questioner121 wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

I have yet to hear a cogent argument out of you. So far all of your points have been to the effect that "atheists are big meanies."

Now you make an ex recto blind assertion that we wouldn't call bollocks bollocks if we saw it in the real world. Despite the fact you've never met any of us and have zero evidence to support your assumption. I'm sure years of blindly accepting that fairy tales are real can make it difficult for people to know the difference between imagination and reality, but come on. At least have SOME evidence to back up your assertions.

Are you saying that you would make the vile comments in the way you ppl have been making it in public too?

What do you mean "you people?"



I'm not sure why you're asking what I'm saying when it's in print and you can always re-read it, but I'm telling you that making an assumption and then offering it as a fact is not acceptable here. It may be acceptable in households that believe in magic sky daddies or other such drivel-filled fairy tales, but here, you have to have evidence to support your claims.

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

Perhaps you could help us out by being a little more specific as to which comments you find objectionable. Furthermore, perhaps you can tell us which of the charges against Mo you feel are unwarranted? While you are at it, would you please answer the question regarding whether you would continue to be offended if the charges were shown to be true?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

Are you suggesting that you would resort to violence if I we called Mo a pedo warlord to your face? Would you at the very least support those who did?

If either of the above, this is far more damning of you than a few derogatory terms are for us.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

Yeah you see, that is an attack on people not arguments. I would recommend learning the difference or your stay is likely to be short.

So do you have any actual arguments left or is the martyr card the only you have to play now?

UnderConstruction wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

Perhaps you could help us out by being a little more specific as to which comments you find objectionable. Furthermore, perhaps you can tell us which of the charges against Mo you feel are unwarranted? While you are at it, would you please answer the question regarding whether you would continue to be offended if the charges were shown to be true?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

Are you suggesting that you would resort to violence if I we called Mo a pedo warlord to your face? Would you at the very least support those who did?

If either of the above, this is far more damning of you than a few derogatory terms are for us.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

Yeah you see, that is an attack on people not arguments. I would recommend learning the difference or your stay is likely to be short.

So do you have any actual arguments left or is the martyr card the only you have to play now?

Would you guys use this kind language when debating in front of your parents or kids? Simple yes or no, please.

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

That'd be funny if it wasn't probably correct in as far as we'd be right to shit our pants for insulting muslims, islam mohammed etc, people actually get killed for doing just that!

InDeoRideo wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

InDeoRideo wrote:

InDeoRideo wrote:Again, evasion maneuver.
You still didn't answer: do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad fuck a 9 years old girl?


Edit: Do yourself and your dignity a favor and answer the question next post.

so?

You said a bad word, so you don't get an answer.

lets check...

questioner121, do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad have a sexsual intercourse with a 9 years old girl?

so?

Why would you assume questioner121 that any of us wouldn't use this 'vile' language in the real world? I sure as hell do.

Can we start another fucking wanking thread about fucking atheists and their fucking foul fucking language elsefuckingwhere and get back on fucking topic?

questioner121 wrote:Would you guys use this kind language when debating in front of your parents or kids? Simple yes or no, please.

Would I call a paedophile a paedophile? Would I call a warlord a warlord? Would I call a deluded person deluded?

Yes on all counts and plenty of other examples as well.

I might lay off the word "fuck" when describing what he allegedly did to a little girl if I was talking to another 9 year old (or there abouts) but then you were showing signs of indignation towards plenty of posts that contained no swearing anyway.

Now are you going to answer the damn questions or is the martyr card really all you have?

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

How amusing that in the face of massive evidence from respected Islamic sources that:

A) mohammed was a child abuser

and

B) Allah in his own words is perfectly OK with men raping children and even lays down laws for how long the next man has to wait before he rapes her again,

And instead of addressing those facts, all of a sudden you get upset over some arbitrary combinations of letters people use on the internet in the process of pointing out what a vile mind virus Islam is.

Paula1 wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

That'd be funny if it wasn't probably correct in as far as we'd be right to shit our pants for insulting muslims, islam mohammed etc, people actually get killed for doing just that!

I can see why the atheists are thinking they would meet violence if they commented like they have. I didn't mean that the atheists would be scared of violence. I meant that they would be shown up as being foul mouthed, uncivilised idiots and would feel some shame. This is not the way to debate.

