Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I seriously do not get this, this need to defend this religion..to make excuses for it, more than we have any other religion. What is it about this that makes that happen? Why is it people look at Islamaphobia as separate from a phobia of any other religion? Is there something I am missing out on? Am I not privy to some sort of mystical revelation others are privy to?

What is it that makes people do irrational things like bringing up the Crusades and stuff..in reference to what is going on currently? Why? Is there some kind of mass hypnosis? Is it magic?

What have we, as a species, been given by this specific religion, that makes us treat it this way? What is there to gain?

Surely there is some kind of secret I am just missing? Some revelation that will make all this make even a tiny bit of sense? I am not trying to be cruel, I legitimately want to know. Bestow on me some piece of knowledge..some bit of wisdom..that makes it legitimate to separate this religion from the others.

I admit to being pretty ignorant of Islam. I have no upbringing with it and have never really read much of the Qur'an or any other related texts. What I know is really only second- or third-hand knowledge. But I did grow up with Fundamentalist Christianity and have a very profound understanding and experience with it. And these religions "of the book" seem quite similar in many respects, all claim to have infallible truth yet they contradict each other, so they can't all be "the truth."

So the more I hear about it, it sounds similar to Christianity in that it's possible to cherry pick passages and doctrines and one can be as zealous or as luke warm as one likes. However, this doctrine of Jihad/holy war seems a little more pronounced in Islam as opposed to Christianity. Christianity has a little more discreet way of "winning souls" so to speak (but they're still both insanely deluded). For example, it's not explicitly stated in the Bible to wage war and kill one's self and others with a reward in heaven like it is in Islam. Which might explain why we only see Muslims committing these acts and not Christians. Fathom that.

Still many liberals will not admit the obvious connection between belief and action.

It is true Christianity does have a lot of messed up stuff, but think about Jesus for a second. More or less..dude was a hippy. I feel like the worst he did is get pissed at some rich douches and break some shit, right?

Muhammad is like the Jesus of Islam. Except if Jesus was a warlord and child rapist. He has tortured Jews to death in order to locate treasure, he has beheaded jews, he has had poets who wrote poems talking shit about him..killed. Again, compare that to Jesus, who didn't even try to have friggin Judas killed. Who more or less accepted his shitty fate. Muhammad is revered, you can't even draw a picture of the guy without earning their ire. Yep, it's insulting to them to draw a picture of a child raping warlord.

Look at the keys to heaven for a second. If you are a bad person and break all the laws of Christianity..how do you get into heaven? Ask for forgiveness, repent, etc. If you are a muslim..how do you get into heaven if you have flaunted the laws? You kill some non-believers lol. Boom, you get to heaven. Boom, you get virgins(they do not say if the virgins have had their genitals mutilated).

Yeah there's more than a slight/subtle/little difference between the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad.

Yeah, Jesus is my homeboy. He was basically a hippie who got killed by the state (if he did indeed exist).

Anybody read this book...?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51nBgSGh9WL._SY346_.jpg

https://www.amazon.com/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis/dp/0994362986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490888903&sr=8-1&keywords=the+people+vs.+muhammad

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah there's more than a slight/subtle/little difference between the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad.

There is another point Sam Harris makes about the bible vs Quran. The former is a lot more chaotic. The amount of different people who added stories, the length, and how it can be quite contradictory were among his reasons. Whereas he has said the Quran is a lot more consistent in its teachings.

For instance a person would have a hard time strictly adhering to the bible 100%, because there is anti gay stuff and pro slavery stuff in some parts. But then Jesus obviously wasn't about discriminating or slavery or stoning women or any of that stuff. God himself is also way nicer in the New Testament.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, Jesus is my homeboy. He was basically a hippie who got killed by the state (if he did indeed exist).

Not only that, but from what I remember(having gone to catholic schools) they chose to free a murderer in exchange for crucifying Jesus lol. Barbaras or Barabas or something beginning with a B. I bet even Jesus had to just shake his head over that. When people acted like dicks back in the day they didn't hold back.

Come to think of it, did we ever hear about that guy they freed again? If he killed anymore people after being freed?

But yeah, Jesus had a lot of patience. Muhammad had a lot of..victims lol.



No, but I have heard about it and the author.

You guys put too much faith in Harris. He's not that big of an intellectual giant. He's solid, though.

Anyways, more or less agreed on Islam.

Douglas Murray is another good one to listen to when it comes to Islam:

WgtI-YPUmOQ

The pedophilia and bloodlust.

Besides being the one true religion revealed to us by God's final prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?

I don't know, but that sounds pretty special.

Originally posted by chingchangwalla
The pedophilia and bloodlust.

You can molest kids, but bacon is out of the question.

Truly truly evil.

