May 20 is ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't Muhammad marry Aisha only to save her from something but not to have her as her wive ?

Regardless of his intention, people should safely be able to take the **** out of him for fun, or anyone else for that matter, without being threatened to death afterwards.

This thread is so people can say what they feel, take the pee out of someone, without being or feeling threatened or suffer violence. I have nothing against the Islam or Muslims, I do have something against people threatening or beating up people or setting fire to peoples houses for taking the **** out of someone or something ( like the Danish cartoon artist) or thinking freedom of speech is unacceptable. In a modern world, criticizing or ridiculing a religion should be allowed.
 
Lovely reply that I got from a random theist elsewhere:

'First of all who gives you the right to live? Demented? read it again:And who the heck are these atheists to tell you that God doesn't exist? Let us wipe down atheists from the face of the earth because their life has no meaning; and anything that has not a reason to be here, there is no reason to keep it alive. You won't go to jail for throwing trash into the trash can.'
Click to expand...

Lulz. And people think that I have no reason to hate religion, sorry, but yes I do.

Lets see exactly what religious Morality is capable off, thousands upon thousands of terrorist attacks each and every year, 85% of American Prisoners identifying themselves as Christian, as opposed to only 0.6% of prisoners identifying themselves as Atheists (against a population that is around 15% Athiest, evidently showing that better morality comes from not believing in God), acid being thrown over young girls and women for going to school or not covering their faces, people being stoned to death for abslolutely stupid reasons such as being raped, having sex outside of marriage, being an apostate or being Gay (Sorry stupid muslims, there is absolutely NOTHING Immoral about these things). Oh, and lets not frget about witchburning from the current day Islamic world, and past day christian world.

What does religion do for society?

6529_224081460346_854145346_7659291_534542_n.jpg



And anyone that really believes that Islam is a religion of peace must be beyond deluded -


'Islam is peaceful' is just one of the many ignorant politically correct extreme left winged lies. Its beyond believable, given all the evidence in the world as to how Islam truly is.

By the way, I think it was the UK's biggest ever mistake to ban Anjem Choudarys 'Islam4Uk' group. It would have been a lot better to allow them to keep on running so that everyone else could learn the absolute truth about Islam :).
 
Last edited:
^ that is what gives Atheists a bad name. Most of what Bhavv just described has eveything to do with cultural and ethnic differences and little to do with religion.

As for the Medical comparison, compare Arab medicine in the middle ages with Western Medicine and see what you find. Very few people believed the world was flat, and no religion ever described it so.

Stereotypical and False. Bhavv, you are no different from any religious nutjob, you just dont have any divine justification for it.
 
Last edited:
^ No its completely true. I'm not just critizing islam, I am against all religions in General, at at one point it was due to religion that people thought that the world was flat.

Most of what I describe has little to do with ethnicity, and is based on culture which derives entirely from religious beliefs.

I seriously cant believe that you think that my opinions give Atheists a bad name, the last I checked, Atheists are not the ones strapping bombs to themselves and blowing people up, nor do they dream of political control of any kind over other people or forcing anyone to 'convert' into their ideology.

Also the picture I just posted had nothing to do with Islam, it is meant to be mocking creationism, which is an entirely lolworthy and highly popular Christian belief and delusion. And also, as for the whole flat earth thing, the Dark Ages say hi!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

Gaidin109 said:
As for the Medical comparison, compare Arab medicine in the middle ages with Western Medicine and see what you find.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it probably was a lot better than medicine / science under Christianity in the western world, I do agree with that.

The picture is not mocking Islam, it is mocking christian / creationist beliefs, such as this one:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/02/...uses-to-treat-child-cites-parents-tattoos.htm

In Bakersfield, California, a pediatrician refused to treat a little girl's ear infection because her mother has tattoos. Dr. Gary Merrill seems to think it's appropriate and just to refuse to care for the sick and hurt if the appearance of any of their family members offends his Christian beliefs about the proper way for people to dress or look.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of an Atheist doctor refusing to serve a patient because their mother wears a Burka? I never have, yet I seriously wonder just how people can believe that Atheists can have a worse reputation than idiot theists.

What exactly have Atheists ever done wrong in the real world to deserve such a strong negative perception from theists? I really cant think of anything, but Religion has led to plenty of disasters and problems worldwide, particularly with Islam AND Christianity.