And of course I don't condone any violence when it comes to debating anything. Everyone is entitled to their way of life and free speech. However when it comes to deliberately insulting ppl, that is wrong. I believe that either the person who has done the offending should apologise or the person who has been insulted should let the other person know and walk away from the debate. You can't debate with morons. I'm sure you'll all agree with this.

questioner121 wrote:

Paula1 wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

That'd be funny if it wasn't probably correct in as far as we'd be right to shit our pants for insulting muslims, islam mohammed etc, people actually get killed for doing just that!

I can see why the atheists are thinking they would meet violence if they commented like they have. I didn't mean that the atheists would be scared of violence. I meant that they would be shown up as being foul mouthed, uncivilised idiots and would feel some shame. This is not the way to debate.

And of course I don't condone any violence when it comes to debating anything. Everyone is entitled to their way of life and free speech. However when it comes to deliberately insulting ppl, that is wrong. I believe that either the person who has done the offending should apologise or the person who has been insulted should let the other person know and walk away from the debate. You can't debate with morons. I'm sure you'll all agree with this.

Go tell that to Salman Rushdie.

Anyone wanna bet me a ten-spot that questioner continues to pretend to be insulted while completely ignoring the mountains of evidence presented against him/her?

95Theses wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Paula1 wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

That'd be funny if it wasn't probably correct in as far as we'd be right to shit our pants for insulting muslims, islam mohammed etc, people actually get killed for doing just that!

I can see why the atheists are thinking they would meet violence if they commented like they have. I didn't mean that the atheists would be scared of violence. I meant that they would be shown up as being foul mouthed, uncivilised idiots and would feel some shame. This is not the way to debate.

And of course I don't condone any violence when it comes to debating anything. Everyone is entitled to their way of life and free speech. However when it comes to deliberately insulting ppl, that is wrong. I believe that either the person who has done the offending should apologise or the person who has been insulted should let the other person know and walk away from the debate. You can't debate with morons. I'm sure you'll all agree with this.

Go tell that to Salman Rushdie.

Why would someone shit their pants in fear of being shown up as being foul mouthed or uncivilised?

Edit spelling

95Theses wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

How amusing that in the face of massive evidence from respected Islamic sources that:

A) mohammed was a child abuser

and

B) Allah in his own words is perfectly OK with men raping children and even lays down laws for how long the next man has to wait before he rapes her again,

And instead of addressing those facts, all of a sudden you get upset over some arbitrary combinations of letters people use on the internet in the process of pointing out what a vile mind virus Islam is.

95Theses, the comments you have made above are fine for me. They are not insulting. According to what you have read and understand they are, I believe, genuine questions and matters of concern. However some of the other comments have been deliberately made to antagonise me and other ppl who may take offence.

num1cubfn wrote:Anyone wanna bet me a ten-spot that questioner continues to pretend to be insulted while completely ignoring the mountains of evidence presented against him/her?

num1cubfn, stop trying to act civilised. You should continue using your nasty language it suits your mentality

Questioner, your derail attempts are glaringly obvious. You have no right here to have your beliefs respected. You have no right here to not be offended by naughty words. Your characterisation of a large and diverse group of people based upon your own personal sensibilities is immature and prissy. Frankly, the fact that the simple utterance of a word such as fuck makes me somehow a bad person in your world is puerile. Why dont you get back to the subject in question now? No one is impressed by this nonsense of yours.

questioner121 wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:Anyone wanna bet me a ten-spot that questioner continues to pretend to be insulted while completely ignoring the mountains of evidence presented against him/her?

num1cubfn, stop trying to act civilised. You should continue using your nasty language it suits your mentality

Please quote for me the language I have used that was inappropriate. I'll wait.

P.S. While I'm waiting, I'll point out to you that I've just recently joined the thread to tell you to stop presenting delusion as fact, and have used no foul language whatsoever.

Your fake emotional outburst has distracted you from the fact that I just came in to the conversation.

questioner121 wrote:I can see why the atheists are thinking they would meet violence if they commented like they have. I didn't mean that the atheists would be scared of violence. I meant that they would be shown up as being foul mouthed, uncivilised idiots and would feel some shame. This is not the way to debate.

But as I have already pointed out, you have been bitching about posts that did not contain any "foul" language.

Furthermore, I would sill be quite comfy in my nice recliner chair on the moral high ground, knowing that all I have done is toss a few letters together in a manner that offends you, whereas Muslims insist on worshipping a kiddie fiddling, ethnic cleansing warlord. (Ooh look, no swearing. I bet you still manage to take offence.)