Dunno man.

what could it be... mmm

Originally posted by Surtur
You can molest kids, but bacon is out of the question.

Truly truly evil.

****ing lmao I know. Muhammad basically plagiarised the Talmud and added in the bacon thing along with more violence and pedophilia. Then when the Jews and Christians refused his bullshit book, he just killed them.

Originally posted by chingchangwalla
****ing lmao I know. Muhammad basically plagiarised the Talmud and added in the bacon thing along with more violence and pedophilia. Then when the Jews and Christians refused his bullshit book, he just killed them.

Woah dude slow your roll. He didn't "kill" Jews or Christians. He liberated their heads from their bodies and hooked them up with special backstage passes to meet Jesus.

Originally posted by Surtur
You can molest kids, but bacon is out of the question.
Makes sense.

Originally posted by chingchangwalla
Then when the Jews and Christians refused his bullshit book, he just killed them.
Of course they refused his bullshit book. They had their own.

Bacon and booze on top of that. That's a bummer.

Is turkey bacon okay?

Well it's not bacon specifically they take issue with, but pigs.

They need to play copies of the movie Charlotte's Web at mosques, maybe that will help the Muslim/Pig community heal these wounds. Or maybe some Babe.

Pork is unclean to eat in Judaism, this is likely where Muhammad took the idea from. Come on, people.

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

Originally posted by Robtard
Pork is unclean to eat in Judaism, this is likely where Muhammad took the idea from. Come on, people.

So he takes ideas *and* heads from them? Damn.

Originally posted by Surtur
So he takes ideas *and* heads from them? Damn.

You should read:

Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- And Doesn't by Stephen Prothero

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/513rsMZUfEL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Would really help you get your head out of your ass. No, the book does not push any religion, it's just knowledge of the main religions.

I made a joke about the pig thing, settle down.

Tell you what, I'll email you the eBook version, you just have to commit yourself to read it, it's not long.

Originally posted by Robtard
Tell you what, I'll email you the eBook version, you just have to commit yourself to read it, it's not long.

No thanks. Once the latest Dresden Files comes out you can send me a copy of that if you want.

Pfft. How about you get a job and pay for your own romance novellas.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pfft. How about you get a job and pay for your own romance novellas.

It's not a romance book, but okay.

But Robbie was really looking to efile-ing you Surt. He wanted to Efile You HARD!

Nothing, its just a kid from Brooklyn.

So there was some arguing here in France about judeochristian values being in the decline or whatever (it was a very misguided attempt to cash in Islamophobia, in on by itself it wasn't a very interesting argument), that provided me with some interesting thoughts about what is the "issue" western societies have with Islam religion, why there is an specific fear and tension about it, etc.

The way to tackle this was to notice what Christianity and Judaism have in common. There are a few elements that stand out: christians and jews have no common culture when it comes to their social practice, they adopt the ways of each country they inhabit. The second one is more telling: both of these religions are against the idea of religious authrities being governments of their nation. Jesus mined a lot of the authority that religious leaders of his time carried, but at the same time he recognized the authority of the Roman government (in a very jewish way). Pick up a Torah and you'll find endless examples of conflict between religious leaders and political figures through Jewish history. If not personal, religion is at least not meant to rule states and make laws for citizens. Religious leaders from both these religions weren't (for most of them) political figures themselves.

Islam in the other hand is in the opposite side of the spectrum, the Prophet was a figure of political authority and his teachings became a Policy of the state. Even with islamic traditions in which these laws aren't inherently oppressive, it's very difficult to extirpate the latent "royalty" that stems from Islam's origins. You can see the number of issues that can arise from such a different mindset regarding religion and the other school of thought that lead to Western society separating the Church and the State.

TIur6akd0YQ&t=190s

Bad things out of the Quran? What?!

To be fair..the Crusades happened. Are you saying they didn't? They did.

lol

Clearly it's a religion of tolerance, justice, equality, and especially peace.

It wasn't fundamentalists that crashed planes into the Twin Towers, and other gems:

c953Wi8bizk

Douglas Murray's response to "more people killed by lightning" argument.

Nqro2DTGhlo

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nothing, its just a kid from Brooklyn.

Originally posted by Bentley
So there was some arguing here in France about judeochristian values being in the decline or whatever (it was a very misguided attempt to cash in Islamophobia, in on by itself it wasn't a very interesting argument), that provided me with some interesting thoughts about what is the "issue" western societies have with Islam religion, why there is an specific fear and tension about it, etc.

