Aargh!

[Best First]

when people say atheism, by the way, do they mean thay are absolutely certain that there cannot be any higher/power being at all or just that they think that humocentric religions and associated concepts are nonsense?

[Metal Vendetta]

I use it to mean both things as I am both certain that there isn't a higher power (or at least not in the traditional sense of a "God") and that anthrocentric religions are a load of nonsense.

Dawkins (to bring him up again) was asked whether he should call himself agnostic rather than atheist (a chapter of TGD is titled "Why there almost certainly is no God") and replied that yes, he is agnostic about God, but only in the same way that he is agnostic about fairies, Thor, the FSM and Bertrand Russell's orbital teapot.

I think strictly speaking, an atheist could believe in a higher power or being as long as they were not supernatural in origin. As RD points out, if there were any proof of God's existence, he would be one of His greatest proponents.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism is quite interesting - the American Heritage Dictionary defines atheism as:

1. a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

The second definition is obviously pure propaganda.

[Brendocon]

How the hell does having no God equate to having no morals?

You hear that?

... wait for it...

Yeah, that. Hear it?

That's the sound of my mind boggling.

[Best First]

whereas i know exactly what you mean by not in the traditional sense of a "God" i think my problem is i can't help but feel that athiesm as a term carries with it a notion of certainty that i think boarders on religious, which i am therefore hesitnat to use to describe my own beliefs for frea of creating a false impression.

howeevr agnosticism is equally unuseful as people tend to assume that it means you are open to traditional notions of god, which i ruled out some time ago.

[Metal Vendetta]

I've been told that "atheism is just another religion" quite a lot lately too, which really pisses me off, and I've taken to referring to myself as a rationalist instead - that way it's clear that I don't believe in supernatural entities - it's a huge double standard though, because with regards to any supernatural being except God, no-one says this. If I said I didn't believe that vampires exist, no-one says "How can you be so certain? There must be something that sucks young maidens' blood and turns into a bat."

Usually the people who attack atheism in this way are those who have vague and unformed beliefs themselves - they'll say that they're not religious but they believe that there's "something out there", which to my mind is hardly a position from which to criticise other people's beliefs. Like Douglas Adams (who referred to himself as a "radical atheist" to make the same point) I have thought long and hard about this, I have read all the holy books, studied the available evidence and come to the conclusion that there isn't a God. I've come to the same conclusion about fairies, UFOs, centaurs, unicorns and the notion that Pat Lee can draw a decent Optimus Prime*, but since the culture in which I live draws the same conclusions (on the whole, though there are some people who believe in UFOs) I generally don't have to justify my non-belief in such things.

When it comes to God, though, the idea of a heavenly father-figure is so firmly entrenched in our society that when you say you don't believe in the Giant Space Monkey people turn around and say "How can you be so sure?" From my point of view, I don't deny the existence of God with a "religious fervour", it's more like basic common sense.

If that makes sense.

*though that does make me a racist

[Brendocon]

If I said I didn't believe that vampires exist, no-one says "How can you be so certain? There must be something that sucks young maidens' blood and turns into a bat."

You don't believe in vampires?

Seriously, though (and ignoring the documented fact that certain creatures are indisputably vampiric in nature), my reaction to "how can you be so sure there isn't a god?" is generally "how can you be so sure there is?"

I find that most sensible people respond to that with "well... I can't" at which point the topic hits a healthy resolution with us both respecting each others choice and the conversation moves onto something far less divisive... like films or music...

Personally I regard myself as an athiest in the "I don't believe in any of the existing religions" sense, rather than the "I believe in nothing" sense. My dismissal of the Bible is grounded in my dismissal of the Greek Myths.

[The Last Autobot]

All Ive read until now makes me want to build a little shrine and pray to RD for showing us the light.

Im a Dawkianist now.

Atheism could very well be a genetic thing

The atheists are Xmen, go figure.

[Best First]

I've been told that "atheism is just another religion" quite a lot lately too, which really pisses me off, and I've taken to referring to myself as a rationalist instead - that way it's clear that I don't believe in supernatural entities - it's a huge double standard though, because with regards to any supernatural being except God, no-one says this. If I said I didn't believe that vampires exist, no-one says "How can you be so certain? There must be something that sucks young maidens' blood and turns into a bat."

