Dutch Islam film 'nearly ready'

[Haakon]

No, a man still has to get permission, the most important thing is from the woman he intended to marry.

If you think that I can marry or divorce as I like then you're wrong.

Yeah. I guess thats why girls as young as 9 year old are married to rich, old bearded paedos all over the middle east?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah. I guess thats why girls as young as 9 year old are married to rich, old bearded paedos all over the middle east?

It was only a matter of time before you brought this up.

Look here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=150186

And here: http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

[Haakon]

It was only a matter of time before you brought this up.

Look here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=150186

And here: http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

From your thread

This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be.

Oh look, she was ten years old not 6. Does that make him less of a paedo?


I also call **** on your atheism claim. For an atheist you are suprisingly apologetic towards Islam....but not towards christianity. I wonder why. (not really)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Oh look, she was ten years old not 6. Does that make him less of a paedo?

Ah, now we begin the reaching for straws. She was (at least) 10 when she was betrothed as in, when they made the engagement. They were not married until three years later. This means she was at least 13, although other sources suggest she could have been anywhere from 13 to 20 at the time.

I also call **** on your atheism claim.

And who better would know if I am an atheist or not than you?

For an atheist you are suprisingly apologetic towards Islam....but not towards christianity.

What you call apologetic I call standing up against ignorance in the name of truth.

I do apologize that I am not driven by poor research, blatant mistranslations, and a closed mind.

As to how you know my stance on Christianity is really beyond me.

I wonder why. (not really)

I'm curious as to your theory about my so-called apologeticism. Though I honestly am more curious as to why you say that no religions are correct yet you say only the Qur'an should be banned and your singling out of Islam. That, to me, is a far more interesting subject.

[Каие]

Im a Christian a Christian .......NEw testament my friend NEW Testament that is where i get my teachings im a Christian The new Testament is pretty much what Jesus Was talking about.Christian =a person who follows the teachings and believes In Jesus Christ that he was the Mesaiah. Believe it or not i was tought Tolorance by my state,or goverment and my religion which is Catholicism.Now before u bring up The crusades and the INquistion i might remind u that i personally think all those things were wrong and that by doing those things they were not being very Christian like.However we both Know that there was more to The crusades than just religion.Ill stick to my opionion that in the Bible there isnt any things that say go kill the non believers and so on and so fourth there there just stories about the Quote on Quote Gods people winning against the Pagans but thats why theres the New Testament.Comon i dare try to find somthing on the New Testament that says JEsus Wants to destroy the Non believer and conqure or somthing.GO Ahead Try!

Good thing the New Testament is just the same as the Old testament then, do you want examples?

[Haakon]

Though I honestly am more curious as to why you say that no religions are correct yet you say only the Qur'an should be banned and your singling out of Islam. That, to me, is a far more interesting subject.

Complete and utter false. I have already answered if the bible and torah should be banned as well.

If you had bothered to READ the thread you would have seen that the whole banning thing was because a poster said the movie should be banned because its 'hate speech', to witch I replied

Well then obviously the Quran should be banned.

And who better would know if I am an atheist or not than you?

Its obvious you think you are an atheist, but I really dont think you understand the mechanics behind it.

What you call apologetic I call standing up against ignorance in the name of truth.

Interesting. What truth?
It has to be the biggest fallacy of all times, to stand up for bronzeage mentality in the name of fighting ignorance while claiming to be an atheist.

[Haakon]

Good thing the New Testament is just the same as the Old testament then, do you want examples?

I'm going to play the devils advoate here, all though I would happily do pro bono work for the devil.

If you honestly think the old and new testament is similar then you are either unable to read, or just a very bad liar.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Complete and utter false. I have already answered if the bible and torah should be banned as well.

If you had bothered to READ the thread you would have seen that the whole banning thing was because a poster said the movie should be banned because its 'hate speech', to witch I replied

Well then obviously the Quran should be banned.

