Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[David Cooper]

I agree with most your points in general but I believe you got it wrong with your views on Islam-proper. Majority of so-called Muslims are actually pseudo-Muslims.

Groups like Al Qa'ida and IS would certainly agree with that - they consider themselves to be amongst the few who are doing Islam by the book, and they're right. Most Muslims don't act on the hateful parts because they find them distasteful, so they just blind themselves to those bits and pretend they aren't there. This leads to problems when any members of a peaceful Muslim population don't close their eyes to the hate and take it upon themselves to act upon it in order to be more seriously religious than the rest, and they are naturally attracted towards the extremist groups who try to do their religion properly rather than just playing at it.

Relatively the Quran is WORST than the Mein Kempf in terms of anti-semitism [leading to a real genocide] and hatred against ALL non-Muslims.

Once we have AGI, it will be able to carry out an impartial analysis of all such works and to put numbers upon just how hateful/benign they are, and to map out where that hate is so that everyone can see its distribution, extent and intensity at a glance. I wouldn't trust any human analysis of this as the people doing the same kind of analysis are likely to introduce a bias.

I have spent years researching the Quran and Islam and I have OBJECTIVE evidence the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam is inherent evil against the rest of humanity.

It has a generally sinister feel to it throughout, but so does much of the Bible - that comes automatically from setting up a tyrant as a "God" when it's really a vicious monster that requires people to believe in it and worship it or else! This "God" idea is really just an extension of all the worst failings of human kings projected into the sky.

In general, >55% of the 6,236 verses of the Quran are laden with hatred towards non-believers and the killer blows are the direct verses that sanction the killing of non-believers merely because they do not believe in Allah and his messenger.

It's a long time since I read through it, but what I remember most is that it spent a lot of time retelling old stories from the Bible in order to draw upon that authority, and the vast bulk of it was merely boring rather than hostile, but if you've produced a map of all the hateful verses, I'd like to look at it and check that it matches up to the actual Qur'an. 55% seems like a high figure.

It is not a case of twisting the meaning of the verses. No Muslims would dare to twist the verses commanded by Allah else they will be burnt in Hell.
Therefore those Muslims who had killed or will be killing non-Muslims [merely because they are disbelievers] did it because they sincerely believe it is their divine duty to please Allah to ensure their salvation in Paradise and to avoid going to Hell.

The twisting that I've seen is being done by the people pretending it isn't hate, or making excuses for it by claiming the vicious stuff only applies in times of conflict and that it has no role to play in the modern world (where there is obviously no conflict, as we all know well).

Note I am not imply ALL Muslims will adhere strictly to the commands of the Quran to kill non-Muslims. The critical and real problem is even if 10% of Muslims obey the words of Allah...

It doesn't even take 10% to cause turmoil. The problem is that the most fanatical ones are always the first to take up arms, and they bully the rest to bring them into line, using the authority of the Qur'an to justify their actions and to condemn those who fail to follow suit. That's why Iraq fell to pieces after it was liberated, and why Afghanistan still hasn't found peace, even though most of the people just want the fighters to go away and leave them alone.

Get rid of the 55% of evil laden verses?

Why not? There would still be plenty left, and what's left would be much more attractive with all the poison removed. The Bible would be improved too if all the homophobia was stripped out of it.

The problem is the Quran as the perfect words of a perfect God are commanded within the Quran to be immutable, therefore no imperfect humans can change God's words.

But that could just be him testing people to see if they have the balls to stand up to him and refuse to accept his hate. A real God would want people to do this.

Thus the first thing humanity need to do is to expose the truth of what the Quran really is, i.e. reveal all the evil elements within the Quran. From that basis, humanity should do the right thing to ensure there is no more threat from Islam.

It's one of the big tasks for mankind to take on, but it should never be presented in such a way as to single out Islam without applying the same rules to all other religions and ideologies which propagate hate. If you single one out, you just look biased and will invariably be taken for a hater yourself (usually by people who refuse to read the texts in question and who take it on trust that they don't contain hate [because they're assured of that by so many other people who haven't read them either that they are peaceful and benign]). What's needed to fix this is education. I keep advising people to read the texts in question so that they can speak out of knowledge instead of ignorance, but they invariably refuse to do so. What normally happens is that, because they haven't bothered reading the sources themselves, they assume that no one else has done so either, so if you tell them anything about what's in there, they accuse you of taking out-of-context quotes from hate sites and they simply aren't mentally capable of understanding that you have actually read the entire Bible, Qur'an Bhagavad Gita, etc. and really do know exactly what they say. Perhaps colour-coded hate maps would help, even if they're compiled by humans rather than waiting for AGI to do the job, but they need to be done for all the leading religions and for lots of other important ideologies too in order to show that they are not biased - people need to be able to compare them, and to look up any part that's been coloured to indicate hate so that they can look such parts up randomly to check that the maps are true.

[Spectrum]

I agree with most your points in general but I believe you got it wrong with your views on Islam-proper. Majority of so-called Muslims are actually pseudo-Muslims.

Groups like Al Qa'ida and IS would certainly agree with that - they consider themselves to be amongst the few who are doing Islam by the book, and they're right. Most Muslims don't act on the hateful parts because they find them distasteful, so they just blind themselves to those bits and pretend they aren't there. This leads to problems when any members of a peaceful Muslim population don't close their eyes to the hate and take it upon themselves to act upon it in order to be more seriously religious than the rest, and they are naturally attracted towards the extremist groups who try to do their religion properly rather than just playing at it.

1. The fact [objectively] is that true Islam has an evil ethos driven by loads of evil laden verses.
2. Within a large population, appx 20% of people has an active evil tendency of various degrees.
What is critical and scary [as evident] is the combination of the above two truth is a real thereat to humanity.
Therefore humanity must give attention to the above facts instead of denying fact 1.

Relatively the Quran is WORST than the Mein Kempf in terms of anti-semitism [leading to a real genocide] and hatred against ALL non-Muslims.

Once we have AGI, it will be able to carry out an impartial analysis of all such works and to put numbers upon just how hateful/benign they are, and to map out where that hate is so that everyone can see its distribution, extent and intensity at a glance. I wouldn't trust any human analysis of this as the people doing the same kind of analysis are likely to introduce a bias.

AGI will definitely help but note the cost for such a program.
I use Excel database to do the analysis which will give very reasonable result. I have analyzed all the verses from the Quran into one main theme, 20 main chapters and 1300++ sub themes to highlight why the Quran is fundamentally and inherently evil.

It is so obvious there are evil elements culminating to an evil ethos within the Quran to any average reader. The only excuse is the evil elements are time and context based which not good excuses. The point is the very existence of the Quran and its factual evil laden verses do inspire 'a-critical-SOME' [potential pool of 300 million] Muslims to commit evil acts.

I have spent years researching the Quran and Islam and I have OBJECTIVE evidence the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam is inherent evil against the rest of humanity.

It has a generally sinister feel to it throughout, but so does much of the Bible - that comes automatically from setting up a tyrant as a "God" when it's really a vicious monster that requires people to believe in it and worship it or else! This "God" idea is really just an extension of all the worst failings of human kings projected into the sky.