Usually the people who attack atheism in this way are those who have vague and unformed beliefs themselves - they'll say that they're not religious but they believe that there's "something out there", which to my mind is hardly a position from which to criticise other people's beliefs. Like Douglas Adams (who referred to himself as a "radical atheist" to make the same point) I have thought long and hard about this, I have read all the holy books, studied the available evidence and come to the conclusion that there isn't a God. I've come to the same conclusion about fairies, UFOs, centaurs, unicorns and the notion that Pat Lee can draw a decent Optimus Prime*, but since the culture in which I live draws the same conclusions (on the whole, though there are some people who believe in UFOs) I generally don't have to justify my non-belief in such things.

When it comes to God, though, the idea of a heavenly father-figure is so firmly entrenched in our society that when you say you don't believe in the Giant Space Monkey people turn around and say "How can you be so sure?" From my point of view, I don't deny the existence of God with a "religious fervour", it's more like basic common sense.

If that makes sense.

*though that does make me a racist

i think the 'religion is another faith' arguement tends to be a bounce back from some peoplle's rather fevered denounciation of religion (hence my issues with it) - as soon as someone just starts repeating their own dogma to you (even if grounded in a rational stance) its far easier to dismiss them because they are just telling you their opinions, rather than explaining why they hold them (which, in my eyes, is no real different to someone telling you their beliefs who can't actually explain them from a rational perspective).

do you think athiesm can ever have a common goal beyond just 'not being religous'? i think one of my other concerns is that it (we) don't neccessarily do a good job of replacing or offering alternatives too the more secular mores that religion can pander to - sense of community etc.

i'm not saying that would ever make me subscribe to a faith (or, as i se it a lie) but i sometimes think there are things that athiesm could do a better job of offering alternatives to - that said its hard to see how 'not believeing' can be the basis for a common creed.

if that makes any sense.

[Metal Vendetta]

Seriously, though (and ignoring the documented fact that certain creatures are indisputably vampiric in nature), my reaction to "how can you be so sure there isn't a god?" is generally "how can you be so sure there is?"

Usually the people who attack atheism in this way are those who have vague and unformed beliefs themselves - they'll say that they're not religious but they believe that there's "something out there", which to my mind is hardly a position from which to criticise other people's beliefs.

And the fact that there are vampiric creatures out there (vampire bats, for a good example) strengthens my case - there *are* creatures with vampiric traits but there are no supernatural vampires. Likewise there are creatures with very God-like traits (jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic and malevolent to borrow a few adjectives, and that's just how he's portrayed in the Bible) which are human beings. Like many of our myths, we've taken something real - people - and built a supernatural being around it. Bats turn into vampires, horses become unicorns, spiders become Spiderman, humans become God or gods, depending on your belief system.

I also think it's a mistake to equate atheism with "I believe in nothing" - I believe in a whole lot of things, like the computer at which I am typing, the internet that it is connected to, the desk at which I'm sitting. I also believe in lots of things that I have no direct evidence for, such as New Zealand or the Dezarus toy, neither of which I've seen with my own eyes.*

I believe in evolution through natural selection like I believe that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. I believe that there probably was a man called Jesus who was a bit of a radical and that Mohammed was a very smart and able politician. It's just that a lot of the things that people believe in just seem completely ludicrous concepts when taken at face value. And not forgetting First's first rule - that everyone is a hypocrite when you get down to it.

Edit - just seen your post Besty, I'll reply in a minute, work calls...

*there's a pedantic philosophical viewpoint where they say things like "How can you be sure what is real anyway? What do you mean by 'true'? How can you tell that we're not all brains in jars?" to which I say "Piss off, that's not helpful in the least." The point is that kind of reasoning wouldn't stand up in a court of law, in much the same way that Michael Behe spectacularly failed when he tried to prove that Intelligent Design is proper science in the courtroom

[Brendocon]

I also think it's a mistake to equate atheism with "I believe in nothing" - I believe in a whole lot of things, like the computer at which I am typing, the internet that it is connected to, the desk at which I'm sitting. I also believe in lots of things that I have no direct evidence for, such as New Zealand or the Dezarus toy, neither of which I've seen with my own eyes.*

Ah, but do we make a distinction between "there is nothing that I believe in" and "I believe in nothing." ?

[/bastard]

Not believing in anything without proof is different to believing that there's nothing beyond our physical plane.

Though one could argue that there's not a huge difference between the two notions.

Which is why I like to define it as "I don't believe in these religions" rather than bringing the word "nothing" into it... I don't regard myself as being particularly adept at arguing a point on the fly, so if I can immediately drive a bus through my own wording, I try to rephrase.

