[Anna_Karenina]

Dawkins is a bit of a joke. Like an atheist Abu Hamza. Nobody is really taking him seriously.

[You Failed]

(Original post by Guru Jason)
You would probably get done for that. However if you said that "In my opinion, you're a ****ing ****" then that is perfectly legal under freedom of speech as you are not stating it a fact.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you like, the phrasing should not be relevant and if you have to say 'in my opinion' before everything you say, then you do not have freedom of speech.

[Guru Jason]

(Original post by You Failed)
Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you like, the phrasing should not be relevant and if you have to say 'in my opinion' before everything you say, then you do not have freedom of speech.

One is slander while the other is opinion. In theory I agree with you but that's just how it goes in practise.

[buj]

(Original post by Anna_Karenina)
Dawkins is a bit of a joke. Nobody is really taking him seriously.

He hasn't got enough character for me to be interested. Plus he believes in the possibility of aliens putting us here, which is another way of admitting maybe, just maybe, there is a God.

[Nephilim]

My post was deleted by Mods for "spamming". Apparently posting a picture of Yao Ming Face at a Muslim's comment will get you in trouble with the Moderators

[najinaji]

(Original post by buj)
He hasn't got enough character for me to be interested. Plus he believes in the possibility of aliens putting us here, which is another way of admitting maybe, just maybe, there is a God.

It's a possibility, is it not? Also, he specifically mentioned that though they would be a 'God' to us, someone/something would have had to have made that God also.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
But if your gonna go around saying; "islam is the devil", "mo is pedo".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but having sex with a 9 year old seems pretty paedophilic to me. If that is untrue, then fair enough, but I am led to believe that is what Mohammed did.

Islam or Muslims are not against free-speech, we're against the abuse of free-speech. There's a difference.

That's basically the same as saying 'you're as free as I tell you to be'. Being offended is a natural downside of free speech. You're saying you only want people to say good things about Islam?

ps. Not sure how much of an Atheist he is. I heard he recently said he's more agnostic and is something like 60% not sure God exists. I could be wrong though, try searching around for it.

He said he was about 6.9/7 sure that God didn't exist, but that he couldn't know 100% either way.

(Original post by Destroyer25)
Most atheists are Liberals who only hate Christianity. I'd wager that most atheists simply do so because it's the fashionable thing to be, as it is seen as a rejection of "mainstream" beliefs, and more importantly, Conservative beliefs. I've met very few atheists who were Liberal and who didn't exclusively hate on Christianity.

That being said, I've thought of myself as an atheist too from time to time, and I'm Conservative. So I'm not saying the above applies to all atheists, but most of them.

You make a good point. It's pretty shocking to see how many are willing to tear down the pretty humble C of E, and leave Islam alone.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by najinaji)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but having sex with a 9 year old seems pretty paedophilic to me. If that is untrue, then fair enough, but I am led to believe that is what Mohammed did.

This is why I reserve it for the Academic. There's a few things I would recommend you research (I don't have time to do a long post);

1. What the definition of a pedophile is.
2. The historical context, the normality of such marraiges.
3. The scientific basis, ie. The level of development/maturity
4. How that marraige was proposed to him.
5. The Prophet(pbuh)'s other marraiges. I mean, he married 55 year olds.
6. Why no credible Historian (or any?) who has studied Muhammad(pbuh) called him a 'pedophile'.

So, when you have that knowledge, you're not going to bring that about in a debate and say "mo's a pedo", as that would be anti-progressive and dishonest in a discussion.

(Original post by najinaji)
That's basically the same as saying 'you're as free as I tell you to be'. Being offended is a natural downside of free speech. You're saying you only want people to say good things about Islam?

You never understood what I said. When I said Muslims are "against the abuse of freedom of speech", I gave you clear cut examples.

It's the equivelent of someone saying; "Your mum is a ****". Where is the progress, the "truth" or purpose of this? That's what Muslims are against.

If you have legitimate critisisms of Islam, then Islam has nothing against that and nor do Muslims. I mean, it just gives us a chance to defend our faith and prove people wrong.

In fact, it's believed freedom of speech was first ever practiced in the early Islamic societies.

The Aticle; When Islamic Atheism Strived.

In examining this chapter of Islamic history, regardless of the validity or otherwise of the views expressed, one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent.

Note: I don't agree with the last part, some Muslims countries allow all forms of "intellectual dissent", though it's no Shariah.

Back then, people debated alot, if someone had a critisism, a great Muslim theologen or philosopher or whoever would be up for the challenge. And vice versa. Read up on people like Al-Ghazali (one of the most famous philosophers in history), he refuted so many deviant Islamic sects, that he killed them off just with the pen.

In fact, Atheists like Al-Razi are only known because Muslims themselves wanted to quote his works just to refute him.

But the difference was, these people didn't insult or abuse their freedom of speech, they didn't do purposeless things like "draw muhammad day". They made critisisms that they tried to back in debates, that's how things worked - and that's what Islam means by "freedom of speech".

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
This is why I reserve it for the Academic. There's a few things I would recommend you research (I don't have time to do a long post);

1. What the definition of a pedophile is.
2. The historical context, the normality of such marraiges.
3. The scientific basis, ie. The level of development/maturity
4. How that marraige was proposed to him.
5. The Prophet(pbuh)'s other marraiges. I mean, he married 55 year olds.
6. Why no credible Historian (or any?) who has studied Muhammad(pbuh) called him a 'pedophile'.