And when asked if the Bible and Torah should be banned, you answered:

Not really. You somehow think that a 10 minute movie is 'hatespeech' and should be banned. So if you would want to ban an innocent 10 minute movie about religios zealots then your books with an ever larger amount of hatespeech should ba banned.

Are you saying that Islam is the only book (in your opinion, of course) that contains hate speech?

Its obvious you think you are an atheist, but I really dont think you understand the mechanics behind it.

Your post = :hmmm:

Interesting. What truth?
It has to be the biggest fallacy of all times, to stand up for bronzeage mentality in the name of fighting ignorance while claiming to be an atheist.

Are all atheists supposed to act like angry fanatics destroying all things religious?

I also don't see the logic of thinking I would have a reason to act like I was an atheist if I was a Muslim.

[Haakon]

And when asked if the Bible and Torah should be banned, you answered:

Not really. You somehow think that a 10 minute movie is 'hatespeech' and should be banned. So if you would want to ban an innocent 10 minute movie about religios zealots then your books with an ever larger amount of hatespeech should ba banned.

Are you saying that Islam is the only book (in your opinion, of course) that contains hate speech?

Do you have some type of reading disorder? I said THE MOVIE should not be banned because of freedom of speech.

Are all atheists supposed to act like angry fanatics destroying all things religious?

Now we are getting somewhere. No, us atheist do not want to destroy anything religious. We do however examine and rate religion in the same way we would review a movie, a wine, music etc.

This can seam harsh to the deluded beliver, but I assure you its far from sinister.

I also don't see the logic of thinking I would have a reason to act like I was an atheist if I was a Muslim.

You probably come from a muslim family or culture, and even though you lack proper faith you are still not comfertable with taking the step into full atheism, this in turns make you go on the defensive whenever some one says something thats less flattering for islam.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Do you have some type of reading disorder? I said THE MOVIE should not be banned because of freedom of speech.

Did I disagree with that point? Look at the last sentence in your response to whether the Torah and Bible should be banned.

Now we are getting somewhere. No, us atheist do not want to destroy anything religious. We do however examine and rate religion in the same way we would review a movie, a wine, music etc.

This can seam harsh to the deluded beliver, but I assure you its far from sinister.

The "mightier than thou" attitude is really annoying.

Do you solely rely upon the previews before constructing your own review on a movie or song?

Do you judge wine by what others thought of it?

No sensible critic would. So if you do not do that, why do you criticize Islam but use poorly researched and inaccurate pre-dispensed criticisms of Islam to form your opinion?

Try what I did. I read most of the Qur'an independently without anyone steering me to one train of thought.

You probably come from a muslim family or culture, and even though you lack proper faith you are still not comfertable with taking the step into full atheism, this in turns make you go on the defensive whenever some one says something thats less flattering for islam.

Hate to disappoint you Dr. Phil. I am an American of mostly German and Irish descent living in rural northern Indiana, born to moderate Protestant Christian parents. I have been an a "full atheist" since I was 12.

[Haakon]

Did I disagree with that point? Look at the last sentence in your response to whether the Torah and Bible should be banned.

So if you would want to ban an innocent 10 minute movie about religios zealots then your books with an ever larger amount of hatespeech should be banned.

This ^^ has been my point all along. If you want to ban a movie then a ban of the torah, bible and quran will be in order. Ofcorse I belive in free speech, so I would not ban the movie nor the religious books.

The "mightier than thou" attitude is really annoying. Do you solely rely upon the previews before constructing your own review on a movie or song?

No I dont. I observe, then base my opinion on what I see.

Do you judge wine by what others thought of it?

Not at all. I judge it after tasting it.

No sensible critic would. So if you do not do that, why do you criticize Islam but use poorly researched and inaccurate pre-dispensed criticisms of Islam to form your opinion?

Because I dont belive in ghosts ok?

I dont belive that the universe was created with us in mind. I have read the entire bible(that would include the torah), and many parts of the quran and I simply cant belive how anyone can be that dense that they would use those 'books' for guidance.

