Is atheism the New Evangelism?

[White Doors]

NO sorry, you don't get it.

Without the religion there would be no jews. Period.

I don't see how I can put it more clearly.

You can't put it more clearly. Or be more wrong.

You should meet my Jewish atheist friends. According to you, they don't exist.

hahahahaha

[Who's Doing What?]

NO sorry, you don't get it.

Without the religion there would be no jews. Period.

I don't see how I can put it more clearly.

You can't put it more clearly. Or be more wrong.

You should meet my Jewish atheist friends. According to you, they don't exist.

The only reason they are considered Jewish is because of the religion.

Take away the religion and there would never have been any Jews.

Ergo, even Jews who no longer practice judaism, are still only jewish due to religion.

Obviously no matter how clearly things are spelled out for you M&M you still have comprehension issues.

[ScottSA]

NO sorry, you don't get it.

Without the religion there would be no jews. Period.

I don't see how I can put it more clearly.

You can't put it more clearly. Or be more wrong.

You should meet my Jewish atheist friends. According to you, they don't exist.

The only reason they are considered Jewish is because of the religion.

Take away the religion and there would never have been any Jews.

Ergo, even Jews who no longer practice judaism, are still only jewish due to religion.

Obviously no matter how clearly things are spelled out for you M&M you still have comprehension issues.

It doesn't matter what the origins of the name are...that's an unrelated argument. The fact still remains that Jewishness today refers to both a race and a religion. To a linguistic purist, the term "anti-semetic" refers to a bias against Palestinians and Jews alike, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that's what it means. And it doesn't mean a bias toward those who worship in synagogues. It means a bias toward Jews. Hitler didn't round up only those Jews who went to temple, he rounded up Jews, whether they were secular, agnostic or atheist. His laws didn't refer to "half-Jews" because they went to temple half the time; they meant that they were genetically half Juden. This argument is kind of silly, really, since you're tilting against windmills by evoking the origins of millstones.

[Mad_Michael]

The only reason they are considered Jewish is because of the religion.

Take away the religion and there would never have been any Jews.

Ergo, even Jews who no longer practice judaism, are still only jewish due to religion.

Obviously no matter how clearly things are spelled out for you M&M you still have comprehension issues.

According to the Jews, the definition of a Jew is one who is born of a Jewish mother.

[Mad_Michael]

I can't help but agree with you up to a point, but i will press on.

I agree with what you say here, but my sense is that the religious moderate - by sheer numbers - normalize the very core of what the fanatics literally believe. I suggest slavery as an example. Society at one time generally accepted slavery as a necessary form of labor. There were people who were so extreme and so fanatically in favour of it that they fought a horrific civil war over the issue. Yet I don't think it is too far off to think that the fanatics were strengthened immeasurably in the 'moderate' support they received from the people. Perhaps we are seeing something similar play itself out with religion, as religious doctrine and scientific thought grow more and more in conflict with each other (which seems to me the modern history of religion). We possess so much capability for damage that i find the present day far more dangerous than the same old stories of conflict that already played themselves out in history.

Do political moderates empower political fanatics & crackpots?

Do moderate sports fans empower fanatical sports fans who want to beat up fans of the opposing team?

Do moderate drinkers of alcohol empower alcoholics?

That was part of it, absolutely. But the deeper point is that it was normal. The people who went about accepting it were their day's moderates.

No. They were ill-educated peasants.

But they also thought they had divine instruction and justification.

They thought they had it because they were taught it so.

Teaching of such tends to change over time.

But it has not turned entirely, jew hating still exists in the christian and islamic world, not for fun and profit, but for religious and ethnic reasons. Not only that, but some jews have even express a racial and religious hatred of christians and muslims. Yet the very core of these fanatic beliefs are still held somewhat sacred and valid by the vast majority of people, who would be defined as ‘moderates’.

Jew hating has turned. It is no longer 'rising', but 'falling'. Those who play that game are generally marginalised.

And the twisted minds of fanatical believers is not the issue here. We've always had fanatics of various types hanging around.

In every aspect of our lives, besides religion, we are constantly encouraged to reject things that are without grounds. That is, we are encouraged to be agnostic about things we are ignorant of. You seem to think extending this behavior to the "truth" of the universe whatever it is, makes someone a fundamentalist or fanatic.

Categorically no.

It is your desire to impose your agnosticism upon those who choose to believe is where I object.