I have spent extensive research on evil elements within all religions. Judaism per se has terrible evil verses in their holy texts [thus a potential] but somehow the Jews [appx. 10 million of them] do not commit serious evident evil acts on a large scale [instead they are victims].
The OT is more terrible in terms of evil elements than the Quran but the OT is overriden by the NT's pacfist maxims. The NT has evil elements but very less than the Quran. The Quran has terrible evil elements, 55% of the verses are basically evil laden with the us versus them tribalistic impulse towards evilness. The Bhagavad Gita has evil elements but not significant. Buddhism has no leading evil elements at all. Jainism is fundamentally pacifist to the extent of not killing insects and germs [this is a bit dumb and impractical].

In general, >55% of the 6,236 verses of the Quran are laden with hatred towards non-believers and the killer blows are the direct verses that sanction the killing of non-believers merely because they do not believe in Allah and his messenger.

It's a long time since I read through it, but what I remember most is that it spent a lot of time retelling old stories from the Bible in order to draw upon that authority, and the vast bulk of it was merely boring rather than hostile, but if you've produced a map of all the hateful verses, I'd like to look at it and check that it matches up to the actual Qur'an. 55% seems like a high figure.

I have done my own research to arrive at >55%. These are basically those verses has anti-Muslim 'us versus them' which is the starting point to inspire believers towards evil acts against non-believers.
From my 1,300+ sub-themes there loads of other categories of evil elements directed at non-Muslims within the Quran.

While the Quran exhort Muslims to do good as Muslims [where some supposedly 'good' = evil acts] there are less than 10 verses!! out of the 6,236 that has some indication of positiveness toward non-believers.

Here is a research that arrive at 64% of verses in the Quran are evil laden, i.e. using the derogatory term 'kafir' against non-believers.
This stats is based on points where few verses are combined to represent one point. I merely refer to single verses that contain the 'kafir' reference instead of per points basis.
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
Note the supporting details are given in this case.

see the stats here;
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/c ... _72dpi.jpg

Note 10% of evil laden elements is already very scary, but here we have >50%

Appx 32% of the 6,236 verses relate to the Bible NT and OT.

Note I am not imply ALL Muslims will adhere strictly to the commands of the Quran to kill non-Muslims. The critical and real problem is even if 10% of Muslims obey the words of Allah...

It doesn't even take 10% to cause turmoil. The problem is that the most fanatical ones are always the first to take up arms, and they bully the rest to bring them into line, using the authority of the Qur'an to justify their actions and to condemn those who fail to follow suit. That's why Iraq fell to pieces after it was liberated, and why Afghanistan still hasn't found peace, even though most of the people just want the fighters to go away and leave them alone.

10% is 150 million, but note even 1 Muslim can be very dangerous and it took ONLY 18++ to do a 911.
While the fanatical ones are the obvious what is more critical is the loads of evil within the Quran also subliminal influence the majority of Muslims into some degrees of supporting the evil acts in terms of indirect moral support with their silence or financing thru donations in various channels.
The evil ethos [with a subliminal threat of Hell] will also drive the innocent and even goody-two-shoes to commit evil acts. Many family were shocked to learn their 'well behaved' sons or daughter appear on TV as terrorists.

The problem is the Quran as the perfect words of a perfect God are commanded within the Quran to be immutable, therefore no imperfect humans can change God's words.

But that could just be him testing people to see if they have the balls to stand up to him and refuse to accept his hate. A real God would want people to do this.

Personally I am not viewing it from God's perspective. The moral is any ideology with hate elements should be dealt with accordingly. Note we ban, censor and condemn media that contain evil elements, we should not give religions a free pass with evil elements.

Thus the first thing humanity need to do is to expose the truth of what the Quran really is, i.e. reveal all the evil elements within the Quran. From that basis, humanity should do the right thing to ensure there is no more threat from Islam.

It's one of the big tasks for mankind to take on, but it should never be presented in such a way as to single out Islam without applying the same rules to all other religions and ideologies which propagate hate. If you single one out, you just look biased and will invariably be taken for a hater yourself (usually by people who refuse to read the texts in question and who take it on trust that they don't contain hate [because they're assured of that by so many other people who haven't read them either that they are peaceful and benign]). What's needed to fix this is education. I keep advising people to read the texts in question so that they can speak out of knowledge instead of ignorance, but they invariably refuse to do so. What normally happens is that, because they haven't bothered reading the sources themselves, they assume that no one else has done so either, so if you tell them anything about what's in there, they accuse you of taking out-of-context quotes from hate sites and they simply aren't mentally capable of understanding that you have actually read the entire Bible, Qur'an Bhagavad Gita, etc. and really do know exactly what they say. Perhaps colour-coded hate maps would help, even if they're compiled by humans rather than waiting for AGI to do the job, but they need to be done for all the leading religions and for lots of other important ideologies too in order to show that they are not biased - people need to be able to compare them, and to look up any part that's been coloured to indicate hate so that they can look such parts up randomly to check that the maps are true.

As I have mentioned many times, humanity must addressed ALL evils from all sources. Since this is a Religious and Spiritual Forum, we have to confine ourselves to evil within religions in this case.

I agree we should address all religions in reference to evil elements therein and make it transparent. I have listed the evil laden elements within the major religions and as evident and real threat. In particular I would like to highlight the recent violence by Buddhists has nothing to do with the religion itself but rather it is due to the evil nature within the Buddhist as humans [that 20% of evil prone].
Objectively and evidently, Islam [itself not Muslims] is the worst among all the mainstream religion in relation to the threat of evil to mankind. Therefore we must give serious attention to Islam and not be an ostrich [by apologists and authorities] to the evil acts directly attributed to Islam itself.

[David Cooper]

1. The fact [objectively] is that true Islam has an evil ethos driven by loads of evil laden verses.
2. Within a large population, appx 20% of people has an active evil tendency of various degrees.
What is critical and scary [as evident] is the combination of the above two truth is a real thereat to humanity.
Therefore humanity must give attention to the above facts instead of denying fact 1.

The trouble is that most Muslims aren't doing true Islam, so they ignore the vicious stuff and focus on the good content, just as today's better Christians completely ignore the Bible's homophobia and call other Christians bigots for sticking to the rules of the book. Their religion is not the book, and yet it remains tied to the book and continues to propagate the hate that the book contains, giving it room to re-emerge in the future. I want to see laws put in place to ban the hate and remove it from the texts so that the bigotry never returns.

AGI will definitely help but note the cost for such a program.

The cost? It's not going to cost anything - it's just a little bit of work that it will do before breakfast on the first day of operation.

I have spent extensive research on evil elements within all religions. Judaism per se has terrible evil verses in their holy texts [thus a potential] but somehow the Jews [appx. 10 million of them] do not commit serious evident evil acts on a large scale [instead they are victims].

So you don't consider their treatment of the Palestinians to be evil? Throwing people out of their homes and off their land and keeping them trapped in little areas akin to prison camps where many of them are driven to suicide should qualify as evil. Clearly, the morals of this case are hard to calculate without AGI assistance as there are so many factors that need to be included, but when you've been away for 2000 years and then move "home", you shouldn't consider that you have a right to take over other people's houses and land without buying it from people who are willing to sell. What we see today is far too many cases of unarmed people being shot dead when all they want is to get their stolen property back. The moral rightness of their case is hidden though by the behaviour of the extremists on their side, making it possible for one evil side to triumph as half the world is biased enough to back them.