The way to tackle this was to notice what Christianity and Judaism have in common. There are a few elements that stand out: christians and jews have no common culture when it comes to their social practice, they adopt the ways of each country they inhabit. The second one is more telling: both of these religions are against the idea of religious authrities being governments of their nation. Jesus mined a lot of the authority that religious leaders of his time carried, but at the same time he recognized the authority of the Roman government (in a very jewish way). Pick up a Torah and you'll find endless examples of conflict between religious leaders and political figures through Jewish history. If not personal, religion is at least not meant to rule states and make laws for citizens. Religious leaders from both these religions weren't (for most of them) political figures themselves.

Islam in the other hand is in the opposite side of the spectrum, the Prophet was a figure of political authority and his teachings became a Policy of the state. Even with islamic traditions in which these laws aren't inherently oppressive, it's very difficult to extirpate the latent "royalty" that stems from Islam's origins. You can see the number of issues that can arise from such a different mindset regarding religion and the other school of thought that lead to Western society separating the Church and the State. Good post

Originally posted by chingchangwalla
Then when the Jews and Christians refused his bullshit book, he just killed them. Got a source lad? I'm no big fan of Islam and could use it.

Originally posted by Bentley

Islam in the other hand is in the opposite side of the spectrum, the Prophet was a figure of political authority and his teachings became a Policy of the state. Even with islamic traditions in which these laws aren't inherently oppressive, it's very difficult to extirpate the latent "royalty" that stems from Islam's origins. You can see the number of issues that can arise from such a different mindset regarding religion and the other school of thought that lead to Western society separating the Church and the State.

Yup, this exactly.

Islam clashes big time with civil society. You can't question their ludicrous and corrosive beliefs without risk of death, imprisonment, etc. Islam is a religion of conquest.

I agree with Sam Harris that the most timely solution is ideological reform, though it's mind****y due to the difficulty in reforming Islam due to the life of Muhammad and how he's supposed to be an exemplary human being, sketchier than Jesus, Buddha, or even Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I agree with Sam Harris that the most timely solution is ideological reform, though it's mind****y due to the difficulty in reforming Islam due to the life of Muhammad and how he's supposed to be an exemplary human being, sketchier than Jesus, Buddha, or even Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard.

(Not sure what you mean by "exemplary" and "sketchier", but because the religion is so strict about infidels and apostasy, the reform has to come from within the faith, from more moderate Muslims. It's up to the moderates to reform the faith.

They're obviously not going to listen to anti-religious people, or "atheists." Because what do we know with all of our rational reasoning...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
(Not sure what you mean by "exemplary" and "sketchier", but because the religion is so strict about infidels and apostasy, the reform has to come from within the faith, from more moderate Muslims. It's up to the moderates to reform the faith.

They're obviously not going to listen to anti-religious people, or "atheists." Because what do we know with all of our rational reasoning...
Well by exemplary I mean that the central figure of each religion is in a sense an example for the followers of that religion to take after, and by sketchier I mean in terms of the moral or immoral behavior of these central figures, since as Sam Harris put it, Muhammad was a warlord rather than a hippie who got crucified or a monk who sat under a tree. So if a warlord is the central figure of a religion then that religion is going to be a greater challenge to reform.

Muhammad was a great guy, he was really ahead of the competition. Mostly because he removed their heads, but still...results.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well by exemplary I mean that the central figure of each religion is in a sense an example for the followers of that religion to take after, and by sketchier I mean in terms of the moral or immoral behavior of these central figures, since as Sam Harris put it, Muhammad was a warlord rather than a hippie who got crucified or a monk who sat under a tree. So if a warlord is the central figure of a religion then that religion is going to be a greater challenge to reform.

Gotcha, yeah.

Muhammad had a great respect for women, lmao!

1ViGaQwgi3s

Btw, 8 women in Iran just arrested for...murder!!







Nah, jk, they attended a soccer match.

In Islam, you can't put it in her butt.

Originally posted by Robtard
In Islam, you can't put it in her butt.

That's okay, if you do something wrong just kill some non-believers.

Plus I mean, that butt thing sucks. If they mutilate her vagina...where else you gonna put it? These people hate everything.

Btw: woman in California arrested for busting into a Mosque and leaving bacon.

FunFact: Female genital mutilation (aka Female Circumcision) doesn't make the vagina unusable for sexual activity, it just makes the sex unpleasant for the woman.

Originally posted by Robtard
FunFact: Female genital mutilation (aka Female Circumcision) doesn't make the vagina unusable for sexual activity, it just makes the sex unpleasant for the woman.

That fact isn't fun, it's just horrifying.

Genital mutilation generally is horrifying, though FemaleGM isn't strictly an Islamic thing, it is widely practiced in some Islamic countries/cultures.

Then again, most boys born in the US get their foreskin removed and while that's physically less harmful than what's done to women in the more extreme cases (clitoral removal, labia removal and closing the extreme almost all the way), we're still loping off beneficial and healthy body parts without the person's consent.

