Are they all the same god?

[(Q)]

Not if you read the Quran; even if he was illiterate he surely knew how to speak it, since he gave Khutbas from the time he first decided to share his vision until his death. The Quran is lyrical, when you recite it, the words automatically fall into rhythms; there are competitions on who can express it the best way.

He spoke, but he could not read. How is that supposed to be convincing of anything?

If I wrote great songs but couldn't read music, will the songs be any less great, even if I could play the music?

Anyway how would you explain a man who for 40 years led a simple, uncomplicated life and then suddenly came up, 1400 years ago, in the most backward part of Arabia with ideas about women, economics, science, nature, diet, health, geography and society which we are only now acknowledging?

You mistake me for someone who DID fall off the turnip truck.

You know very well much of what you claim is highly debatable.

 

[(Q)]

You also miss the point that before Mohammed these same tribes spent all their time killing each other over camels and land.

No,no, that's the point that YOU miss.

Yes but we don't see these problems except in the middle east and that is due mainly to the political tensions. Anyway the way they follow Islam in the ME is hardly a shining example of the way it is written in the Quran

Note that this is something not uncommon for most religions.

And we should be far from the days of fighting over camels and land, as we should be far from the days of fighting over religion.

We can learn and compromise from the former, which history has shown, but it has also shown we cannot do so from the latter.

 

[S.A.M.]

He spoke, but he could not read. How is that supposed to be convincing of anything?

If I wrote great songs but couldn't read music, will the songs be any less great, even if I could play the music?

The structure of the Quran is too complicated for an unversed man; it has been examined and analysed by Arabic scholars (not just from the ME) and left them wondering.

You mistake me for someone who DID fall off the turnip truck.

I most certainly don't; I appreciate that you have a different perspective.

You know very well much of what you claim is highly debatable

And a lot that is not. For example:

The idea that a woman can choos/divorce her husband (including if he did not give her sexual satisfaction) that her money and property was exclusively hers, that she had a right to her children and maintenace, the right to vote, the right to remarry after divorce were all initiated by Islam. When did they arrive in the rest of the world?

 

[S.A.M.]

No,no, that's the point that YOU miss.

How?

And we should be far from the days of fighting over camels and land, as we should be far from the days of fighting over religion.

Are we not still fighting for land? What were the two world wars about? What is the war in Iraq about?

We can learn and compromise from the former, which history has shown, but it has also shown we cannot do so from the latter

No what we do is find new ways of using religion to cover up our greed for power and resources as well as the inherent racism that all of us exhibit to varying degrees

 

[(Q)]

The structure of the Quran is too complicated for an unversed man; it has been examined by Arabic scholars (not just from the ME) and left them wondering; it had a great influence on Spanish lierature as well.

But, not so complicated to the creator, for which the disagreement arises.

And you again mistake comparing the structure of Arabic with that of the Quran in the same way you mistake assuming an illiterate man's words should follow that structure.

It is not my desire to convince you of anything. The idea that a woman can choos/divorce her husband (including if he did not give her sexual satisfaction) that her money and property was exclusively hers, that she had a right to her children and maintenace, the right to vote, the right to remarry after divorce were all initiated by Islam. When did they arrive in the rest of the world?

Come now, the Greeks and Romans had far superior structures of societies long before Muhammad.

The problem with your side of the argument, as I see it, is that you're stating Muhammad couldn't possibly have made everything up on his own and that the Quran most definitely was revealed to him by and angel, over a period of time, alone, by himself, no one else around... and that you're stating it based on the assumption that an illiterate man couldn't possibly have made it up, that it MUST be the word of a god.

Sorry, but little red flags are going off all over the place here. Excuse me while I go and reset everything.

 

[S.A.M.]

But, not so complicated to the creator, for which the disagreement arises.

And you again mistake comparing the structure of Arabic with that of the Quran in the same way you mistake assuming an illiterate man's words should follow that structure.

Yes, but the thing is, can an illiterate man come up with a literary composition that defines the literature for 1400 years; and its not just in term of the arrangement of the words, or the vocabulary some of which is borrowed from languages other than Arabic. And if he was so knowledgeable why did he work for his wife? Why did he not compose poetry, it would have given him fame and acclaim. You imbue him with qualities which remained hidden for 40 years of his life and a knowledge far beyond what he could have gained in the midst of the Qureish. Arabia was not a flourishing place at the time, nor was there an education; until the Quran directed the importance of travel for knowledge, there was a closed tribal community. In Islam it is called the age of Jahaaliya (Ignorance).