Being religious is a great way of not having to think for your self. Its so much easier to be told what to do or not to do rather than figuring things out for yourself. And you know what?....when figuring things out for yourself you often discover that your conclusions are much more rational and reasonable than the conclusions reached by illiterate people living in caves, in the bronze age.

Try what I did. I read most of the Qur'an independently without anyone steering me to one train of thought.

Oh the irony!

Hate to disappoint you Dr. Phil. I am an American of mostly German and Irish descent living in rural northern Indiana, born to moderate Protestant Christian parents. I have been an a "full atheist" since I was 12.

I refuse to believe you think you know what atheism is though. It seams a lot of Americans dont really know what atheism is, as atheism is 'shunned' a lot in the states.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So if you would want to ban an innocent 10 minute movie about religios zealots then your books with an ever larger amount of hatespeech should be banned.

This ^^ has been my point all along. If you want to ban a movie then a ban of the torah, bible and quran will be in order. Ofcorse I belive in free speech, so I would not ban the movie nor the religious books.

-sigh- Let's try this one last time. You said "then the Quran should be banned" not that "the Quran, Bible, and Torah" should be banned. That would be fine if you then didn't say you didn't think the Bible and Torah should be banned too.

Though we digress.

No I dont. I observe, then base my opinion on what I see.

Not at all. I judge it after tasting it.

Because I dont belive in ghosts ok?

This is not a criticism that has relevance when you're debating the message of a religion. That is more of a criticism directed at where the message came from.

I dont belive that the universe was created with us in mind. I have read the entire bible(that would include the torah), and many parts of the quran and I simply cant belive how anyone can be that dense that they would use those 'books' for guidance.

Being religious is a great way of not having to think for your self. Its so much easier to be told what to do or not to do rather than figuring things out for yourself.

There are many that feel differently than you.

And you know what?....when figuring things out for yourself you often discover that your conclusions are much more rational and reasonable than the conclusions reached by illiterate people living in caves, in the bronze age.

Good for you. My criticism is that your starting arguments against Islam were not even written by you. You probably Googled something such as "Womens rights abuses in Islam" and found the site I linked to in my last reply. There is no way you can deny that you did not copy and paste from that website.

Oh the irony!

Think what you like.

I refuse to believe you think you know what atheism is though. It seams a lot of Americans dont really know what atheism is, as atheism is 'shunned' a lot in the states.

Your condescending attitude really undermines your arguments further.

You refuse to believe that I think I know what atheism is? So you believe that I don't think I know what atheism is? Strange...

The argument that you think I don't know what atheism would be more logical, but would still be incorrect.

I'm also curious as to what you think the attitude towards atheism is in America. Do you think we are sent off to leper colonies or something?

[Haakon]

-sigh- Let's try this one last time. You said "then the Quran should be banned" not that "the Quran, Bible, and Torah" should be banned. That would be fine if you then didn't say you didn't think the Bible and Torah should be banned too.

Though we digress.

Yeah because the quran is relevant in this discussion as its muslims who want the movie banned (duh!)

This is not a criticism that has relevance when you're debating the message of a religion. That is more of a criticism directed at where the message came from.

They go hand in hand.

There are many that feel differently than you.

Ofcorse there is. Atheism is not dogmatic. Whats your point by the way?

Good for you. My criticism is that your starting arguments against Islam were not even written by you. You probably Googled something such as "Womens rights abuses in Islam" and found the site I linked to in my last reply. There is no way you can deny that you did not copy and paste from that website.

Unless I knew the quran by heart there would be no way for me to know now would there? I'm not unfamiliar with everything in the quran, I just dont know it by heart as you obviously do.

Your condescending attitude really undermines your arguments further.

Not really. Attitude is of no relevance when debating facts. Besides, the attitude of the religious is far more condescending than anything I could possibly say.

You refuse to believe that I think I know what atheism is? So you believe that I don't think I know what atheism is? Strange...

I think you think you know what atheism is. But I dont think you know what it really means, nor the mechanics behind it.