If someone comes in here with the "but we remove wisdom teeth and appendixes", I swear to ****ing Odin I will go thermonuclear.

Plus I had my wisdom teeth removed and...I was sedated and stuff.

Something tells me they don't stick an IV in these women and pump in some pain killers or sedation before the mutilation begins.

Why aren't guys like you around to put guys like Zakir Naik in their place, who claims Islam is the only correct religion and others are wrong?

youtube.com/user/Drzakirchannel

youtube.com/watch?v=0S_A9ERJWN0

www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=zakir+naik+christian+vs+islam

www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=zakir+naik+non+bailable

www.google.co.in/search?ie=ISO-8859-1&q=zakir+naik&btnG=Search

www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-no-religious-scholar-has-been-able-to-defeat-Dr-Zakir-Naik

You gotta give it to him though. He has one hell of a memory

It says why has no scholar been able to "defeat" him , who has he gone up against? Sam Harris? Douglas Murray?

Plus of course having a good memory is a good thing, didn't Muhammad teach that? I think the passage is something along the lines of "When you're away from home and out Warlording, pass the time by remembering your child bride". They didn't have photos in those days so they really had to have a keen memory to remember every detail about their child brides.

Originally posted by Surtur
It says why has no scholar been able to "defeat" him , who has he gone up against? Sam Harris? Douglas Murray?

Plus of course having a good memory is a good thing, didn't Muhammad teach that? I think the passage is something along the lines of "When you're away from home and out Warlording, pass the time by remembering your child bride". They didn't have photos in those days so they really had to have a keen memory to remember every detail about their child brides.
Yeah but this fker knows every goddamned inch of Quran, Bible, Vedas, you name it. He most definitely has photographic memory. And those guys challenging him rummaging through the Bible was hilarious.

Originally posted by Surtur
It says why has no scholar been able to "defeat" him , who has he gone up against? Sam Harris? Douglas Murray?

Plus of course having a good memory is a good thing, didn't Muhammad teach that? I think the passage is something along the lines of "When you're away from home and out Warlording, pass the time by remembering your child bride". They didn't have photos in those days so they really had to have a keen memory to remember every detail about their child brides.
Yeah but this SOU knows every goddamned inch of Quran, Bible, Vedas, you name it. He most definitely has photographic memory. And those guys challenging him rummaging through the Bible was hilarious.

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
Why aren't guys like you around to put guys like Zakir Naik in their place, who claims Islam is the only correct religion and others are wrong?

youtube.com/user/Drzakirchannel

youtube.com/watch?v=0S_A9ERJWN0

www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=zakir+naik+christian+vs+islam

www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=zakir+naik+non+bailable

www.google.co.in/search?ie=ISO-8859-1&q=zakir+naik&btnG=Search

www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-no-religious-scholar-has-been-able-to-defeat-Dr-Zakir-Naik

You gotta give it to him though. He has one hell of a memory

Considering religion is faith based (unless he can scientifically prove god and then prove that god gave us Islam as the final teaching?), that's like his opinion, man.

cAoXgZLRee0

Originally posted by Surtur
I seriously do not get this, this need to defend this religion..to make excuses for it, more than we have any other religion. What is it about this that makes that happen? Why is it people look at Islamaphobia as separate from a phobia of any other religion? Is there something I am missing out on? Am I not privy to some sort of mystical revelation others are privy to?

What is it that makes people do irrational things like bringing up the Crusades and stuff..in reference to what is going on currently? Why? Is there some kind of mass hypnosis? Is it magic?

What have we, as a species, been given by this specific religion, that makes us treat it this way? What is there to gain?

Surely there is some kind of secret I am just missing? Some revelation that will make all this make even a tiny bit of sense? I am not trying to be cruel, I legitimately want to know. Bestow on me some piece of knowledge..some bit of wisdom..that makes it legitimate to separate this religion from the others.

Blatantly obvious answer: Muslim's generally vote Democrat.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering religion is faith based (unless he can scientifically prove god and then prove that god gave us Islam as the final teaching?), that's like his opinion, man.
Science doesn't proves or disproves existence of God. It is a method for us to understand the environment we are a part of.

Yes, what I said. Science can't prove god, therefore the belief of god is based on faith and therefore an opinion.

I'll put this here too, something people should watch:

vNbrbE2WkDU

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, what I said. Science can't prove god, therefore the belief of god is based on faith and therefore an opinion.
Scientific theories are hardly written in stone either; they can be invalidated at any point in time. Yet, a large number of people take them at face value.

Even an athiest scientist will tell you that science is an unreliable method to 'prove' existence of God. This is a good read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#b70e6af5adaeBy

By the way, there are some revelations in Quran that people (arabs in particular) would be clueless about 1400+ years ago. People still find some verses incredibly difficult to understand/decode. So there's that.