Was Socrates a fanatic by admitting his ultimate ignorance? Note: I'm challenging religious certainty; the idea that we know absolutely that there is a god who knows about us and acts in our lives personally. There is no grounds for that. Is it fanatic to teach that we have no knowledge of such a thing, and no reason at all to behave as if it is true? Is it wrong to challenge those who do believe such a thing? In what way is it any different than challenging someone's interpretation of fiction or art?

Knowledge and belief are entirely different things.

One cannot use knowledge to 'beat' belief to death. Belief doesn't acknowledge the validity of that knowledge. Ergo, confrontation only results in violence.

Moderates make the word normal and acceptable. Moderates eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. They behave as if he really was the son of god. They behave as if the bible really is divine in its source. How are we to challenge the fanatics when we seem to support their core beliefs thoroughly?

The ideas of the fanatics are their own. They are no business of yours or mine.

If they presume to make an illegal act, we can arrest them and try them in a court of law.

But there is no law against one holding stupid or fanatical ideas. It is their right to do so. As it is your right to disagree with them. But you don't have a right to force them to abjure their belief, no matter how obnoxious you might consider their beliefs to be.

But yet you don’t think speaking out against global warming makes one a fanatic – or do you?

Not necessarily, though some certainly are.

You have the right to speak out against global warming. It is when you may call anyone who opposes such a policy an idiot, stupid or evil that I have an issue. Such games breed more violence, not peaceful solutions.

Are we all just supposed to be polite all the time. Should I be afraid of offending someone who thinks that burning fossil fuels is a good thing?

Polite? I think yes. And you cannot prevent others from taking offense (that is their business). But you can prevent causing offence where you know it will be taken.

Giving offense usually serves little purpose in a discussion of public policy.

But that is not the point. He was crazy for his fanatic religious beliefs, but he was not recognized as such. Had his commune been centered around a belief in pagan gods (or worse, an atheist commune) he would have been the focus of great scrutiny, but his commune was Christian so it was ‘ok’.

No. You are arguing that Koresh was categorically evil and always was. I dispute this. Humans do change over time. In the early days, Koresh might not have been the crackpot he became. Hitler (for example) started off as a rather clever and sane fellow - he became a megalomaniac later on. One cannot fault people for not seeing his megalomania before it occured.

I think the current US government is run by that symbol, as are many governments around the world. What about the ‘faith-based’ initiative? Or look at the mercenary corp Blackwater. They are run by a hardcore evangelical who is a close friend of the Bush’s. Their prominence in Bush’s war is not a coincidence. And most telling is how the republican movement has co-opted the religious vote. At some point they have to reward them.

No. Politicians duplicitely seek support from supporters all the time and then fail to deliver favours to that group. Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario and didn't enact the Communist Manifesto in government. His union supporters declared him the anti-christ because of it. Such action is common in politics.

Being Scottish or Irish is real, as is being a sports fan.

No. Pretending on is Scottish is as much a matter of belief as the belief in God.

Indeed, didn't Senator Allan of Virginia pretend he was a 'southerner' when he categorically was not?

People adopt facades all the time.

But more importantly, being Scottish does in no way imply that you know anything about the universe or how it was created. It does not imply you have moral superiority or knowledge of grand ‘truths’, it certainly does not imply that you can talk to God. It only implies that you are from Scotland and you rather like that country. (it could imply that you are superior with the bag-pipes, but then the proof is in the pudding).

You 'misunderestimate' nationalism. Many people think that because they are 'Scottish' they are morally and ethnically superior to you or me. Certainly more superior than 'brown people'.

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

-James Watt – as US secretary of the interior. May – 1981.

Thanks, I'll review the context of the speech to see how this stands.

[Mad_Michael]

I feel we have been focusing on Christianity too much. My criticism is meant to be more inclusive of Islam and Judaism as well. And I think we both know that those governments take direction from their lord even more openly than Reagan’s administration.

When it comes to 'fundamentalism' or 'fanaticism' I make no distinction of religion. My argument applies regardless of your favourite flavour.

Well I think stupidity at that level should alarm people and cause them to react very strongly. Why should we always be so accepting of religious fanaticism when it has so much potential for harm?

We are pretty blase about carrying fire-sticks in our hands despite the obvious danger of fire. And lots of people drive cars without seatbelts - even though it is dangerous to do so.

Humans apparently like a bit of danger - or are accustomed to it.

Some rules need to be broken.

