<lecture on humor>

In this sense, liberal fundamentalism is not to be taken in the religious sense per se. That is, we aren't comparing different kinds of Christians.

Fundamentalism is not a bad thing in and of itself, but liberal fundamentalism shaves about 60 IQ points off of any otherwise normal person.

https://answersingenesis.org/morali...

Al Wazir defends pedophilia on the Rogoff page.

Does science know anything about right and wrong? Are right and wrong physical objects that we can see through a telescope?

Fish harm other fish in the ocean. Is that wrong?

Another crazy liberal atheist has demonstrated the absurdity of his own worldview once again, and is completely unaware of it, thinking instead that he appears enlightened to his onlookers.

You'll notice that he affirmed the first premise of the Moral Argument:

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

Did you notice that?

<al wazir: <Jim Bartle: I don't <need> to see academic studies to know it's wrong>. So you also KNOW it's wrong. I guess you believe in the existence of "objective moral values,">

So he affirms the first premise.

This leaves us with premise two:

2. OMV exist.

This is the juicy part. You'll notice that he's saying the opposite (OMV do not exist) but he hasn't given us a reason to think that's true.

Did you notice this?

Well, he has to have a reason to think that OMV do not exist, but what is it?

This is like saying the external world around us does not exist. Is it possible? Descartes would say so, but why should we think so? Unless there is a defeater then we are right to trust our experience of the world around us (objective moral values are a part of that world) and think that it exists.

Same with moral values.

So what is his reason for denying that OMV exist?

It's that he thinks God does not exist (hence his affirmation of premise one).

But wait a minute! He hasn't given any arguments for atheism. He's not given us one argument to think that God does not exist. He just *assumes* it and reasons from there.

Thus, he is begging the question!

Therefore, with his rant, he's affirmed the first premise of the argument he is scared to debate, and he's tripped over the old "begging the question" fallacy on the way.

Anyone with a bit of philosophical training, or a bit of smarts, can see that he has made a fool of himself in reasoning this way, but he doesn't see it. He thinks he's enlightened.

Muhammad not virgin born. Jesus was virgin born.

Muhammad not sinless. Jesus was sinless.

Muhammad not Messiah. Jesus called the Messiah.

Muhammad did not do miracles. Jesus did miracles.

Muhammad's body in a grave. Jesus' body in heaven.

Muhammad not the word of God. Jesus is called the Word of God.

That's a very stark comparison between Muhammad and Jesus!

Actually it seems that an increasing number of reputable Islamic scholars are questioning whether Muhammad even really existed.

<IN SEARCH OF MUHAMMAD>

<A special review and examination of Robert Spencer's "Did Muhammad Exist?">

http://spectator.org/articles/35455...

<Without indulging in polemics or pushing a partisan political agenda, the author simply investigates the question of whether we can really trust the traditional Islamic accounts for the life of Muhammad and the supposed early days of Islam during the Arab conquests.>

Nowadays, even the most skeptical biblical scholars acknowledge the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, yet with the Koran now finally beginning to come under the same scrutiny which the Bible has been subject to since the 19th century, some very embarrassing questions are now being posed to Islamic fundamentalists.

Indeed, there is a stark contrast between Muhammad and Jesus!

Thanks for the link. I have not given a serious look at the historicity of Muhammad as of yet, at least not seriously enough for me. No doubt the veracity of the Koran is in question, as regards the historicity of the events described therein, and certainly in regards to the life of Jesus, of whom it was written about 600 years later.

I agree with you that the bible, especially the New Testament, gives us historically accurate facts about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Yes, even the most critical and skeptical scholars agree that Jesus did exist.

You may be familiar with the work of Bart Ehrman, a renown New Testament scholar who is a former Christian turned atheist/agnostic. His books are used for course instruction at ivy league schools like Yale, for instance.

In the following short youtube clip, Bart makes an appearance on the popular atheist program The Infidel Guy, a show where the host is an atheist and they talk about how stupid and ridiculous theists are. The infidel guy really pushes the idea that Jesus did not exist, thinking he had an ally in Ehrman, but Bart surprised him. Anyone who thinks Jesus

Bart Ehrman vs the Infidel Guy

I almost died the other day reading the one about the scarecrow being *outstanding* in his field.

Despite their atheism, some of their research is quite interesting and valid, even though they draw the wrong conclusions.

In any event, the Bible is open to examination for all, which is as it should be.

Compare that to those well-respected Islamic scholars such as Robert Spencer, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, and others, who endeavour to critique the Koran and Muhammad, and for their efforts must suffer death threats from Islamic fundamentalists!

Whereas Christians have nothing to hide from Biblical research, it seems the same can't be said for Islamic fundamentalists when it comes to the Koran.

The sooner that reformation and enlightenment comes to Islam, the better.

1. Jesus was crucified on the cross and died.

2. Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

3. Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of female followers.

4. Many people had experiences of seeing and hearing Jesus after his death and burial and testified to it with their lives.

While they agree on these four facts, they deny his divinity as the best explanation of these four facts.

The Muslims on the other hand are, well, still living in the 9th century. The world always has one really backward section or group, and right now it's the middle east.

It's obvious that where Christianity has flourished so has that part of the world. After all, the Modern Scientific Revolution took place in the Christian west. Indeed, Christians set the Modern Scientific Revolution in motion!

As early as the 7th century St John of Damascus identified Islam as an extension of the Arian heresy, as did Hilaire Belloc in the 20th century.

Under the peculiar culture of the Middle East, Arianism eventually evolved into 'Islam' and literally fought its way to where it is today.

The more light that is shone on Islam, the more people will realise the truth behind it.

Of course that's what the Islamic fundamentalist theocracies are terrified of, and will do whatever it takes to keep their muslim populace stuck in the dark ages and subservient to their religious leaders.

By comparison, I suspect that 'converts' to Islam in the West are primarily motivated by a counter-cultural intent.

They have become hostile towards their own western civilisation and see Islam as a sort of anti-western club they can join to parade their dissent to society.