I'm also curious as to what you think the attitude towards atheism is in America. Do you think we are sent off to leper colonies or something?

Bush senior was pretty much clear about what he thought about atheists.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113


And after years of interacting online with Americans I have come to the conclusion they are not that informed about what it really means.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah because the quran is relevant in this discussion as its muslims who want the movie banned (duh!)

Sigh...nevermind.

They go hand in hand.

Not believing in ghosts really doesn't do much for an argument against the message spoken by prophets. It is a reason for not believing the origin of the message.

Ofcorse there is. Atheism is not dogmatic. Whats your point by the way?

That just because you believe (or don't believe) one way, doesn't mean it is correct. Just as how the belief of theists is not necessarily correct either.

Unless I knew the quran by heart there would be no way for me to know now would there? I'm not unfamiliar with everything in the quran, I just dont know it by heart as you obviously do.

You said you "read many parts of the Quran" yet you were incapable of reading up the verses yourself when you referred to them in an argument. Besides, I do not have the talent or time to memorize any book -- religious or not.

Not really. Attitude is of no relevance when debating facts. Besides, the attitude of the religious is far more condescending than anything I could possibly say.

Attitude is often of relevance when we have discussions here. A person with a bad attitude usually has their points ignored on here. Not to mention a bad attitude has a tendency to be in accompany to a false sense of knowledge on a subject.

I think you think you know what atheism is. But I dont think you know what it really means, nor the mechanics behind it.

Atheism really isn't a deep concept. It is the lack of a belief in a God. It isn't complex.

Bush senior was pretty much clear about what he thought about atheists.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

He's allowed to have his own opinions.

And after years of interacting online with Americans I have come to the conclusion they are not that informed about what it really means.

Ah, a blanket sentence to boot.

[Haakon]

Not believing in ghosts really doesn't do much for an argument against the message spoken by prophets. It is a reason for not believing the origin of the message.

Yes it does, it do much for an argument against the message. You think you will get 72 virgins if you die a marty death, I on the otherhand call that a delusion of the worst kind and utter ignorant.

That just because you believe (or don't believe) one way, doesn't mean it is correct. Just as how the belief of theists is not necessarily correct either.

Completely true. But whats most probable, a universe created with us in mind...or atheism?

You said you "read many parts of the Quran" yet you were incapable of reading up the verses yourself when you referred to them in an argument. Besides, I do not have the talent or time to memorize any book -- religious or not.

Yes I was unable to read up the verses myself when I referred to them because I dont havet he quran in front of me, and because I dont remember where all the different texts are.

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

For a person that dont have the time to memorize a book you seam to know an awful lot about the quran. Do you see your credibility flaw?

Attitude is often of relevance when we have discussions here. A person with a bad attitude usually has their points ignored on here. Not to mention a bad attitude has a tendency to be in accompany to a false sense of knowledge on a subject.

Difference is though, you think my dislike of religion is condescending but thats simply a matter of perception. If you want real condescending attitudes fo read the bible or quran, its books written specifically for people who are unable to think for themselves.

Atheism really isn't a deep concept. It is the lack of a belief in a God. It isn't complex.

Theres a whole series of mechanics behind atheism.

To look up at the stars and question the universe is atheism. Its impossible to be atheist without asking questions and thinking about the deeper things in life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

He's allowed to have his own opinions.

Ofcorse he is. Did I ever say he wasnt? That a man like that can be elected president says a lot about a society. A democracy gets the leaders it deserve.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yes it does, it do much for an argument against the message. You think you will get 72 virgins if you die a marty death, I on the otherhand call that a delusion of the worst kind and utter ignorant.

I think I will get 72 virgins...? News to me.

Completely true. But whats most probable, a universe created with us in mind...or atheism?

Atheism itself doesn't pose a theory that is contrary to "a universe created with us in mind". I would merely say I have no reason to believe that the universe was created for us.

Yes I was unable to read up the verses myself when I referred to them because I dont havet he quran in front of me, and because I dont remember where all the different texts are.