And of course I don't condone any violence when it comes to debating anything. Everyone is entitled to their way of life and free speech.

Then if violence is not on the cards, why exactly should we fear to say the same things in person?

However when it comes to deliberately insulting ppl, that is wrong.

If you think you have been insulted, hit the report button and stop playing the martyr.

I believe that either the person who has done the offending should apologise

If you have taken offence at comments aimed at your kiddie fiddling warlord prophet, that is your problem not ours. It is you who chooses to be offended on his behalf.

or the person who has been insulted should let the other person know and walk away from the debate.

Fine, you've let us know. Door's that way --->>>

You can't debate with morons. I'm sure you'll all agree with this.

More ad homs against users of this forum. I see you still cannot tell the different between attacking the person and attacking the argument.

95Theses wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

How amusing that in the face of massive evidence from respected Islamic sources that:

A) mohammed was a child abuser

and

B) Allah in his own words is perfectly OK with men raping children and even lays down laws for how long the next man has to wait before he rapes her again,

And instead of addressing those facts, all of a sudden you get upset over some arbitrary combinations of letters people use on the internet in the process of pointing out what a vile mind virus Islam is.

Theses, I've had a look at your sources regarding the marriage of the prophet to the young girl. From the texts I can't say for sure that the marriage was actually consummated. I have heard from muslims who argue that this was a practice which was normal for the ppl of that area at that time. If this is the case and I do find text which put's it beyond doubt then I'll admit it is wrong. I personally can't see any justification for it.

The verses in the quran regarding the period of time required before divorce is for me at the moment ambiguous. The part of the verse where it says that waiting period is 3 months for women who do not have their menses could apply to women who have reached the menopause and women who don't have menses because of a medical problem. However I have read other translations where it says the waiting period is for women who have yet to reach there menses. It also doesn't explicitly say that you can have sex with young girls, however I can see that it could imply it. I will need to take this up with more knowledgeable ppl than myself and see clarify each word in the verse.

First off,

Personally I have seen many people claim that mohammed was just following the standards of the time when he consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was 9, it's the standard defence, but that is why I asked you if 'it is ever acceptable for a middle aged man to have sex with a nine year old girl?'

Mohammed was 52 when this happened.

For me the worst thing about this is that even were you to argue that it was the norm for the times, and that women attained maturity at a younger age, I find it incredibly creepy that :

Sahih Muslim wrote:A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her

http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/031_smt.html

So he used to sit and watch her play with dolls with her friends before they had sex

If we wish to test him by the standards of the time, we run into another problem. Her father Abu Bakir was a close friend for him and he should have been obliged to treat Aisha like an Uncle. By the standards of the day it was highly unethical to marry the daughters of your close friends.

However as a muslim (and I assume you are, feel free to tell me otherwise if you are just interested in Islam as an outsider) you have a major problem with your not supporting his kiddy fiddling ways, because of Uswa Hasana,

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Uswa_Hasana

This is the concept that according to the koran (which remember is the perfect word of allah) Mohammed was the 'Perfect human' who could do no wrong. The koran even call his morality 'sublime'

Koran 68:4 wrote:And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

Now, Mohammed being perfect as stated by the koran is surely not up for debate here? this is a central tenant of the muslim faith, and why muslims worldwide rioted because a few people drew pictures of him with a bomb in his turban.

This combination of hadith and koran is why countries like Saudi Arabia allow child rape in the guise of 'marriage' because mohammed did it, and allah says mohammed was perfect, therefore it must be OK. Saudi Arabia (and others) didn't just invent this, they came to it by the most careful study of the koran and hadith they could.

For the umpteenth time YOU ARE NOT ARGUING WITH ME ABOUT WETHER AISHA WAS NINE WHEN MOHAMMED FUCKED HER, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH ESTABLISHED ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP If you want to trot out a weak defence based on what one person told you, be prepared for me to quote back at you volumes of established works by islamic scholars, both believers and secular. In fact I find it hard to even find a reputable source that denies it.

Of course your local imam might disagree, but if you and through you, him, cannot provide some pretty well documented evidence for this I'm going to just dismiss it as one mans apologetics aimed at providing a nice face of islam to the infidels, and therefore worthless and meaningless. As people here are wont to say Show me the fuckin evidence

Now onto the claim that the koran doesn't explicitly permit sex with prebuescent girls (which by the way says nothing about maturity)

I think we are both agreed that according to the koran it is OK to marry and have sex with say an 11 year old girl as long as she has her period, which to me is fucking disgusting anyway ....... But I digress

We are going to have to deal with translations of the koran here, because there are some dodgy translation out there, made with the specific intent of hiding this from the infidels so we don't get up in arms about it. If you or your 'respected source' wants to argue, I ask that you get him to find fault in the translation and not just hand wave away and say 'this isn't a correct translation' I want to know Why it's incorrect.