No. Some rules need to be remade. Big difference.

Not only does it make claims about human behavior, it makes claims about the universe and nature that are to be taken as true, infallibly. This inevitably conflicts with empirical knowledge about our actual reality. This is exactly where I find it to be dangerous, and worth a direct and public challenge using reason and logic.

Yes, and this is perfectly reasonable. If the fanatics seek to legislate public policy, you have every right (indeed, a duty) to oppose them. But if they seek not legislation, and only hold particular views, what is the harm?

In the 50’s, like today, polls indicate that people believe that god is real. I think it is safe to say that in the 50s more people than now attended church. This was the mainstream, the moderates. I think they voted for candidates who also reflected the same behavior, naturally. This made their vote at least partly religious. But back then the evangelicals, the most fundamental religious people of America, did not partake in politics as a matter of principle. Today they are far more politically organized and focused. Its is calculated and deliberate, it is designed to put someone like Bush in power. (The Mormons do the same thing). It is so far quite successful, but America has been harmed by it.

Yes. And liberals and libertarians and poverty activists all try to do the same thing. Get their people into power. That is democracy. It is supposed to be messy.

BTW, the same is also true to a lesser extent in Canada. The AB reform party founded by Preston Manning is a deliberate and somewhat successful attempt to put ‘their man’ in power. I’m not suggesting that Harper is using his evangelical fundamentalist beliefs to govern this country (that I am aware of) or that he would if he had the power to do so, but it is a trend that is following on US coat-tails.

Then fight them at the ballot box. They are a valid opponent. They have a right to exist.

[Mad_Michael]

They put a literal belief of the bible into politics and science. How can I challenge them at all if not on religious terms, when their entire discourse is justified exclusively by their faith? It seems that if I fear to be viewed as a fundamentalist atheist, I can’t challenge them on religious or political grounds at all. They have made the game unplayable, if we choose to be polite and tread lightly.

No.

If they seek to legislate public policy, you may oppose any such assertion with science and reason and logic (or even emotion and/or passion if you prefer).

The line is that of public policy. Private beliefs are private property - you many not trespass. If they seek public policy, then you may engage as fully as you like as that is a fair fight. But it is the attack on the private property that I object to - especially if it is independent of a public policy proscription.

I agree. But this means that attacking their deeply held religious beliefs is necessary. It is unavoidable.

No.

One may only assert that 'deeply held religious beliefs' have no place in matters of public policy.

Yes. It is often a conversation ender. But I see no reason to end that conversation. One should not be afraid to offend in a conversation where both parties are being genuine and honest about what they believe. Too often the non-believer backs down, for fear of offending. Or the believer cries foul and reacts as if I insulted his mother.

That's because of the target of your attack. If the target is the other's belief, then they will object. If the target is the issue of public policy itself, then not so much.

I think it is more important to just develop a reasoned critique of religion, even if I sometimes fail.

And that's why I object. You have the wrong target.

Belief is not your enemy. Religious driven public policy is the only real enemy. Attack the public policy side and you are on safe ground. Attack the holder of a religious view on religious ground and you are open to the tag of 'fanatic'.

I do see your point. My desire is not to convince the fanatic (it can be fun, but always futile), it’s to sway the moderates who might not realize how important and fundamental they are to the fanatics.

Our western society wasn't built up by 'swaying moderates' away from the fanatics.

Our western secular model was built up by demonstrating competance and success in public policy (and threatening to shoot the fanatics if they interfere).

Btw, the Roman Catholic Church officially holds the Bible as to be understood 'allegorically', not 'literally'.

I seriously doubt they think God is nothing more than an allegory. They think it is true that jesus was actually the son of god, born of a virgin, and risen from the dead.

And what business is it of yours if they do so choose?

They really believe this god will punish those who use birth control.

Really? Roman Catholics in North America use birth control devices at the same rate and frequency as non-Roman Catholics.

So how can you say they believe God will punish them?

They really believe that their recent decision to allow un-baptized babies into heaven says something true about the nature of the universe and existence. This is not allegory, this is literal belief shaping the human world.

And they may believe anything they like. They may even believe in Flying Spagetti Monsters if they like. And it only shapes their world, not mine.

Again, this conversation seems to gravitate towards Christianity and american evangelicals. But we could apply the exact same critiques to any religion or sect within it. And it inevitably comes down to the fact that all the core beliefs of any religious fanatic are shared by the moderates within those religions.

