yes i have a 10 to 1 rate.

for every clever post i have to make 10 retarded ones.

i just have to.

yes i have a 10 to 1 rate.

for every clever post i have to make 10 retarded ones.

i just have to.

Noted as retarded post #1- ratio check.

You sure you didn't copy and paste that, Lebell? The spelling and sytax are wonderful.

BTW, you don't want 72 virgins. You want 72 sluts who know how to take care of you.

All forms of religion that are being interpreted in a strict concrete way are signs of ignorance.
Dumb people are bound to interpretate their religion in a strict way, you see it in every religion.
For those people religion is in fact an opium.

But every religion has two sides: the exterior side (institutions, rules, hierarchy rituals) and a more elusive interior side (mysticism ).
The last one takes a lot of time and hard thinking to figure out what exactly is said by the prophet/enlightened one etc. so not too much people chose that option.

The holy books are full of symbolism and methaphores trying to convey devine law to humans in an understandeble manner.
When taken literally those methaphores or hints become superhuman standards that are impossible to meet, and corruption is inevidable.

Christians had their crusades and inquisitions, Muslims have their jihad and suicides and sometimes inhuman treatment of women and minorities, Jews same story, budhists get kicked out of their countries by china or put their daughters up as whores to make an extra buck etc etc.

This is ofcourse black and white, but what im trying to say is, there's shitty things about every culture and religion because of people staring at the finger instead of at the moon.

i like what you said.

Islam accepts slavery, the subjugation of women, the beating of wives among other grim acts and neck smitings of the un believers. also, these are not "taken out of context", there are explicitly clear passages in the Quran about all of these and many many more.
The Prophet of Islam is considered the perfect man in Islam and his actions are also considered perfect by adherents of the faith. He married a 6 year old girl and consumated that marriage when she was nine, not that it matters but he was in his fifties. Regardless of the time and age in which he lived, these are all actions considered just and perfect in the eyes of god by Muslims. He fought aggressive wars, beheaded captives and sold their wives and children into slavery. He broke treaties with allies and betrayed and murdered once loyal subjects. Any of these actions could be considered, not only acceptable, but associated with the divine to adherents of Islam.
Thank goodness that our morality, for the most part, supercedes religion and most do not act in such a manner. However I do believe it is accurate to say that all of these things are morally wrong and therefore Islam is morally wrong. The fact that Muslims do not follow these methods, and yet still claim to be followers of Islam is actually a betrayel of their own belief system. The Moderates support the fanatics through inaction and a refusal to condemn certain behaviours, though it is very hard to condemn acts explicitly support by your religious texts.....

You sure you didn't copy and paste that, Lebell? The spelling and sytax are wonderful.

BTW, you don't want 72 virgins. You want 72 sluts who know how to take care of you.

I do lots of thinking on these matters and actually have a lot of inter-religious contacts.
hm...im sure im going to get copy and paste jokes with that phrase...oh well.


about the virgins, there is a little problem with the Quran, in the time that it was written the Arab writing didnt include symbols to indicate sounds or indentify all letters.
You have these 'waves' in arab writing right? you see dashes above ( means AH sorta sound) dashes below ( EEH kinda sounds) and some more, back in the day they didnt have that.

my knowledge of arabic is very basic and im sure there's people around who can explain this better then i can but to give an example in roman letters instead of typing BOAT they would write something like B'T so you had to read the whole phrase/context to get the meaning.

words by itself could mean boat beat boot whatever.
so only later they innovated the writte language and added the sound indicators.

There's a theory that the 72 virgins werent in fact virgins, they could very well mean : white grapes.
Symblism ofcourse.
A small portion of Arabists think this, which isnt surprising because challenging ANYTHING in the holy Quran is considered to be treason and is not looked upon kindly in most of the Muslim world.

I've had and still have pretty extensive contacts with all kinds of Muslims,(lived amongst them for a while, and soon probably again) including the Suf'is, Hindus and Budhists and eventhough im not too much of a fan of the IslamIST ideology i always found that there are enough people that are relaxed about it.

