@AtlasS33
You are like a bugged software that can't correctly compute a "what if/else/then function", where the bug is your religion.
I put you in front of two distinct cases:
1) the quran doesn't need to be interpreted, like the muslims I talked to who firmly believe and execute literally the quran's commands
2) the quran needs to be properly interpreted (like you did with the "beating wife with dick")
However the point I made wasn't whether the former or the latter were correct, but if the mis/interpretation and confusion around this book is so big that it causes so much harm, then is it worth it to have it around at all?
If it's functionally, practically and technically more efficient to have a decent behaving population without religion, is it really worth it to introduce something like religion? Let's even assume for a moment that what your book says is true but the confusion it causes brings war and pain, wouldn't it be better to keep it hidden away?
But this is a rethorical question: of course we'd be better off without any religion. Your religion, like any other religion, is just a cancer. It behaves exactly like tumor cells: some cells (people) may ignore them(tumor religion cells) and function properly (unbelievers), some cells(people) will emulate them (believers) and increase the tumor mass.
But it's not like your reply surprised me. It's the same kind of closure I've seen other times where people "aren't worth your time", even though you keep wasting your "precious" time anyways with pointless replies, without realizing that with every quote of that post you just reaffirm what I said.
You are like a bugged software that can't correctly compute a "what if/else/then function", where the bug is your religion.
I put you in front of two distinct cases:
1) the quran doesn't need to be interpreted, like the muslims I talked to who firmly believe and execute literally the quran's commands
2) the quran needs to be properly interpreted (like you did with the "beating wife with dick")
However the point I made wasn't whether the former or the latter were correct, but if the mis/interpretation and confusion around this book is so big that it causes so much harm, then is it worth it to have it around at all?
If it's functionally, practically and technically more efficient to have a decent behaving population without religion, is it really worth it to introduce something like religion? Let's even assume for a moment that what your book says is true but the confusion it causes brings war and pain, wouldn't it be better to keep it hidden away?
But this is a rethorical question: of course we'd be better off without any religion. Your religion, like any other religion, is just a cancer. It behaves exactly like tumor cells: some cells (people) may ignore them(tumor religion cells) and function properly (unbelievers), some cells(people) will emulate them (believers) and increase the tumor mass.
But it's not like your reply surprised me. It's the same kind of closure I've seen other times where people "aren't worth your time", even though you keep wasting your "precious" time anyways with pointless replies, without realizing that with every quote of that post you just reaffirm what I said.