And yet, those moderates don't get all obnoxious, authoritarian and fanatical about it. Only the fanatics do that.

Ergo, attacking the moderates is poor policy and is only likely to empower the fanatics. Which is my core argument here.

This thread opened with the following question:

“There is more than a faint whiff of fervent evangelism about atheism these days.

Is there much difference in the approach, the marketing between say, Dawkins/Hitchens and somebody like Falwell or the Billy Graham Crusade?”

The OP pointed directly to Dawkins/Hitchens and ill add Harris as all potential atheist fundamentalists and fanatics. The reason I joined was to answer that question in the negative.

Fair enough.

I'm addressing a wider issue of civil society. Attacking religion only feeds and empowers the fundamentalists/fanatics. That is a historical fact.

There is room for critique of religion - but ONLY when religion seeks to rule public policy.

[Naci Sey]

This has been a great discussion, which I've enjoyed thoroughly. Thank you all, particularly MM and AL.

I acknowledge that the following wasn't on the original topic, but can't resist raising an objection to it:

they may believe anything they like. They may even believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters if they like. And it only shapes their world, not mine.

Devout religious beliefs shape behaviour, both in the public and private domain. Therefore, what people privately hold to be true can affect your world. This will be so except in the rare case of a religious community shutting off all ties to the outside.

[Mad_Michael]

This has been a great discussion, which I've enjoyed thoroughly. Thank you all, particularly MM and AL.

Glad you have enjoyed it.

they may believe anything they like. They may even believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters if they like. And it only shapes their world, not mine.

Devout religious beliefs shape behaviour, both in the public and private domain. Therefore, what people privately hold to be true can affect your world. This will be so except in the rare case of a religious community shutting off all ties to the outside.

There is a key distinction here that is at the heart of my argument with AndrewL. That is that belief in the FSM doesn't affect me at all and I have no right to interfere with that belief.

However, as you pointed out, some people believing in the FSM may affect me if those people take their beliefs in the FSM into issues of public policy. It is here that I have every right to engage/argue and confront the believers of the FSM and their crazy public policies.

That is the key distinction that I make with respect to religion. The only acceptable critique of religion is its interference in public policy. Religion of and in itself, cannot be rationally or reasonably be criticized.

[cybercoma]

If religious belief should not be part of public policy because its irrational or unreasonable and should not be forced upon other people, then why is it not irrational or unreasonable on its own? If the religious teachings are correct, then why shouldn't they be part of public policy? The whole reason we fight to keep it out of public policy is that it's highly probable that they're wrong, not to mention the fact that religion are completely incompatible with one another. Religion divides instead of bringing people together and I think it's perfectly acceptable to argue this.

[Riverwind]

The whole reason we fight to keep it out of public policy is that it's highly probable that they're wrong.

That is false. Specific religions are kept out of the public sphere because the state should maintain a neutral stance and not favour one religion over another. Maintaining this neutral stance also requires that the atheist religion be kept separate from the state. This means that any policies that specifically reject the idea of a deity also have no place in public policy.

Religion divides instead of bringing people together and I think it's perfectly acceptable to argue this.

Any extremist ideology divides people. This is not a problem unique to religion. In fact, I would argue that ethnicity and language are more frequently used to divide people than religion. Many religious conflicts are not religious conflict at all: they are ethnic conflicts where religion is simply one part of the ethnic differences between the groups.

[cybercoma]

That is false. Specific religions are kept out of the public sphere because the state should maintain a neutral stance and not favour one religion over another. Maintaining this neutral stance also requires that the atheist religion be kept separate from the state. This means that any policies that specifically reject the idea of a deity also have no place in public policy.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not picking a religion IS atheism. And why on earth would the government be making any sort of policy regarding deities? Ridiculous.

Any extremist ideology divides people. This is not a problem unique to religion. In fact, I would argue that ethnicity and language are more frequently used to divide people than religion. Many religious conflicts are not religious conflict at all: they are ethnic conflicts where religion is simply one part of the ethnic differences between the groups.

Other things divide people, true. But, no one is vehemently opposed to questioning cultural differences and analyzing the negative effects of those cultural differences. Fanatics and moderates alike are completely opposed to defending their religion or even having any part of it questioned.

[Riverwind]

Not picking a religion IS atheism.

No it is not. Maintaining a neutral stance on all religions is agnosticism - not atheism. Atheism is simply another religion based on the premise that no deity exists.

