[Quranic Reflection]: The tolerance the Quran gave non-believers

[LadyForCamus]

Well she does have several fatwas calling for her murder so that's your Koranic intolerance.

You didn't answer my question.

Your question is irrelevant because you have no evidence that the supernatural claims in your book are true. You have given us no reason to be concerned about what it says.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why a council would be an issue for christianity, but not for islam.  The quran was also compiled by a group of people who had thoughts about what should and shouldn't be in magic book.

No similar council was issued to write the Quran; actually Mohammed -peace be upon him- was alive and present when the Quran was written.

The councils of late were used to write the Hadith.
That's one of the reasons why I reject the Hadith.

Yes, there was.  The people who compiled your magic book didn't seem to think that it was a problem - they're the ones that recorded it - just as the christians had before them.  

What sort of islam requires it's adherents to deny plain facts of history?

For Kloro - pretty much the same.  Big Mo waged war against his own family from the outset.  I'm not sure what that's meant to prove, but since you asked, and since you should know that...there it is.

Honestly, everytime one of you islamist types post..I understand you a little more. Stuck in a woefully impoverished tradition of miseducation - you imagine that the rest of us will be wowed by middle school history - of our regions..or of your own. Perhaps you should turn that light inward?

[R00tKiT]

You didn't answer my question.

Your question is irrelevant because you have no evidence that the supernatural claims in your book are true. You have given us no reason to be concerned about what it says.

It's pointless to discuss the credibility of holy books if we disagree on more fundamental issues, namely the existence of God. For the latter I would say it is more reasonable to think there is a God than not, given that all the recent big advances in science point in favor of a theist explanation (the universe turned out to have a beginning, QM gives an ontological position to the observer, etc.)

[no one]

if you continue to refute and invalidate my ill-conceived fantasy with your logic and reasoning, I will be forced to reach deeper into my bag of preposterous absurdities to fortify my aforementioned preposterous absurdities!

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's pointless to discuss the credibility of holy books if we disagree on more fundamental issues, namely the existence of God.

False 

 For the latter I would say it is more reasonable to think there is a God than not, 

Assertion 

given that all the recent big advances in science point in favor of a theist explanation (the universe turned out to have a beginning, QM gives an ontological position to the observer, etc.)

No it doesn't QM is as atheist as gravity

---

That's retarded, sir. Why Muhammad didn't kill his uncle then ? 

Making exceptions for his  own relatives doesn' refute his point .You always think you have come up with some clever counter .When you clearly have not thought it though .

[The Grand Nudger]

The existence of a god has absolutely no bearing on the credibility of a book written by human beings. The notion that we must agree on gods to even begin to discuss magic book is an excuse for your own incompetence and frustration.

[R00tKiT]

if you continue to refute and invalidate my ill-conceived fantasy with your logic and reasoning, I will be forced to reach deeper into my bag of preposterous absurdities to fortify my aforementioned preposterous absurdities!

That the universe has a beginning is an absurdity to you? Shouldn't the fact that some physical constants a tuned to the fucking 122th zero raise a slight concern that you're missing out on something?

[LadyForCamus]

Your question is irrelevant because you have no evidence that the supernatural claims in your book are true. You have given us no reason to be concerned about what it says.

It's pointless to discuss the credibility of holy books if we disagree on more fundamental issues, namely the existence of God.

A debate about the credibility of a holy book requires the person arguing for its credibility provide external, corroborating evidence to support the truth, or likely truth of its claims. So far, that hasn’t happened.

For the latter I would say it is more reasonable to think there is a God than not, given that all the recent big advances in science point in favor of a theist explanation (the universe turned out to have a beginning, QM gives an ontological position to the observer, etc.)

I would argue that you have fundamentally misunderstood the recent advances in science that theists, and only theists (certainly not the scientists who have contributed to these advances) seem to think point to a creator, lol.

[no one]

......and I rest my case.

[The Architect Of Fate]

That the universe has a beginning is an absurdity to you?

Nothing supports this 

 Shouldn't the fact that some physical constants a tuned to the fucking 122th zero raise a slight concern that you're missing out on something?

Nope because i don't make universe conform to my personal credulity or become overwhelmed by big numbers .Children do that .