NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
amal.f...@gmail.com
:)
snex
mohammad was a pedophile.
Stile4aly
God, I'm tired of this bloody canard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha's_age_at_marriage#Evidence_that_Aisha_was_older_than_nine
snex
CreateThis
Just what we need: more people who think everybody else is subhuman.
CT
SeppoP
No thanks. You can keep the shit all by yourself.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
raven1
>NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
About as desirable as sharing syphilis, and with the same end result
for the brain...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
CreateThis
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 2007 16:24:59 -0700, amal.f...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
>
>About as desirable as sharing syphilis
....without the short term benefit.
CT
snex
> Op Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:27:24 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > On Apr 21, 8:21 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 5:03 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > mohammad was a pedophile.
>
> >> God, I'm tired of this bloody canard.
>
> the way, I *am* very critical (the same way as I am critical of
> Christianity and all other religions). But this particular one is only
> ever used to take cheap shots at Muslims. And it's very unfair.
>
> "Haha your prophet was a pedophile, nananananana."
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha's_age_at_marriage#Evidence_that_Ai...
>
> > yawn.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha's_age_at_marriage#Evidence_that_Ai...
>
> Snex, *WTF* does it really matter how old she was? Aisha is only a
> character in a story set some 1500 years ago.
>
> 1. Did she even exist? How do we know? Remember, the Koran is not
> evidence. Everything (pro *and* contra) on the mentioned Wikipedia-page
> should be seen as conjecture.
>
> 2. There is this crude saying, "if she can bleed she can breed". We may
> not like it (I certainly don't), but the onset of puberty has long
> been the point where children were not longer considered children.
> This was the time before anticonception. If a girl could get pregnant,
> she probably would. In some societies, she'd better have the
> protection of a husband then. At the time, even very young children
> (boys as well as girls) would probably not be raised to be sexually
> naive. For all intents and purposes they would not be considered
> "children" as we understand the term today. They would be more like
> miniature grownups.
>
> 3. It would have been "normal" at the time to marry off young children,
> especially when marriage was also a means to make alliances
> between powerful families. If you want to forge a tie between to
> clans you want two of them to marry. That way, the clans would be
> honour-bound to not fight each other anymore. If no candidate can be
> found of proper age to marry you provide another one, regardless of
> their age. Also, people throughout history and everywhere around the
> world have been made kings and queens at even *younger* ages than
> Aisha was supposedly married to Mohammed. A marriage to Mohammed (who
> was, according to the stories, a wise and important warlord and
> statesman) was probably equivalent to becoming royalty.
>
> 4. The whole "argument", if it is even one, does not reflect on Muslims
> today. In my country, I see the daughters of Muslim immigrants
> finishing their schools, going to university etc. before getting
> married. With some exceptions, of course, but most of them are doing
> just fine. Muslims, it seems, are *not* all Taliban freaks.
whoever "amal.follo...@gmail.com" is, he deserves nothing more than a
"cheap shot." hes a hit and run troll.
David Iain Greig
Ok, you can *both* fuck off.
--D.
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
snex
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > whoever "amal.follo...@gmail.com" is, he deserves nothing more than a
> > "cheap shot." hes a hit and run troll.
>
> to ignore him as well.
>
> While "amal.followme" may not deserve anything more (I'm not sure), you
> choose to misrepresent an entire religious community only because of what
> *he* does. It's very counter-productive. For instance we have in this
> newsgroup Stile4aly, who is a Muslim who also accepts evolution
> completely and who has proven himself to be very tolerant and friendly
> towards other people's convictions and you tell him that the wise prophet
> he believes in with his heart is a pedophile. Pedophile - which in
> today's society can only mean something utterly despicable. Is that fair?
perhaps stile4aly should consider the fact that his prophet *may in
fact have been* a pedophile. his deepest convictions are really
irrelevant on the matter. you (hypothetically) may believe with all of
your heart that your priest that was convicted of molesting children
didnt really do it, but that doesnt make it so.
