Posted: Sep 20, 2015 1:07 pm
Well, to start with, this video is from a private Evangelical university, which doesn't bode well.
Especially not with the comment section being disabled.
Attributing terror attacks on Islam can be equally applied to terrorist attacks perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
And he commits the No True Scotsman fallacy, almost right of the bat:
"That's not how I define Islam, I identify at as how Muhammed taught it as he left Arabia."
This argument is just as disingenuous as people wishing to criticise Christianity based on how it was during the Roman or Medieval eras. He also fails to provide a rational argument for his own definition, nor does he provide a sound rebuttal to the commonly and scientifically accepted definition.
His story about how Islam went from non-violent to defensive to violent, is again equally applicable to history of Christianity, both early and in general.
His argument that Islam has repeatedly resorted to violence, is irrelevant to the situation today, otherwise one should also condemn Christianity as it has also, whenever it had the possibility to do so, resorted to violence.
At this point I see little point in watching the entire video since he's failed to present a single argument that isn't equally applicable to his own religion. More-over his argumentation so far is based on appeals to authority fallacies and historical and/or limited anecdotes.
Yes, there are violent verses in the Koran, as there are in the bible and Torah.
Yes, there are violent Muslims, like there are violent Christians and Jews.
If he has a single sound argument, let alone evidence that Islam is a monolithic entity and inherently violent, he should have started with that. If you think he has such an argument, present it here or give the time stamp in the video where he presents it.
I've no interest in listening to Christian polemics.
Especially not with the comment section being disabled.
Attributing terror attacks on Islam can be equally applied to terrorist attacks perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
And he commits the No True Scotsman fallacy, almost right of the bat:
"That's not how I define Islam, I identify at as how Muhammed taught it as he left Arabia."
This argument is just as disingenuous as people wishing to criticise Christianity based on how it was during the Roman or Medieval eras. He also fails to provide a rational argument for his own definition, nor does he provide a sound rebuttal to the commonly and scientifically accepted definition.
His story about how Islam went from non-violent to defensive to violent, is again equally applicable to history of Christianity, both early and in general.
His argument that Islam has repeatedly resorted to violence, is irrelevant to the situation today, otherwise one should also condemn Christianity as it has also, whenever it had the possibility to do so, resorted to violence.
At this point I see little point in watching the entire video since he's failed to present a single argument that isn't equally applicable to his own religion. More-over his argumentation so far is based on appeals to authority fallacies and historical and/or limited anecdotes.
Yes, there are violent verses in the Koran, as there are in the bible and Torah.
Yes, there are violent Muslims, like there are violent Christians and Jews.
If he has a single sound argument, let alone evidence that Islam is a monolithic entity and inherently violent, he should have started with that. If you think he has such an argument, present it here or give the time stamp in the video where he presents it.
I've no interest in listening to Christian polemics.