A couple of years ago a Muslim organisation in Turkey urged the Turks to at least not get as wasted as they usually do during Ramadan. ;-)

Always be carefull with what the media show you.

If you like to read more about atheism you might want to read articles and essays of Christopher Hitchens.

I'm serious, you can only technically revert to Islam.

It's something to do with it being the "one true religion". A bit arrogant I know, but that's fucking religion for ya...

THAT is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. & trust me, there's some pretty stiff competition.

Frankly, I cannot agree that procreation has ever been acceptable in a pre-pubescent.

Special pleading :eusa_thin (as above) changes nothing.

Intercourse with minors was widely practiced in ancient Greece.


All forms of religion that are being interpreted in a strict concrete way are signs of ignorance.
Dumb people are bound to interpretate their religion in a strict way, you see it in every religion.
For those people religion is in fact an opium.

But every religion has two sides: the exterior side (institutions, rules, hierarchy rituals) and a more elusive interior side (mysticism ).
The last one takes a lot of time and hard thinking to figure out what exactly is said by the prophet/enlightened one etc. so not too much people chose that option.

The holy books are full of symbolism and methaphores trying to convey devine law to humans in an understandeble manner.
When taken literally those methaphores or hints become superhuman standards that are impossible to meet, and corruption is inevidable.

Christians had their crusades and inquisitions, Muslims have their jihad and suicides and sometimes inhuman treatment of women and minorities, Jews same story, budhists get kicked out of their countries by china or put their daughters up as whores to make an extra buck etc etc.

This is ofcourse black and white, but what im trying to say is, there's shitty things about every culture and religion because of people staring at the finger instead of at the moon.

A few things I'd like to add about t3h Lebell's post:

Extremists are not always the dumbest people. Sam Harris states that it's actually the more educated, well-off Muslims that are more likely to be extremists. Islamic terrorists are not the economically downtrodden and deprived but exactly the opposite. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/15/1089694488731.html)

You can't say that all religions are equally bad, the evidence just doesn't support it. Where are the Jainist suicide bombers? There aren't any because the central tenet of Jainism is non-harm of living things. This is not the case with Islam, which says that if you leave the religion, you must be killed. If you're gay, you must be killed. If you aren't Muslim you must be subjugated or destroyed.

You can't argue that stoning homosexuals is really a metaphor for stoning the inner, spiritual gay. It means what it says it means.

How do we know that the bible is supposed to be a metaphor? What objective method do we have to determine who has t3h r34l interpretation of the metaphor? (there isn't one.) If there isn't one, then what use is the book? (nothing)

Intercourse with minors was widely practiced in ancient Greece.



A few things I'd like to add about t3h Lebell's post:

Extremists are not always the dumbest people. Sam Harris states that it's actually the more educated, well-off Muslims that are more likely to be extremists. Islamic terrorists are not the economically downtrodden and deprived but exactly the opposite. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/15/1089694488731.html)

You can't say that all religions are equally bad, the evidence just doesn't support it. Where are the Jainist suicide bombers? There aren't any because the central tenet of Jainism is non-harm of living things. This is not the case with Islam, which says that if you leave the religion, you must be killed. If you're gay, you must be killed. If you aren't Muslim you must be subjugated or destroyed.

You can't argue that stoning homosexuals is really a metaphor for stoning the inner, spiritual gay. It means what it says it means.

How do we know that the bible is supposed to be a metaphor? What objective method do we have to determine who has t3h r34l interpretation of the metaphor? (there isn't one.) If there isn't one, then what use is the book? (nothing)

Good points indeed, i have to go for a 'lunch in between work bjj session' i will respond later today, you raise interesting points.

If you think I'm defending it then you need to read again, so does douglas, that'd be like defending slavery because more than a few of the founding fathers (a bunch of men who are revered religiously in the U.S.) were plantation owners.

I didn't think you were defending it, I think you were missing the context of my post.

ok the training session got posponed this leaves me with time to answer you.

