The discussion here is digressing greatly from the original topic. Nevertheless, I will make the following observations:
1. Those who condemn or denigrate others’ beliefs are usually insecure about their own beliefs. It really does not take much effort to remain respectful of others.
2. As others have said, citing actions of individuals as representative of a religion is essentially a straw man argument.
3. One should read appropriate philosophical and theological texts to gain an understanding of the traditions and origins of different religions. For example, Adam, Moses, and Noah are prophets in the Jewish tradition. Christianity recognizes them as legitimate prophets, in addition to Jesus. Islam recognizes all four as legitimate prophets, in addition to Muhammad (pbut). All are considered prophets of one God. In fact, in the Islamic tradition, Jews and Christians are considered people of the book who are capable of entering heaven along with Muslims.
4. The concept of God arises from inquiry into the origin of the universe. In the view of many thinkers, there must have been an entity that created the universe. This begets the question, what entity created the creator. Ultimately, there must be a self-creating entity responsible for the existence of the universe. This self-creating entity is God. In fact, one of the names for God in Arabic is “Self,” as in self-creating entity. Theologians and philosophers view God in this sense, not as some anthropomorphic spirit who has human emotions like anger or pleasure, and metes out punishments and rewards based on his whims. It is true, however, that most people have this very superficial view of God, and for them religion may be, in Marx’ words, an opiate for the masses.
5. Related to the concept above are existentialism and essentialism. Interestingly, both philosophers who argue in favor of and against the existence of God fall in either school of thought.
I am not going to engage further in this discussion unless someone has a respectful and reasoned question or comment, rather than insults based on misunderstanding (either genuine or deliberate) of theology, philosophy, and religion. I suggest that we return to the original topic.
