Is there a God?

[Insaanistan]

What began as a thread by someone saying they were confused, has become theists and atheists attacking each other. Literally, the concept of faith implies believing something regardless of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. On top of that, an omnipotent being can neither be proved nor disproved by nature as such a being can do whatever they want however they want.

I don’t wish to attack anyone. I apologize if I actually did.

[Nec Terram]

What began as a thread by someone saying they were confused, has become theists and atheists attacking each other. Literally, the concept of faith implies believing something regardless of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. On top of that, an omnipotent being can neither be proved nor disproved by nature as such a being can do whatever they want however they want.

I don’t wish to attack anyone. I apologize if I actually did.

...for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.

All things said in this thread so far have been attacks on and defenses of the belief in a higher power and similarly with atheism.

[Cordel One]

I don't think there's a god, but there's no problem with people who do unless they use it as an excuse to subjugate, exploit, or commit atrocities.

[Insaanistan]

I don't think there's a god, but there's no problem with people who do unless they use it as an excuse to subjugate, exploit, or commit atrocities.

I agree on the second half of that sentence.

[The Alma Mater]

The Torah, Bible and Quran being written by Satan would explain why a plain reading induces people to do evil, and why modern civilisation largely rejects all three in favour of good behaviour. But in reality, we know that neither Satan nor God had anything to do with the visions of a crazy merchant hallucinating in the desert. Mostly because the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, secondarily because it's all plagiarised versions from earlier polytheistic works.

Also, are you trying to say that those books encourage you to be bad because people claim to be following them while doing bad stuff.

Seems to be the case, no ? The Quran seems to turn potentially magnificent people into rather "meh" or even "bad" people.
Does not matter if you quote a hundred inspiring verses that suggest it opposes meh-ness or evil-ness strongly - the end result remains.

Because if so, you obviously have never heard of the atheist near where I live who shit three Muslims on their graduation day simply for being Muslim, OR of the numerous global atheist terrorist groups.

So there are more things that can make people turn meh or bad. Who knew.

[Nec Terram]

While some facets of Islam are controversial, that fact remains that it is up to the individual to interpret and implement the system into their own, personal belief system. While it appears that the Qu'ran has a tendency of making people "worse" than they could have been, it may just be that certain ideas are easier to use in excusing the actions they make. A small percentage of Muslims believe in violent jihad, but the religion has a billion adherents, which translates to thousands and possibly millions of people.

[The Archregimancy]

We'll focus on just one flaw here. Your assumption that since Muhammed (PBUH) didn't meet 'missionaries' - and let's leave aside the previously mentioned demonstrable fact he did meet religious figures in Syria, most notably Bahira - he wouldn't have been exposed to other monotheistic religions in any detail on those adolescent trips to Syria (or indeed at other times) overlooks the extent to which Christian apologetics infused almost aspect of life in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 6th century. To a Byzantine Christian of the period, everything was religious. Or to quote St Gregory of Nyssa (admittedly for the 4th century rather than the 6th; but the point holds):



Under the circumstances, it would have been impossible for Arab merchants trading to Syria not to be exposed to Christian theology, especially given it was the overlapping frontier between Chalcedonian Christianity, Miaphysitism, and Nestorianism.

Maybe I’m not making it clear, or maybe you guys aren’t reading what I type correctly. But I AM NOT saying Muhammad (pbuh) never met Bahira, or that he never met Christians in Syria, or that Christian Arabs weren’t significant at the time. I AM saying that he was not being proselytized to.

I believe that you're missing my point - which is that your attempt to mark a division between 'proselytisation' by 'missionaries' and ordinary social discourse in the late 6th-century Eastern Mediterranean is anachronistic given the sociocultural milieu that the adolescent Muhammed (PBUH) would have been exposed to.