The OT is more terrible in terms of evil elements than the Quran but the OT is overriden by the NT's pacfist maxims.

Only for Christians, but they need to go further and condemn the hate in the OT outright. A new version of it should be produced with all the hate removed, and the original version should be banned. By the way, to add to your list, the Satanist's Bible also contains no hate (although it does endorse hate towards hateful people).

I have done my own research to arrive at >55%. These are basically those verses has anti-Muslim 'us versus them' which is the starting point to inspire believers towards evil acts against non-believers.

Well that's where a colour coded hate map would be useful, making distinctions between different levels of hate so that disapproval of others is only included as hate in a minor way rather than exaggerating the case, although you're right to label it as hate as even the subtlest hate is cumulative and adds up to a considerable amount of demonisation.

[/quote]Here is a research that arrive at 64% of verses in the Quran are evil laden, i.e. using the derogatory term 'kafir' against non-believers...[/quote]

Well, it would take a lot of work to check all of that to be sure that it's using the word in a derogatory way in all those cases. You could do an analysis of Mark Twain's books where you count appearances of the N-word and give them scores for evil, but he doesn't use the word with any malice at all, and that makes me wonder if the word kafir is necessarily being used with an intention that it be derogatory in nature. A fair analysis should err on the side of assuming it to be benign wherever the context doesn't prove otherwise, even if it's practical effect on the Muslim audience may be anything but benign. The intention of the writer was likely to try to drive people away from immorality to morality, so it may have felt entirely justifiable to him, and because he wasn't God, he wasn't in a position to understand its actual psychological impact on people.

Personally I am not viewing it from God's perspective. The moral is any ideology with hate elements should be dealt with accordingly. Note we ban, censor and condemn media that contain evil elements, we should not give religions a free pass with evil elements.

Clearly, many of the justifications don't wash - if "holy" texts are easy for stupid people to misunderstand such that they act on what the words say rather than what some experts claim they actually mean, that should be enough to condemn the text - if it advocates genocide and people act on that command, it is the text that is to blame.

In particular I would like to highlight the recent violence by Buddhists has nothing to do with the religion itself but rather it is due to the evil nature within the Buddhist as humans [that 20% of evil prone].

There are conflicts where both sides commit atrocities driven by holy hate that all comes exclusively from the same side - one side kills by acting on the holy hate while the other acts out of fear of the people who promote that holy hate. Take away that holy hate from the one side that has it and both sides will stop killing each other.

[/quote]Objectively and evidently, Islam [itself not Muslims] is the worst among all the mainstream religion in relation to the threat of evil to mankind. Therefore we must give serious attention to Islam and not be an ostrich [by apologists and authorities] to the evil acts directly attributed to Islam itself.[/quote]

Ordinarily, it is correct to start with the worst offender and to deal with it first before turning attention to the next worst, but the world is more complex, and it ins't certain that you have actually identified the worst offender. From the Muslim viewpoint, it's the Jews and Christians who are worst, using their "holy" texts to justify the oppression of Muslims. The picture is further complicated by other ideologies leading to the slaughter of millions without religion having a direct role. That's why it's a bad idea to single out Islam and put it at the top of the list. All ideologies and religions which propagate hate need to be tackled at the same time and in the same way, applying the same rules to the whole lot of them so as to counter all the accusations of bias. Putting Islam at the top of the list and expecting people to fix it first while letting everyone else go on behaving badly for any length of time is a massive mistake which everyone needs to avoid making, not least because it provides a strong defence: "If you aren't biased, why are you only picking on us when they're promoting hate too?"

[Spectrum]

The trouble is that most Muslims aren't doing true Islam, so they ignore the vicious stuff and focus on the good content, just as today's better Christians completely ignore the Bible's homophobia and call other Christians bigots for sticking to the rules of the book. Their religion is not the book, and yet it remains tied to the book and continues to propagate the hate that the book contains, giving it room to re-emerge in the future. I want to see laws put in place to ban the hate and remove it from the texts so that the bigotry never returns.

In principle, I agree if you can get rid of the evil laden texts, that would be one great effective solutions to eliminate all [or 99%] religious based evils.
But as I had stated it is impossible to get rid of the evil laden elements in the Quran because Allah commanded the Quran is perfect, immutable and cannot be changed by imperfect humans. Only God can override and abrogate his own words. In the present modern state, there is no way for God to re-emerge via a prophet nor messenger.

The only effective solution is to get rid [wean off] Islam [priority] in the long run and other evil laden religions and replace them [this is critical] with fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma.

So you don't consider their treatment of the Palestinians to be evil? Throwing people out of their homes and off their land and keeping them trapped in little areas akin to prison camps where many of them are driven to suicide should qualify as evil. Clearly, the morals of this case are hard to calculate without AGI assistance as there are so many factors that need to be included, but when you've been away for 2000 years and then move "home", you shouldn't consider that you have a right to take over other people's houses and land without buying it from people who are willing to sell. What we see today is far too many cases of unarmed people being shot dead when all they want is to get their stolen property back. The moral rightness of their case is hidden though by the behaviour of the extremists on their side, making it possible for one evil side to triumph as half the world is biased enough to back them.

The Palestinian problem is a complex one and I believe must be resolved politically. Initially the move was driven by the Torah and OT to create the state of Israel. Morally and inherently this is wrong but given the circumstances it had happened. Even if we get rid of the Torah and the Bible now, the Israel-Palestinian problem will still exists which can only resolved politically.

The OT is more terrible in terms of evil elements than the Quran but the OT is overriden by the NT's pacfist maxims.

Only for Christians, but they need to go further and condemn the hate in the OT outright. A new version of it should be produced with all the hate removed, and the original version should be banned. By the way, to add to your list, the Satanist's Bible also contains no hate (although it does endorse hate towards hateful people).

Agree we must highlight the evil elements in the OT in addition to highlighting the overriding pacifist maxims in the NT. Btw, have you heard from prevalent cases of Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus shouting Jesus-U-Akbar?
The Satanist's Bible is not considered a mainstream religion.

I have done my own research to arrive at >55%. These are basically those verses has anti-Muslim 'us versus them' which is the starting point to inspire believers towards evil acts against non-believers.

Well that's where a colour coded hate map would be useful, making distinctions between different levels of hate so that disapproval of others is only included as hate in a minor way rather than exaggerating the case, although you're right to label it as hate as even the subtlest hate is cumulative and adds up to a considerable amount of demonisation.

Not sure your emphasis on a color coded hate map is useful. In my analysis I give a rating [1-10] to each evil element. I rate those >55% hate elements as 5/10 but cumulatively they are very significant/critical.

Here is a research that arrive at 64% of verses in the Quran are evil laden, i.e. using the derogatory term 'kafir' against non-believers...