>
> I think we need to concentrate our fight to target the extremists of the
> world. If someone chooses to believe in something, let them be. If
> someone decides to be fundamentalist in their beliefs, let them be. It's
> harmless. Only when they start to be extremists, trying to force others
> to believe what they believe, or trying to stop the progress of science,
> we should (verbally) fight them.
i think we need to attack absurd claims wherever they surface, whether
or not the people who make those claims threaten force. religious
extremists wouldnt be so much of a problem if religious claims were
given the same scrutiny that all other bullshit claims are given.
people that maintain absurd claims and demand that those claims be
given immunity from critical analysis are shielding extremists from
that same critical analysis you wish to apply to them.
f'rinstance, francis collins claims that his belief in god is based on
claims that are fundamentally no different than what ID advocates base
their beliefs in god on. if francis collins is allowed to make these
arguments without somebody calling them out as bullshit, then ID
advocates can rightly assume that those arguments are valid. if those
arguments are valid, then its puzzling why anybody would want them
kept out of schools, unless those evil atheists are running the
schools and are lying to our children.
Stile4aly
> On Apr 22, 1:58 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > > whoever "amal.follo...@gmail.com" is, he deserves nothing more than a
> > > "cheap shot." hes a hit and run troll.
>
> > Of course he is. But taking cheap shots is always wrong. You could choose
> > to ignore him as well.
>
> > While "amal.followme" may not deserve anything more (I'm not sure), you
> > choose to misrepresent an entire religious community only because of what
> > *he* does. It's very counter-productive. For instance we have in this
> > newsgroup Stile4aly, who is a Muslim who also accepts evolution
> > completely and who has proven himself to be very tolerant and friendly
> > towards other people's convictions and you tell him that the wise prophet
> > he believes in with his heart is a pedophile. Pedophile - which in
> > today's society can only mean something utterly despicable. Is that fair?
>
> perhaps stile4aly should consider the fact that his prophet *may in
> fact have been* a pedophile. his deepest convictions are really
> irrelevant on the matter. you (hypothetically) may believe with all of
> your heart that your priest that was convicted of molesting children
> didnt really do it, but that doesnt make it so.
You're right, my deepest convictions on the matter are irrelevant, yet
you seem to assume that I have done no actual study on the matter and
conclude that Muhammad was not a pedophile "just because." That's the
whole reason I pointed to the wiki page in the first place. Yes, the
verbiage of the hadith themselves suggest that she was quite young,
but the entire point is that we can't necessarily accept the hadith at
face value (as many Muslims do), we must do an actual historical
analysis and a comparative analysis against other hadith. Those
analyses show that Aisha must have been older than 6 at betrothal,
more likely 12 - 15, which would make her 15 - 19 at consummation.
Many Muslims don't critically analyze the Quran or Hadith, and I find
it ironic that you throw around the worldnetdaily claim of Muhammad
being a pedophile when you clearly haven't done such a study
yourself. You often berate most if not all theists for failing to
critically analyze their beliefs, but this is a Trojan Horse. It's
your belief that any critical analysis of religion must lead to that
religion being rejected, plain and simple. Theism is irrational, and
no irrational belief is valid in your view.
Cheers for the kind words from NMP.
<snip>
snex
if we cannot take the quran or hadiths at face value, then why do you
do exactly that on matters of whether or not god exists, whether or
not mohammad was his prophet, and various other supernatural claims?
>
> Many Muslims don't critically analyze the Quran or Hadith, and I find
> it ironic that you throw around the worldnetdaily claim of Muhammad
> being a pedophile when you clearly haven't done such a study
> yourself. You often berate most if not all theists for failing to
> critically analyze their beliefs, but this is a Trojan Horse. It's
> your belief that any critical analysis of religion must lead to that
> religion being rejected, plain and simple. Theism is irrational, and
> no irrational belief is valid in your view.
show me a religion that withstands critical analysis. if one exists,
it certainly isnt islam.
bul...@bellsouth.net
Thanks, but no thanks. BTW, wrong news group.
Boikat
snex
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:35 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > show me a religion that withstands critical analysis. if one exists, it
> > certainly isnt islam.