Come now, the Greeks and Romans had far superior structures of societies long before Muhammad.

Perhaps but since Mohammed never left Arabia and the Greeks did not come there what does that mean? And the Greeks and Roman had a stratified society while Mohammed preached a society with no distinctions of class color or race.

The problem with your side of the argument, as I see it, is that you're stating Muhammad couldn't possibly have made everything up on his own and that the Quran most definitely was revealed to him by and angel, over a period of time, alone, by himself, no one else around... and that you're stating it based on the assumption that an illiterate man couldn't possibly have made it up, that it MUST be the word of a god.

Not just the fact that he was illiterate though that made it necessary for him to always have a scribe on hand; it is the content, the ideas, which were centuries ahead of the time. The importance given to learning, to knowledge, to doubt and scientific method; the stress on never using the Quran as the source of knowledge but as a basis to begin from, these are contemporary notions. In those days, what was the status of knowledge even in Greece and Rome?

Sorry, but little red flags are going off all over the place here. Excuse me while I go and reset everything.

Alright. But I want to thank you. I do like the way you make me think. It was a good discussion.

We don't have to agree on anything; we can still learn something anyway.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, but the thing is, can an illiterate man come up with a literary composition that defines the literature for 1400 years; and its not just in term of the arrangement of the words, or the vocabulary some of which is borrowed from languages other than Arabic.

Absotively! Posilutly! What is to stop him from doing so? You are making the same mistake assuming someone cannot create something without technical knowledge.

In other words, I couldn't write great songs unless I could read music?

And if he was so knowledgeable why did he work for his wife? Why did he not compose poetry, it would have given him fame and acclaim.

Perhaps he found that creating a religion was a far more worthwhile endeavor, who knows? That's not the point. He may have truly believed in a god, as you do, but that doesn't mean he didn't create the Quran himself. Nor does assuming that he didn't decide to pursue some other occupation befitting his talents.

Hitler really believed he was a good artist, you know.

You imbue him with qualities which remained hidden for 40 years of his life and a knowledge far beyond what he could have gained in the midst of the Qureish.

Are you stating that age has some degree of relevance here?

In fact, age works in your disfavor. He clearly had plenty of time bilking his wife to have formulated a plan so diabolical as Islam. Muwahaha.

Arabia was not a flourishing place at the time, nor was there an education; until the Quran directed the importance of travel for knowledge, there was a closed tribal community. In Islam it is called the age of Jahaaliya (Ignorance).

That only goes to show the success of Muhammads treachery, in which you describe as flourishing, but was in fact a time of bloodshed.

Perhaps but since Mohammed never left Arabia and the Greeks did not come there what does that mean?

Ok, that was REALLY dumb. Did you read what you wrote here?

Not just the fact that he was illiterate though that made it necessary for him to always have a scribe on hand; it is the content, the ideas, which were centuries ahead of the time.

It made it necessary for a scribe to be on hand because he was making it up as he went along. Or, is that too far-fetched?

In those days, what was the status of knowledge even in Greece and Rome?

Superior in every way, especially with the Greeks. In fact, most Islamic mathematical contributions were based on Greek work.

Are you stating that any ideas, bad or good MUST be of devine intervention?

Thank you. I do like the way you make me think. It was a good discussion..

You're still not taking that 'leap of faith', so to speak, to entertain the notion that Muhammad really could have made it up himself.

 

[S.A.M.]

You sure are up late tonight.

Absotively! Posilutly! What is to stop him from doing so? You are making the same mistake assuming someone cannot create something without technical knowledge.

In other words, I couldn't write great songs unless I could read music?

But if you wanted to write songs wouldn't you at least learn music?

Perhaps he found that creating a religion was a far more worthwhile endeavor, who knows? That's not the point. He may have truly believed in a god, as you do, but that doesn't mean he didn't create the Quran himself. Nor does assuming that he didn't decide to pursue some other occupation befitting his talents.

Hitler really believed he was a good artist, you know.

And given enough monkeys and enough typewriters we can come up with Shakespeare but how far is it practically possible?

Are you stating that age has some degree of relevance here?