Well, it would take a lot of work to check all of that to be sure that it's using the word in a derogatory way in all those cases. You could do an analysis of Mark Twain's books where you count appearances of the N-word and give them scores for evil, but he doesn't use the word with any malice at all, and that makes me wonder if the word kafir is necessarily being used with an intention that it be derogatory in nature. A fair analysis should err on the side of assuming it to be benign wherever the context doesn't prove otherwise, even if it's practical effect on the Muslim audience may be anything but benign. The intention of the writer was likely to try to drive people away from immorality to morality, so it may have felt entirely justifiable to him, and because he wasn't God, he wasn't in a position to understand its actual psychological impact on people.

I have read the whole Quran at one go > 50 times and various chapters/verses many many times. The term 'kafir' [infidel] is by default derogatory charged with very high intensity of hate and an obvious threat to the religion and thus a threat to a Muslim's passage to heaven.
The original history of the Quran was, it arose out of personal hate, tribalism and imperialism and such ethos is imbued very strongly within the majority of the verses.
I suggest you reread the Quran in the correct context, i.e. at least chronologically and thematically with objective 'spectacles.'

Personally I am not viewing it from God's perspective. The moral is any ideology with hate elements should be dealt with accordingly. Note we ban, censor and condemn media that contain evil elements, we should not give religions a free pass with evil elements.

Clearly, many of the justifications don't wash - if "holy" texts are easy for stupid people to misunderstand such that they act on what the words say rather than what some experts claim they actually mean, that should be enough to condemn the text - if it advocates genocide and people act on that command, it is the text that is to blame.

That is the point with the Quran.
It is not stupid people literally, rather the evil influence is on the evil prone, e.g. the range of malignant psychopaths, sociopaths, the evilly deranged where some can be highly intelligent.

In particular I would like to highlight the recent violence by Buddhists has nothing to do with the religion itself but rather it is due to the evil nature within the Buddhist as humans [that 20% of evil prone].

There are conflicts where both sides commit atrocities driven by holy hate that all comes exclusively from the same side - one side kills by acting on the holy hate while the other acts out of fear of the people who promote that holy hate. Take away that holy hate from the one side that has it and both sides will stop killing each other.

Yes, we need to address the proximate cause of the evil acts, i.e. in this case it is only the hateful loaded Quran. It has everything to do with Islam in the Myanmar case and has nothing to do with Buddhism. The violence by SOME 'Buddhists' is not due to Buddhism per se but due to evil prone humans who happened to be Buddhists.

Objectively and evidently, Islam [itself not Muslims] is the worst among all the mainstream religion in relation to the threat of evil to mankind. Therefore we must give serious attention to Islam and not be an ostrich [by apologists and authorities] to the evil acts directly attributed to Islam itself.

Ordinarily, it is correct to start with the worst offender and to deal with it first before turning attention to the next worst, but the world is more complex, and it ins't certain that you have actually identified the worst offender. From the Muslim viewpoint, it's the Jews and Christians who are worst, using their "holy" texts to justify the oppression of Muslims. The picture is further complicated by other ideologies leading to the slaughter of millions without religion having a direct role. That's why it's a bad idea to single out Islam and put it at the top of the list. All ideologies and religions which propagate hate need to be tackled at the same time and in the same way, applying the same rules to the whole lot of them so as to counter all the accusations of bias. Putting Islam at the top of the list and expecting people to fix it first while letting everyone else go on behaving badly for any length of time is a massive mistake which everyone needs to avoid making, not least because it provides a strong defence: "If you aren't biased, why are you only picking on us when they're promoting hate too?"

In religious terms - especially among the Abrahamic religions, one side will always claim [very subjectively] their religion is the ONLY right way.
But outside the respective religions there are objective ways to assess the evilness degrees in each religion. Note the extensive research that I have done to pick up all the evil elements within the religions.
This is not merely a theoretical exercise but linked to their consequences, e.g. this and many other statistics;
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg



Islam-driven evil acts [serious to non-serious] are so prevalent on a daily basis ALL OVER the World in contrast to the very rarely reports of Jews killing homosexuals, Christians burning abortion clinics, etc.
The Israel Palestinian problem is an exception [more political than religious] which must be addressed separately and urgently.

Note whatever [politics, economics, social] is not religious is off topic. As I had stated ALL evil acts must be addressed simultaneously [with assigned priority] by humanity without exceptions.

[David Cooper]

But as I had stated it is impossible to get rid of the evil laden elements in the Quran because Allah commanded the Quran is perfect, immutable and cannot be changed by imperfect humans. Only God can override and abrogate his own words. In the present modern state, there is no way for God to re-emerge via a prophet nor messenger.

That could again be a teaching which he wants people to reject in order to prove that they don't belong in hell. He has, after all, a proven track record of allowing his holy texts to be tampered with, so why stop now? He has set a precedent for allowing texts to be changed.

The only effective solution is to get rid [wean off] Islam [priority] in the long run and other evil laden religions and replace them [this is critical] with fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma.

The problem with that idea is that people are emotionally attached to their religions and don't want to lose them, even if they don't like the hate that's tied up in them. To allow them to keep their religion is a much more positive approach, and that can be safe if all the hate is stripped out.

The Palestinian problem is a complex one and I believe must be resolved politically. Initially the move was driven by the Torah and OT to create the state of Israel. Morally and inherently this is wrong but given the circumstances it had happened. Even if we get rid of the Torah and the Bible now, the Israel-Palestinian problem will still exists which can only resolved politically.

It will eventually be solved by removing hate from religions so that everyone can live together without feeling under threat, so the question is how to get there. Getting rid of the religions is likely much harder than just getting rid of the hate from the religions. Of course, failing to get rid of the religions always leaves room for the hate to be brought back in again, but it would be possible to prosecute anyone who passes it on to anyone else - AGI will in the future be listening in to all conversations, so it'll be impossible to get away with it.

Agree we must highlight the evil elements in the OT in addition to highlighting the overriding pacifist maxims in the NT. Btw, have you heard from prevalent cases of Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus shouting Jesus-U-Akbar?

No, but they did kill off vast numbers of experts in herbal medicine, so they should not be seen as peaceful.

The Satanist's Bible is not considered a mainstream religion.

Indeed - it's really rather fake, but it still provides an interesting comparison. If it contains no hate, why do other religions have any? They should be frantically going through all their holy texts cutting out and burning all the vile parts which cannot come from a true God, or which have been set as traps for the wicked to encourage them to reveal themselves and condemn themselves to hell.

Not sure your emphasis on a color coded hate map is useful.

Because people have short attention spans and need to be able to see things at a glance.

In my analysis I give a rating [1-10] to each evil element. I rate those >55% hate elements as 5/10 but cumulatively they are very significant/critical.

Then it should be easy to colour code it: just a list of verse numbers with different colours which people can check easily by looking up a few verses to see if the map is accurate. Given that most people can't be bothered to read the whole book (the second most depressing one in the world, only beaten in that regard by Rushdie's Satanic Verses), this would be a lazy way for them to get a proper idea of what the book actually is so that they aren't misled by the propaganda about Islam meaning peace and the Qur'an being a lovely book filled with flowers and fluffy bunnies.

I have read the whole Quran at one go > 50 times and various chapters/verses many many times. The term 'kafir' [infidel] is by default derogatory charged with very high intensity of hate and an obvious threat to the religion and thus a threat to a Muslim's passage to heaven.