>
> single out Islam either.
of course, and i dont. but this thread is about islam, so it would be
OT to bring up other ones.
>
> And just shouting "Mohammed was a pedophile" does not count as critical
> analysis at all. Like I said, it's just a cheap shot, meaningless. You
> have to do better, try to understand more of what Muslims actually
> believe and then criticise *that*. Who knows, you might even have an
> interesting debate with one of them.
ok, how about this. mohammad was a pedophile, therefore his assertions
about morality are immediately suspect. mohammad was a pedophile, and
used claims about god speaking to him in order to justify his
disgusting actions - hence all of his other claims about god are
suspect. you wouldnt believe a modern pedophile's claims about
morality or religion, therefore you shouldnt believe an ancient one's.
but lets pretend for the sake of argument that mohammad *wasnt* a
pedophile.
why should i believe his claims about morality or religion?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
>On Apr 22, 1:58 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>> > whoever "amal.follo...@gmail.com" is, he deserves nothing more than a
>> > "cheap shot." hes a hit and run troll.
>> Of course he is. But taking cheap shots is always wrong. You could choose
>> to ignore him as well.
>> While "amal.followme" may not deserve anything more (I'm not sure), you
>> choose to misrepresent an entire religious community only because of what
>> *he* does. It's very counter-productive. For instance we have in this
>> newsgroup Stile4aly, who is a Muslim who also accepts evolution
>> completely and who has proven himself to be very tolerant and friendly
>> towards other people's convictions and you tell him that the wise prophet
>> he believes in with his heart is a pedophile. Pedophile - which in
>> today's society can only mean something utterly despicable. Is that fair?
>perhaps stile4aly should consider the fact that his prophet *may in
>fact have been* a pedophile. his deepest convictions are really
>irrelevant on the matter. you (hypothetically) may believe with all of
>your heart that your priest that was convicted of molesting children
>didnt really do it, but that doesnt make it so.
And maybe you could try taking to heart the oft-repeated
fact, usually stated by those who accept science to the
evolution-deniers who make snide comments about Darwin, that
the personal foibles of the bearer of news have zero to do
with the content, and stop acting like an adolescent. If you
want to complain that current-day leaders of Islam tend to
support terrorism, feel free - they do in fact lend such
moral support and that has a direct effect on the innocent
who suffer from these immoral actions. But lay off the "my
non-prophet can lick your prophet" crap, please.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
snex
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:32:28 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > On Apr 22, 3:21 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:35 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> >> > show me a religion that withstands critical analysis. if one exists,
> >> > it certainly isnt islam.
>
> >> *NO* religion withstands critical analysis. So there is no reason to
> >> single out Islam either.
>
> > of course, and i dont. but this thread is about islam, so it would be OT
> > to bring up other ones.
>
because the poster was muslim.
>
> >> And just shouting "Mohammed was a pedophile" does not count as critical
> >> analysis at all. Like I said, it's just a cheap shot, meaningless. You
> >> have to do better, try to understand more of what Muslims actually
> >> believe and then criticise *that*. Who knows, you might even have an
> >> interesting debate with one of them.
>
> > ok, how about this. mohammad was a pedophile, therefore his assertions
> > about morality are immediately suspect.
>
> Wrong. The concept of "pedophilia" did not exist in his time so he can't
> be held to that measure. Read one of my previous posts.
the concept certainly did exist. but lets say it didnt, for the sake
of argument.
islam claims that morality is *absolute.* if pedophilia was moral back
then, it must be moral today.
>
> [..]
>
> > but lets pretend for the sake of argument that mohammad *wasnt* a
> > pedophile.
>
> > why should i believe his claims about morality or religion?