In fact, age works in your disfavor. He clearly had plenty of time bilking his wife to have formulated a plan so diabolical as Islam. Muwahaha.

You are a strange mixture of idealism and cynicism. He was devoted to his first wife; they were married for 25 years and she was 40 when they were married. Mohammed was known from childhood for his honesty and strightforwardness. The name he was called by was Al-Amin, the faithful one, long long before he became Mohammed. Khadija married him because she was impressed by his homesty. Even after he became Prophet and was preaching Islam, he was a popular arbiter even among the Jews who valued him for his honesty. Surely it is a leap of faith to believe that he was a "primal fear" personality who succeeded in foolong ALL the people who knew him?

That only goes to show the success of Muhammads treachery, in which you describe as flourishing, but was in fact a time of bloodshed.

You've been tainted by the Western accounts; of all the four battles he fought at Badr, at Uhud, at Medina and at Mecca, he was sorely outnumbered and yet the casulaties were in hundreds, not thousands.

Ok, that was REALLY dumb. Did you read what you wrote here?

I guess that means I don't know something here; but I'm basing my knowledge on what I know of Mecca and Taif (where I worked four years). I'm not as well versed in Greek/Roman history

It made it necessary for a scribe to be on hand because he was making it up as he went along. Or, is that too far-fetched?

Why? what was the purpose of making up a secular society, teaching about equality and faith, where was the benefit to him? He lived simply until he died, was famous for giving away all he had and never made any money out of the whole thing. Why do you think he is held up as the ideal Muslim?

Superior in every way, especially with the Greeks. In fact, most Islamic mathematical contributions were based on Greek work.

I don't deny that, but the scientific method did originate in Arabia, as did the numbers we use today and the concept of zero

Are you stating that any ideas, bad or good MUST be of devine intervention?

Of course not; but the emphasis on the importance of knowledge only arose in Arabia post Islam.

You're still not taking that 'leap of faith', so to speak, to entertain the notion that Muhammad really could have made it up himself.

Its impossible to reconcile what I know of the Quran with what I know of the man.

 

[(Q)]

But if you wanted to write songs wouldn't you at least learn music?

The point is that one does not have to learn music.

And given enough monkeys and enough typewriters we can come up with Shakespeare but how far is it practically possible?

Are you saying Mohammad was a monkey?

You are a strange mixture of idealism and cynicism. He was devoted to his first wife; they were married for 25 years and she was 40 when they were married. Mohammed was known from childhood for his honesty and strightforwardness.

And then he became the leader of the Muslims, married a nine year old and was known as a murderer and rapist.

Surely it is a leap of faith to believe that he was a "primal fear" personality who succeeded in foolong ALL the people who knew him?

No, its a leap of faith to believe in angels talking to men. It's no leap of faith to believe men want to control people with religion.

You've been tainted by the Western accounts; of all the four battles he fought at Badr, at Uhud, at Medina and at Mecca, he was sorely outnumbered and yet the casulaties were in hundreds, not thousands.

The founding of Islam lead to many wars.

I guess that means I don't know something here; but I'm basing my knowledge on what I know of Mecca and Taif (where I worked four years). I'm not as well versed in Greek/Roman history

You'd made the mistake assuming information did not travel from one place to another.

Why? what was the purpose of making up a secular society, teaching about equality and faith, where was the benefit to him? He lived simply until he died, was famous for giving away all he had and never made any money out of the whole thing. Why do you think he is held up as the ideal Muslim?

You flatter him, unnecessarily.

I don't deny that, but the scientific method did originate in Arabia

Here we go again.

Of course not; but the emphasis on the importance of knowledge only arose in Arabia post Islam.

And sliced bread too?

Its impossible to reconcile what I know of the Quran with what I know of the man.

In other words, the indoctrination you received won't let you see past the propaganda?

 

[S.A.M.]

The point is that one does not have to learn music.

So you're claiming he was an illierate literary genius?

Are you saying Mohammad was a monkey?

Ah the honeymoon is over

And then he became the leader of the Muslims, married a nine year old and was known as a murderer and rapist.

Definitely over

No, its a leap of faith to believe in angels talking to men. It's no leap of faith to believe men want to control people with religion.

And yet he united all of Arabia, something which no one has been able to accomplish since

The founding of Islam lead to many wars.

Evidently before Islam no one had ever fought before

You'd made the mistake assuming information did not travel from one place to another.