Fanatics and moderates alike are completely opposed to defending their religion or even having any part of it questioned.

Gee - sounds like a lot of atheists on this board....

[betsy]

Enough crap from the religious already -- they need to be silenced.

Wow, now there's a statement, talk about fascist atheism, silence anyone you don't agree with. All people have a right to a voice in a democratic society.

Just shows you the kind of "level-headedness" they have. These types are the real scary ones. Because unlike the religious who have at least a set of standards of morality to follow....the atheists' morality fluctuates.

Instead of changing the behaviour, they'd mold and change the moral values to suit them.

[cybercoma]

Not picking a religion IS atheism.

No it is not. Maintaining a neutral stance on all religions is agnosticism - not atheism. Atheism is simply another religion based on the premise that no deity exists.

Fanatics and moderates alike are completely opposed to defending their religion or even having any part of it questioned.

Gee - sounds like a lot of atheists on this board....

If you want to question atheism, prove that a deity exists.

[Drea]

In another thread we are erradicating religion! It is so awesome.

We are going to start with Islam. Get rid of it first and then all the other religions too.

I am so happy! A world with no religion "Imagine" it!

[ScottSA]

Not picking a religion IS atheism.

No it is not. Maintaining a neutral stance on all religions is agnosticism - not atheism. Atheism is simply another religion based on the premise that no deity exists.

Fanatics and moderates alike are completely opposed to defending their religion or even having any part of it questioned.

Gee - sounds like a lot of atheists on this board....

If you want to question atheism, prove that a deity exists.

Here we go again...how bout you prove that one doesn't exist?

[Riverwind]

If you want to question atheism, prove that a deity exists.

Excellent - a perfect example how atheistic thinking that is just as intolerant and divisive as thinking based on a specific deity.

If you were open minded in your thinking you would accept that any deity that may exist would exist outside of the physical world and therefore cannot be proven to exist using purely physical tools. Accepting that fact does not mean that you would have to believe in a diety - you simply have to acknowledge that belief in a diety is not necessarily wrong.

[cybercoma]

I'm not being intolerant in any way. I'm asking for you, or anyone for that matter, to prove a positive. It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (which is why, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not, atheism isn't a positive assertion that there is with certainty no deity, instead it's an assertion that there is insufficient evidence to support belief in such things), but that's not what I'm asking. I'm quite willing to accept the existence of a deity if quality evidence were provided to prove it is real.

That is more tolerant in every way than anyone of solipsistic religious faith.

[cybercoma]

Excellent - a perfect example how atheistic thinking that is just as intolerant and divisive as thinking based on a specific deity.

If you were open minded in your thinking you would accept that any deity that may exist would exist outside of the physical world and therefore cannot be proven to exist using purely physical tools. Accepting that fact does not mean that you would have to believe in a diety - you simply have to acknowledge that belief in a diety is not necessarily wrong.

But the deity most people follow doesn't exist outside the physical world. (You edited after I posted btw)

The deity has created everything, the deity is punishing society for pro-gay legislation (see the most recent post I made), the deity listens to and answers prayers.

Evidently its very real and very involved.

Now if I were to simply positively believe in anything that exists outside the physical world, I would automatically believe in such nonsense as the tooth fairy, santa clause and ghosts. These things can be questioned and examined just as much as a deity can.

[Riverwind]

But the deity most people follow doesn't exist outside the physical world.

Says who? There are a wide range of people in the world and many have no patience for the intellectual discussions we have this forum. These people will use metaphors that suggest a deity has a direct physical existence but this view is not the shared by the more intellectual followers of the same religion.

In addition, many people also dislike change and will resist change. The opposition to gay marriage may have had a few vocal supporters that used religion to justify their beliefs but if you dig down you would find that age is a more relevant factor than religion (i.e. agnostic older people are more likely to oppose gay marriage than theist young people).

Now if I were to simply positively believe in anything that exists outside the physical world, I would automatically believe in such nonsense as the tooth fairy, santa clause and ghosts. These things can be questioned and examined just as much as a deity can.

You love to use absurdities. There is a huge difference between believing in a deity that has no direct physical existence and the examples you give. All of the theist systems I have looked have are logical and consistent when you look at the core beliefs even if they lack anything resembling a proof. There is nothing logical or consistent about santa claus or 'faeries in the garden'.

[cybercoma]

I see. So God is what you personally think God is, not what the religious leaders all over the world preach.