>
> You are of course under no obligation to do so. But he *did* say (again,
> if we can believe the hero-stories) a few things that are worth thinking
> about. You think about them, then you make up your own mind.
thats exactly what i do. unlike people who mindlessly adhere to entire
belief systems, i dont need to take them all-or-nothing. and i
certainly dont accept that the supernatural realm exists merely
because ancients thought it did.
snex
> On 22 Apr 2007 12:09:00 -0700, the following appeared in
the personal foibels of the bearer matter plenty when the bearer is
claiming to offer us a system of morality.
darwin never made such a claim, as far as i am aware.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com>:
You can add mine. I have nothing but contempt for those
religious leaders (currently mostly Islamic, but
historically represented in nearly all major religions) who
encourage barbaric actions against the innocent, which IIRC
is *specifically* forbidden in the Koran. But most "normal"
followers of Islam don't seem to be anything of the sort,
yourself specifically included. Keep it up; you're somewhat
of an exemplar of rational Islam, and we need as many as we
can get. The same applies to rational Christians, to
counteract the irrationality of the fundies.
Kermit
> On Apr 22, 3:21 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:35 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > > show me a religion that withstands critical analysis. if one exists, it
> > > certainly isnt islam.
>
> > *NO* religion withstands critical analysis. So there is no reason to
> > single out Islam either.
>
> of course, and i dont. but this thread is about islam, so it would be
> OT to bring up other ones.
>
>
>
> > And just shouting "Mohammed was a pedophile" does not count as critical
> > analysis at all. Like I said, it's just a cheap shot, meaningless. You
> > have to do better, try to understand more of what Muslims actually
> > believe and then criticise *that*. Who knows, you might even have an
> > interesting debate with one of them.
>
> ok, how about this. mohammad was a pedophile, therefore his assertions
> about morality are immediately suspect. mohammad was a pedophile, and
> used claims about god speaking to him in order to justify his
> disgusting actions - hence all of his other claims about god are
> suspect. you wouldnt believe a modern pedophile's claims about
> morality or religion, therefore you shouldnt believe an ancient one's.
So, should we reject all writings Thomas Jefferson left us on
morality, religion, freedom, or politics? He was a slave owner, not a
pedophile, but I don't see that as a moral improvement.
>
> but lets pretend for the sake of argument that mohammad *wasnt* a
> pedophile.
>
> why should i believe his claims about morality or religion?
I don' t believe I've ever heard Stile4aly proselytize here.
Kermit
snex
> On 22 Apr 2007 12:34:25 -0700, the following appeared in
just why do we need "rational muslims" or "rational christians?" whats
wrong with applying rationality to all aspects of one's life,
including religion?
snex
> On Apr 22, 1:32 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 3:21 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:41:35 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > > > show me a religion that withstands critical analysis. if one exists, it
> > > > certainly isnt islam.
>
> > > *NO* religion withstands critical analysis. So there is no reason to
> > > single out Islam either.
>
> > of course, and i dont. but this thread is about islam, so it would be
> > OT to bring up other ones.
>
> > > And just shouting "Mohammed was a pedophile" does not count as critical
> > > analysis at all. Like I said, it's just a cheap shot, meaningless. You
> > > have to do better, try to understand more of what Muslims actually
> > > believe and then criticise *that*. Who knows, you might even have an
> > > interesting debate with one of them.
>
> > ok, how about this. mohammad was a pedophile, therefore his assertions
> > about morality are immediately suspect. mohammad was a pedophile, and
> > used claims about god speaking to him in order to justify his
> > disgusting actions - hence all of his other claims about god are
> > suspect. you wouldnt believe a modern pedophile's claims about
> > morality or religion, therefore you shouldnt believe an ancient one's.
>
> So, should we reject all writings Thomas Jefferson left us on
> morality, religion, freedom, or politics? He was a slave owner, not a
> pedophile, but I don't see that as a moral improvement.
where did i say "reject?" i said "are suspect." try again.
>
>
>
> > but lets pretend for the sake of argument that mohammad *wasnt* a
> > pedophile.
>
> > why should i believe his claims about morality or religion?
>
> I don' t believe I've ever heard Stile4aly proselytize here.
i was referring to mohammad, but the question still applies. why
should i believe *anybody's* claims about morality or religion unless
they come bearing evidence? if they have no evidence, why do they
insist that i respect them?
>
> Kermit
snex
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:30 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > On Apr 22, 3:49 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:32:28 -0700, schreef snex:
>
>
> >> > but lets pretend for the sake of argument that mohammad *wasnt* a
> >> > pedophile.