You're willing to concede that he knew about Christianity (and Judaism; but let's focus on the former). You're willing to concede that there were Christian kingdoms in Arabia. You're willing to concede that he met with Christians. You're willing to concede that a Christian monk played an important part in his early story. If you like, I can even demonstrate that there are pre-Islamic Arab Christian saints in the Orthodox Church. Yet you seem oddly focused on this anachronistic concept of 'missionaries' 'proselytising'; it's an artificial distinction for the time and place. Believe me, a Byzantine Christian wouldn't have considered it 'proselytising' to open up a trade negotiation with Abu Talib's entourage by denouncing the local spice seller's Miaphysite Christology, wondering if the local camel breeder was a Nestorian, and then passive-aggressively noting the benefits of Christianity over desert paganism - and wondering if this was something Abu Talib's family might want to think about - before getting down to the nitty gritty of prices.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

[Insaanistan]

While some facets of Islam are controversial, that fact remains that it is up to the individual to interpret and implement the system into their own, personal belief system. While it appears that the Qu'ran has a tendency of making people "worse" than they could have been, it may just be that certain ideas are easier to use in excusing the actions they make. A small percentage of Muslims believe in violent jihad, but the religion has a billion adherents, which translates to thousands and possibly millions of people.

Uhhh... what’s controversial about it? The anti-sexism or the anti-racism?

[Insaanistan]

Maybe I’m not making it clear, or maybe you guys aren’t reading what I type correctly. But I AM NOT saying Muhammad (pbuh) never met Bahira, or that he never met Christians in Syria, or that Christian Arabs weren’t significant at the time. I AM saying that he was not being proselytized to.

I believe that you're missing my point - which is that your attempt to mark a division between 'proselytisation' by 'missionaries' and ordinary social discourse in the late 6th-century Eastern Mediterranean is anachronistic given the sociocultural milieu that the adolescent Muhammed (PBUH) would have been exposed to.

You're willing to concede that he knew about Christianity (and Judaism; but let's focus on the former). You're willing to concede that there were Christian kingdoms in Arabia. You're willing to concede that he met with Christians. You're willing to concede that a Christian monk played an important part in his early story. If you like, I can even demonstrate that there are pre-Islamic Arab Christian saints in the Orthodox Church. Yet you seem oddly focused on this anachronistic concept of 'missionaries' 'proselytising'; it's an artificial distinction for the time and place. Believe me, a Byzantine Christian wouldn't have considered it 'proselytising' to open up a trade negotiation with Abu Talib's entourage by denouncing the local spice seller's Miaphysite Christology, wondering if the local camel breeder was a Nestorian, and then passive-aggressively noting the benefits of Christianity over desert paganism - and wondering if this was something Abu Talib's family might want to think about - before getting down to the nitty gritty of prices.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

You make valid points, but realize:
Not everyone would start out like this. Many people, yes (even in places like Nigeria it would still occur), but not everyone
Muhammad (pbuh) was a child for much of this, though he would venture into said lands later
Muhammad (pbuh), when told this, wasn’t memorizing it in hopes of one day proclaiming to be a chosen on
Muhammad (pbuh) would not have been entire Bible passages and on top of it devise ways to make them rhyme

[Gaynada]

You make valid points, but realize:
Not everyone would start out like this. Many people, yes (even in places like Nigeria it would still occur), but not everyone

General rules may not be applicable in this specific situation.

Muhammad (pbuh) was a child for much of this, though he would venture into said lands later

Nobody denies this, as the year he ventured there is irrelevant to the discussion

Muhammad (pbuh), when told this, wasn’t memorizing it in hopes of one day proclaiming to be a chosen on

Nobody claimed that Mohammed had that in mind. They simply suggested that he memorised it.

Muhammad (pbuh) would not have been entire Bible passages and on top of it devise ways to make them rhyme

But some of the recitals may already have rhymed. All he had to do is memorise them, and add some lines of his own.

[Salandriagado]

What began as a thread by someone saying they were confused, has become theists and atheists attacking each other. Literally, the concept of faith implies believing something regardless of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. On top of that, an omnipotent being can neither be proved nor disproved by nature as such a being can do whatever they want however they want.

You didn't actually read the thread before posting that, did you? It's become mostly a history lesson, in fact.

[The Hindustani State]

Yeah it does often get mistaken as being atheist, which as has been mentioned isn't really a good interpretation of the religion, although somewhat understandable.

It is somewhat ironic that the conception of Buddhism that is so lionized in the Western world as rationalistic and atheistic was the product of 16th century Jesuit and (later) 19th century Protestant missionaries who invented their own bogeyman out of what they interpreted as the Buddhist beliefs, such as the interpretation of emptiness as nothingness or Spinozan pantheism.

The "Buddhism" in the West has no basis in Buddhist writings at all, it is mostly hippies making up their own religion and calling it Buddhism because they think it’s cool

[Attempted Socialism]

They're clearly the bad guys? Genocide, warcrimes, ordering mass slaughter and enslavement, proclaiming crazy and evil laws... It's like if you read American Psycho, Bateman is the main character, sure, but we all recognise that he's the villain of the story.