Your personal definitions have even less validity organized religion. You're entitled to believe whatever you want and if that means reducing God down to an unarguable, hands off, invisible man that breathed life into the entire universe and has absolutely no part in it thereafter... so be it.

Unfortunately, that's not what the majority of people believe, or are taught. Regardless of whether or not YOU believe they're metaphors, to the people who kill in the name of Allah and to those who have bitter hatred for homosexuals, they're not metaphors.

There's no sense in even arguing YOUR definition of God, because I highly doubt you even believe in a creator. All of your arguments seem to stem around the idea that everyone else is wrong (atheists, theists, deists, christians, muslims, jews) and your own personal God is the right definition. Now, if you want to define the "universe" as God, more power to you, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

[Riverwind]

I see. So God is what you personally think God is, not what the religious leaders all over the world preach.

You should not presume to know what 'religious leaders' teach based on media reports. The actual beliefs of all major theist belief systems are much more sophisticated. You would know if you had studied the beliefs in question instead of relying on your own preconceptions created by stereotypes in the media. I grew up in a Catholic family so I have considerable experience with the very wide range of beliefs within that community.

to the people who kill in the name of Allah and to those who have bitter hatred for homosexuals, they're not metaphors.

Take away God and you will still have people who will kill in the name of their tribe, racial purity or honour or any other secular concept. You seem to think that human history would be less bloody if people did not believe in a deity. I think that is a naive viewpoint that is not supported by the facts. Hitler, Mao and Stalin killed more people in the name of their secular ideologies than any modern theist. The conflicts with the Mulsim world now are mostly about culture and economics - not religion.

I recognize the pitfalls of organized religion and acknowledge that many abuses have occurred over time. However, I think theism has had a net beneficial effect on humanity and we would be much worse off without it. The atheist moral systems that exist today only appeal to the intellectual elite of wealthy societies and would be virtually impossible to explain to the uneducated peasants that made up the bulk of humanity over the ages. Theist belief systems offer simplicity on the surface for those that want the simplicity. The major belief systems also have an intellectual depth for those that want it. Most of the major western philosophers were also devout Christians. Einstein and many other scientists were also strong theists.

All of your arguments seem to stem around the idea that everyone else is wrong (atheists, theists, deists, christians, muslims, jews) and your own personal God is the right definition. Now, if you want to define the "universe" as God, more power to you, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Funny. That is exactly how characterize your arguments for atheism. Ironically, the description fits you better than me because I don't presume that I have any answers - I try to keep an open mind and hope I will find some.

[ScottSA]

I see. So God is what you personally think God is, not what the religious leaders all over the world preach.

Your personal definitions have even less validity organized religion. You're entitled to believe whatever you want and if that means reducing God down to an unarguable, hands off, invisible man that breathed life into the entire universe and has absolutely no part in it thereafter... so be it.

Unfortunately, that's not what the majority of people believe, or are taught. Regardless of whether or not YOU believe they're metaphors, to the people who kill in the name of Allah and to those who have bitter hatred for homosexuals, they're not metaphors.

There's no sense in even arguing YOUR definition of God, because I highly doubt you even believe in a creator. All of your arguments seem to stem around the idea that everyone else is wrong (atheists, theists, deists, christians, muslims, jews) and your own personal God is the right definition. Now, if you want to define the "universe" as God, more power to you, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

The thing you seem to be missing...well...one of the things anyway...is that you're the one trying to define God. I haven't. I haven't seen Riverwind trying. Yet you are. Why is that? In fact, come to that, you're the one shouting and tossing around accusations like an inquisitor.

Islam is an ideology, and that's why I hate it...not because Allah isn't spelled with the right number of letters in the right order. I don't imagine God runs around in a white nightie, and I don't know of anyone who does. That's an analogy, a metaphor. To mock it just makes you look foolish, not God. Running around trying to prove or disprove the existence of meaning in the universe by the standards of 21st century standards of science or rationalism is like an earthworm claiming that humans are not long and wiggly and must therefore not exist. Why are you so concerned? If you're convinced there's no God, then ignore him. But if I were you, I'd prepare myself for a surprise down the road.

[Riverwind]

Islam is an ideology, and that's why I hate it...

Bingo. But why don't we use two different words? Jihadism is the ideology that belongs in philosophical scrap heap beside communism or facism. Islam is the religion which promotes many desireable values using cultural metaphors from the societies that created it.