>
> >> > why should i believe his claims about morality or religion?
>
> >> You are of course under no obligation to do so. But he *did* say
> >> (again, if we can believe the hero-stories) a few things that are worth
> >> thinking about. You think about them, then you make up your own mind.
>
> > thats exactly what i do. unlike people who mindlessly adhere to entire
> > belief systems, i dont need to take them all-or-nothing.
>
> discard the rest.
>
> > and i certainly dont accept that the supernatural realm exists merely
> > because ancients thought it did.
>
>
> But you see, 1500 (or even more) years ago it was not so evident that
> claims about the supernatural were baseless. Everyone would be talking
> about the supernatural, the intentions of the gods et cetera. If your
> king or clan leader came to power and managed to make some sorely needed
> peace in his territory, you too would likely have believed he had the
> support of the almighty God - or whatever deity was in fashion at the
> time.
actually there was a lot of atheism among ancient greeks and romans.
>
> Try to look at it from that perspective.
you should suggest that stile4aly look at it from that perspective. he
is the one that thinks that those ancient conclusions should still be
held as valid today. i perfectly understand that ancients were
ignorant and did not have the benefit of the scientific method.
however, now that humanity *does* have it, its time to put away those
silly myths.
snex
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:24:30 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > On Apr 22, 4:18 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >> Try to look at it from that perspective.
>
> > you should suggest that stile4aly look at it from that perspective. he
> > is the one that thinks that those ancient conclusions should still be
> > held as valid today.
>
he believes that god exists and that mohammad was his prophet. neither
of these conclusions are supported by anything other than the
erroneous ancient thinking you identified earlier.
>
> It is *you* who thinks that Islam requires its followers to do that. Many
> of them may, but enough of them don't.
Cemtech
amal.f...@gmail.com says...> http://www.quranhome.com/
Is this a new P2P Islam network? BitTaliban?
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by snex <hiya...@yahoo.com>:
We know your opinion, as well as your intolerance for any
hint of faith. Buzz off.
snex
> On 22 Apr 2007 14:08:01 -0700, the following appeared in
i couldnt help but notice you failed to answer the question.
snex
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:48:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 4:43 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:24:30 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> >> > On Apr 22, 4:18 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> Try to look at it from that perspective.
>
> >> > you should suggest that stile4aly look at it from that perspective.
> >> > he is the one that thinks that those ancient conclusions should still
> >> > be held as valid today.
>
> >> I have not seen him say that.
>
> > he believes that god exists and that mohammad was his prophet. neither
> > of these conclusions are supported by anything other than the erroneous
> > ancient thinking you identified earlier.
>
>
> Anyway, he can believe what he wants, there is no law against it. And he
> accepts evolution so it can't be said that he is not also a realist.
acceptance of evolution is no more a guarantee of one being a
"realist" than acceptance of heliocentrism is.
>
> He may even be a nice fellow and I think the chance of that is very high.
>
> Are *you* a nice person?
my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. if you are convinced
that im wrong merely because im one of those uppity new atheists, then
perhaps you should reconsider why exactly you believe anything else,
including evolution.
skyeyes
> NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
> :)
>
> http://islamtomorrow.com/http://www.quranhome.com/
There are no gods. Islam is just another middle eastern superstition.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
skyeyes
> Me too, it's entirely irrelevant as a criticism of Islam. Of which, by
> the way, I *am* very critical (the same way as I am critical of
> Christianity and all other religions). But this particular one is only
> ever used to take cheap shots at Muslims. And it's very unfair.
>
> "Haha your prophet was a pedophile, nananananana."
Inasmuch as the Muslims are constantly criticizing the West for what
they see as our rampant sexuality, pointing out that Mohammad was
indeed a pedophile is entirely appropriate.