A lot depends on the intention though, and if it's to repel people away from non-belief to belief, that would be little different from an atheist referring to religious people as R-souls in an attempt to drive them away from stupidity by making fun of religious people to deter them from admitting that they are religious. Bit by bit, this helps to drive conversions towards something believed to be superior.

The original history of the Quran was, it arose out of personal hate, tribalism and imperialism and such ethos is imbued very strongly within the majority of the verses.
I suggest you reread the Quran in the correct context, i.e. at least chronologically and thematically with objective 'spectacles.'

I have only read it once, but I didn't get the impression that it was as overwhelmingly hateful as you suggest. Muhammad's motivation came across as being to make the world more peaceful, and his hate was aimed at things that he considered to be immoral.

Islam-driven evil acts [serious to non-serious] are so prevalent on a daily basis ALL OVER the World in contrast to the very rarely reports of Jews killing homosexuals, Christians burning abortion clinics, etc.
The Israel Palestinian problem is an exception [more political than religious] which must be addressed separately and urgently.

But we have billions of people who don't see it that way because they blame the West for driving all the conflict, even though >99% of the Muslims killed die at the hands of other Muslims. Propaganda is a powerful tool, and whenever anyone pins more of the blame on Islam than on the other factors, the propaganda machine wins out and has that person branded as a biased bigot. That is why Islam must never be singled out or put at the top of the list. To be seen as playing fair, you have to treat all these evils as equal evils even if they aren't - the crucial task is to win over the victims of propaganda rather than the relatively few rational people who can think for themselves.

[Spectrum]

But as I had stated it is impossible to get rid of the evil laden elements in the Quran because Allah commanded the Quran is perfect, immutable and cannot be changed by imperfect humans. Only God can override and abrogate his own words. In the present modern state, there is no way for God to re-emerge via a prophet nor messenger.

That could again be a teaching which he wants people to reject in order to prove that they don't belong in hell. He has, after all, a proven track record of allowing his holy texts to be tampered with, so why stop now? He has set a precedent for allowing texts to be changed.

Not sure who your "he" is.
A Muslim is one who has entered into a contract with Allah to abide by Allah's commands as in the Quran. Thus as long as one is a Muslim there is no way, one can change God's words, e.g. nb: in [] = [mine]

5:3. .. This day have I [Allah] Perfected [KML: akmaltu] your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed [TMM: tamma] My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan]

6:34. … ...There is none to alter [BDL: mubaddila] the decisions [KLM: likalimāti; words] of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before).

50:29. The sentence [word, l-qawlu الْقَوْلُ ق و ل ] that cometh from Me [Allah] cannot be changed, and I am in no wise a tyrant [ZLM: biẓallāmin] unto the slaves [ʿabīdi]. [immutability] [nb: different trans for l-qawlu]

30:30. So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion [lilddīni] as a man by nature upright [ḥanīfan] the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws [revelations] of) Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not.

6:115. Perfected [TMM: watammat: perfect, complete, fulfil] is the Word [KLM: kalimatu: Quran] of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change [BDL: mubaddila] His words [the Quran]. He [Allah] is the Hearer, the Knower. [immutability of Quran, its commands, threats and promises] [note v5:3, 6:114-5 v20:114]

The only effective solution is to get rid [wean off] Islam [priority] in the long run and other evil laden religions and replace them [this is critical] with fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma.

The problem with that idea is that people are emotionally attached to their religions and don't want to lose them, even if they don't like the hate that's tied up in them. To allow them to keep their religion is a much more positive approach, and that can be safe if all the hate is stripped out.

Unfortunately on contrast to Christianity or other religion, there is no room for Muslims to change their present Quran [in Arabic]. The only permanent solution in the long run is to wean off Islam from humanity and replace the lust of religiosity with benign spiritual practices.

The Palestinian problem is a complex one and I believe must be resolved politically. Initially the move was driven by the Torah and OT to create the state of Israel. Morally and inherently this is wrong but given the circumstances it had happened. Even if we get rid of the Torah and the Bible now, the Israel-Palestinian problem will still exists which can only resolved politically.

It will eventually be solved by removing hate from religions so that everyone can live together without feeling under threat, so the question is how to get there. Getting rid of the religions is likely much harder than just getting rid of the hate from the religions. Of course, failing to get rid of the religions always leaves room for the hate to be brought back in again, but it would be possible to prosecute anyone who passes it on to anyone else - AGI will in the future be listening in to all conversations, so it'll be impossible to get away with it.

Note my point, Islam cannot be reformed.

Agree we must highlight the evil elements in the OT in addition to highlighting the overriding pacifist maxims in the NT. Btw, have you heard from prevalent cases of Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus shouting Jesus-U-Akbar?

No, but they did kill off vast numbers of experts in herbal medicine, so they should not be seen as peaceful.

Christianity is not purely peaceful, it has its negatives which need to deal with but Christianity is way off from the inherent evil and violent potential from Islam.

In my analysis I give a rating [1-10] to each evil element. I rate those >55% hate elements as 5/10 but cumulatively they are very significant/critical.

Then it should be easy to colour code it: just a list of verse numbers with different colours which people can check easily by looking up a few verses to see if the map is accurate. Given that most people can't be bothered to read the whole book (the second most depressing one in the world, only beaten in that regard by Rushdie's Satanic Verses), this would be a lazy way for them to get a proper idea of what the book actually is so that they aren't misled by the propaganda about Islam meaning peace and the Qur'an being a lovely book filled with flowers and fluffy bunnies.

Note each verse can contain up to a mix of 10 elements from good to evil. So it is not practical to color code a single verse with one color. Perhaps we color code each relevant word or phrase. I mentioned I have up to 1,300 sub-themes, so there is a need for lots of different colors and thus it will be very messy.

The best is to use a database program where the main themes and sub-themes are presented and anyone can click the respective themes to get the supporting verses. In addition the verses are analysed into various flowcharts, charts and graphs together with video presentation to get the message across.

I have read the whole Quran at one go > 50 times and various chapters/verses many many times. The term 'kafir' [infidel] is by default derogatory charged with very high intensity of hate and an obvious threat to the religion and thus a threat to a Muslim's passage to heaven.

A lot depends on the intention though, and if it's to repel people away from non-belief to belief, that would be little different from an atheist referring to religious people as R-souls in an attempt to drive them away from stupidity by making fun of religious people to deter them from admitting that they are religious. Bit by bit, this helps to drive conversions towards something believed to be superior.

We must recognize the potential of bias creeping in, thus we must take effort to avoid bias and present the information as objective as possible.

The original history of the Quran was, it arose out of personal hate, tribalism and imperialism and such ethos is imbued very strongly within the majority of the verses.
I suggest you reread the Quran in the correct context, i.e. at least chronologically and thematically with objective 'spectacles.'

I have only read it once, but I didn't get the impression that it was as overwhelmingly hateful as you suggest. Muhammad's motivation came across as being to make the world more peaceful, and his hate was aimed at things that he considered to be immoral.

Reading the Quran once is never enough. This is why you missed the thousands of hateful contents in the perspective of the ethos of the whole Quran. Here is a sample of hate from the Quran, note this [one among many].