Wikislam provides a very nice summary of the verse, with a very well referenced translation, if your expert disagrees with this translation, please explain What the problems with it are.

Detailed analysis of the verse in Arabic
: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Quran

95Theses wrote:First off,

Personally I have seen many people claim that mohammed was just following the standards of the time when he consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was 9, it's the standard defence, but that is why I asked you if 'it is ever acceptable for a middle aged man to have sex with a nine year old girl?'

Mohammed was 52 when this happened.

For me the worst thing about this is that even were you to argue that it was the norm for the times, and that women attained maturity at a younger age, I find it incredibly creepy that :

Sahih Muslim wrote:A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her

http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/031_smt.html

So he used to sit and watch her play with dolls with her friends before they had sex

If we wish to test him by the standards of the time, we run into another problem. Her father Abu Bakir was a close friend for him and he should have been obliged to treat Aisha like an Uncle. By the standards of the day it was highly unethical to marry the daughters of your close friends.

However as a muslim (and I assume you are, feel free to tell me otherwise if you are just interested in Islam as an outsider) you have a major problem with your not supporting his kiddy fiddling ways, because of Uswa Hasana,

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Uswa_Hasana

This is the concept that according to the koran (which remember is the perfect word of allah) Mohammed was the 'Perfect human' who could do no wrong. The koran even call his morality 'sublime'

Koran 68:4 wrote:And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

Now, Mohammed being perfect as stated by the koran is surely not up for debate here? this is a central tenant of the muslim faith, and why muslims worldwide rioted because a few people drew pictures of him with a bomb in his turban.

This combination of hadith and koran is why countries like Saudi Arabia allow child rape in the guise of 'marriage' because mohammed did it, and allah says mohammed was perfect, therefore it must be OK. Saudi Arabia (and others) didn't just invent this, they came to it by the most careful study of the koran and hadith they could.

For the umpteenth time YOU ARE NOT ARGUING WITH ME ABOUT WETHER AISHA WAS NINE WHEN MOHAMMED FUCKED HER, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH ESTABLISHED ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP If you want to trot out a weak defence based on what one person told you, be prepared for me to quote back at you volumes of established works by islamic scholars, both believers and secular. In fact I find it hard to even find a reputable source that denies it.

Of course your local imam might disagree, but if you and through you, him, cannot provide some pretty well documented evidence for this I'm going to just dismiss it as one mans apologetics aimed at providing a nice face of islam to the infidels, and therefore worthless and meaningless. As people here are wont to say Show me the fuckin evidence

Now onto the claim that the koran doesn't explicitly permit sex with prebuescent girls (which by the way says nothing about maturity)

I think we are both agreed that according to the koran it is OK to marry and have sex with say an 11 year old girl as long as she has her period, which to me is fucking disgusting anyway ....... But I digress

We are going to have to deal with translations of the koran here, because there are some dodgy translation out there, made with the specific intent of hiding this from the infidels so we don't get up in arms about it. If you or your 'respected source' wants to argue, I ask that you get him to find fault in the translation and not just hand wave away and say 'this isn't a correct translation' I want to know Why it's incorrect.

Wikislam provides a very nice summary of the verse, with a very well referenced translation, if your expert disagrees with this translation, please explain What the problems with it are.

Detailed analysis of the verse in Arabic
: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Quran

Theses, I though you'd started seeing sense and had started using better language. However I was wrong and you're the same as all the other arrogant atheists who comment the way you do. Go and believe whatever you want, whatever makes you happy. Be all want to be and call it freedom or truth. I'm not going to debate with ppl like yourself. The quran does mention ppl like you. It says debate with them in a way which is better than the way they debate. But if they become arrogant and indecent then say "peace" and walk away from them. So I will humbly walk away.

My sincere apologies to anyone who was offended by my comments or where I have falsely accused them of something of which they did not do. Thanks for all the decent comments.

One day you will know the truth no matter what it is. Peace to you all.

PS. If anyone does want to debate with me sincerely and in a decent way, then pls IM.