[Metal Vendetta]

i think the 'religion is another faith' arguement tends to be a bounce back from some peoplle's rather fevered denounciation of religion (hence my issues with it) - as soon as someone just starts repeating their own dogma to you (even if grounded in a rational stance) its far easier to dismiss them because they are just telling you their opinions, rather than explaining why they hold them (which, in my eyes, is no real different to someone telling you their beliefs who can't actually explain them from a rational perspective).

do you think athiesm can ever have a common goal beyond just 'not being religous'? i think one of my other concerns is that it (we) don't neccessarily do a good job of replacing or offering alternatives too the more secular mores that religion can pander to - sense of community etc.

i'm not saying that would ever make me subscribe to a faith (or, as i se it a lie) but i sometimes think there are things that athiesm could do a better job of offering alternatives to - that said its hard to see how 'not believeing' can be the basis for a common creed.

if that makes any sense.

Well I've joined a rationalist association with a very strong humanist vibe, there are plenty of ethical and moral secular groups and the Secular Society itself is quite influential.

I think a lot of the things that religion does offer are very difficult to replicate in a secular environment though - religion has some very specific features that make it attractive, like the promise of eternal life when you die - which atheism just can't compete with. Also, I disagree with a great number of the tactics used by the religious to bring people into their fold, many of them are suspiciously culty (even Jesus made his disciples leave their families) and others like the indoctrination of children are not the kind of thing I'd want to replicate in an atheist community.

I've actually found that most of the secular and rationalist groups in the UK are underpopulated, underfunded and exceedingly splintered (comparable to the People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front) even though many of the London-based ones share the same offices Though they work together, everyone seems to have their own ideas about what is important - humanism or the environment, for example - and so there's no real way to organise a united community the same way that churches do. I don't know what the answer is, but I think the network of small interlocking groups works better than the one big community thing - it's more stable and doesn't suffer from the same mob mentality that larger congregations seem to.

[Guest]

I've actually found that most of the secular and rationalist groups in the UK are underpopulated, underfunded and exceedingly splintered (comparable to the People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front) even though many of the London-based ones share the same offices Though they work together, everyone seems to have their own ideas about what is important - humanism or the environment, for example - and so there's no real way to organise a united community the same way that churches do. I don't know what the answer is, but I think the network of small interlocking groups works better than the one big community thing - it's more stable and doesn't suffer from the same mob mentality that larger congregations seem to.

A mesh network of small colonies that express themselves through waves of ideas in exactly the same way that was borrowed for the quantum physics definition of the probability waves of fundementals.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

frankly while you have claimed you have not done it in this topic the comment "why not just reinterprit the bible like you (who?) always do" is a good example of this kind of meaningless genarlisation.

Actually its not meaningless at all, the bible has been re-interpreted many times to fit the needs of the time - this topic alone stands as evidence to this!
Int design was created as a 're-interpretation' of the bibles version on how life works.
So, whilst the tone is mocking it is based on fact.

the point in hand, is my tone is obviously mocking, I hold my hands up to this but then there are alot of posts by many members, including yourself that mock religion - no one here can claim the havent had a laugh at religions expense.

As someone who cares about the subject and mature debate on it Smooth's post was the straw that broke the camel's back on this front for me, but, as stated, you regularly post in a similar manner.

Which is my point - everytime we talk about religion are you just going to slag me off no matter what I say because I once said X in topic X?

As stated i'm sorry if you are offended but my assertion is readily supported by large numbers of your posts on the subject.

It doesnt matter if its supported by an entire book of previous post data tho, whats your point? Are you going to bring up all of my old posts every time I post in a religous topic. no matter what I say, like u did in this thread?
Thats what im asking you, is this how u will talk about me from now on, respond to me from now on in these topics?

I want to know where I stand.

[Professor Smooth]

If you tell someone you're an Atheist, you get a lecture. If you tell someone you're an Agnostic, people will try to sway you to their side. If you tell someone you're a Satanist (which is pretty much the same thing as being an Atheist or an Agnostic), they tend to clam up and leave you to your own thing. I have yet to come across the Christian that doesn't walk away that the mention of Satan.

I stand by my beliefs that modern religion, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all wrong. I know this because, while studying all three, the evidence that they all stem from earlier tribal religions that were adapted and modified over thousands of years. Mark Smith's "Early History of God" is the most well-researched text I've found that shows the exact evolution of monotheism. It's an incredibly dry read, as it's purely a scholarly book, but well worth looking into.