And you're assuming that they had 20th century communication and a 40 year old illiterate businessman who had never traveled beyond his tribe was so influenced by them that he immediately visualised a 21st century like view of society

You flatter him, unnecessarily.

I'm not the one brought up on Christian propaganda

Here we go again.

You should try reading books written by objective parties e.g. Hindus in India, Europeans who were not British or had no colonies in Arabia.

And sliced bread too?

Thats not really healthy

In other words, the indoctrination you received won't let you see past the propaganda?

Good morning to you too

 

[Satyr]

Allah, Jehovah and God, are they not the same thing?

In my quest to further my knownledge on a broad base topics it has occured to me that Judaism was the fundamental religion that the majority of monotheistic religions are now based on. From Judaism we found Christianity and Islam. From this we can correctly assume that the God that is praised in each of those religions to be the same.

So why the fighting? is it about the correct way to worship this god? is it about politics? Is it about both?

Opinions please people.

Yes, they are one and the same “God” – Nothing.

They fight to add an argument to their otherwise unjustifiable and self-serving belief.

They fight, for the same reason everyone fights, to gain power.
Only they do it in droves and through unities in which they can shield their individual insecurities and claim that their motives are of a higher moral caliber.

They fight to attain eternity.
Only they do it by eradicating anything that contradicts their delusions and by groveling towards the unknown.

 

[water]

Yes, they are one and the same “God” – Nothing.

Hold on.
But maybe that's the point of God, and Sartre got it right, about the whole a nothing becoming a something!

But then again, Sartre was coming from the perspective of a culture that evolved around the belief in God and in opposition to it, so he maybe got the whole thing backwards, or wrong, or otherwise haywire.

 

[Satyr]

Hold on.
But maybe that's the point of God, and Sartre got it right, about the whole a nothing becoming a something!

But then again, Sartre was coming from the perspective of a culture that evolved around the belief in God and in opposition to it, so he maybe got the whole thing backwards, or wrong, or otherwise haywire.

No, I agree with Sartre.

God is what man wants to become: the absolute Something, the singularity, the One, the Self.

It’s in how you believe in God and how you define the term where man goes astray.

In this religion sub-Forum the term is used consistently with no definition.

I can only assume that the word ‘God’ – especially when it is capitalized – is used in the spirit of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

[water]

No, I agree with Sartre.

God is what man wants to become: the absolute Something, the singularity, the One, the Self.

It’s in how you believe in God and how you define the term where man goes astray.

Agreed.

Unless one considers oneself an absolute, the whole thing with the Judgment makes no sense, doesn't work out.
That absolute has to have self-willed traits and actions, if the Judgment is to be just.
The troubling thing is that those self-willed traits are considered to be, among other things, goodness, badness, depression, creativity, etc.

In other words, for the Judgment to work out, one has to be like a god.

The notion of Judgment hurts and seems unfair because one feels that one is not an absolute, that one's traits are not self-willed, self-created, and neither can one prove either way.

 

[Satyr]

Agreed.

Unless one considers oneself an absolute, the whole thing with the Judgment makes no sense, doesn't work out.
That absolute has to have self-willed traits and actions, if the Judgment is to be just.
The troubling thing is that those self-willed traits are considered to be, among other things, goodness, badness, depression, creativity, etc.

In other words, for the Judgment to work out, one has to be like a god.

The notion of Judgment hurts and seems unfair because one feels that one is not an absolute, that one's traits are not self-willed, self-created, and neither can one prove either way.

In order to have Will and to be creative one must lack completion, one must have something to overcome, one must be imperfect and a nothing striving to be something.

Ironic, given popular interpretations of God.

Judgment hurts only when the one judging is not us and when we take their judgment as superior to our own.

When another’s opinion has more power over us than our own, then it truly hurts, then we are forced to consider it. Karma – communal reciprocity. The reward and punishment of the many upon the one.
Remain loyal to popular dogma and you shall be praised and rewarded – your Karma will be positive.
Go against it and it will turn negative – retribution for unbalancing the whole.
The system self-corrects.

God has been used as that absolute Other - that representation of popular sentiment – the community passing judgment upon the individual by placing the word in a hypothetical Otherness that cannot be attacked or ignored.

 

[S.A.M.]

Virgin births go back long before the Christ; Montezuma, Deganawidah, Huitzilopochtli, Hunahpu and Xbalanque were all gods born of virgins, allegedly. The Christian story was taken from those old myths.