40: 10. Lo! (on that day) those [infidels] who disbelieve are informed by proclamation: Verily Allah's abhorrence [MQT; lamaqtu] is more terrible than your abhorrence [maqtikum] one of another, when ye [infidels] were called unto the faith [AMN: l-īmāni] but did refuse.

Here are some others;

8:22. Lo! the worst of beasts [DBB; l-dawābi] in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb, who have no sense [3QL: yaʿqilūna; intellect]. [allegory?] [non-believers worse than beasts] [Dehumanized] [sense: intellect, reason, understanding, think]

8:55. Lo! the Worst* [ShRR; sharra] of Beasts [l-dawābi] in Allah's sight are the ungrateful [kafarū: infidels] who will not believe; [*others - vilest]

25:44. Or deemest thou that most of them [infidels] hear or understand? They [infidels] are but as the cattle, nay, but they [infidels] are farther astray [DLL; dalal]!

58:20. Lo! those [infidels] who oppose [HDD: yuḥāddūna] Allah and His messenger, they [infidels] will be among the lowest [DhLL: l-adhalīna]. [of creatures]

98:6. Lo! those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafarū], among the People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] and the idolaters [l-mush'rikīna], will abide in fire of hell. They [infidels] are the worst [ShRR; sharru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati]. [note contrast
3:110, 98:7 Muslims are the best]

98:7. (And) lo! Those [proto-Muslims] who believe [AMN: amanu] and do good works [l-ṣāliḥāti] are the best [KhYR: khayru] of created beings. [BRA: l-bariyati].

2:65. And ye know of those of you [the Jews] who broke [3DW; itada] the Sabbath, how We said unto them [the Jews]: Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!
2:66. And We made it [this condenmation as Apes] an example to their [Jews'] own and to succeeding generations [Khalf -KLF], and an admonition to the God fearing [lil'muttaqīna: god fearing].

5:60. Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with Allah? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom Allah hath cursed [L3N; laʿanahu], him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [GhaDiBa; on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth [waAAabada] idols [l-ṭāghūta]. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.

7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised [KhSA; Khāsi'ina] and loathed! [Dehumanized]
7:176. ... Therefor his [Balaam] likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness [as a dog] of the, people [infidels] who deny Our revelations. ...

7:179. …. These [infidels] are as the cattle nay, but they [infidels] are worse! These [infidels] are the neglectful [GhFL; l-ghāfilūna; heedless]. [Dehumanized]

47:12. .. … ... while those [infidels] who disbelieve [kafarū; infidels] take their comfort in this life and [the infidels] eat even as the cattle eat, and the Fire is their [infidels] habitation. [dehumanizing]

62:5. The likeness of those [infidels] who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass [donkey] carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk [infidels] who deny [KDhB; kadhabū] the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk [ZLM; l-ẓālimīna]. [The Jews rebuked for their opposition to Islam . . .5-8]

Point is there are thousands. >3400 hateful verses ranging from rating of 1 to 10/10 degrees of hatred.

I hope the above is sufficient to reveal what you have missed and you should wonder how could you have missed the above and so many other obvious ones.

But we have billions of people who don't see it that way because they blame the West for driving all the conflict, even though >99% of the Muslims killed die at the hands of other Muslims. Propaganda is a powerful tool, and whenever anyone pins more of the blame on Islam than on the other factors, the propaganda machine wins out and has that person branded as a biased bigot. That is why Islam must never be singled out or put at the top of the list. To be seen as playing fair, you have to treat all these evils as equal evils even if they aren't - the crucial task is to win over the victims of propaganda rather than the relatively few rational people who can think for themselves.

The problem is the majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims and others have been brainwashed to believe Islam is a peaceful religion when in truth Islam [a major part of] is inherently and malignantly evil.
It is natural the majority are easily misled and fooled [past and present], e.g. note the flat-Earth and Geocentric theories were believed by all to be true in the past till the real truth was revealed.

As far as within the topic of religion-based terrors, violence and errors, Islam must be put on the top of the list and prioritize for action. What is critical is we must ensure the emotional securities of Muslims are not shattered and left in suspense. This is why I am not recommending immediate actions but forecast it will take years [that require psychological and neural changes] say within the next 50-75 years to deal with the evil of Islam effectively.

It is an onus on responsible citizens of humanity to strive for the truth, thus seeking the truth of Islam as inherently evil to support the real evident truth of its violence and evil acts by SOME Muslims.

[Wayne92587]

God is an impossibility a

Not So!.

What you imagine the existence of God, to be or not to be is a Impossibility; the existence or non-existence of God is "Uncertain".

If you were to look upon the Face of God, it would be as though you had been made blind; you would see Nothing.

You do not seem to know, understand Heisenberg's Principle of, "Uncertainty".

Existence requires that an entity be readily apparent, be measurable as to momentum and location in Space-Time.

You may believe it so, but you have no evidence of the existence or non existence of God.

[Wayne92587]

God is an impossibility a

Not So!.

What you imagine the existence of God, to be or not to be is a Impossibility; the existence or non-existence of God is "Uncertain".

If you were to look upon the Face of God it would be as though you had been made blind; you would see Nothing.

You do not seem to know, understand Heisenberg's Principle of, "Uncertainty".

Existence requires that an entity be readily apparent, be measurable as to momentum and location in Space-Time.

You may believe it so, but you have no evidence of the existence or non existence of God.

[David Cooper]

Not sure who your "he" is.

The imaginary being that they think wrote the book.

A Muslim is one who has entered into a contract with Allah to abide by Allah's commands as in the Quran. Thus as long as one is a Muslim there is no way, one can change God's words...

Given that most Muslims don't do Islam in full, they could potentially be open to the idea that God is testing them and wants them to override the parts about not changing the text because he really wants them to remove all the hate from it. Given how emotionally attached people are to their religions, this is more likely to lead to progress than trying to get them to junk the whole thing in one go, but it also removes the need for them ever to junk the whole thing - all that matters to humanity is that they get rid of the hate, and they aren't emotionally tied to the hate.

Note my point, Islam cannot be reformed.

That's like asserting that it can't be got rid of either, but it could be, and it could be reformed to create a New Islam which doesn't contain the hate or the parts banning it from being altered, although they could be left in, banning modification of the new versions of the text.

Christianity is not purely peaceful, it has its negatives which need to deal with but Christianity is way off from the inherent evil and violent potential from Islam.

Indeed it is, but in the mind of Muslims it's an evil that drives crusades right through into modern times, and they attribute the cause of most of the killings to the Western crusaders, so if you say to them that Islam is worse than Christianity, they see you as biased. Their propaganda also has a large percentage of Westerners believing the same thing, so they'll see you as biased too.

Note each verse can contain up to a mix of 10 elements from good to evil. So it is not practical to color code a single verse with one color. Perhaps we color code each relevant word or phrase. I mentioned I have up to 1,300 sub-themes, so there is a need for lots of different colors and thus it will be very messy.

You would simply colour each verse according to its worst content - there is absolutely no need to flag up the existence of anything nice in a nasty verse if you're providing a hate map. What's needed is something simple and clear which cannot be written off as biased.