Ofcourse there are clever extremists, but they're seldom really extremist, they're the architects who recruit the dumb people to go and blow up theirselves.
It's never the topguys.
Extremists who are on top of the chain tend to bend the rules of the game in such a manner that they're always excused because they're needed for the organisation etc.
Terorists in my book are the footsoldiers, the suicide bombers and the guys with the beards and ak47 on sandals.

The guys who get manipulated and the rough end of the deal.

ok now about how not all religions are equally bad.
At this time they're not, i can see your point, but all three have the potential to be, eventhough i agree with you that the Quran has the most strict views considering infadels gays and what not, there's also similar passages in the thorah and the bible.

Islam also uses the hadith, the additional stories about the life of the prophet.


The way i see Islam its the Jewish-Christian line redone to fit the mentality of the arab tribes back then, who-ever says the Quran/islam is about peace and understanding is either a liar or doesnt know his own holy book that well.

my point is that religion when it becomes written in stone inevidably gets corrupted, no matter what's the original concept or idea.

its a dynamic process that seems to be human nature when large groups or systems are formed.

look at any political party or political ideology or even a board of direction of some company.

Rules constantly change or get imterpreted in new or old fashin ways.
What stays are the universal concepts and hints, those are the same in all 3 mosaic religions.

ok lame arab joke about kurds.
(arabs consider kurds to be stupid)

A kurd joins al-qaida in bagdad and finally he's selected to do a suicide attack.
So they send the kurd out to look for a target, call it in and wait for permission.

The al qaida guys wait by the phone and after some time it ring, its the kurd suicide attacker:
Hai, im at the library, there's about 5 people here, shall i do the suicide attack?

al qaida: only 5?! ofcourse not you moron! go find a school !

One hour later the phone rings again, the kurd: allright, im at the school there's about 20 people present.

al qaida: not enough, you know what? go to the market, its swarming with people over there!

the kurd calls again: im at the market! there's hundreds of people here, even an american patrol!
can i do the suicide attack now?!

al qaida: yes ofcourse!!! go for it!!!

the kurd stabs himself.

I will offer my commentary on your post;



Ofcourse there are clever extremists, but they're seldom really extremist, they're the architects who recruit the dumb people to go and blow up theirselves.

I was specifically arguing against this point and I don't believe you have adequately demonstrated that your analysis is correct. You claim that Islamic terrorists are dumb people, and this is not the case. From my newspaper article:

"Many modern terrorists are intelligent, educated, and skilled at planning and logistics."

"The new terrorists are global citizens, resourceful and meticulous, skilled with technology and with the patience to wait years for the opportunity to attack."

You can also view this debate series where Sam Harris states that support for terror goes up when you correct for literacy. YouTube - Reza Aslan vs. Sam Harris Debate Part 01 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5og-hyD3A7A)

I would also like to point out how the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center were all highly educated individuals who lived and studied in the West.

I understand your position Lebell, and one which many people may assume to be true but I would like to see some type of substantial evidence that your contention is a better representation.



It's never the topguys.
Extremists who are on top of the chain tend to bend the rules of the game in such a manner that they're always excused because they're needed for the organisation etc.

Most likely true, but the guys who carry out the attacks are not dumb, poor and uneducated.



ok now about how not all religions are equally bad.
At this time they're not, i can see your point, but all three have the potential to be, eventhough i agree with you that the Quran has the most strict views considering infadels gays and what not, there's also similar passages in the thorah and the bible.

It's true that the Abrahamic monotheisms that you mentioned are all similar in terms of bigotry, hate ect. This shouldn't be surprising as they all share a common root. But to say that "all religions have their nutcases" (a view which I have subscribed to in the past) requires a broader view than just those three. Explain why there aren't any Jainist terrorists. It might be possible to create a death-cult out of them but you'd really have your work cut out for you as their central tenet is non-violence and strictly forbids harming any living being.



The way i see Islam its the Jewish-Christian line redone to fit the mentality of the arab tribes back then, who-ever says the Quran/islam is about peace and understanding is either a liar or doesnt know his own holy book that well.