Virgin births:

Montezuma
1480-1520 Aztec Emperor
His reign was marked by incessant warfare, and his despotic rule caused grave unrest.


Deganawidah
1550–1600 Native American spiritual leader
Deganawidah was the traditional founder, along with Hiawatha, of the Iroquois Confederacy, a political and cultural union of five Native American tribes across what is now New York State. By all accounts he was a prophet who advocated peace and an end to cannibalism among the warring tribes.


Huitzilopochtli
12th and 13th century Aztec god
Huitzilopochtli, whose name means "Blue Hummingbird on the Left," was the Aztec god of the Sun and the war.


Hunahpu
A.D. 250 and 900 classic Mayan god
The Mayan creator god. He is the son of Hun Hunahpu and a virgin


Xbalanque
Hunahpu
A.D. 250 and 900 classic Mayan god
Twin of Hunahpu

(Q): one interesting point I noticed. All the virgin births were on the other side of the Atlantic.

And the first known people who interacted with them (that I could find) were the Spaniards in the 1490s, on whose arrival 90% of the Mayans were killed off within a century due to exposure to Old World diseases.

Previous to that the Norse discovery of America is dated at around 1000 years ago (they were orthodox Christians).

Any other known accounts of interaction with the Americas before that?

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't deny that, but the scientific method did originate in Arabia

Here we go again.

The scientific method in its modern form arguably developed in early Muslim philosophy, in particular, using experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories, along with the methods of citation ("isnad"), peer review and open inquiry, leading to development of consensus ("ijma" via "ijtihad"), and a general belief that knowledge reveals nature honestly. During the middle ages, Islamic philosophy developed and was often pivotal in scientific debates–key figures were usually scientists and philosophers.

The prominent Arab-Iranian Muslim scientist Alhazen used the scientific method to obtain the results in his book Optics. In particular, he performed experiments and used the scientific method to show that the intromission theory of vision supported by Aristotle was scientifically correct, and that the emission theory of vision supported by Ptolemy and Euclid was wrong.

In his enunciation of a 'method' in the 13th century, Roger Bacon, under the tuition of Robert Grosseteste, was inspired by the writings of Muslim alchemists (particularly Alhazen's work), who had preserved and built upon Aristotle's portrait of induction. Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method


Aquinas knew of at least some of the Mutazilite work and the Renaissance and the use of empirical methods were inspired at least in part by Muslim works taken in Spain in 1492. The most significant achievements of early Muslim philosophers are:

the development of a strict science of citation, the isnad or "backing"
the development of a method of open inquiry to disprove claims, the ijtihad, which could be generally applied to many types of questions (although which to apply it to is an ethical question)
willingness to both accept and challenge authority within the same process
recognition that science and philosophy are both subordinate to morality, and that moral choices are prior to any investigation or concern with either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_philosophy


Basic arithmetical skills can first be seen in Greek works by Nichomachus and others of the Pythagorean school. Basic arithmetic had been used for millennia without any rigorous theoretical development. Perhaps numerical understanding was encumbered by clumsy written systems found in Greek, Egyptian, and Roman cultures. Over the years of study and practice, the Islamic world seems to have encountered the concept of 'zero.' Use of our zero requires that one be successful not simply with counting, but with understanding the importance of place value in a written number system. The man who succeeded is unknown. We only know that he was a Hindu living no later than the 9th century. (I know this. It was Aryabhatta in 500 AD)

Hindus call the symbol sunya, meaning empty. Arabs came to call this symbol sifr, which also means empty. In English this becomes cypher and we get the word zero from an archaic word zephirum. The speed of arithmetical computation was increased dramatically, not to mention the space saved in tabulating the sums, and hence paper and ink. Islamic advances in astronomy were the most advanced in the world at their time, and often they calculated tables with the longitude of Baghdad. Later authors, however, after a Caliphate was declared in Spain, used Cordoba for its tables. With a compact numbering system, tremendous advances in astronomy, astrology, and arithmetic were made possible.