Let’s focus on Muhammad (pbuh) for a sec: Part of his last sermon was “There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white.”

Nice cherry-pick. We both know this is not the impression you get from reading the Quran, which doesn't just accept but requires slavery, sexism and racism to be committed.

Muhammad’s rules of war:
“1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.
2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation.
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.
5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.
6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship.
7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.
8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.
9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.
10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.”

Why do you lie?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran ... /long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran ... rance.html

Before prophethood, Muhammad (pbuh) freed the few slaves he had, and treated them very well. When he married Khadijah, he immediately freed all her slaves. During prophethood, he bought slaves just to immediately free them and ordered his followers to do the same if able. He made it so if you hit a slave, insult a slave, or treat a slave badly you have to free them. Islam gives one rewards for freeing slaves. The Qur’ân condemns slavery by saying all people belong only to God and no one else.

Was this before or after be specifically endorsed slavery and clearly states that slaves are property, to be raped, abused or killed as you please?

Crazy evil laws? In the words of Amaar when his father caught him sneaking out to listen to Muhammad (pbuh) and his dad said Muhammad (pbuh) was spreading dangerous ideas:
“Dangerous ideas? That no man should starve? That rich should help the poor? That the strong should not oppress the weak? Are these dangerous ideas? That women should not be forced into marriage but rather allowed to choose or refuse? Why only tonight he said ‘Stop the burial of newborn girls’!”

Again, nice cherry-pick.

Blatant lies, but I like how your version of Mosaic law doesn't emphasise mass murder, warcrimes, murdering your neighbour, raping your neighbour, enslaving your neighbour, murdering your neighbours livestock, punishing everything with death, and giving shitty advice on health, geography, history and biology.

Dude, literally one of the ten commandments is do not murder (English Bibles frequently translate that verse to "not kill" but in Hebrew it has the connotation of "murder).

Yeah, and then orders genocide, murder for every crime, and the slaughter of women and children. Though I, again, prefer this revised emphasis to the original Biblical.
Mosaic law mandates genocide, rape and other warcrimes, that's not really up for debate.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

The Israelites bathed regularly, as advised by the Law of Moses, washed their hands before every meal, advised by the Law of Moses, quarantined sick indivduals, also according to the Law of Moses, and the meats that were forbidden for consumption were suceptible to dangerous parasites like swine.

First, blatant lies. Second, irrelevant. In 2 Kings 20, figs cures death. In Psalm 103, the fictional Jehova character is the only one to heal diseases. There's no advice about germs, or nutrition, or soap. If a deity wrote the Bible, it is a deity who wanted humanity to die in pain from diseases that are easily cured in modern times.

I haven't seen anything about geography, nor biology.

Yet in just a bit you'll tell me you doubt I've read this book. In Genesis 8, Mount Ararat is higher than Mount Everest. In Psalm 194 the Earth is a flat disc so the fictional character Jehova can watch all the world at once. In Leviticus 11, bats are birds. And of course, all of Genesis is an insane compilation of stories we know are 100% false (Such as photosynthetic plants being chanted into existence before the sun or the flood myth).
Some of these errors, such as the flat Earth, were known around the time the Torah was being finalised. It's not that I ask you to go back to an originalist reading of these texts, it's just that we know that an originalist reading will ask you to be a dumber, crueler and more evil person.

And history is subjective anyway. Who's to say that the first "humans" were or weren't named Adam, meaning the first, and Eve, meaning mother of all.

Given the hundreds of thousands of years between the first humans (Who evolved in groups, that is, there were no singular first man or woman) and the development of the languages in the region, we can say for certainty that the Bible is wrong on this one as well. That's not up for debate.

I doubt you have even read the Books of Moses. Tell me your source of these claims of mass murder, warcrimes, and encouraging murder and rape. They didn't punish everything with death, only murder and adultery (which includes rape). They used slavery as a form of punishment, which lasted only for seven years. The typical punishment was replacement and a fine of equal cost.

The blatant lies about Biblical slavery is so debunked, a Youtube video will suffice to educate you on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4

What began as a thread by someone saying they were confused, has become theists and atheists attacking each other. Literally, the concept of faith implies believing something regardless of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. On top of that, an omnipotent being can neither be proved nor disproved by nature as such a being can do whatever they want however they want.

