Actually no, that isn't my case - and has not been my case either for that matter. I have to be blunt here; You need to get a grip.

I have argued why Christianity (currently) isn't as bad as Islam trendwise, despite the two religions being almost identical on paper. I claim that the reason is that they have been developed in regions with different legal traditions and development of those traditions. The current status of Islamic law is merely a proof to that effect.

To hate a specific religious group is not racist..they are not a race. I, as a white dude, could be Islamic. You are just simply Anti-Islamic. If you are, I hope you don't like one religion over the next, as it implies how ignorant you are aside from the title of your post.

If you say so. As far as I can tell in this thread, the main difference between islam and christianity that you have identified is the legal difference. Given how this was the major difference identified I have repeatedly assumed (and only just now been contradicted) that this difference was key to your conclusion that the one was worse than the other.

However, it seems like you are now saying that this is NOT the difference you are using to justify that "islam is worse than christianity". Instead it is some other differences that you have not mentioned that merely have resulted from the legal differences. Do I have this correct now? If so, I must say at best this is a convoluted presentation. However, I think the time has come for you to give specifics on the differences - resulting from the legal differences - that you think justify that "islam is worse than christianity". As in saying "they have different historical developments that makes one worse" doesn't tell me what it is about the one that makes it worse, just the origin of its worseness.

I have used the example of muslims from Toronto that live with secular legal traditions. Previously, I had said that the legal difference clearly did not apply to them. However, since you are now saying there are some other not yet mentioned differences that resulted from the historical legal differences, you should be able to identify what precisely it is about the generic muslim in toronto's practice of Islam that makes it worse than the generic christian in toronto.

Erm, isn't that implied? By not being as constrained legally.

Your Toronto question is misguided; A group is not an individual. We can describe trends without generalizing to all members in a group.

Within Islam local laws take precedence over the religion. Muslims are supposed to put them first.

watched it thx.

ah so I was correct the entire time, the difference you have identified IS precisely the legal one and I was correct to say that your justification for why Islam is worst than Christianity is because of the different legal systems in western (note western not Christian majority) countries with many Muslim majority countries.

However, for Muslims in the west they are NOT legally constrained and your criticism just doesn't apply. If you want to make a case for the superiority of secular legal systems I am all with you, but it is entirely inapproprate to make a sweeping generalization about "Islam" in general where your justification are both only considering this one and very narrow factor in the many ways that the words can be considered, and even that factor has a gaping hole in its applicability. Heck even in many Islamic countries there are vibrant movements towards western style secular courts, religious freedoms, and the like, as partially evidenced in the Arab spring and other.

My argument has always been to historically explain why two almost identical religions ended up with one being worse than the other.

I can't really say this is recognizable in your brief summary.


As for how the term "Islam" is considered, I can't really see that there is much controversy here. I have spoken about historical and current worldwide trends, so it should be rather obvious I'm not referring to the personal belief of John next door but Islam as an entirety of belief systems, cultural systems and world views throughout 1400 years and culminating with those we see today.

However, if you honestly felt this needed clarification; then there it is.

Stop saying "worldwide trends" when your criticism is confined to "legal constraints" that are only true in a subset of the world and in particular is very much not true for the practice of Islam in the west. This isn't just a minor exception for just this one guy John next door, ffs.

And no, you have not come close to demonstrating why one is "worse" than the other. The major metric for these very widely used terms with numerous connotations is merely one of "legal constraints" which is an incrediably narrow metric to use and one that doesn't even apply "worldwide". This isn't an issue of "clarification" of what you mean. You can mean whatever you want by terms like "worse" or "Islam". It is making the point that you have jumped from a quite reasonable comment about court systems, to an entirely unreasonable comment that is both pernicious and insulting. It is unreasonable to fix some specific narrow metric that does not even apply generally and "intellectually wiggle" it into being a fair use of the much broader expression that Islam is worse than Christianity.

Perhaps the best way to put it is like this: what added value is gained from jumping from "The legal constraints in many Muslim majority countries are worse than the legal system in the west" which I wholeheartedly agree with and "Islam is worse than Christianity" which I find to be more than a little bit insulting not to mention unjustified.

So your argument is that "if we can find a nice member of X, we can't say X is worse than Y"? I can replace X and Y with any isms or religions?

If not, this particular case is an exception and not the rule. Feel free to elaborate as to why.

Great. Many of the issues raised apply to all religions which is why I thought it was particularly useful to post.

Yes they obviously do

Tariq Ramadhan makes me shudder, is there anywhere else I can find the same argument? I used to like him as a Muslim because he gave me some sort of identity reinforcement, but now as an atheist I just find his views on many issues regressive and repulsive. He's also dishonest in some of his arguments.

Do you think that Islam and Christianity have equal value. Do you believe all religions are equal?

I do. Islam and Christianity are very similar in their belief, but putting that aside, no one religion is greater than the next because each one is just as dangerous as the next.

No, although for the most part such comparisons are pretty meaningless. However if someone was forced to make such a sweeping claim, it would have to be defended by something a lot less narrow than choosing one possible thing you don't like (such as legal systems in select countries) and then jumping to the wide claim.

this is not remotely close to my argument, in fact I explicitly said it wasn't about having a single counterexample. I feel like much of our disagreement comes down to you being as yet unable to correctly articulate what I am saying. And yes, if you justified a sweeping generalization comparing other religions by a single narrow metric that only even then applied in some parts of the world I would feel much the same.

In a nutshell it's religions good, some people bad.

Eh, I disagree. Religion is what corrupts good people. You can have faith and not be a religious person because you don't partake in ancient religious traditions such as going to church every Sunday etc.. I think the majority of people get that confused.

People corrupt religion. Even atheists should follow a religion as it would make them better people.

Massive organized anything turns corrupt, it's the natural process.

cwoc gunna cwoc

The original atheist humanists were described as "religious" humanists because they saw the goodness in religious values.

I am not suggesting that atheists should sign up to a reigious organisation but they should accept religious values.

Worst. Atheist. Ever.