I've just finished reading _Why I Am Not a Muslim_ by Ibn Warraq. He
points out that in Islam, *everything* concerning men and women comes
down to sex. He also backs up the claim that the prophet consummated
a marriage with a 9-year-old girl, which certainly qualifies as
pedophilia in my book. He also imparts information that I didn't
know, which is that Mohammad violated his own "four wives only" rule
and married a great number of women. Warraq states frankly that
Mohammad was a first-rate sexual over-achiever.
Seen in the light of the teachings of Islam that the Muslims are so
eager to cram down our throats, all this screams "hyprocisy" to me,
which is why I point it out at every possible opportunity.
Your mileage may vary.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
I cannot help but note that I really don't care what bigots
note.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by skyeyes <sky...@dakotacom.net>:
>On Apr 22, 10:33 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Me too, it's entirely irrelevant as a criticism of Islam. Of which, by
>> the way, I *am* very critical (the same way as I am critical of
>> Christianity and all other religions). But this particular one is only
>> ever used to take cheap shots at Muslims. And it's very unfair.
>>
>> "Haha your prophet was a pedophile, nananananana."
>
>Inasmuch as the Muslims are constantly criticizing the West for what
>they see as our rampant sexuality, pointing out that Mohammad was
>indeed a pedophile is entirely appropriate.
You seem to be overgeneralizing just a bit; there are Muslim
posters even here who don't act like snex (whose tirades
were the object of nmp's post); i.e., like spoiled, bigoted
and intolerant brats.
>I've just finished reading _Why I Am Not a Muslim_ by Ibn Warraq. He
>points out that in Islam, *everything* concerning men and women comes
>down to sex. He also backs up the claim that the prophet consummated
>a marriage with a 9-year-old girl, which certainly qualifies as
>pedophilia in my book. He also imparts information that I didn't
>know, which is that Mohammad violated his own "four wives only" rule
>and married a great number of women. Warraq states frankly that
>Mohammad was a first-rate sexual over-achiever.
>
>Seen in the light of the teachings of Islam that the Muslims are so
>eager to cram down our throats, all this screams "hyprocisy" to me,
>which is why I point it out at every possible opportunity.
>
>Your mileage may vary.
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
neo
David Iain Greig wrote:
> snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, amal.follo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
> >> :)
> >>
> >> http://islamtomorrow.com/http://www.quranhome.com/
> >
>
> Ok, you can *both* fuck off.
I was about to suggest that moderator must warn 3 times to the
posters who use vulger langauge. And then the poster must be banned.
Heated arguments are OK. But when you use vulger langauge, it does not
matter whether you are creationist or evolutionist. You are that
illiterate criminal.
But now I am at loss of words. When moderator himself is illiterate
criminal, to whom we shall complain?
The leader must not behave like ordinary lawless crowd. If that
happens, either leader lose his leadership or there is total anarchy,
lawless society, jungle rule.
David, you shall apologize for that.
snex
> On 24 Apr 2007 08:51:59 -0700, the following appeared in
yet you keep replying. if your reason for replying is to show
everybody what a fool i am, then instead of being evasive, youd answer
the point.
since you cant answer the point, but you continue to respond anyway, i
can only conclude that you are just trying to posture like a gorilla.
ooga-booga!
snex
vulgarity is not against the rules here.
David Iain Greig
> David, you shall apologize for that.
Ok, you can fuck off too.
--D. 'happy now?'
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
Richard Clayton
[snip]
> David, you shall apologize for that.
Bet you half a dollar?
Desertphile
>
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> > snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, amal.follo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
> > >> :)
> > >>
> > >> http://islatomorow.com/http://www.qurhome.com/
> > > mohammad was a pedophile.
> > Ok, you can *both* fuck off.
> I was about to suggest that moderator must warn 3 times to the
> posters who use vulger langauge. And then the poster must be banned.
> Heated arguments are OK. But when you use vulger langauge, it does not
> matter whether you are creationist or evolutionist. You are that
> illiterate criminal.
Why the fuck don't you just fuck off, you silly fuck? If you do
not approve of someone's articles, DON'T READ THEM.
> But now I am at loss of words. When moderator himself is illiterate
> criminal, to whom we shall complain?
"Illiterate criminal?" ROTFL!