Well, we can't disprove all hypothetical omnipotent, non-interventionist deities, no. But the good thing about the Abrahamic god is that it is said to have done some very specific acts, such as creating the world in a very specific way, flooded the Earth, interacted with various people etc. At the same time we can trace the development and revisions of this deity, from polytheistic roots to the version we see in the Torah, Bible and Quran. Since we know this deity was made up by humans and we know the acts it must have done to be the deity it says it is didn't happen, we can be certain this particular deity does not (And indeed, cannot) exist.

[The Archregimancy]

Let’s focus on Muhammad (pbuh) for a sec: Part of his last sermon was “There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white.”

Nice cherry-pick. We both know this is not the impression you get from reading the Quran, which doesn't just accept but requires slavery, sexism and racism to be committed.

In fairness to Insaanistan, he's more or less correct here. There's a fair amount of sexism by modern standards (not by the standards of the day, mind; but that's a separate issue), but no real racism (religion-based discrimination, yes, but not racism), and no race-based slavery. Race-based slavery is largely a post-medieval invention.

The unspoken bit at the end of that last sermon is "There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white. So long as you accept Islam."

Muhammed (PBUH) is no more personally responsible for the subsequent racism of many of his later followers than Jesus of Nazareth is personally responsible for the Confederate States of America.

[Insaanistan]

Let’s focus on Muhammad (pbuh) for a sec: Part of his last sermon was “There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white.”

Nice cherry-pick. We both know this is not the impression you get from reading the Quran, which doesn't just accept but requires slavery, sexism and racism to be committed.

Muhammad’s rules of war:
“1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.
2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation.
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.
5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.
6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship.
7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.
8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.
9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.
10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.”

Why do you lie?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran ... /long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran ... rance.html

Before prophethood, Muhammad (pbuh) freed the few slaves he had, and treated them very well. When he married Khadijah, he immediately freed all her slaves. During prophethood, he bought slaves just to immediately free them and ordered his followers to do the same if able. He made it so if you hit a slave, insult a slave, or treat a slave badly you have to free them. Islam gives one rewards for freeing slaves. The Qur’ân condemns slavery by saying all people belong only to God and no one else.

Was this before or after be specifically endorsed slavery and clearly states that slaves are property, to be raped, abused or killed as you please?

Crazy evil laws? In the words of Amaar when his father caught him sneaking out to listen to Muhammad (pbuh) and his dad said Muhammad (pbuh) was spreading dangerous ideas:
“Dangerous ideas? That no man should starve? That rich should help the poor? That the strong should not oppress the weak? Are these dangerous ideas? That women should not be forced into marriage but rather allowed to choose or refuse? Why only tonight he said ‘Stop the burial of newborn girls’!”

Again, nice cherry-pick.

Dude, literally one of the ten commandments is do not murder (English Bibles frequently translate that verse to "not kill" but in Hebrew it has the connotation of "murder).

Yeah, and then orders genocide, murder for every crime, and the slaughter of women and children. Though I, again, prefer this revised emphasis to the original Biblical.
Mosaic law mandates genocide, rape and other warcrimes, that's not really up for debate.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

The Israelites bathed regularly, as advised by the Law of Moses, washed their hands before every meal, advised by the Law of Moses, quarantined sick indivduals, also according to the Law of Moses, and the meats that were forbidden for consumption were suceptible to dangerous parasites like swine.

First, blatant lies. Second, irrelevant. In 2 Kings 20, figs cures death. In Psalm 103, the fictional Jehova character is the only one to heal diseases. There's no advice about germs, or nutrition, or soap. If a deity wrote the Bible, it is a deity who wanted humanity to die in pain from diseases that are easily cured in modern times.

I haven't seen anything about geography, nor biology.

Yet in just a bit you'll tell me you doubt I've read this book. In Genesis 8, Mount Ararat is higher than Mount Everest. In Psalm 194 the Earth is a flat disc so the fictional character Jehova can watch all the world at once. In Leviticus 11, bats are birds. And of course, all of Genesis is an insane compilation of stories we know are 100% false (Such as photosynthetic plants being chanted into existence before the sun or the flood myth).
Some of these errors, such as the flat Earth, were known around the time the Torah was being finalised. It's not that I ask you to go back to an originalist reading of these texts, it's just that we know that an originalist reading will ask you to be a dumber, crueler and more evil person.