And they call Atheists immoral when an american Christian father refused to take a sick daughter to the doctors because he believed the power of prayer would heal her, and instead got lots of other idiot christians to stand around her bed praying for her revovery. The daughter died, man ended up in jail for neglect, and stated that he had he was raised to, and had right to believe in the power of prayer and to deny using doctors or medicine.

True recent story from a year or two ago, cant find the link.
 
Last edited:
It is a common held fallacy that it was a scientfically held belief that the world was flat. And individual incidents don't mean that the religion is to blame per se, but that the individual involved is an idiot.
 
Gaidin109 said:
It is a common held fallacy that it was a scientfically held belief that the world was flat. And individual incidents don't mean that the religion is to blame per se, but that the individual involved is an idiot.
Click to expand...

But back when this fallacy was created (before the invention of any kind of telescope), people had no way of telling whether the Earth was flat or round, hence they made such beliefs.

Back then, they would have probably said 'You cant prove that the world isnt flat, therefore it must be'.

At the point in history when people genuinely had no idea what shape the earth was, believing that world was flat was not anymore or less stupid than it is to believe in a God.

So you can accept that believing the world is flat made a person an idiot because it was eventually discovered to be round, so how is holding any such belief in any unproven thing today any more valid than having believed that the Earth was flat, and sailing to the edge would mean that you fall off?

Now heres a very good (non atheist mind you) site that describes very well that Mohammed did believe that the Earth was flat:

http://thriceholy.net/flatearth.html

At its best, the Koran is soaring religious poetry. At its worst, it can sound like the improvisations of a barbarous outlander out of touch with the civilized world. People in the seventh century knew that the earth was round; Ptolemaic astronomy was premised on that fact. But it is far from obvious that Mohammed knew what they knew.

.... long list of koran and hadith quotes and discussion skipped ....

Not only a geocentrist, Mohammed, if we adopt the simplest and most plausible explanation for the Miry Fount, was a flat-earther, an idea retrograde even for his own time.
Click to expand...

One great quote:

The heliocentric Copernican system, upon its first publication, met with indignation, not only from the Roman Catholic church, but also from Martin Luther. A round earth was not a novelty of this system, the Ptolemaic system already had that. Copernicus' innovation still meets with indignation in some quarters today...such as Saudi Arabia: "When in 1966, for example, he [Sheikh Bin Baz] had condemned what he termed the Copernican 'heresy,' insisting, as the Koran said, that the sun moved, Egyptian journalists, much to President Nasser's delight, had mercilessly mocked the leading cleric as a reflection of Saudi primitiveness." (Judith Miller, God has Ninety-Nine Names, p. 114).
Click to expand...

Gaidin109 said:
. Very few people believed the world was flat, and no religion ever described it so.
Click to expand...

It seems to me after more reading that the Prophet Mohammed did believe that the earth was flat, that the sun rose and set in the exact same place (maybe even believing that the sun actually moves), and that the Koran does describe this through his words and beliefs.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there can be any doubt that it was thought the world was flat at one time, also the glowing disk they saw in the sky meant they also thought the sun moved round the Earth, how could they possibly know that it didn't ? even to this day we still say the sun rises do we not ? a legacy from the distant past no doubt.

how could people possibly have known the difference between the Sun & the moon for e.g. one of which is static & one which revolves around the Earth, the ancients who worshiped the Sun god wore flat shiny disks round their necks.

If you were to question some of the last remaining primitive tribes on Earth - a lost tribe was discovered only recently 2001 deep in the Amazon rainforest - & ask them these sort of questions about the Earth & the Sun, what sort of reply could we expect to get?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1267845.stm
 
Lol. Complete tosh. The common held belief of medieval scholars was that of a spherical Earth, not a flat one, Flat earth modes of thought died out with Hellenistic Greece. It is misconceptions like this that make your arguement so ridiculous.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


The fact that ancient peoples or tribes may of believed it is irrelevent to the question that the Abrahamic religions believe it either now or in the past as Bhavv would have us beileve. The belief of a spherical earth predated both Islam and Christianity.
 
Last edited:
As for Bhavv's assertion that religion is responsible for the majority of genicides and Historical attrocites, well that is another commonly held fallacy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

Religion or Non-Religion neither is at fault, It is fanaticism and an individual or groups belief that it can impose their or it's will on a population by force and mold society to their or it's own ends. You can be Religious or Atheist or Agnostic, it makes no difference.

Just ask the 26.5 million Chinese killed by the non-religious Mao Zedong.
 