I agree, can't prove something that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Scientific theories are hardly written in stone either; they can be invalidated at any point in time. Yet, a large number of people take them at face value.

A lot of people misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. The goal is ultimately to build a common ground in which we can clearly communicate discoveries with each other.

For example, if we wanted to fully establish the best flow of communication in the conversation you held with Robtard just now you'd need to start by "You are right Robtard" or "We agree". That way we focus in facts instead of polemics and we all win and encourage each other to build a positive discussion.

Originally posted by Bentley
A lot of people misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. The goal is ultimately to build a common ground in which we can clearly communicate discoveries with each other.

For example, if we wanted to fully establish the best flow of communication in the conversation you held with Robtard just now you'd need to start by "You are right Robtard" or "We agree". That way we focus in facts instead of polemics and we all win and encourage each other to build a positive discussion.
Reasonable

My argument is that people who are seeking a scientific 'proof' for existence of God, appear to have misunderstood the purpose of science or have mistakenly assumed that scientific theories are infallible.

Conversely, a vast number of individuals in history challenged the cultural status-quo of belief in multiple Gods in different civilizations. We call them prophets. The pattern is too vast to be dismissed as mere coincidence.

My point is that some people seem to challenge the historical notion of existence of God on the basis of scientific theories at hand due to lack of evidence in them. They need to keep in mind that scientific theories are not infallible. Not wise to dismiss the notion of God due to lack of scientific evidence at present.

For any individual, faith and science can go hand in hand...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My point is that some people seem to challenge the historical notion of existence of God on the basis of scientific theories at hand due to lack of evidence in them. They need to keep in mind that scientific theories are not infallible. Not wise to dismiss the notion of God due to lack of scientific evidence at present.

Science is open to new information that would change theories. In fact it is rigorous in preventing incorrect conclusions. Religion (or "Faith" is not. Faith is certain something is true despite a complete lack of any evidence. That's the major problem with "faith."

Example: Science has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact of the natural processes of evolution, yet many religious folks refuse to accept it because it goes against their "beliefs." According to religion: The facts can't possibly be true because it goes against deeply held beliefs that don't have any evidence. That's a major intellectual problem.

Religion is therefore poisonous for the mind.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
For any individual, faith and science can go hand in hand...

See the above ^ for why this is wrong.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Scientific theories are hardly written in stone either; they can be invalidated at any point in time. Yet, a large number of people take them at face value.

Even an athiest scientist will tell you that science is an unreliable method to 'prove' existence of God. This is a good read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#b70e6af5adaeBy

By the way, there are some revelations in Quran that people (arabs in particular) would be clueless about 1400+ years ago. People still find some verses incredibly difficult to understand/decode. So there's that.

I feel like we might be arguing two different things. Science is composed of facts, hypotheses, laws and theories. Yes, as new knowledge comes forward through research and repeated testing, things can change while some others will likely remain a constant.

Religion is largely faith based; not science. More specifically to the point here, the belief in God or a god is based solely on faith, as god cannot be proven or disproven by scientific method, therefore, belief in god(s) is the equivalent of an opinion, while belief in say gravity is based on facts. We can repeatedly test that gravity is true.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Science is open to new information that would change theories. In fact it is rigorous in preventing incorrect conclusions. Religion (or "Faith" is not. Faith is certain something is true despite a complete lack of any evidence. That's the major problem with "faith."
Lack of evidence as in?

People have witnessed and documented EVENTS that seem to defy logic and/or challenge conventional wisdom of the time; they coined the label miracle as a common reference theme for such occurrences. Unfortunately, cameras were not present back then to record such phenomenon.

You - my friend - refuse to accept such reports.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Example: Science has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact of the natural processes of evolution, yet many religious folks refuse to accept it because it goes against their "beliefs." According to religion: The facts can't possibly be true because it goes against deeply held beliefs that don't have any evidence. That's a major intellectual problem.

Religion is therefore poisonous for the mind.
You are generalizing here. Some might be that rigid; some open-minded and try to make sense of what they read and observe.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
See the above ^ for why this is wrong.
It is a sound possibility.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Unfortunately, cameras were not present back then to record such phenomenon.

How convenient! Funny how these things don't happen now so that they could be proven so deeply true!

Also funny how we don't see species popping into existence like Creatio--sorry, Intelligent Design people claim.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How convenient! Funny how these things don't happen now so that they could be proven so deeply true!

Also funny how we don't see species popping into existence like Creatio--sorry, Intelligent Design people claim.

But we do see new species EVOLVING into existence all the time.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
But we do see new species EVOLVING into existence all the time.