Reading the Quran once is never enough. This is why you missed the thousands of hateful contents in the perspective of the ethos of the whole Quran. Here is a sample of hate from the Quran, note this [one among many]...

I didn't miss them - I just have a lasting impression of great long tracts of boring junk retelling parts of the OT with a new twist, but I wasn't making careful measurements to weigh up the proportions of different kinds of content and the degree of hate tied up in it.

The problem is the majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims and others have been brainwashed to believe Islam is a peaceful religion when in truth Islam [a major part of] is inherently and malignantly evil.

Correct - they are all a problem because they are blind to the hate and don't understand why their religion keeps generating so much conflict and terrorism. They need to be educated more than anyone, but that education needs to be provided in a manner that goes to great lengths not only not to be biased, but to avoid being mistaken for being biased, and that's why it's so crucial not to single Islam out or to brand it as the worst offender.

It is natural the majority are easily misled and fooled [past and present], e.g. note the flat-Earth and Geocentric theories were believed by all to be true in the past till the real truth was revealed.

AGI will hopefully fix things by bringing people up from the start with real scientific understanding so that they set up their model of reality correctly and learn how to reason using the real rules of reasoning rather than the fake kind of reasoning found throughout the Qur'an. The Qur'an really uses a hypnosis technique to cast a spell over people, and that could be duplicated by AGI to hypnotise them into believing something more rational. With AGI installed in every electronic device (which will likely be the case in ten years), they'll have to go back to living in the Stone Age to avoid being exposed to it.

As far as within the topic of religion-based terrors, violence and errors, Islam must be put on the top of the list and prioritize for action.

That is where you instantly lose the battle by looking biased, and it doesn't matter whether you're actually biased or not - the biggest enemy is propaganda, and you don't beat that by fitting the image of you presented by the propaganda. They believe that Christianity and Judaism are worse (while brainwashed Westerners wee them all as equally bad), and that has to be your starting point when you're attacking these evils. Telling it how it actually is isn't good enough - you have be biased towards the enemy in order to appear unbiased.

What is critical is we must ensure the emotional securities of Muslims are not shattered and left in suspense. This is why I am not recommending immediate actions but forecast it will take years [that require psychological and neural changes] say within the next 50-75 years to deal with the evil of Islam effectively.

That's why I think a New Islam with all the hate remove could be useful, splitting most Muslims away from the hate and taking them to a place where they reject and condemn it outright instead of pretending it isn't there in the way they do now.

[David Cooper]

God is an impossibility a

Not So!.

What you imagine the existence of God, to be or not to be is a Impossibility; the existence or non-existence of God is "Uncertain".

You may believe it so, but you have no evidence of the existence or non existence of God.

I don't remember saying "God is an impossibility" here, but it is the sort of thing I might say, so I'll just assume it was me and respond to your objections.

Fairies might exist and can't be disproved by any means that I'm aware of, so I don't call them an impossibility. God is a very different kettle of fish though, because some of his required qualifications are impossible to obtain, and that's what rules out his existence. Like fairies, lesser gods of the kind that proliferate in polytheistic religions cannot be ruled out so easily because they don't have such extreme requirements demanded of them, but the God of any of the Abrahamic religions can be completely eliminated from the enquiry. As soon as a God has to understand everything, he is rendered 100% mechanical and loses any supernatural status that he supposedly has, rendering him a natural being; nothing more than a powerful alien. Aliens might exist, so such a beast could be out there, but it is merely an alien and not a God. He is also required to have created all things, but if he had his infinite knowledge all the way back in time infinitely, he didn't create that knowledge, so he's a fraud. If he built up that knowledge over time having started with none, he is again shown to be just like any other natural being during that stage of his development right through the the point where he knew everything. A natural being which has the luck to exist first and have access to all the power (which again he didn't create) is merely a lucky alien, and if any of us happened to be in his position with the same tools, we could have done all the same things and built up the same amount of knowledge without at any point being stupid or arrogant enough to think ourself "God". "God" can put his scientific hat on just as easily to analyse himself, at which point he must determine himself to be 100% natural too and nothing special. It's worse still though, because he can't even know that there isn't a more powerful alien than him out there - he can stupidly believe he knows everything, but he can't prove it: he would only be able to know that there isn't a higher realm by having magical knowledge, but he isn't allowed to have magical knowledge if he understands everything, so he's left simply not knowing if he's the top alien or not; the one entitled to the title of almighty. The reality is that he only ever got his "God" status in the minds of primitive people by being presented as a magical figure, but any dependence on magic instantly destroys his status, and when you strip away from him all the qualifications that depend on magic, he has absolutely nothing left of any significance. That is why God is impossible.

[Spectrum]

Not sure who your "he" is.

The imaginary being that they think wrote the book.

A Muslim is one who has entered into a contract with Allah to abide by Allah's commands as in the Quran. Thus as long as one is a Muslim there is no way, one can change God's words...

Given that most Muslims don't do Islam in full, they could potentially be open to the idea that God is testing them and wants them to override the parts about not changing the text because he really wants them to remove all the hate from it. Given how emotionally attached people are to their religions, this is more likely to lead to progress than trying to get them to junk the whole thing in one go, but it also removes the need for them ever to junk the whole thing - all that matters to humanity is that they get rid of the hate, and they aren't emotionally tied to the hate.

Note my point, Islam cannot be reformed.

That's like asserting that it can't be got rid of either, but it could be, and it could be reformed to create a New Islam which doesn't contain the hate or the parts banning it from being altered, although they could be left in, banning modification of the new versions of the text.

The majority of Muslims at present has a superficial understanding of God's words. i.e. in the Quran and thus to abide seriously to the commands of God.
The fact is, if 10% of Muslims are serious with Islam and insist Islam cannot be reformed, the moderates Muslims who want to reform Islam will face a losing battle when they are shown the verses [-I have posted some examples above] that command immutability within the Quran.
This is why so many moderates Muslims turned terrorists when they are shown specifically what is in the Quran. Most terrorists will quote verses from the Quran to justify their evil acts.

I have heard in many debates between serious scholars of Islam against the moderates where the moderates always lose because the moderates in general has nothing substantial to bank on in comparison to the serious scholars who will say, look! here is what the verses in the Quran command one to do.

What is critical to the majority is their worry of going to hell and it is so easy to sow doubts in their minds in accusing them of changing or are ignorant of Allah's words, i.e. that they are playing God themselves which is the greatest sin.

Christianity is not purely peaceful, it has its negatives which need to deal with but Christianity is way off from the inherent evil and violent potential from Islam.

Indeed it is, but in the mind of Muslims it's an evil that drives crusades right through into modern times, and they attribute the cause of most of the killings to the Western crusaders, so if you say to them that Islam is worse than Christianity, they see you as biased. Their propaganda also has a large percentage of Westerners believing the same thing, so they'll see you as biased too.

If propaganda and brainwashing, yes, the majority will believe what they have been told, including holocaust denial and the US did not reach the moon, 911 was executed by the CIA, etc.

What I am relying upon is the objective truth which can be extracted from the verses of the holy texts. Jesus commanded Christians to love their enemies. Where in the NT did Jesus exhort Christians to massacre Muslims and non-Christians? The crusaders did the evil acts on the own free will and human nature and not commanded by the NT.
In contrast, the Quran give sanction for Muslims to kill Jews and Christians and non-Muslims within very vague conditions.