Last edited:
Gaidin109 as much as i commend your ability to reason in here...im afraid your talking to a brick wall when it comes to bhavv 'the expert on islam'...nothing you say will make him change his opinion or viewpoint, which is fair enough as hes entitled to them.

But ive said it from the beginning when he started posting his rubbish that he isnt any better than the muslim extremists. Im not quite sure if he thinks all muslims are evil or what, some of the stuff he comes out with makes me think that he is....if thats the case then i wouldnt be surprised if he crosses the road when he sees a muslim person:p.
 
Maybe Bhavv should take a read of this for a start:

Atheist Atrocities versus Religious Atrocities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question is whether or not intolerance is intrinsic to the nature of atheism, or Christianity.

Vicious crimes have been committed in the name of Hinduism, yet Hindu is praised by most as a nonviolent belief system. Even Buddhist have murdered Hindu, Christians and Muslims in the name of their beliefs.

Is violence intrinsic to Buddhism? No. Is violence intrinsic to Hinduism? Or to Christianity? The fact that a Buddhist can remain a Buddhist without the need to kill non-Buddhists proves beyond any possibility of debate that Buddhism is not the cause of the violence. The same goes for Christianity, Hinduism and any other belief system.

A causal relationship between a theism and violence, or between atheism and violence, would preclude the possibility of nonviolent adherence.


1. Violent is intrinsic to Christianity. (Premise)

2. Therefore all Christians must be violent.

So we see that the logic of the Christians-as-violent crowd fails.

Let’ take a quote from my favorite Straw Man, Austin Cline.

One of the most common arguments which atheists offer against the value and utility of religion is the extent of violence, suffering, and death which religious believers have caused in the names of their gods. It’s tough to argue against the very real and very horrible record of religious violence across the millennia and while some do, many religious theists try to rebut this critique by arguing that atheism is responsible for much worse.

Or perhaps I should say that they try to argue this — all such arguments are rendered invalid even before they start by the very simple fact that atheism and religion are not parallel and cannot be compared directly. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; religions are complex ideological systems which a myriad of beliefs, ideas, traditions, etc. Mere disbelief in gods cannot really motivate anyone in any direction.

As we discussed earlier, atheism is not the mere absence of belief in a god. It is the belief that god cannot and/or does not exist.

So here we have a belief - i.e., “God does not exist”.

We all know that any belief is enough to divide people. As a child, I liked blue and my brother liked brown. I hated brown, and never really felt close to him, for that odd reason.

Often times location is enough to drive a wedge between people. “He’s from the East Side,” I’d hear, with it said in such a way as to leave me suspect of anybody who had the gall to be from the East Side. Sometimes West Side boys would attack East Side boys.

Now try this logic out:

1. West Side boys attack East Side boys.
2. Therefore, West Sidedness must cause violence.

Of course it doesn’t.

What then is the Cause

Some West Side boys did not attack East Side boys. Some did attack East Side boys. There were no beliefs demanding an attack. The attack was caused by intolerance.

Some Christians attack and killed non-Christians. Most do not. Intolerance, not Christianity, caused that violence.

Some Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims. Some do not. Again, intolerance is the cause.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians. Stalin was pro-atheist and vehemently anti-theist, and he wanted to force that atheism on everybody. He killed millions of Christians, to further atheism.

Pol Pot, again an atheist who killed more than his fair share of Christians. So are we to conclude that atheism is the cause of atheist atrocities? Or that Christianity is to blame for Christian atrocities?

One explanation of atheist atrocities is that, it wasn’t atheism that killed those people. It was communism. Anybody who has done a fair amount of reading on the former Soviet Union, however, will tell you that many of those Christians killed were staunch supporters of communism. So, no, communism was not the cause.

Whenever somebody or some group kills others because of a difference of opinion, it is due to intolerance.

Nothing in heterosexuality demands that we kill homosexuals. But intolerant people do it anyway. Nothing in atheism demands we kill theists, but they do it anyway. Nothing in modern Christianity demands death unto nonbelievers, but they do it anyway.

There is no causal relationship between atheism and the massacre of believers. The is no causal relationship between Christianity and atrocities committed by Christians.

Ongoing Intolerance

Intolerance will continue as long as we allow it.

I recently posted on Austin Cline’s Atheism Blog about the arrogance of Dawkins, referring the penchant of Dawkins to call names and and generally suggest that anybody who does not agree with him is mentally handicapped.

Austin Cline’s response was that “Feel free to explain how anything written by Dawkins is more “arrogant” than the orthodox teachings of religions like Christianity.”