The former Babylonian mathematical traditions formed great fruit under Arab rule. The study of trigenometry was a Babylonian discipline different from the Greeks. (The Babylonians were also the first to establish a place-value system of numbers, but this also was replaced by the 10-digit Hindu method.) Persian mathematician Omar Khayyám (1048-1131) combined the use of trigonometry and approximation theory to provide methods of solving algebraic equations by geometrical means. Khayyam solved the cubic equation x3 + 200x = 20x2 + 2000 and found a positive root of this cubic by considering the intersection of a rectangular hyperbola and a circle. An approximate numerical solution was then found by interpolation in trigonometric tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

 

[(Q)]

So you're claiming he was an illierate literary genius?

*sigh*

And yet he united all of Arabia, something which no one has been able to accomplish since

He conquered Arabia, by use of the sword. We can only stand vigilant it isn't accomplished again.

Evidently before Islam no one had ever fought before

Religion was not something new to those folks, was it?

And you're assuming that they had 20th century communication and a 40 year old illiterate businessman who had never traveled beyond his tribe was so influenced by them that he immediately visualised a 21st century like view of society

With rocket cars and jetpacks? Sorry, but we hope the 21st century is not a society of slavery and ignornace.

I'm not the one brought up on Christian propaganda

That's what I keep telling you and you keep disagreeing.

You should try reading books written by objective parties e.g. Hindus in India, Europeans who were not British or had no colonies in Arabia.

Objective parties?

"Perhaps there is no other nation in the world that is openly and shamelessly as racial as some of the nations in the Indian subcontinent. A number of Indians who visit foreign countries often complain about being treated condescendingly on account of their skin color or accent, without acknowledging the fact that a vast majority of people in their own country exhibit a far greater obsession with accent, the color of ones skin and ones family (caste) background.

And there are countless scholars who justify the caste system quoting chapter and verse from the Hindu scriptures, ignoring the fact that they were convenient interpolations in an otherwise sacred lore to justify a cruel and unjust system theologically using the very authority of God."

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_caste.asp

 

[S.A.M.]

*sigh*

You shouldn't be up so late at your age

He conquered Arabia, by use of the sword. We can only stand vigilant it isn't accomplished again.

4 wars in 20 years with a few hundreds dead? And outnumbered in each one?
Where's your perspective?

Religion was not something new to those folks, was it?

And what about the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, even the Mongols and Babylonians (not forgetting the Neolithic Brits, either)

With rocket cars and jetpacks? Sorry, but we hope the 21st century is not a society of slavery and ignornace.

You dreamer you.
Look around you. Does anyone look like they know the meaning of the word "tolerance" or "understanding"? When people place greed over humanity, its already too late

That's what I keep telling you and you keep disagreeing.

Objective parties?

"Perhaps there is no other nation in the world that is openly and shamelessly as racial as some of the nations in the Indian subcontinent. A number of Indians who visit foreign countries often complain about being treated condescendingly on account of their skin color or accent, without acknowledging the fact that a vast majority of people in their own country exhibit a far greater obsession with accent, the color of ones skin and ones family (caste) background.

And there are countless scholars who justify the caste system quoting chapter and verse from the Hindu scriptures, ignoring the fact that they were convenient interpolations in an otherwise sacred lore to justify a cruel and unjust system theologically using the very authority of God."

Oh bully! go spend some time in India; whatever the shortcomings of the Indians they are far far more tolerant than the most secular men in the West. And India's record with democracy is far better than that of any other country.

 

[(Q)]

You shouldn't be up so late at your age

And, what age would that be?

4 wars in 20 years with a few hundreds dead? And outnumbered in each one?
Where's your perspective?

Well, in many of the wars, and there were more than 4, the casualty count was unknown, but in the battle of Mut'ah, for example, forces of 100,000 met forces of 200,000, in which the smaller group (Muslims) were almost wiped out. And they would have been if not for the treachery of Khalid ibn al-Walid.

And what about the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, even the Mongols and Babylonians (not forgetting the Neolithic Brits, either)

Yes, they warred, that is a fact. What wars are they fighting now? What religious beliefs are causing their young people to strap on explosives?

You dreamer you.
Look around you. Does anyone look like they know the meaning of the word "tolerance" or "understanding"? When people place greed over humanity, its already too late

You'll find, if you look, that the most intolerant and non-understanding peoples are largely theists.

Oh bully! go spend some time in India; whatever the shortcomings of the Indians they are far far more tolerant than the most secular men in the West. And India's record with democracy is far better than that of any other country.

No thanks, that's one country I hope never to return. I did like parts of Bihar, though.