The problem is the majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims and others have been brainwashed to believe Islam is a peaceful religion when in truth Islam [a major part of] is inherently and malignantly evil.

Correct - they are all a problem because they are blind to the hate and don't understand why their religion keeps generating so much conflict and terrorism. They need to be educated more than anyone, but that education needs to be provided in a manner that goes to great lengths not only not to be biased, but to avoid being mistaken for being biased, and that's why it's so crucial not to single Islam out or to brand it as the worst offender.

Since the Quran cannot be reformed, education is not effective at all. It is very natural there will be a hardcore say 10% (pool of 150 million ) that cannot be educated due to inherent psychological reasons, e.g. the stupid, the lazy, the very intelligent but suffer from ADD or AHDD, psychopaths, socialpaths, etc.

The most effective solution given the constraints is to get rid of Islam and other dangerous religions but there must be foolproof replacements [spiritual] to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Unfortunately we do not have immediate effective replacements at present so we have to tolerate Islam and other religions for a while.
I am optimistic given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology we will be able to wean off religions within the next 50 years or more.

AGI will hopefully fix things by bringing people up from the start with real scientific understanding so that they set up their model of reality correctly and learn how to reason using the real rules of reasoning rather than the fake kind of reasoning found throughout the Qur'an. The Qur'an really uses a hypnosis technique to cast a spell over people, and that could be duplicated by AGI to hypnotise them into believing something more rational. With AGI installed in every electronic device (which will likely be the case in ten years), they'll have to go back to living in the Stone Age to avoid being exposed to it.

If your AGI is some sort of foolproof techniques that rewires the brain, that would be OK.

As far as within the topic of religion-based terrors, violence and errors, Islam must be put on the top of the list and prioritize for action.

That is where you instantly lose the battle by looking biased, and it doesn't matter whether you're actually biased or not - the biggest enemy is propaganda, and you don't beat that by fitting the image of you presented by the propaganda. They believe that Christianity and Judaism are worse (while brainwashed Westerners wee them all as equally bad), and that has to be your starting point when you're attacking these evils. Telling it how it actually is isn't good enough - you have be biased towards the enemy in order to appear unbiased.

What is I am proposing will be beyond propaganda / brainwashing and it will be an indisputable objective approach. It is not easy but not impossible.

What is critical is we must ensure the emotional securities of Muslims are not shattered and left in suspense. This is why I am not recommending immediate actions but forecast it will take years [that require psychological and neural changes] say within the next 50-75 years to deal with the evil of Islam effectively.

That's why I think a New Islam with all the hate remove could be useful, splitting most Muslims away from the hate and taking them to a place where they reject and condemn it outright instead of pretending it isn't there in the way they do now.

As I had stated a New Islam is not effective.
There has been many versions of New Islam and they have not been effective.
Note the peaceful Ahmadiyyah, Sufism, etc. where they are killed by the 'true' Muslims all over the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Sufis

[David Cooper]

The fact is, if 10% of Muslims are serious with Islam and insist Islam cannot be reformed, the moderates Muslims who want to reform Islam will face a losing battle when they are shown the verses [-I have posted some examples above] that command immutability within the Quran.

With New Islam, the hate is banned and the rule is thrown out on the basis that God is testing humanity and wants Muslims to stand up to him and reject all that hate. Any follower of New Islam will understand that and reject those who cling to the hate as devils.

This is why so many moderates Muslims turned terrorists when they are shown specifically what is in the Quran. Most terrorists will quote verses from the Quran to justify their evil acts.

Indeed it is, but that's only because Muslims are still tied to Old Islam rather than New Islam, so the authority that currently wins out is the hate of Old Islam. Once New Islam is established, it will have a new authority which overrides the authority of Old Islam and which equates all the people who cling to the hate (which is the only thing that's been thrown out) will be equated with devil worshippers on the basis that the only people who approve of that hate are self-evidently evil.

I have heard in many debates between serious scholars of Islam against the moderates where the moderates always lose because the moderates in general has nothing substantial to bank on in comparison to the serious scholars who will say, look! here is what the verses in the Quran command one to do.

New Islam will have its own serious scholars who understand that the hate is in there to test mankind and that it's so hateful that God clearly wants us to reject and outlaw it.

What is critical to the majority is their worry of going to hell and it is so easy to sow doubts in their minds in accusing them of changing or are ignorant of Allah's words, i.e. that they are playing God themselves which is the greatest sin.

It is only by standing up to God and rejecting the hate that he is testing them with that they can avoid going to hell.

The most effective solution given the constraints is to get rid of Islam and other dangerous religions but there must be foolproof replacements [spiritual] to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Unfortunately we do not have immediate effective replacements at present so we have to tolerate Islam and other religions for a while.

Creating new versions of religions with the hate removed will provide all the necessary replacements, and it will also make it easier for religions to merge into something even better with all the good parts of all of them becoming a universal culture. There are many great positives in religion which lead to lots of fun, and we don't need to throw those things away. I'd be as happy to take part in hate-free Islamic celebrations as I do with hate-free Christian ones. Look back at the history of how Christianity spread, taking in some of the religious baggage of the people who took it up, such as the eggs and bunnies associated with Easter, and even the very name of Easter. Christmas too is not a Christian feast, but a pagan one. It's easier to modify what we already have rather than throwing it out and replacing it with something completely new. Muhammad understood that too, which is why he based Islam on two existing religions to make people feel more comfortable about moving into it.

What is I am proposing will be beyond propaganda / brainwashing and it will be an indisputable objective approach. It is not easy but not impossible.

All I'm suggesting is that you stop labelling Islam as the worst of the main religions - it is sufficient to create the hate maps and let people judge which is worst for themselves without you needing to spell that out to them. That simple difference avoids you being accused of bias by those who judge first by your position rather than looking at the evidence which you provide to back up your position. Just show them the raw evidence without packing your conclusions in along with it.

As I had stated a New Islam is not effective.
There has been many versions of New Islam and they have not been effective.
Note the peaceful Ahmadiyyah, Sufism, etc. where they are killed by the 'true' Muslims all over the world.

There have been successes like the Baha'i Faith (which contains Islam within it) that have scared the establishment into being brutal in their suppression of it - people can shift, and a hate-free version of Islam could be viable and powerful, particularly if it takes upon itself the task of ridding the world of Old Islam by systematically killing all the extremists.

[Wayne92587]

What are some of the required qualifications of God that Rule out the existence of God???
When the name, the identity of God, the result is irreverence, an abomination.

What does science say about an individual that has no compassion?

Without the perversion of the Named God, Allah, the Fundamenalist Muslim Male would simply be a Male Chauvenistic Pig, another Beast.

[Wayne92587]

It is natural for the fundamentalist Muslim male to be a Terrorist, Terrorism, Machismo, is in his Blood.

The Muslim male is continually fighting the battle for the survival of the most fit.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Male rides upon a white Horse, going about the countryside Killing and to Kill.

[Wayne92587]

I have heard it said, that a person that has no compassion is Sick in the Head, sic, sic, sic.