Was that supposed to be an excuse? A justification? A denial? Surely Austin Cline must know his reasoning is an undisputed logical fallacy.

Many Muslims want to enforce Islamic Law, which calls for the end of democracy and the institution of an Islamic State based upon the Sharia.

This is of course a threat to the freedom of millions of people, and cannot be allowed, says I, wearing my Captain Obvious cap.

Likewise, some Christians in America have supported laws that ban gay and lesbian marriage. Some of the stated reasons are religious. Religion has no place in legislation. These laws should be considered Christian intolerance, and opposed.

Atheists have their own brand of intolerance. Recently two petitions were forwarded to the Prime Minister of England. One stated in part:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.

The other stated in part:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools

Both petitions were widely popular in the atheist community, with Richard Dawkins speaking in favor of at least one of the petitions.

When atheists want to prohibit parents from sharing their beliefs and values, and depriving them of the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, then we must admit that what we are talking about is atheist intolerance.

The Answer

The answer to intolerance is not in opposing any belief, atheist or theist. It is in respecting the right of individuals to choose their own beliefs.
Click to expand...

For me the part i highlighted in bold is apt for this thread and something ive been saying pretty much throughout the thread;).
 
Yet Violence is a major part of the Quran, and it is the single only religion that teaches the idea of 'Jihad' or holy wars.

These kinds of things are not taught in other religions, and sorry to state an absolute fact, but the amount of violence and terrorism in the name of Islam far exceeds that of every other religion and Atheism combined.
 
There's only violence, terrorism and extremism because those particular men feel that it's the right way when they rest of their people don't, the rest are no different to any other religious population who just want to live meaningful and peaceful lives with everyone else around them.

You do know what Jihad means right?

http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

WHAT DOES JIHAD MEAN?

Muslims today can mean many things by jihad-the jurists' warfare bounded by specific conditions, Ibn Taymiya's revolt against an impious ruler, the Sufi's moral self-improvement, or the modernist's notion of political and social reform. The disagreement among Muslims over the interpretation of jihad is genuine and deeply rooted in the diversity of Islamic thought. The unmistakable predominance of jihad as warfare in Shari'a writing does not mean that Muslims today must view jihad as the jurists did a millenium ago. Classical texts speak only to, not for, contemporary Muslims. A non-Muslim cannot assert that jihad always means violence or that all Muslims believe in jihad as warfare.
Click to expand...

You think extremists are all out war on the Western World?

There's an even bigger war going on within Muslim communities themselves in these parts of the world where the extremist views of those leaders and rebels are forcing their ways onto the sane minded followers. It's not just a struggle that non Muslims are dealing with here.

Somalia is one example where people are being killed just for watching football games on TV because it's considered a waste of time by their extremist militia..
 
Last edited:
Gaidin109 said:
I'm talking of historical significance in regard to our cultural, societal and educational standards, not all the world is as fortunate, and here religion still has a role to play in that regard.

We still have a need for threats of consequences even in a modern western nation, that is why we have laws, do we need religion for this, no as we have a sophisticated law enforcement system and highly developed educational systems. Many today do not.

Also because of that history whether we like it or not our modern views on morals and laws are coloured and influenced still by what religious doctrine began so long ago. If without religion would we have created other forms of Moral Control and Education techniques, I expect so, but I would imagine the process may have been somewhat longer and infinitely more bloody.

I think you will find that as education and access to philosophical debate becomes more common place then religion will increasingly find itself supplanted by a more pragmatic moral code.

It would be interesting to see how many atheists for example have an absolute belief that this life is it, that spirituality of whatever form is a nonsense and that our perception of reality is the be all and end all of our individual short existence.

I always wondered what a true totally pragmatic Atheist makes of Multiversal Quantum Physics for example?

There will always be exceptions I am sure, but that's what I believe.
Click to expand...

All fair comments, but I see nothing that suggests that removing religion would somehow convert everyone into murdering, steeling, cheating animals?

On the contrary, if we understood our true place/importance in the universe, instead of shrowding it in with some mystical fantasy, we might actually find outselves better off. because with belief in religion surely open the doors to all manner of other falsehoods; ghosts, demons, curses, spell, astrology, telekinesis, mind reading... and all manner of other hokum.

We need to grow up a bit...


ps: Notice how spawn ignore my last two direct points showing serious logical problems with 'God system'?
 