[Guest]

If you tell someone you're an Atheist, you get a lecture. If you tell someone you're an Agnostic, people will try to sway you to their side. If you tell someone you're a Satanist (which is pretty much the same thing as being an Atheist or an Agnostic), they tend to clam up and leave you to your own thing. I have yet to come across the Christian that doesn't walk away that the mention of Satan.

Probably due to the implications of Satan in Abrahamic beliefs. Was Satanism called such for shock value, btw?

I stand by my beliefs that modern religion, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all wrong. I know this because, while studying all three, the evidence that they all stem from earlier tribal religions that were adapted and modified over thousands of years. Mark Smith's "Early History of God" is the most well-researched text I've found that shows the exact evolution of monotheism. It's an incredibly dry read, as it's purely a scholarly book, but well worth looking into.

To be honest, I doubt you'd find an non-Abrahamic religion that wasn't descended/adapted from earlier tribal religions either.

[Professor Smooth]

Probably due to the implications of Satan in Abrahamic beliefs. Was Satanism called such for shock value, btw?

I can't say that I know what Anton LaVey was thinking when he came up with the name, but I'd be greatly surprised if that didn't play a part.

[Shanti418]

Bah to that. It's socialization, not genetics. Still something kids have no control over.

If you're raised in a religious home, you stand a good chance of becoming religious.

If you're a drug addict and have no friends/family and are trying to kill yourself, and you find a bunch of people who say they love you and want to help you and that Jesus and God love you to, you stand a good chance of becoming religious.

If you search for meaning in your life, and then one day you dodge death in some miraculous manner, you stand a good chance of becoming religious.



But really, again, it's about how you're raised. If you're exposed to religion for the first 5-8 years of your life, I doubt very highly you will ever become an atheist.

[Professor Smooth]

If you're exposed to religion for the first 5-8 years of your life, I doubt very highly you will ever become an atheist.

I'm the exception to that. I went to CCD (Christian Saturday School, even the teachers didn't know what CCD stood for) until I was 12. Right around the time they started with "God is the most important thing in your life" stuff and the "The earth was created 6,000 years ago" stuff is when it became too much for me.

[Shanti418]

Word to your Mama, good sir. Exception, indeed. You are an exceptional person.

[Metal Vendetta]

If anyone has an hour to spare, this is well worth a look

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

Dawkins doing Q&A in Lynchburg. Fantastic stuff.

"Professor Dawkins, do you make a distinction between blind faith and rational faith?"
"Do I make a distinction between blind faith and rational faith? No."
"Ah, I was kind of hoping you would say yes there."

[Yaya]

I have noticed something, to which I have no answer as to why.

Why are those who hate religion the most, most commonly those who were raised as Christians before? What does the church do to them that makes them go beyond just simple rejection of it, and more towards hatred of it and all religion?

My theory is hypocrisy, perhaps.

Those who are raised Muslim might not follow it later, but rarely have I seen them so derisively speak out against it. And very rarely have I seen a Muslim completely give up Islam later in life. They may not follow it, but they don't hate it. They don't adopt the ways of Satanism.

Again, this is just a generalization, but in my personal experience, there certainly is some trend there.

[Professor Smooth]

I have noticed something, to which I have no answer as to why.

Why are those who hate religion the most, most commonly those who were raised as Christians before? What does the church do to them that makes them go beyond just simple rejection of it, and more towards hatred of it and all religion?

My theory is hypocrisy, perhaps.

Those who are raised Muslim might not follow it later, but rarely have I seen them so derisively speak out against it. And very rarely have I seen a Muslim completely give up Islam later in life. They may not follow it, but they don't hate it. They don't adopt the ways of Satanism.

Again, this is just a generalization, but in my personal experience, there certainly is some trend there.

I can't tell if that was intended as an insult or not. I'd be happy to put you into contact with some of my Satanic contacts who were previously Muslim if you'd like.

[Yaya]

I can't tell if that was intended as an insult or not. I'd be happy to put you into contact with some of my Satanic contacts who were previously Muslim if you'd like.

Not an insult, a genuine question. Is it the hypocrisy of the elders of the church, for example, that makes previous Christians develop not just a dislike, but a hatred, of Christianity and other religions?

Because even those who give up Islam are willing to admit that overall, Islam has some good in it.

I would like to hear from those Muslims who converted to Satanism, as I have never come across in my lifetime people of that inclination.

Firstly, I need to know if they are Muslim by name or did they truly believe it.

Secondly, I want to know why they did it.

Because truly, they are a rarity in my experience.