And history is subjective anyway. Who's to say that the first "humans" were or weren't named Adam, meaning the first, and Eve, meaning mother of all.

Given the hundreds of thousands of years between the first humans (Who evolved in groups, that is, there were no singular first man or woman) and the development of the languages in the region, we can say for certainty that the Bible is wrong on this one as well. That's not up for debate.

I doubt you have even read the Books of Moses. Tell me your source of these claims of mass murder, warcrimes, and encouraging murder and rape. They didn't punish everything with death, only murder and adultery (which includes rape). They used slavery as a form of punishment, which lasted only for seven years. The typical punishment was replacement and a fine of equal cost.

The blatant lies about Biblical slavery is so debunked, a Youtube video will suffice to educate you on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4

What began as a thread by someone saying they were confused, has become theists and atheists attacking each other. Literally, the concept of faith implies believing something regardless of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. On top of that, an omnipotent being can neither be proved nor disproved by nature as such a being can do whatever they want however they want.

Well, we can't disprove all hypothetical omnipotent, non-interventionist deities, no. But the good thing about the Abrahamic god is that it is said to have done some very specific acts, such as creating the world in a very specific way, flooded the Earth, interacted with various people etc. At the same time we can trace the development and revisions of this deity, from polytheistic roots to the version we see in the Torah, Bible and Quran. Since we know this deity was made up by humans and we know the acts it must have done to be the deity it says it is didn't happen, we can be certain this particular deity does not (And indeed, cannot) exist.

Let me ask you something: Have you ever read a physical copy of the Qur’ân?

[The New California Republic]

Nice cherry-pick. We both know this is not the impression you get from reading the Quran, which doesn't just accept but requires slavery, sexism and racism to be committed.

In fairness to Insaanistan, he's more or less correct here. There's a fair amount of sexism by modern standards (not by the standards of the day, mind; but that's a separate issue), but no real racism (religion-based discrimination, yes, but not racism), and no race-based slavery. Race-based slavery is largely a post-medieval invention.

Yes can confirm. There's plenty of other things in it that I found objectionable, but I didn't really see anything in the way of racism, and I definitely would have made a note of it if I'd spotted it.

[Kiu Ghesik]

What began as a thread by someone saying they were confused, has become theists and atheists attacking each other. Literally, the concept of faith implies believing something regardless of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. On top of that, an omnipotent being can neither be proved nor disproved by nature as such a being can do whatever they want however they want.

You didn't actually read the thread before posting that, did you? It's become mostly a history lesson, in fact.

Well, I mean, back around 80-130 it was basically theists and atheists attacking each others' beliefs and feeling self-righteous about it.

[Insaanistan]

Nice cherry-pick. We both know this is not the impression you get from reading the Quran, which doesn't just accept but requires slavery, sexism and racism to be committed.

In fairness to Insaanistan, he's more or less correct here. There's a fair amount of sexism by modern standards (not by the standards of the day, mind; but that's a separate issue), but no real racism (religion-based discrimination, yes, but not racism), and no race-based slavery. Race-based slavery is largely a post-medieval invention.

The unspoken bit at the end of that last sermon is "There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white. So long as you accept Islam."

Muhammed (PBUH) is no more personally responsible for the subsequent racism of many of his later followers than Jesus of Nazareth is personally responsible for the Confederate States of America.

Sexism, again, not there. Slavery, spoken against. The “unspoken bit”, not really, which we can see from the Qur’ân and Hadith.
Other than that we largely agree.

[Insaanistan]

In fairness to Insaanistan, he's more or less correct here. There's a fair amount of sexism by modern standards (not by the standards of the day, mind; but that's a separate issue), but no real racism (religion-based discrimination, yes, but not racism), and no race-based slavery. Race-based slavery is largely a post-medieval invention.

Yes can confirm. There's plenty of other things in it that I found objectionable, but I didn't really see anything in the way of racism, and I definitely would have made a note of it if I'd spotted it.

What did you object to?

[Tarsonis]

Despite being an orphan he was cared for by his grandfather and uncle who were wealthy and prominent members of Banu Hashim. He traveled with his uncle to learn trade, meaning he was educated as fitting of his family's station. It's far more unlikely that he would be illiterate by his 30's than he would be literate.