> The leader must not behave like ordinary lawless crowd. If that
"Leader?" "LEADER?!?!?!" ROTFL! You actually believe David Iain
Greig is the talk.origins LEADER? Good gods you really are silly!
A news group that has a leader..... LOL!
> happens, either leader lose his leadership or there is total anarchy,
> lawless society, jungle rule.
Some facts:
1) David Iain Greig is not the or a leader of talk.origins;
2) Total anarchy is a *GOOD* thing;
3) Anarchy does not mean no laws: it means no rulers;
4) If you don't like the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen.
> David, you shall apologize for that.
Shall he?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I'm the thing that monsters have nightmares about." -- Bully
AC
You're new to Usenet, aren't you. The only reason I'm here is for the
anarchy!
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Gerry Murphy
"neo" <MAT...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178042643.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> > snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, amal.follo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
> > >> :)
> > >>
> > >> http://islamtomorrow.com/http://www.quranhome.com/
> > >
> > > mohammad was a pedophile.
> >
> > Ok, you can *both* fuck off.
>
> I was about to suggest that moderator must warn 3 times to the
> posters who use vulger langauge. And then the poster must be banned.
> Heated arguments are OK. But when you use vulger langauge, it does not
> matter whether you are creationist or evolutionist. You are that
> illiterate criminal.
"Vulger"? I think it's clear who's illiterate, you fucking fuckwit.
> But now I am at loss of words.
Then why the fuck are you still blathering, motherfucker?
>When moderator himself is illiterate
> criminal, to whom we shall complain?
>
> The leader must not behave like ordinary lawless crowd. If that
> happens, either leader lose his leadership or there is total anarchy,
> lawless society, jungle rule.
>
> David, you shall apologize for that.
>
neo, you shall fuck off and die.
< Boy, wasn't that fun? 8-} >
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by neo <MAT...@gmail.com>:
Who died and appointed you emperor, you arrogant jerk?
Free Lunch
"Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote in
<3cKdnUyiiI62I6rb...@comcast.com>:
>
>"neo" <MAT...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1178042643.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> David Iain Greig wrote:
>> > snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, amal.follo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
>> > >> :)
>> > >>
>> > >> http://islamtomorrow.com/http://www.quranhome.com/
>> > >
>> > > mohammad was a pedophile.
>> >
>> > Ok, you can *both* fuck off.
>>
>> I was about to suggest that moderator must warn 3 times to the
>> posters who use vulger langauge. And then the poster must be banned.
>> Heated arguments are OK. But when you use vulger langauge, it does not
>> matter whether you are creationist or evolutionist. You are that
>> illiterate criminal.
>
>"Vulger"? I think it's clear who's illiterate, you fucking fuckwit.
No doubt the translation for the common people was the Vulgete.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
I'm not "being evasive", I just don't care for bigots. And
the information you ask for was in my post; read it again.
But OK, I'll answer, *one time*, your question. First an
aside: You asked "just why do we need "rational muslims" or
"rational christians?" whats wrong with applying rationality
to all aspects of one's life, including religion?". The
answer is that no one "needs" religion at all; all anyone
"needs" is breathable air, potable water, nutritious food
and, to a lesser extent, shelter. *Everything* else is in
the category of "unnecessary", and religion is no more
"necessary" than is any product of science and technology,
or any one of the thousands of diversions practiced by
humans everywhere. But your implication that religious
belief is irrational is itself irrational; there have been,
and still are, a large number of very intelligent and
rational people who have concluded, based on their
observations of the universe, that there exists some sort of
"higher power" which at the least started the universe
going. Note that this belief is not irrational until we've
determined that the universe actually started in some other
way, which as yet we haven't; unsupported by evidence and
not strictly in accordance with the Razor, yes, but not
irrational. But as a bigot, you can only see, like Sheriff
Clark looking at George Washington Carver and thinking
"nigger", that such people are religious and that religion
is "unnecessary", and this says far more about you than
about them.