[sprunkner]

In my experience, Christianity tends to weigh in heavily on the side of personal behavior, which, despite admonitions not to judge, leads to a lot of judgment. Jesus was not terribly concerned with government or social rituals as Islam is, but he was very concerned with what was in people's hearts and minds. When you experience that kind of pressure--to think like this instead of the outward law stressed in Judaism and Islam--it can create a more severe backlash on a philosophical level. My backlash against Mormonism, which is a form of Christianity, took the form of mental breakdowns rather than outward changes in ritual.

That's just my opinion. I'm definitely of the opinion that Islam has an equal amount of flaws.

[Yaya]

That's just my opinion. I'm definitely of the opinion that Islam has an equal amount of flaws.

Yeah, I'm not of that opinion, obviously.

But what I don't get is that Islam too is concerned with personal behavior, moreso than Christianity, as well as being concerned with the heart and mind, as much as Christianity. Its doctrines stress morality, though the judging of people hearts are completely in God's hands rather than peoples.

It is this last idea, I guess, that turns some former Christians into religion haters.

They feel judged, something that should be left to the Creator.

Of those former Christians who have come to hate religion that I have met, it seems to stem from the hypocrisy of the Christian authorities, and from the judgemental attitude of fellow Christians.

And yet, there are hypocrites amongst Muslims too, no doubt.

So I guess in the end, it comes down to the 'being judged' part.

I guess.

[Professor Smooth]

Yaya, have you looked into the evidence about your religion? There are books, most of which have sources that are nearly impossible to refute, that explain its origin. I've mentioned earlier that Mark Smith's "Early History of God" is one of the best. It completely sidesteps the morals, ethics, and beliefs of religion. Of course there is good to be found in the pages of the Koran. There is good to be found in the pages of just about everything. Smiths book shows, step-by-step, how Islam (as well as the other Monotheistic religions) developed over the centuries. The evidence is overwhelming and the number of primary sources assembled is incredible.

In the face of evidence of exactly how your religion came about (should you decide to look at it), how do you justify remaining a part of it? I understand that you derive your morals and ethics from that book. That's completely understandable. I derive mine from Spider-Man (with great power, must also come great responsibility). But why do you need to believe and worship a God to hold those same ethics?

I have heard, time and time again, that without God, there is no absolute moral set. A say, "good!" An absolute, unchanging, unchangable, moral set flys in the face of progress. 500 years ago, everyone KNEW that non-whites were not worthy of the same respect as Europeans. 50 years ago, the idea of women being allowed to vote was laughable. Less than 200 years ago, killing off the indiginous peoples of North America in the name of Manifest Destiny was considered perfectly moral and commendable!

[sprunkner]

Okay, I've read a lot of Dawkins' website and his interviews, including the first chapter of The God Delusion (which, curiously enough, is out of print in America at the moment...) and despite his good points, this is utter ********:

"My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism. The 'sensible' religious people are really on the side of the fundamentalists, because they believe in supernaturalism. That puts me on the other side."

Let's go over it again, in case Derrida and Nietzsche didn't say it clearly enough: All binaries are subject to self-destruction. This one is especially ridiculous, because no matter what basis one has for one's beliefs, the ultimate action one takes will determine the end result, NOT one's beliefs. Richard Dawkins cannot say that I am on the side of pro-lifers because they believe in God and so do I. If they vote against abortion and I vote for abortion, and abortion remains legal, I am with everyone else who voted for abortion BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS AND NOT MY BELIEF SYSTEM. The argument is not atheism versus all religiosity. The argument is, and has always been, dogmatism versus liberalism because it comes down to whether or not people should be allowed to decide what to do, or simply told.

Employing dogmatism in the service of atheism just cheapens atheism. If, as Sam Harris claims, eventually people will be too embarassed to believe in God, then why not sit back and wait for it?

[Metal Vendetta]

Employing dogmatism in the service of atheism just cheapens atheism. If, as Sam Harris claims, eventually people will be too embarassed to believe in God, then why not sit back and wait for it?

The point is that TGD and the accompanying publicity tour is Dawkins' reaction to re-emergence of popular fundamentalism (in all religions). His argument is that the "liberal" believers lend credence and validity to the fundies because if we are to respect one group's set of irrational beliefs, we should respect *all* groups' irrational beliefs. How can we judge which interpretation of the Bible or Koran is any "better" or "worse" than another - all participants will claim to have God on their side, and so liberals act as "cover" for the fundamentalists. Then there's the apoligists, who literally cover for them.

