“I doubt you have been outside Australia yet.” – was an intended insult. But I stand by it now. I don’t think you have actually been outside of Australia.

Oh … and I am very smug as I have a lot to be smug about

and you don’t call this assuming

I couldn’t help but notice the smug undertone in your comments. This is exactly the self-righteous, bumptious attitude that faith trains you to: anyone who disagrees must be in “severe lack of understanding and wisdom”. Very typical…

I am sorry to say but you do sound pathetic. And if you were brave you would not have to hide now – would you?

Plus if you really had much sense of what religion really is you would show it. Unfortunately you don’t. That is not an assumption but a CONCLUSION.

So you assume that I am a westerner, born and brought up in Australia.

How utterly wrong you could be… I come from the Sufi heartland of South Asia, the denomination you claim to be follower of. I was born, brought up in a Muslim society and in a Muslim family. Culturally I am very much a part of the Muslim world that we discuss.

So again. Please don’t assume.

I couldn’t help but notice the smug undertone in your comments. This is exactly the self-righteous, bumptious attitude that faith trains you to: anyone who disagrees must be in “severe lack of understanding and wisdom”. Very typical…

Else actually deny what I assumed. You did make me smile though.

Religion is like a dictatorship. Yes, at times you may have benevolent dictator who’d use their authoritarian rule for greater good; yet autocracy can never be supported as a system because it is intrinsically prone to abuse. I see religion in the same light. Of course, one religion can be better than the other (yet none can claim perfection really). But, I lump them all together as they all adhere to the same faulty process (I’d come from a different angle if I debate on comparative religions, which isn’t the case here). Doesn’t matter how great a message you pass through the mechanism of religion, the process should not be condoned. If any religious scripture had presented itself as just another book (without any claim of divine origin and binding injunctions), it would have been judged on its merit. Right now, they all are just followed based on their self-proclaimed supernatural origin. People fail to see faults in them because of blind faith even though some bring out better exegesis than the others. That is how I see it.

And Mohammed, you assume too much. Please don’t.

We have no problem in taking differences. You have stated your opinion just as we have done here. We didn’t block you or stop you from putting your comments and nor should we ever. Thanks for visiting us.

You are wrong actually – I am a good representation of Sufism. Still a major group within Islam – severely. We as a group tend to shy away from politics. Things might be better if Sufi’s took over the reigns but the whole point of Sufism is kind of “not-politics”. Generally “Sufism” is pretty united. If a touch out of fashion.

You were so desperate to get the word “bigot” in there. You say I cannot answer for anyone else except myself and yet you lump all religions together – despite admitting it was wrong previously. Huh?

This point stands irrespective of whether Pepper knows or doesn’t know enough about Islam; many do and still reject it (I am not insinuating that Pepper doesn’t). But in your eyes those many will always be the ones who failed to understand ‘the true essence of Islam’. Blatant bigotry.

You what? Man! how do you even begin to answer this? No love! the point doesn’t stand.

But that was the whole point – there is difference within difference with in difference. A part of humanity. But can we leaving our differences aside live as one world.

This stream started with Richard Dawkins and you too though unfortunately show the same closed-mindedness and severe lack understanding and wisdom. I doubt you have been outside Australia yet.

I am calling quits. Its getting too long and its hard to answer multiple ppl … Good Bye

First, you come from a position stating Islam is morally and intellectually superior than other religions or school of thoughts. In your opinion if someone rejects Islam, only reason would be they have not known or understood Islam properly. This is bigotry.

This point stands irrespective of whether Pepper knows or doesn’t know enough about Islam; many do and still reject it (I am not insinuating that Pepper doesn’t). But in your eyes those many will always be the ones who failed to understand ‘the true essence of Islam’. Blatant bigotry.

And by the way, when you mention a ‘Muslim viewpoint’ or how ‘Muslims view science’ you too are generalising by lumping all the Muslims of the world in the same basket. The gazzilions of sects and ideologies that exist within Islam doesn’t view science or anything else for that matter the same way. Who is then the custodian of ‘true Islam’? All you can do is actually talk about how you view science as a Muslim. The Muslim in the next country or even in the next room may disagree and may not even ‘view’ science at all. Who decides who is the better Muslim or understood Islam better? If you put yourself and your understanding of Islam as a representative of all the Muslims in the world, that too is bigotry within itself.

What is brilliant, has come from human brain, not religions. There are many not so brilliant ideas that have also come out of human brain. Religion is one of them. It is a by-product (not a source) of human ingenuity.

Every major religion at their time of inception has been a liberal movement, a somewhat new idea (which is an offshoot of an old idea) for liberalisation of the society. They struggled to break the conservative, coercive means of their time and that was their appeal. And then as time passed by, they have become what they stood against, conservative, coercive force, resistant to modernisation. The problem lies of them being a faith based, self-righteous, unalterable practice. They work fine for a while until the society craves to modernise further with accumulation of more knowledge and understanding. If humans limited themselves to practice philosophy rather than making them into religions, things would have been different.

Art, literature, science, philosophy, music, architecture, languages are the product of human philosophical quest, not religion (which is itself a by-product of human philosophical quest). Many can’t or don’t want to make that distinction.

But given what you have written. I find it mainly lacking in much reason, clarity and above all understanding.

Dawkins does PREACH atheism even if you dont. There is a difference between “stating your case” and “preaching”. Again I find your attitude incredibly close minded.

And no – you DO NOT know much about religion. Forget other religion. You are woefully unaware of Islam. It is irrational . You must make yourself ITCH quite a bit, I imagine.

Again it is NOT just about culture and history. Its about people.

It’s not just Islam- it’s any organized religion- they all have this strong self-righteous way of looking at others. What I find… let’s say, annoying… is that they actually assume that no one can ‘understand’ them and THEN reject.

You saying to me I am making assumptions and what do you call this? Jeez! Have you not even bothered to read what I have been trying to say to you?

Do you know how tired and old this mumbo jumbo about “organised religion” being all the same. Sorry darling! But so much of what has been brilliant about this world has come from “religion” and “human tendency to believe”. Art, Literature, Science, Philosophy, Music Architecture, Languages, Arts and etc …. its best examples have been religious based. If you want to put it that way. Incredible amount of human ingenuity is thanks to various religions. And given the vast breadth of this earth what you cannot fathom is that no matter how divided – if you put it all together the world is quite magnificent. You have to give everyone else there due deference.

And when you reject “religion” like that you are easily rejecting most of humanity. It is safe to say most people are believe in a deity. And not even you will be silly enough to argue against it.

Go on then – what do you know about religion. Forgetting others … talk to me about Islam. Then I wont have to assume. Why generalise the way you do. Forget about everyone else what is it that you have understand and reject?

“paragon of rationality” was a jibe – that by your title you are saying “all religion and religious” are irrational. Which you have confirmed by your last comment.

And you failed to get even that….