Certain lizards actually have demonstrated significant changes in as little as 30 years or so just from being moved from one environment to another.

But science doesn't have to see it because there is a wealth of evidence from multiple disciplines that corroborates it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How convenient! Funny how these things don't happen now so that they could be proven so deeply true!
Prophets are not coming any more.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Also funny how we don't see species popping into existence like Creatio--sorry, Intelligent Design people claim.
THEORY of Evolution is comprised of ideas and observations.

We do not see a species transforming into a different kind of beast over time either; we witness signs of adaptations to different conditions at most.

Details in this link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Anyhow, we need to revisit the traditional notion of CREATION.

Life emerged from water. To some, this sounds like a process of creation.

Are these the same "disciplines" that say Climate Change and Gender Control are REAL THINGS?

And what does any of this have to do with Islamic Issues?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Anyhow, we need to revisit the traditional notion of CREATION.

Jebus made it, I believe it. Nuff said.

Yes, it's off topic, but here is a very good little video on the evidence for evolution for anyone who would like to come out of the 7th century and join the 21st century...

lIEoO5KdPvg

Which is why Evolutionist prefer "once upon a time there was some snot that was inert but then it got WARM and became NERT and that is the Story of You and Me.

Although it's true that theory of evolution makes no particular comment on biogenesis, and that natural selection isn't random, why are you intelligent design proponents always emphasizing the word "theory" like it means something? You seem to have this weird misconception that the theory of evolution is the theory that evolution happens. It's not; that much is plainly obvious. It's the theory of how evolution happens through natural selection.

And no, trusting professional inferences based on scientific data shouldn't be confused with trusting ancient records of desert people performing magic. Very, very different things.

Muhammad was a f-ucking madman who had no idea what he was doing.

Originally posted by Surtur
It is true Christianity does have a lot of messed up stuff, but think about Jesus for a second. More or less..dude was a hippy. I feel like the worst he did is get pissed at some rich douches and break some shit, right?

Muhammad is like the Jesus of Islam. Except if Jesus was a warlord and child rapist. He has tortured Jews to death in order to locate treasure, he has beheaded jews, he has had poets who wrote poems talking shit about him..killed. Again, compare that to Jesus, who didn't even try to have friggin Judas killed. Who more or less accepted his shitty fate. Muhammad is revered, you can't even draw a picture of the guy without earning their ire. Yep, it's insulting to them to draw a picture of a child raping warlord.

Look at the keys to heaven for a second. If you are a bad person and break all the laws of Christianity..how do you get into heaven? Ask for forgiveness, repent, etc. If you are a muslim..how do you get into heaven if you have flaunted the laws? You kill some non-believers lol. Boom, you get to heaven. Boom, you get virgins(they do not say if the virgins have had their genitals mutilated). uh, well that's one way of looking at it

another is that jesus had zero wives, where as muhammad had 4. clear point to muhammad there, imo. jesus sounds like a bit of a fruitcake.

another thing: being a warlord. he basically started an empire out of sheer chaos. that's an admirable trait to me. **** the haters.

so to recap: muhammad was a powerful man with multiple wives. jesus was an impoverished closet case that got executed before he ever attained any power. yet both men maintain a more lasting legacy than all of us and our ancestors combined. if anything you have to take your hat off to that.

I do admit, I share your fascination that people in the west are hell bent on defending a religion that is actively trying to wipe us off the face of the earth.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
uh, well that's one way of looking at it

another is that jesus had zero wives, where as muhammad had 4. clear point to muhammad there, imo. jesus sounds like a bit of a fruitcake.

another thing: being a warlord. he basically started an empire out of sheer chaos. that's an admirable trait to me. **** the haters.

so to recap: muhammad was a powerful man with multiple wives. jesus was an impoverished closet case that got executed before he ever attained any power. yet both men maintain a more lasting legacy than all of us and our ancestors combined. if anything you have to take your hat off to that.

Sounds like if you could go back in time you'd totally **** Muhammad and have his babies.


Originally posted by Trocity
I do admit, I share your fascination that people in the west are hell bent on defending a religion that is actively trying to wipe us off the face of the earth.

This.

I listened to a good Podcast with Johnathan Haidt and he had a pretty good explanation for what is going on with the Left on college campuses and poor fragile kids getting offended. I think it relates to Islam being defended by so many Leftists because Muslims are basically seen as another minority in this country that needs to be defended. So in short kids are no longer raised to sort of fend for themselves, they always have adults nearby (simply due to the perception of more crime thanks to our lovely 24-hour news) and so they are more fragile and when they get to college if something offends them they go straight to the dean and make a fuss and cause lots of trouble for professors. So professors are having to be careful about what they say or at least how they say it so as not to offend the most fragile student in the class. And so yes, this is sort of scary because it's damaging freedom of speech on campuses and in general. So I think Muslims are seen as sort of a fragile minority so you dare not say anything critical of what they believe or you're a bigot. People who criticize the beliefs of Islam (the beliefs mind you, not the people) are constantly having to defend themselves against accusations of bigotry. This includes ex-Muslim atheists!