Last edited:
Gaidin109 said:
Lol. Complete tosh. The common held belief of medieval scholars was that of a spherical Earth, not a flat one, Flat earth modes of thought died out with Hellenistic Greece. It is misconceptions like this that make your arguement so ridiculous.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


The fact that ancient peoples or tribes may of believed it is irrelevent to the question that the Abrahamic religions believe it either now or in the past as Bhavv would have us beileve. The belief of a spherical earth predated both Islam and Christianity.
Click to expand...

I never once said that 'Medieval Scholars' didnt believe that, you obviously have a major comprehension failure.

1) The idea of a flat earth, and another astronomical mistakes such as a stationary earth and moving sun were not invented in medieval times, these are Ideas that have been around since the dawn of human civilization before people knew anything about the world or space.

2) Mohammed was not and educated or particularly intelligent man. From what it says in the Koran, he definately thought that the sun moved around the earth, and in many cases seems to have believed it was flat.

3) I never said that the 'flat earth' idea was a widely accepted fact in 'medieval times'. I clearly stated that The idea of the earth being flat was a widely accepted fact prior to the invention of telescopes, well before copernicus or any other astronomers. Such astronomical anomalies also didnt die out as soon as the earth was discovered to be round, and to rotate around the Earth. There are plenty of people who were not so bright throughout all of history that would have still believed that the sun actually moved, and some who may have even believed the Earth to be flat.

Also, if you know that the Earth is not flat, then how can you not accept the fact that God is not real? Both ideas are major anomalies and mythical falacies that were created by people who did not know anything about the world or universe at the time (P.S, that time when the Ideas of God and a Flat Earth were created was not in the 'medieval period, DUUUUURRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!).
 
Khaaan! said:
There's only violence, terrorism and extremism because those particular men feel that it's the right way when they rest of their people don't, the rest are no different to any other religious population who just want to live meaningful and peaceful lives with everyone else around them.

You do know what Jihad means right?

http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean
Click to expand...

Seriously get one thing clear.

It doesnt matter what I, or anyone else think the word Jihad means. The only thing that matters is the vast number of people who are reading the koran today, and interpreting the word to mean a call to holy war, as well as other such interpretations, whether right or wrong in your opinion, that call for the punishment or even killing of the 'kuffar'.

Too many people do interperate the Koran to mean this, even if its only a tiny minority in your opinion, it is still a significantly higher number of people than in any other religion.

And from your link:

The term jihad in many contexts means "fighting" (though there are other words in Arabic that more unambiguously refer to the act of making war, such as qital or harb). In the Qur'an and in later Muslim usage, jihad is commonly followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, "in the path of God."6 The description of warfare against the enemies of the Muslim community as jihad fi sabil Illah sacralized an activity that otherwise might have appeared as no more than the tribal warfare endemic in pre-Islamic Arabia.
Click to expand...

So what exactly was your point?

Khaaan! said:
There's an even bigger war going on within Muslim communities themselves in these parts of the world where the extremist views of those leaders and rebels are forcing their ways onto the sane minded followers. It's not just a struggle that non Muslims are dealing with here.

Somalia is one example where people are being killed just for watching football games on TV because it's considered a waste of time by their extremist militia..
Click to expand...

I am already aware of that as well. However I can definately assume that the majority of Muslims in those parts of the world are extremists in that sense otherwise they would never be able to gain so much power and control over anyone else if it was only, say according to your earlier example, only 0.000000000001% of Muslims.

People still remain silent, or stand in crowds and not say a single thing when people are stoned to death. If the majority of people in such parts of the world were not extremists, then this kind of practice would have led to rioting, protests, rebelion, and eventually forced out of those cultures.
 
Last edited:
Khaaan! said:
You say "vast number"

Where did you pull this seemingly unconfirmed line from? Your own personal views are not valid citations :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What does it really matter providing sources when no one gives a crap about them anyway?

Probably posted like 20 times by now:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

And that doesnt take into account the number of 'silent extremists' who agree with such actions but do not carry them out themselves.
 
bhavv said:
Too many people do interperate the Koran to mean this, even if its only a tiny minority in your opinion, it is still a significantly higher number of people than in any other religion.
Click to expand...

the only ones who would interprete it that way are those like yourself, those who incite hatred in others.
a religion cannot kill a man...its the nutjobs who read the religious books and then feel they must kill someone as thats what it says....and no matter what you tell these people they wont listen....to them it means holy wars and kill all non-muslims.
if you go in looking for hatred and violence then i guess thats what you find.....others go in looking for peace and thats what they find.
they way i see it is the problem lies within yourself bhaav.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom