racism, sexism, and all things unamiable to any society that wishes to promote universal harmony and happiness. That does not translate to having a Thought Police.

[Constantinopolis]

Non-religious beliefs are not the dogma that religions are, many philosophical texts, say, for example, Thomas Hobbes, Han Feizi, or Jean Paul Satre, for example, can be found wanting in many ways, and be criticised, because they are not dogma, and are not intended to be treated as dogma. A religion demands that their view be accepted and their recommended course of action be taken by fiat of some Great Supreme. Whereas a philosophical text attempts to make an argument for its position, even if its position is a undeniably stupid one, and so, with such philosophies, political or otherwise, one can beat them back by showing the unsoundness of their arguments, religions do not argue, they mere claim that their validity derive from whatever deity it proclaims, and then tell people this is how to behave or that is what you must do.

You don't know much about religions, do you?

Yes, it's true that most religions believe in the existence of some perfect dogma that should be followed by everyone. However, most religions have numerous factions that disagree about what that dogma actually is, and even within the same faction there are individuals who disagree with each other about their beliefs. Do all Catholics believe the exact same things? Do all Sunni Muslims believe the exact same things? No, not even close.

You talk about religion as if every religion comes with a precise list of things you should believe and every adherent of that religion takes this list and believes everything on it and opposes everything that is not on it. That is not how it works at all. Religions are not designed by lawyers. Most religions only insist on their followers believing some metaphysical dogma (for example "God is one nature in three persons" or "enlightenment is achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path"), while leaving issues of a practical nature open to a range of different views. No religion has any dogmatic teachings about the ideal form of government, for example.

In practice, religions are very similar to philosophies, in the sense that their various followers disagree with each other on many issues and make arguments to support their various positions. Maybe that's not how religion "should" work, but it is how religion does work.

We should beat back religion, racism, sexism, and all things unamiable to any society that wishes to promote universal harmony and happiness. That does not translate to having a Thought Police.

Uh, yes, that's exactly what it translates to.

How exactly do you propose to ensure that everyone holds the "correct" beliefs? Everyone else who has ever tried to create a society in which people don't believe the "wrong" things in order to ensure universal harmony and happiness (and such attempts were almost always carried out by religious fanatics, ironically enough) has failed. I don't mean they failed in ensuring universal harmony and happiness, I mean they failed in enforcing the "correct" beliefs on people.

There really is no way to make sure that all people believe X and disbelieve Y, no matter what X and Y are. If you really are interested in universal harmony and happiness, you must begin by accepting the fact that most people disagree with your ideas and will ALWAYS disagree with your ideas (because that's what humans do - disagree), so you'd better deal with it and come up with a plan to achieve universal harmony and happiness that does NOT depend on people agreeing with you or with each other.

Fact: Any plan to achieve anything that includes the line "Step __: Make everyone agree with me." is a bad plan and will never work.

[Czechanada]

I hate to be a would-be moderator, but isn't this a bit of a threadjack?

[Pilotto]

I hate to be a would-be moderator, but isn't this a bit of a threadjack?

Seems like relevant discussion to me, especially for a broad mega-thread like this.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Non-religious beliefs are not the dogma that religions are, many philosophical texts, say, for example, Thomas Hobbes, Han Feizi, or Jean Paul Satre, for example, can be found wanting in many ways, and be criticised, because they are not dogma, and are not intended to be treated as dogma. A religion demands that their view be accepted and their recommended course of action be taken by fiat of some Great Supreme. Whereas a philosophical text attempts to make an argument for its position, even if its position is a undeniably stupid one, and so, with such philosophies, political or otherwise, one can beat them back by showing the unsoundness of their arguments, religions do not argue, they mere claim that their validity derive from whatever deity it proclaims, and then tell people this is how to behave or that is what you must do.

You don't know much about religions, do you?

Yes I do, I know quite a bit, thank you. If you want to chalk up my opinion to ignorance, then it is all the worse for you.

Yes, it's true that most religions believe in the existence of some perfect dogma that should be followed by everyone. However, most religions have numerous factions that disagree about what that dogma actually is, and even within the same faction there are individuals who disagree with each other about their beliefs. Do all Catholics believe the exact same things? Do all Sunni Muslims believe the exact same things? No, not even close.

It doesn't matter what the individual believer believes, the individual believer may be a sensible person, but the religion, itself, is evil and dogmatic. For example, a Catholic may believe that Homosexual acts are not disgusting and hateful in the eyes of God, or a Moslem may think that Women and Men are equal in every way, that is not what the Bible or the Koran teaches, what the Church or the various Imams and Religious Leaders says, all these are explicitly misogynistic and homophobic in various places. They would be individuals who are commendable because they hold beliefs that contradict their religion.


Yes, there are many factions disagreeing with what the dogma of a particular faith is, but they hold to the fact that such dogma exists, and is not to be questioned because it comes from on high, and that, in itself is dangerous.

You talk about religion as if every religion comes with a precise list of things you should believe and every adherent of that religion takes this list and believes everything on it and opposes everything that is not on it. That is not how it works at all. Religions are not designed by lawyers.

No, it is a series of fiats and beliefs that all believers must hold to and should not question. Conflict arise when people question what those fiats are, what are entailed in them. Of course they are not designed by lawyers, and then it is also a pity, because now people are killing each other over the right way of believing that there is an all-loving God.

Most religions only insist on their followers believing some metaphysical dogma (for example "God is one nature in three persons" or "enlightenment is achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path"), while leaving issues of a practical nature open to a range of different views. No religion has any dogmatic teachings about the ideal form of government, for example.

Most religions also provide "ethical guidelines" on how to live your life, for example, stoning MSM, killing heretics and heathens, killing "false prophets", not doing this or that, these are all doubtless "practical". While people may object to the whole "stoning MSM", by claiming that the Torah and the Talmud provide various "loopholes" to stoning, the fact that God demanded stoning as a legal punishment for homosexual acts is not negated.

In practice, religions are very similar to philosophies, in the sense that their various followers disagree with each other on many issues and make arguments to support their various positions. Maybe that's not how religion "should" work, but it is how religion does work.

In practice, religions are nothing like philosophies, Religion is first founded upon the idea that this ancient text contains various truths that should not be questions, then derive those truths from the text, philosophy does not do that, they don't assume truth can come from this or that source, or indeed, any source, which is why there is so many arguments in philosophy. A Philosopher would not say, "the Bible says this or that, now, looking at it from its historic millieu, we can interpret it to mean so and so, therefore this is an ultimate truth", in fact, the philosopher, if he is of any value, should question even the book he is holding, for example, "this book is written with this agenda, and so say these things to fulfill that agenda, what relevance does this have on us".

The famous Alvin Plantinga, reknown for his remarkably silly "Free Will Defense", which supposedly demonstrate that God is not logically incompatible with Evil, did not call it a "theodicy", nor did he go so far as say that this is proof that God exists.

Uh, yes, that's exactly what it translates to.

No, it doesn't. No doubt, most people would wish Sexism, Racism, and Anti-Semitism gone. We usually do so by discouraging it at every level, show why it is unreasonable, why it is harmful, and, in America, we usually scorn these things. Does that mean that it is a completely successful strategy that we should adopt? Of course not, we should think of something else, something more efficient, but this is only to illustrate the attempts at eradicating such things can occur without genocide and thoughtpolice, and all those things that that hack Orwell wrote in his penny dreadful 1984.

How exactly do you propose to ensure that everyone holds the "correct" beliefs? Everyone else who has ever tried to create a society in which people don't believe the "wrong" things in order to ensure universal harmony and happiness (and such attempts were almost always carried out by religious fanatics, ironically enough) has failed. I don't mean they failed in ensuring universal harmony and happiness, I mean they failed in enforcing the "correct" beliefs on people.

Their methods usually include force conversion, threats of execution, genocide, and, in the case of N. Korea, massive brainwashing.

There really is no way to make sure that all people believe X and disbelieve Y, no matter what X and Y are. If you really are interested in universal harmony and happiness, you must begin by accepting the fact that most people disagree with your ideas and will ALWAYS disagree with your ideas (because that's what humans do - disagree), so you'd better deal with it and come up with a plan to achieve universal harmony and happiness that does NOT depend on people agreeing with you or with each other.

Atheism is not a unified, single belief with a common core, it is simply the disbelief in God, so it isn't about making sure that all people believe X, because there is no belief in any X, but to ensure the disbelief in Y. Therefore, one can rewrite your statement as "All people disbelieve Y". Beliefs in the magic of Crystals, and their ability to provide a win its bearing a fortune on the roulette table is mere idiocy, but the belief that there is a Great Supreme that demands, amongst other things, the death of homosexuals, the subjugation of women, inequality, etc. is not only idiotic, it is dangerous, and it is for the benefit of humankind, and for their emancipation, that it must be stamped out.

Fact: Any plan to achieve anything that includes the line "Step __: Make everyone agree with me." is a bad plan and will never work.

Whether it works or not, it must be tried.

[Libertarian California]

Do Iranians still view Islam as a foreign, invading religion, or have they accepted it's part of their identity?

[Napkiraly]

Do Iranians still view Islam as a foreign, invading religion, or have they accepted it's part of their identity?

They all still worship Ahura Mazda.

[Constantinopolis]

Nationes Pii, I see the core assumption that lies at the basis of your errors:

It doesn't matter what the individual believer believes, the individual believer may be a sensible person, but the religion, itself, is evil and dogmatic. For example, a Catholic may believe that Homosexual acts are not disgusting and hateful in the eyes of God, or a Moslem may think that Women and Men are equal in every way, that is not what the Bible or the Koran teaches, what the Church or the various Imams and Religious Leaders says, all these are explicitly misogynistic and homophobic in various places. They would be individuals who are commendable because they hold beliefs that contradict their religion.

No. There is no such thing as "what religion X really teaches" separate from "what the followers of religion X believe that it teaches".

Or in other words, what the followers of a religion THINK that it teaches, IS what the religion teaches. And this usually consists of a range of beliefs and views.

The religion itself IS the collection of what individual adherents believe.

That statement is actually official doctrine (or close to it) in several religions. For example, Orthodox Christianity can be said to believe that the ultimate authority in deciding matters of faith is the public opinion of Orthodox Christians (because of the requirement that decisions of the Ecumenical Councils must be "accepted by the Church" in order to be valid - so in other words, if the clergy decide something but the majority of believers disagree and ignore this decision, then the decision was invalid).

And most religions follow this principle unofficially even when it's not official doctrine. For example, Sunni Islam does not have any clergy. All Muslims are expected to follow the teachings of the Quran, and the belief is that these are perfectly clear. But, in practice, there are disputes about what the Quran really teaches. When such disputes arise, how are they resolved?

Basically, public opinion decides. Imams (who are not regarded as clergy, but simply as wise men) can try to influence public opinion, but ultimately, public opinion decides.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I see the core assumption that lies at the basis of your errors:

It doesn't matter what the individual believer believes, the individual believer may be a sensible person, but the religion, itself, is evil and dogmatic. For example, a Catholic may believe that Homosexual acts are not disgusting and hateful in the eyes of God, or a Moslem may think that Women and Men are equal in every way, that is not what the Bible or the Koran teaches, what the Church or the various Imams and Religious Leaders says, all these are explicitly misogynistic and homophobic in various places. They would be individuals who are commendable because they hold beliefs that contradict their religion.

No. There is no such thing as "what religion X really teaches" separate from "what the followers of religion X believe that it teaches".

Or in other words, what the followers of a religion THINK that it teaches, IS what the religion teaches.

The religion itself IS the collection of what individual adherents believe.

No, there is what the religion teaches according to its texts, or according to official interpretation by that particular branch of the faith (for example, the Holy See, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church), and the individual may be at variance with it.

That statement is actually official doctrine (or close to it) in several religions. For example, Orthodox Christianity can be said to believe that the ultimate authority in deciding matters of faith is the public opinion of Orthodox Christians (because of the requirement that decisions of the Ecumenical Councils must be "accepted by the Church" in order to be valid - so in other words, if the clergy decide something but the majority of believers disagree and ignore this decision, then the decision was invalid).

Like how they used to kill each other over how many fingers to cross themselves with.

And most religions follow this principle unofficially even when it's not official doctrine. For example, Sunni Islam does not have any clergy. All Muslims are expected to follow the teachings of the Quran, and the belief is that these are perfectly clear. But, in practice, there are disputes about what the Quran really teaches. When such disputes arise, how are they resolved?

The problem isn't that interpretation is democratic, is that a book is used as a source of all truth at all. It still has to fit around the text, and if an individual choose to ignore a part of the text, which states this or that explicitly, then they are merely acting in a way that is not commendable within that religion.

Basically, public opinion decides. Imams (who are not regarded as clergy, but simply as wise men) can try to influence public opinion, but ultimately, public opinion decides.

Ultimately base around a book that has various unambiguous passages.

[Constantinopolis]

You are mistaken if you believe that all religions are based around a book (most are not), or that those religions which are based on a book believe that the book in question is the source of all religious truth (most do not).

Within Christianity, only Protestants (a minority) believe that the Bible is the source of all religious truth. And, famously, they are divided into hundreds of different groups that disagree with each other on what the Bible really says.

Within Islam, I am not knowledgeable enough to explain what is believed about the authority of the Quran, but I do know that the Hadith is also regarded as a source of religious truth, besides the Quran, and the Hadith is not considered infallible (far from it, in fact - it's divided into different parts that are considered to be more or less reliable).

Judaism also is not based entirely and exclusively on the Torah, but relies on a very large collection of accumulated rabbinic teachings, which are regarded as more or less reliable sources of religious truth.

As for the non-Abrahamic religions, they don't have any central "holy books" at all, at least not in the sense that the Bible, Quran or Torah are holy books.

Basically, very few people believe in a religion based entirely and exclusively on a single holy text. Among those people who believe in "text-based religions" (so to speak), the standard practice is to have one central Holy Book and then a much larger collection of texts and authorities that interpret the Holy Book and seek to explain what it really teaches.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You are mistaken if you believe that all religions are based around a book (most are not), or that those religions which are based on a book believe that the book in question is the source of all religious truth (most do not).

Most religions are based around a series of beliefs usually encapsulated in a text, which no believer should deviate from. The Buddhists have their Sutras, the Hindus their Vedas, Zoroastorians their Avesta, and finally, we have the Bible and the Quran of the B

Within Christianity, only Protestants (a minority) believe that the Bible is the source of all religious truth. And, famously, they are divided into hundreds of different groups that disagree with each other on what the Bible really says.

Wrong there, all Christians are required to believe that the Bible is the sole source of religious truths, from the Catholics to the Calvinists. The Catholics (and Orthodox) are distinguished from the Protestants by their belief that true interpretation of the Bible can only come from Holy Tradition, passed down since the times of the apostles, and from Jesus Christ himself.

Within Islam, I am not knowledgeable enough to explain what is believed about the authority of the Quran, but I do know that the Hadith is also regarded as a source of religious truth, besides the Quran, and the Hadith is not considered infallible (far from it, in fact - it's divided into different parts that are considered to be more or less reliable).

And the Islamic faith tells us that the Quran came directly from God.

Judaism also is not based entirely and exclusively on the Torah, but relies on a very large collection of accumulated rabbinic teachings, which are regarded as more or less reliable sources of religious truth.

I already addressed that.

As for the non-Abrahamic religions, they don't have any central "holy books" at all, at least not in the sense that the Bible, Quran or Torah are holy books.

The Zoroastorians have the Avesta, and the Buddhists have a collection of Sutras.

Basically, very few people believe in a religion based entirely and exclusively on a single holy text. Among those people who believe in "text-based religions" (so to speak), the standard practice is to have one central Holy Book and then a much larger collection of texts and authorities that interpret the Holy Book and seek to explain what it really teaches.

Religion is based upon that texts, that Holy Book is usually taken to be the source of all truths, and the commentators are simply trying to find out what that Holy Book is saying. If the holy books says 'women are subservient to men', the religion, then, unambiguously promote sexism.

[Jinwoy]

And the same thing is not true about religion because...?

Because, unlike a government, Religion isn't simply a tool and a system of organisation, it is a series of beliefs that is usually structured around a text, which can usually be found wanting.

So... a constitutional government?

[Conglomerate of Iron]

You are mistaken if you believe that all religions are based around a book (most are not), or that those religions which are based on a book believe that the book in question is the source of all religious truth (most do not).

Within Christianity, only Protestants (a minority) believe that the Bible is the source of all religious truth. And, famously, they are divided into hundreds of different groups that disagree with each other on what the Bible really says.

Within Islam, I am not knowledgeable enough to explain what is believed about the authority of the Quran, but I do know that the Hadith is also regarded as a source of religious truth, besides the Quran, and the Hadith is not considered infallible (far from it, in fact - it's divided into different parts that are considered to be more or less reliable).

Judaism also is not based entirely and exclusively on the Torah, but relies on a very large collection of accumulated rabbinic teachings, which are regarded as more or less reliable sources of religious truth.