I agree that this is the c0rr3ct.


my point is that religion when it becomes written in stone inevidably gets corrupted, no matter what's the original concept or idea.

They are all written in stone, that's what makes them a religion. You have to look at what's actually written in the stone. When it's written in stone that gays needs to be killed then it's already corrupt. It's actually the moderates that have corrupted their religion, where the extremists are the t3h r34l.



What stays are the universal concepts and hints, those are the same in all 3 mosaic religions.

Those universal concepts are inherently bad. They demand unshakable faith without evidence which is itself a negative thing. Even the "good" that comes from a religion bears this taint. When someone claims that feeding the poor is their christian duty they are saying that alleviating the suffering of another is not a good enough reason in itself.


As for your joke, meh, I've got a better one; A chunner, a ninjer and an aikidoist walk into a brothel...

[quote=Virus]Intercourse with minors was widely practiced in ancient Greece.


Well, that makes it all right then. Pardon my sarcasm but that's a specious point.

I understand you're pursuing a debate/argument but I don't think that that behaviour was ever acceptable except in a skued society. People aren't so very different from their forebears - just better educated and with more opportunity.

Moving away (please) from that "contentious" point, Lebell makes a valid one in observing the behaviour of a "Leader" and those "Led". In Robert Fisks' book "The Great War for Civilisation" he mentions his time in Iran and being in a mosque during the Iraq-Iran War. At the head of the assembly were children holding trays of sweets whilst wearing bandannas across their Foreheand. At a given signal, they went into the Assemby to offer the sweets: the point being that to accept the sweet was to endorse the child's offer of martydom in an impending operation. That left me agog, and Fisk remarked that the adults were fully aware of the context of the offer and some tried to refuse or cried.

Now, consider this. Khomeini did not send his son into Battle with the Baseej. Why not? Surely it would set the right example and be consistent with his axiomatic beliefs. After all, if you're wearing the apparell of an Ayatollah - and a Grand Ayatalloh at that - then surely one would be ecstatic. Or did he have some other (selfish) reason for his son NOT sacrificing himself in Battle.

Upon the death of Khomeini, the son tried to engineer his way to the post of "Leader" but was out-manoeuvred by Khameinei - who has been the Spiritual Leader ever since. This gives rise to that other phenomenom of the son trying to inherit his father's position. How very human. It's just what happened in N.Korea and even Mrs Mao tried it on in China following Mao falling off this perch.

Still, I was always baffled by Khomeini's son having the neck to go for that position when it was all too clear that he'd never put himself at Risk during the Iraq-Iran war.

Then again, Osama Bin-Ladin was similar in as much he sent a camera team to suicide themselves to kill Sheik Masood in the Panjshir Valley (Afghanistan) so signalling the Twin Towers attack by the Atta Team (one of whom ordered Room Service Call Girls - Caucasian naturally - how does that fit with his Islamic tenets?).

At no time was Bin Ladin in Harm's Way. Just like the best of "Leaders".

Food for thought, with one last cameo, from past British TV progs of the Mujahideen during the Russian years, they broadcast these doughty warriors wearing eye-make up and espousing their wish for young boys. FFS.

Aah, the Muslim world...such, er, contrasts and "interpretations".

When Lebell does convert to Islam, I'm sending him a "Dash Board" Mohammed for his moped. He will be the "envy" of his Mosque.

[quote=Virus]Intercourse with minors was widely practiced in ancient Greece.


Well, that makes it all right then. Pardon my sarcasm but that's a specious point.

I understand you're pursuing a debate/argument but I don't think that that behaviour was ever acceptable except in a skued society

Now wait a second, I never said that makes it alright. You said that no society ever considered sex with minors acceptable and I pointed that the Greeks did it and they did think it was alright.

Peoples attitudes are incredibly different than 1000 years ago. Even 50 years ago. People used to watch executions as a form of entertainment.

Various things that people take for granted like animal welfare, equal rights for women, the environment, nobody gave a **** about those things 1000 years ago. (well a few people did but they were a fringe element.)