So, when you have that knowledge, you're not going to bring that about in a debate and say "mo's a pedo", as that would be anti-progressive and dishonest in a discussion.

having sex with a 9 year old would be classed as paedaphillia by anyones standrads, to answer your above question. What was the norm back then isnt important, as muslims are so often at pains to tell us, pre-islamic arabs used to bury women in the sand and do all sorts of awful things, so we are lectured. but paedaphillia, slavery etc were not deemed crimes to mohammed, it all seems specious logic.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

In fact, it's believed freedom of speech was first ever practiced in the early Islamic societies.

The Aticle; When Islamic Atheism Strived.

In examining this chapter of Islamic history, regardless of the validity or otherwise of the views expressed, one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent.

Note: I don't agree with the last part, some Muslims countries allow all forms of "intellectual dissent", though it's no Shariah.

Back then, people debated alot, if someone had a critisism, a great Muslim theologen or philosopher or whoever would be up for the challenge. And vice versa. Read up on people like Al-Ghazali (one of the most famous philosophers in history), he refuted so many deviant Islamic sects, that he killed them off just with the pen.

In fact, Atheists like Al-Razi are only known because Muslims themselves wanted to quote his works just to refute him.

But the difference was, these people didn't insult or abuse their freedom of speech, they didn't do purposeless things like "draw muhammad day". They made critisisms that they tried to back in debates, that's how things worked - and that's what Islam means by "freedom of speech

'freedom of speech ' in islam does not extend to muslims - if any vocally speak out against any aspect of islam or mohammed , he can expect a death scentence. Yes you may have an opportunity to prove us 'un-believers' wrong but you havent done so to this point. So this is why muslims rant about more and more demands to restrict public comment about islam - becuase they have no logical or lucid answer to issues that are raised.
The draw mohammed campaign was not a critism nor was it purposeless, it was to ridicule the islamic view that it could stop people making drawing of what they wished, and the primitive reaction that muslims displayed as a result. highlighting the exact opposite of allowing free speech.

Any copy-paste answers to the above?

[buj]

(Original post by najinaji)
It's a possibility, is it not? Also, he specifically mentioned that though they would be a 'God' to us, someone/something would have had to have made that God also.

But then that 'God' would have to have been created, and so on. This idea can go on for infinity.

[quote] say you had a task of moving a table, and you knew you could ask an infinite number of people to do it for you. so you would ask someone else to move it for you. that person would ask someone else to move it. that person would then ask someone else to move it. each person would ask someone else and it would carry on forever. at the end the table would never be moved.

Similarly, the fact that there is a creation today, is proof that theres only One Creator. If there was a creator of the creator, then each creator would create another creator, who creates another creator, who would create another creator... and it would carry on forever. there would never be a creation.

[najinaji]

(Original post by buj)
But then that 'God' would have to have been created, and so on. This idea can go on for infinity.

say you had a task of moving a table, and you knew you could ask an infinite number of people to do it for you. so you would ask someone else to move it for you. that person would ask someone else to move it. that person would then ask someone else to move it. each person would ask someone else and it would carry on forever. at the end the table would never be moved.

Similarly, the fact that there is a creation today, is proof that theres only One Creator. If there was a creator of the creator, then each creator would create another creator, who creates another creator, who would create another creator... and it would carry on forever. there would never be a creation.

That's the point. It's a logical fallacy.

If a theist says 'the universe is so complex, therefore there must have been a designer', you must also believe that that designer is complex enough to have had a designer themselves, and then that just goes on and on to infinity.

[buj]

(Original post by najinaji)
That's the point. It's a logical fallacy.

If a theist says 'the universe is so complex, therefore there must have been a designer', you must also believe that that designer is complex enough to have had a designer themselves, and then that just goes on and on to infinity.

exactly, and if this were true, there would be no creation. but seeing as there is, this chain does stop somewhere, and the most logical conclusion stops at one God. If there were two Gods how could we be seeing the harmony and precision we see in the universe today.

[najinaji]

(Original post by buj)
exactly, and if this were true, there would be no creation. but seeing as there is, this chain does stop somewhere, and the most logical conclusion stops at one God. If there were two Gods how could we be seeing the harmony and precision we see in the universe today.

Bingo.

The argument is basically saying 'the idea that the universe is created doesn't make sense because...'. We are in a universe right now, yes, but the question is whether or not it was created, and that argument is a means of trying to prove that it isn't.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by lulubel)

has he ever criticised judism you know?

I know he has in his anti faith schools tv program, and i'm sure he has elsewhere.

[buj]

(Original post by najinaji)
Bingo.

The argument is basically saying 'the idea that the universe is created doesn't make sense because...'. We are in a universe right now, yes, but the question is whether or not it was created, and that argument is a means of trying to prove that it isn't.

cool we're on the same page then.

[orcprocess]

(Original post by najinaji)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but having sex with a 9 year old seems pretty paedophilic to me. If that is untrue, then fair enough, but I am led to believe that is what Mohammed did.

I thought the age of Aisha was disputed. I heard one say she was 17. Muslims can you confirm/deny this?

[Leon Trotsky]

Because they're pussies. They couldn't issue a piss up in a brewery. Come at me, bros.