As for the non-Abrahamic religions, they don't have any central "holy books" at all, at least not in the sense that the Bible, Quran or Torah are holy books.

Basically, very few people believe in a religion based entirely and exclusively on a single holy text. Among those people who believe in "text-based religions" (so to speak), the standard practice is to have one central Holy Book and then a much larger collection of texts and authorities that interpret the Holy Book and seek to explain what it really teaches.

Nations, because you appear deadset on converting everyone to your atheist cult, I am done debating with you. You are obviously an extremist who does not want anyone else to believe in an opposing belief system. Your claims that atheism is "superior" is just the same as fundamentalist religions claiming their religion superior and forcing it upon others. I personally, only conform tothe wishes of one being: myself. You know what religion I am? I am a goddamn pagan. Yup, tree and nature worship all the way. I will never give up my beliefs. Tell me, in your "perfect" society, if people refused to convert, would you kill them like the Nazis and Soviets killed the Jews and other religions?

[Conglomerate of Iron]

You are mistaken if you believe that all religions are based around a book (most are not), or that those religions which are based on a book believe that the book in question is the source of all religious truth (most do not).

Within Christianity, only Protestants (a minority) believe that the Bible is the source of all religious truth. And, famously, they are divided into hundreds of different groups that disagree with each other on what the Bible really says.

Within Islam, I am not knowledgeable enough to explain what is believed about the authority of the Quran, but I do know that the Hadith is also regarded as a source of religious truth, besides the Quran, and the Hadith is not considered infallible (far from it, in fact - it's divided into different parts that are considered to be more or less reliable).

Judaism also is not based entirely and exclusively on the Torah, but relies on a very large collection of accumulated rabbinic teachings, which are regarded as more or less reliable sources of religious truth.

As for the non-Abrahamic religions, they don't have any central "holy books" at all, at least not in the sense that the Bible, Quran or Torah are holy books.

Basically, very few people believe in a religion based entirely and exclusively on a single holy text. Among those people who believe in "text-based religions" (so to speak), the standard practice is to have one central Holy Book and then a much larger collection of texts and authorities that interpret the Holy Book and seek to explain what it really teaches.

Nations, because you appear deadset on converting everyone to your atheist cult, I am done debating with you. You are obviously an extremist who does not want anyone else to believe in an opposing belief system. Your claims that atheism is "superior" is just the same as fundamentalist religions claiming their religion superior and forcing it upon others. I personally, only conform tothe wishes of one being: myself. You know what religion I am? I am a goddamn pagan. Yup, tree and nature worship all the way. I will never give up my beliefs. Tell me, in your "perfect" society, if people refused to convert, would you kill them like the Nazis and Soviets killed the Jews and other religions?

[Napkiraly]

You are mistaken if you believe that all religions are based around a book (most are not), or that those religions which are based on a book believe that the book in question is the source of all religious truth (most do not).

Within Christianity, only Protestants (a minority) believe that the Bible is the source of all religious truth. And, famously, they are divided into hundreds of different groups that disagree with each other on what the Bible really says.

Within Islam, I am not knowledgeable enough to explain what is believed about the authority of the Quran, but I do know that the Hadith is also regarded as a source of religious truth, besides the Quran, and the Hadith is not considered infallible (far from it, in fact - it's divided into different parts that are considered to be more or less reliable).

Judaism also is not based entirely and exclusively on the Torah, but relies on a very large collection of accumulated rabbinic teachings, which are regarded as more or less reliable sources of religious truth.

As for the non-Abrahamic religions, they don't have any central "holy books" at all, at least not in the sense that the Bible, Quran or Torah are holy books.

Basically, very few people believe in a religion based entirely and exclusively on a single holy text. Among those people who believe in "text-based religions" (so to speak), the standard practice is to have one central Holy Book and then a much larger collection of texts and authorities that interpret the Holy Book and seek to explain what it really teaches.

Nations, because you appear deadset on converting everyone to your atheist cult, I am done debating with you. You are obviously an extremist who does not want anyone else to believe in an opposing belief system. Your claims that atheism is "superior" is just the same as fundamentalist religions claiming their religion superior and forcing it upon others. I personally, only conform tothe wishes of one being: myself. You know what religion I am? I am a goddamn pagan. Yup, tree and nature worship all the way. I will never give up my beliefs. Tell me, in your "perfect" society, if people refused to convert, would you kill them like the Nazis and Soviets killed the Jews and other religions?