This is a sad thing, because man when I got away from my fundamentalist Christian high school and got into college I loved it. Suddenly it was okay to see, think, and feel so many things that were taboo in that nauseating and isolated mind prison. Sad to see that that is damaged now.

^no, to do that I would have to be a woman.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
uh, well that's one way of looking at it

another is that jesus had zero wives, where as muhammad had 4. clear point to muhammad there, imo. jesus sounds like a bit of a fruitcake.

another thing: being a warlord. he basically started an empire out of sheer chaos. that's an admirable trait to me. **** the haters.

so to recap: muhammad was a powerful man with multiple wives. jesus was an impoverished closet case that got executed before he ever attained any power. yet both men maintain a more lasting legacy than all of us and our ancestors combined. if anything you have to take your hat off to that.

I do take my hat off to his ability to wine and dine 6 yr. old girls. It takes a special kind of guy to do that.

Both men do maintain a lasting legacy. Muhammad's legacy now is a religion that is totally at odds with western civilization.

lol, he didn't wine and dine her he just acquired her like the piece of property that she was, in those days.

edgar allen poe's wife was his 13 year old cousin. and that was less than 200 years ago. it's very easy to condemn ancient people by modern standards. but you achieve nothing by doing so, other than trying to achieve cheap political points.

Originally posted by Surtur


Both men do maintain a lasting legacy. Muhammad's legacy now is a religion that is totally at odds with western civilization. sounds like a pretty big achievement to me.

All states and organisations that are run by religious orders or law should be brought to their knees. They are a legitimate threat to sane people.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
All states and organisations that are run by religious orders or law should be brought to their knees. They are a legitimate threat to sane people.



Unfortunately the US is friends with the likes of Saudi Arabia because of their oil. So we probably just tacitly express that we disapprove of their ways.

Originally posted by Trocity
I do admit, I share your fascination that people in the west are hell bent on defending a religion that is actively trying to wipe us off the face of the earth.

US politics are polarized around one single issue

Are you a favorite of Democrats or Republicans.

I'm 100% certain if Islam worshippers started voting for the Republican party (And found acceptance by evangelicals and tea baggers), you might not see so many on the left defending them.

Originally posted by cdtm
US politics are polarized around one single issue

^ It's almost like Liberals defend Islam only because they have to be contrary to Conservatives. Not because they have any good reason to defend the ideologies associated with Islam.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
lol, he didn't wine and dine her he just acquired her like the piece of property that she was, in those days.

edgar allen poe's wife was his 13 year old cousin. and that was less than 200 years ago. it's very easy to condemn ancient people by modern standards. but you achieve nothing by doing so, other than trying to achieve cheap political points.

Lol I know he didn't wine and dine her it was a joke, kid f*cking warlords do not wine and dine folk.

I do love the "it's very easy to condemn these ancient folk for their kiddie f*cking". Yeah, yeah it is super easy. Plus funny too. Banging kids? Cool, bacon? Nope, wrong. Drawing a picture of the kiddie f*cker? Nope, wrong.

Those damn ancient times. Thankfully we do not deal with this stuff now. An American soldier wasn't disciplined for kicking the shit out of some Afghan general who had chained a 10 yr. old to his bed for 2 weeks for the purposes of rape and then laughed when confronted with the accusations.

Likewise if you're a 13 yr. old girl and you get raped they totally won't give you the options of: marry the rapist or go to jail. Countries have also not had to put up signs teaching refugees that rape is in fact bad.

"ancient times".... "afghanistan".... same difference

Lots of Muslims who defend Islam are ignorant about the truth of their religion because their Mosque teachers never taught them about how Muhammad fornicated with Aisha, led a massacre on Christians and Jews, allowed his followers to rape the wifes of their deceased enemies, spoke ill of females etc.

My molisab (that's what they call male Mosque teachers) did not tell me any of this when I used to be a Muslim.

Originally posted by YousufKhan1212
Lots of Muslims who defend Islam are ignorant about the truth of their religion because their Mosque teachers never taught them about how Muhammad fornicated with Aisha, led a massacre on Christians and Jews, allowed his followers to rape the wifes of their deceased enemies, spoke ill of females etc.

My molisab (that's what they call male Mosque teachers) did not tell me any of this when I used to be a Muslim.

You relinquished your faith? Interesting. Must have been a big decision for you considering that some in the Muslim community look down on those who leave the faith.

Well, as long as his wife gets a light beating...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ It's almost like Liberals defend Islam only because they have to be contrary to Conservatives. Not because they have any good reason to defend the ideologies associated with Islam.

Most liberals do not necessarily defend Islam, so much as they defend American Muslims, and they do so, not to be contrary to conservatives, but because American Muslims:

Are a religious minority who are often targets of bigotry, oppression, and persecution.

Are more liberal than evangelical Christians, holding attitudes about social issues that are roughly align with the American mainstream.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Most liberals do not necessarily defend Islam, so much as they defend American Muslims, and they do so, not to be contrary to conservatives, but because American Muslims:

Are a religious minority who are often targets of bigotry, oppression, and persecution.

Are more liberal than evangelical Christians, holding attitudes about social issues that are roughly align with the American mainstream.

I'll grant that much of that is true, but they do indeed defend Islam, not just Muslims. And they seem to ignore the rather unsettling fact that even moderate American Muslims are worshipping the same sky fairy that inspires Muslim majority countries to throw gays off of buildings, kill apostates, imprison free-thinkers and women's rights activists, etc.

It's not right to persecute Muslims, but it is in fact important to criticize Islam.

Originally posted by Surtur
I seriously do not get this, this need to defend this religion..to make excuses for it, more than we have any other religion. What is it about this that makes that happen? Why is it people look at Islamaphobia as separate from a phobia of any other religion? Is there something I am missing out on? Am I not privy to some sort of mystical revelation others are privy to?

What is it that makes people do irrational things like bringing up the Crusades and stuff..in reference to what is going on currently? Why? Is there some kind of mass hypnosis? Is it magic?

What have we, as a species, been given by this specific religion, that makes us treat it this way? What is there to gain?

Surely there is some kind of secret I am just missing? Some revelation that will make all this make even a tiny bit of sense? I am not trying to be cruel, I legitimately want to know. Bestow on me some piece of knowledge..some bit of wisdom..that makes it legitimate to separate this religion from the others.

Simple answer, it's a powerful religion that's anti Christian and Ant Israel, Anti Jewish. It's a radical ideology much like progressive ideology.

It's the first time liberals, globalist and atheists have had a religion they could get behind to further their own anti Christian agenda.

Case in point, if you tell a atheist liberal you believe in Jesus, he will laugh at you. If you are a Muslim and tell the same person you are a Muslim, they will embrace you, not try to argue with you and will accept that as your right.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'll grant that much of that is true, but they do indeed defend Islam, not just Muslims. And they seem to ignore the rather unsettling fact that even moderate American Muslims are worshipping the same sky fairy that inspires Muslim majority countries to throw gays off of buildings, kill apostates, imprison free-thinkers and women's rights activists, etc.

It's not right to persecute Muslims, but it is in fact important to criticize Islam.

Liberal Christians worship the same sky fairy that inspires African Christians to burn children alive as witches, and evangelical Christians to advocate putting LGBT Americans in concentration camps.

The problem is religious fundamentalism.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Liberal Christians worship the same sky fairy that inspires African Christians to burn children alive as witches, and evangelical Christians to advocate putting LGBT Americans in concentration camps.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. actually, in that case the problem is africa

Originally posted by RHaggis
You relinquished your faith? Interesting. Must have been a big decision for you considering that some in the Muslim community look down on those who leave the faith.

Yes, I realised that Islam is a Demonic idealogy.

Originally posted by MythLord
Well, as long as his wife gets a light beating...

No one in my Muslim community even does that, they're all moderates. In fact in my local Mosque the Molisabs there have openly discouraged wife beating, contrary to what radicals do.

http://www.webchutney.pk/content/uploads/2016/05/ezgif.com-optimize-24.gif

Originally posted by MythLord
http://www.webchutney.pk/content/uploads/2016/05/ezgif.com-optimize-24.gif

That's a radical.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Liberal Christians worship the same sky fairy that inspires African Christians to burn children alive as witches, and evangelical Christians to advocate putting LGBT Americans in concentration camps.

The problem is religious fundamentalism.

And what causes the fundamentalism? What causes the dangerous dogma? The books. Some people ignore much of what it says, some do not. But the belief that certain books are of divine origin provides the basis for dangerous dogma.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And what causes the fundamentalism? What causes the dangerous dogma? The books. Some people ignore much of what it says, some do not. But the belief that certain books are of divine origin provides the basis for dangerous dogma.

If two people read the same book and arrive at different interpretations, then the book itself cannot be said to be the cause.

There are usually other factors at play, such as culture and education.

The same tired argument.

Refer to the video at the beginning of this thread for the most honest interpretations...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t644850.html

Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher : Muslims are a protected species

M0Dm1LW5ISA

I love what Dawkins says right at the end.