Wealthy in a time and place where illiteracy was common,and the ability to read wasn’t necessary for him. If ONE person in the caravan was literate, than that was good enough. Also, his uncle took him along because he loved Muhammad (pbuh). Muhammad (pbuh)’s first job was being a shepherd. It makes perfect sense he wouldn’t be literate.

Doubtful. When everyone is illiterate, readers have power. No merchant is going to just rely on a caravan member to do the reading and writing, it would open them up to being cheated out of their eyeballs. Muhammad would have been instructed in literacy in some capacity. He might have only had a first grade reading level, but thats still some semblance of literacy. And since the only evidence is the Quran, which can't be used to substantiate the claim, your argument has no basis. However as has been pointed out, given the culture of the times whether her was literate or not, really isn't relevant to his ability to make up the Quran whole cloth.

[Attempted Socialism]

Let me ask you something: Have you ever read a physical copy of the Qur’ân?

Yes, of course I have. I have also read Amstrongs A History of God and Muhammad. All in physical copies, though this shouldn't matter in this day and age, but I like the implicit acknowledgement that since I do have these books in my home library, I must then be correct.

Nice cherry-pick. We both know this is not the impression you get from reading the Quran, which doesn't just accept but requires slavery, sexism and racism to be committed.

In fairness to Insaanistan, he's more or less correct here. There's a fair amount of sexism by modern standards (not by the standards of the day, mind; but that's a separate issue), but no real racism (religion-based discrimination, yes, but not racism), and no race-based slavery. Race-based slavery is largely a post-medieval invention.

The unspoken bit at the end of that last sermon is "There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white. So long as you accept Islam."

Muhammed (PBUH) is no more personally responsible for the subsequent racism of many of his later followers than Jesus of Nazareth is personally responsible for the Confederate States of America.

Perhaps I conflated ethnic, tribal and religious discrimination. I'll get back on this if I can find a clear source.

[The New California Republic]

Yes can confirm. There's plenty of other things in it that I found objectionable, but I didn't really see anything in the way of racism, and I definitely would have made a note of it if I'd spotted it.

What did you object to?

As Arch mentioned, mainly the issues around what it says about women, but the other points that I raised my eyebrow at are legion. My eyebrow-raising muscles on that side of my face were swole by the time I had finished reading it.

[Insaanistan]

Let me ask you something: Have you ever read a physical copy of the Qur’ân?

Yes, of course I have. I have also read Amstrongs A History of God and Muhammad. All in physical copies, though this shouldn't matter in this day and age, but I like the implicit acknowledgement that since I do have these books in my home library, I must then be correct.

In fairness to Insaanistan, he's more or less correct here. There's a fair amount of sexism by modern standards (not by the standards of the day, mind; but that's a separate issue), but no real racism (religion-based discrimination, yes, but not racism), and no race-based slavery. Race-based slavery is largely a post-medieval invention.

The unspoken bit at the end of that last sermon is "There is no superiority of an Arab over an non-Arab, nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white. So long as you accept Islam."

Muhammed (PBUH) is no more personally responsible for the subsequent racism of many of his later followers than Jesus of Nazareth is personally responsible for the Confederate States of America.

Perhaps I conflated ethnic, tribal and religious discrimination. I'll get back on this if I can find a clear source.

You’ve read a Qur’ân with commentary and explanations to go along with it? Or did you just get your reasoning from izlamverybad.com?

[Suriyanakhon]

It is somewhat ironic that the conception of Buddhism that is so lionized in the Western world as rationalistic and atheistic was the product of 16th century Jesuit and (later) 19th century Protestant missionaries who invented their own bogeyman out of what they interpreted as the Buddhist beliefs, such as the interpretation of emptiness as nothingness or Spinozan pantheism.

The "Buddhism" in the West has no basis in Buddhist writings at all, it is mostly hippies making up their own religion and calling it Buddhism because they think it’s cool

That's not an entirely fair generalization, but I can understand why you have that impression. I usually end up going to heavily ethnic Thai American temples because I find it much more genuine and real there. But there are legitimate Buddhist organizations and temples in the Western world, some of them run by Westerners who were ordained in Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc. and have scriptural orthodoxy.

[The New California Republic]

Or did you just get your reasoning from izlamverybad.com?

*puts that web address into the search bar, finds nothing*

Damn.