There are many liberal Christians and Muslims who condemn their more fundamental brethren but then side-step around the issue that it is belief, faith and religion that has brought them to this state. They expect that we should respect their religious beliefs while at the same time denouncing others' beliefs, and for those of us on the other side, while we can see that the liberals' intentions are good they're really just part of the same problem.

Either all sets of religious beliefs should be taken seriously or none. Everyone has their own opinion on what is "right" and that's fine, we can debate that. But when people say "this is what God wants us to do" then there's no logical comeback.

Yaya, I suggest Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq as a bit of light reading

[edit] ironically, a review of the book here makes more or less the same point as I'm trying to make above:

Perhaps the most important thing demonstrated by Ibn Warraq is that Islam is fundamentalist by nature, and not by some peculiar and aberrant recent development. All Muslims, not just the fanatics, believe that every word of the Quran is quite literally the word of God, absolutely and unquestionably true for all times, places, and people, and practically the same goes for the hadith and the sharia. Anyone who wishes to argue that the fanatics' interpretation of these elements is wrong and that a far more `liberal' interpretation can be made and that that is the real Islam, have really only their own tastes and inclinations to support them.

...and coincidentally I've been subscribing to New Humanist magazine for the path three months. It is a worthy read.

[sprunkner]

I don't know, Rob. I don't think liberal religious people "side-step" at all. I think that liberal religiosity is all about recognizing limits as to what you should do in the service of faith. I mean, schizophrenics wake up all the time and say "God has spoken to me personally and told me to strap a bomb to myself!" But religious people don't do that without a hierarchal system, a tribal group, that reinforces that idea. There are few suicide bombers without terrorist groups.

Liberal religiosity, the kind of tolerance that does not make news and few people talk about, is based on the idea that a hierarchal system is not the way to God. A tribal culture only has the power each individual member is willing to lend it. You go to church for support, friendship, discussion, and whatever degree of worship you wish to do, but you do not go to be told what to do. You do not have to agree with your fellow worshippers, even on basic claims-- something dogmatic churches stress. Dawkins' claims-- that the liberal religious empower fundamentalists-- seems to me a giant red flag indicating that he does not understand the character of liberal doctrine. It is, as I said before, about action, not belief. It is about drawing lines between faith and reason, creating a system of personal checks and balances. I will not strap a bomb to myself no matter what my faith says, because my reason outweighs it. I will not support Creationism, because my reason outweighs it. But my faith, though it's nothing like the faith I used to have, still makes my life a little bit better and more rewarding. Dawkins should read "The Church in a Postliberal Age" by George Lindbeck before he spreads more of this stuff, at least to understand the arguments.

I've been part (still am in some unfortunate ways) of a very dogmatic hierarchal religion, and Dawkins' whole "with us or against us" rhetoric sounds very Mormon.

[Yaya]

Perhaps the most important thing demonstrated by Ibn Warraq is that Islam is fundamentalist by nature, and not by some peculiar and aberrant recent development. All Muslims, not just the fanatics, believe that every word of the Quran is quite literally the word of God, absolutely and unquestionably true for all times, places, and people, and practically the same goes for the hadith and the sharia. Anyone who wishes to argue that the fanatics' interpretation of these elements is wrong and that a far more `liberal' interpretation can be made and that that is the real Islam, have really only their own tastes and inclinations to support them.

If remaining rigidly in favor of not altering a doctrine felt to be the very word of God for all times and places is fundamentalist, then chalk me up as one.

Ibn Warraq is essentially saying that everyone who wants to follow Islam the way it was meant to be followed, by the example of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH), is fanatical and fundamentalist because they will not change their beliefs to "fit with the times", or allow for self interpretation.

The very purpose of the Prophet was interpretation. The Koran does not stand by itself. It is a "what" but it is not a look at "how".

My religion is not the Koran. My religion is the Koran + the Prophet, because that completes my faith.

If Ibn Warraq feels that the Prophet was a fanatic, a terrorist or whatever, that'shis opinion, his own interpretation. Who then is there that convince me that a way other than what the Prophet said or did is better for the Muslim, better for Islam, and therefore should be altered in favor of this?

What kind of religion then, is it, that changes depending upon what people and society hope or want as the truth? That is no religion at all. That is philosophy, a human construct.

Islam is not a human construct, as I believe. You might disagree, of course.

That is why in the end, there will be Islam and everyone else. This partition is already coming to fruition, in the media as the West vs. Islam. Because as time goes by, people change, but Islam cannot.