But to answer your question literally, and as I stated in
the post you questioned, we need "rational Christians" and
"rational Muslims" to counter the growing number of
irrational ones; they're not the enemy, they're potential,
and in quite a few cases actual, allies against truly
irrational *religious* bigotry.
Happy now?
snex
> On 1 May 2007 12:01:33 -0700, the following appeared in
and these "rational theists" have done such a great job of stopping
irrationality so far, havent they?
where were the rational muslims on 9/11? where are the rational
christians when faith healers come to town? where are the rational
hindus when richard gere kisses a woman in public?
at best, these "rational theists" are just convenient pawns to use in
court cases. they have absolutely no sway among the fundamentalist
crowd, who see them as traitors. what fundamentalists need is to be
challenged on *everything,* not just their more extreme opinions.
coddling the irrational beliefs (and theism *IS* irrational) upon
which they base their extremism while attacking only their extremism
is completely fruitless.
ayer...@hotmail.com
MAHAMAD OR HOW EVER YOU SPELL IT WAS A FALSE PROPHET, AND MUSLIMS,
ISLAM CAN ONLY GET TO GOD (JESUS CHRIST) BY MURDERING GODS CHOSEN, THE
JEWS AS WELL AS THE CHRISTIANS. THE GOD OF THE MUSLIMS, THIER MODY IS
THE ANTI CHRIST IN WHICH HE WILL EVEN BOW DOWN TO JESUS CHRIST IN THE
END. OH AND CATHLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 1-May-2007, Richard Clayton <rich.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > David, you shall apologize for that.
>
> Bet you half a dollar?
I will wager 10 Quatloos and 4 bars of gold pressed latinum on DIG.
Skitter the Cat
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
Josh Hayes
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 1, 1:04 pm, neo <MATR...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was about to suggest that moderator must warn 3 times to the
>> posters who use vulger langauge. And then the poster must be banned.
>
> vulgarity is not against the rules here.
That's right: if you want a newsgroup where vulgarity is against the rules,
try sci.bio.evolution. I hear the moderator is a serious hard-ass.
-JAH
no relation.
John Wilkins
I particular, if you even *try* to mention the "C" word, you will not
even get it on the group...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
David Iain Greig
> That's right: if you want a newsgroup where vulgarity is against the rules,
> try sci.bio.evolution. I hear the moderator is a serious hard-ass.
YM 'candy-ass'. HTH. HAND.
--D.
Josh Hayes
news:cabal-slrnf3hc...@darwin.ediacara.org:
Hey! That's ROCK candy, baby!
-JAH
hard, and delicious
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:
>
> > snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in news:1178046180.953102.295090
> > @o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > On May 1, 1:04 pm, neo <MATR...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I was about to suggest that moderator must warn 3 times to the
> > >> posters who use vulger langauge. And then the poster must be banned.
> > >
> > > vulgarity is not against the rules here.
> >
> > That's right: if you want a newsgroup where vulgarity is against the rules,
> > try sci.bio.evolution. I hear the moderator is a serious hard-ass.
> >
> > -JAH
> >
> > no relation.
>
> I particular, if you even *try* to mention the "C" word, you will not
> even get it on the group...
No discussions about "country" matters allowed?
John Wilkins
Mmmmm.... rounded smooth delicious rock candy ass.... argrlglglglgl...
Josh Hayes
j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
> Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:
>
>> David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote in
>> news:cabal-slrnf3hc...@darwin.ediacara.org:
>>
>> > Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:
>> >> That's right: if you want a newsgroup where vulgarity is against the
>> >> rules, try sci.bio.evolution. I hear the moderator is a serious
>> >> hard-ass.
>> >
>> > YM 'candy-ass'. HTH. HAND.
>>
>> Hey! That's ROCK candy, baby!
>>
>> -JAH
>>
>> hard, and delicious
>
> Mmmmm.... rounded smooth delicious rock candy ass.... argrlglglglgl...
There's a reason why my wife starts humming the tune from "Big Rock Candy
Mountain" when she sees me.
-JAH
If only I knew what it was
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
Bye now, bigot. HANL.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by ayer...@hotmail.com:
You're a perfect match for snex. Enjoy each other.