Atheism isn't a cult. Just gonna point that out.

And no, most atheist aren't cool with killing people who refuse to be atheists.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Nations, because you appear deadset on converting everyone to your atheist cult, I am done debating with you. You are obviously an extremist who does not want anyone else to believe in an opposing belief system. Your claims that atheism is "superior" is just the same as fundamentalist religions claiming their religion superior and forcing it upon others. I personally, only conform tothe wishes of one being: myself. You know what religion I am? I am a goddamn pagan. Yup, tree and nature worship all the way. I will never give up my beliefs. Tell me, in your "perfect" society, if people refused to convert, would you kill them like the Nazis and Soviets killed the Jews and other religions?

Atheism isn't a cult. Just gonna point that out.

And no, most atheist aren't cool with killing people who refuse to be atheists.

I am sorry! I have nothing against atheism. I was attacking Nations' radical expansionist version of it.

I know plenty of atheists, they are cool (:

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You are mistaken if you believe that all religions are based around a book (most are not), or that those religions which are based on a book believe that the book in question is the source of all religious truth (most do not).

Within Christianity, only Protestants (a minority) believe that the Bible is the source of all religious truth. And, famously, they are divided into hundreds of different groups that disagree with each other on what the Bible really says.

Within Islam, I am not knowledgeable enough to explain what is believed about the authority of the Quran, but I do know that the Hadith is also regarded as a source of religious truth, besides the Quran, and the Hadith is not considered infallible (far from it, in fact - it's divided into different parts that are considered to be more or less reliable).

Judaism also is not based entirely and exclusively on the Torah, but relies on a very large collection of accumulated rabbinic teachings, which are regarded as more or less reliable sources of religious truth.

As for the non-Abrahamic religions, they don't have any central "holy books" at all, at least not in the sense that the Bible, Quran or Torah are holy books.

Basically, very few people believe in a religion based entirely and exclusively on a single holy text. Among those people who believe in "text-based religions" (so to speak), the standard practice is to have one central Holy Book and then a much larger collection of texts and authorities that interpret the Holy Book and seek to explain what it really teaches.

Nations, because you appear deadset on converting everyone to your atheist cult, I am done debating with you.

Wrong, I don't want everyone to be part of my "atheist cult" that can be converted into, I would like for all people to stop believing in God, at the very least, stop being part of a religion, just as you, probably, would like for all people to stop believing that their particular race is endowed with such characteristics that makes them superior to all other races.

You are obviously an extremist who does not want anyone else to believe in an opposing belief system. Your claims that atheism is "superior" is just the same as fundamentalist religions claiming their religion superior and forcing it upon others.

Of course I am an extremist, if extremist means that I take an extreme position. Beside which I do not claim that atheism is superior to religion, I simply claim that religion is much worse than the other state of affair where there is no religion. While a belief in God is silly, a belief that God mandates you do this or that is dangerous.

I personally, only conform tothe wishes of one being: myself.

Whose wishes are the product of one's education, rearing, and environment: your education, rearing, and environment.

You know what religion I am? I am a goddamn pagan.Yup, tree and nature worship all the way.

So you are believer in a modern reconstruction of ancient beliefs based upon the sketchiest knowledge of archeology, history, and anthropology?

I will never give up my beliefs. Tell me, in your "perfect" society, if people refused to convert, would you kill them like the Nazis and Soviets killed the Jews and other religions?

Godwin to the rescue. If your tree and plant religion mandate, for example, that you should take only herbal remedies of little medicinal value, then, yes, we would be doing you a favour by getting you out of your wierd, and possibly dangerous new age religion.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because, unlike a government, Religion isn't simply a tool and a system of organisation, it is a series of beliefs that is usually structured around a text, which can usually be found wanting.

So... a constitutional government?

A constitutional government is still not a series of beliefs.

[Jinwoy]

So... a constitutional government?

A constitutional government is still not a series of beliefs.

The constitution is a set of opinionated beliefs made into central law for the nation to follow until the end of time.
The commandments are a set of opinionated beliefs made into central law for the people to follow until the end of time.
Believe me, the comparison is there and considerably apt at that.

[Murkwood]

Do Iranians still view Islam as a foreign, invading religion, or have they accepted it's part of their identity?

They are an Islamic Republic*, so at least the government has.

*The word Republic is a farce. It's a dictatorship.