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

Somewhat, since what you copied had the verse in which it was supposedly from. Sura 2, Verse 282 was one of them.

For a person that dont have the time to memorize a book you seam to know an awful lot about the quran. Do you see your credibility flaw?

Are you saying in order to know of verses in the Qur'an, I must memorize the Qur'an in its entirety? And no, I don't see my credibility flaw.

Difference is though, you think my dislike of religion is condescending but thats simply a matter of perception. If you want real condescending attitudes fo read the bible or quran, its books written specifically for people who are unable to think for themselves.

In regards to that last sentence, that is entirely your opinion and is incredibly condescending. You are suggesting that followers of Islam or Christianity are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Theres a whole series of mechanics behind atheism.

To look up at the stars and question the universe is atheism. Its impossible to be atheist without asking questions and thinking about the deeper things in life.

Wikipedia states that, "Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism"

That is all there is to it. What you are talking about is not a feature exclusive to any set of beliefs whether it be atheism or theism.

While atheists almost always are inquisitive about the world they live in and the purpose of different concepts in life, the only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in a god or gods.

Ofcorse he is. Did I ever say he wasnt? That a man like that can be elected president says a lot about a society. A democracy gets the leaders it deserve.

The man wasn't elected on the premise that he had a -- to say the least -- unfavorable opinion of atheists.

[Haakon]

Atheism itself doesn't pose a theory that is contrary to "a universe created with us in mind". I would merely say I have no reason to believe that the universe was created for us.

Yes it does, as atheism accepts the theory of evolution and science. Its pretty much impossible to be atheist and not belive in evolution nor science.

Are you saying in order to know of verses in the Qur'an, I must memorize the Qur'an in its entirety? And no, I don't see my credibility flaw.

No I'm not saying that. But you seam to know more about it than the average person and its blatantly obvious your knowledge of it goes beyond curiosity.

You are suggesting that followers of Islam or Christianity are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Yes they are. They need badly written books to instruct them on how to live their lives.

Wikipedia states that, "Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism"

Yes thats correct. But whats most plausible? The existance of god or the non existance. Your argument answers itself.

That is all there is to it. What you are talking about is not a feature exclusive to any set of beliefs whether it be atheism or theism.

In order to belive in a fly healing itself after being dipped in a drink requires you to disable a vital part of your brain. The same goes for believing in peope being able to walk on water.

While atheists almost always are inquisitive about the world they live in and the purpose of different concepts in life, the only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in a god or gods.

And why do you not belive in a god?

The man wasn't elected on the premise that he had a -- to say the least -- unfavorable opinion of atheists.

He was elected because he was a good old fashion god fearing christian, a man of values, or morals and other lies religious people like to make up about themselves.

[Sher Khan]

....

So basically you're criticizing something without a basic understanding of it or without having basically read it for yourself.

Basically.



A man should have the integrity to call out something on a lie, an error, a misunderstanding, an inconsistency, and more. Just because this lie/error/misunderstanding also happens to coincide with your personal philosophy (i.e. criticism of the Quran with no real understanding of it and misinformation) doesn't make it any less ****.

It is wrong from any angle, and the correct response is, "I apologize and will seek to further understand the issue at hand so that I may speak on it with actual knowledge and authority," rather than "you seem to know an awful lot about dem Muslims, you closet Muslim."

[Dr. Croccer]

It should be clear that the command to fight is only against those who either fight against the Muslims on account of their religion or drive them out from their homelands. Those who spread this misinformation about Islam usually read the Qurán with a biased mind, and in trying to find inaccuracies in the Qurán they usually end up constructing false ideas based on verses taken out of context. Thus they mislead many innocent people far from the truth. Throughout history, there have been people who have tried to propagate false ideas about Islam. Such people are usually those who remain arrogant inspite of knowing the truth and are bent on giving lordship to others besides God. In the sight of God, will they not then be on the losing side?

Um, I was being sarcastic. Why do people on this board fail to notice it so much? I'm on your side, if it wasn't obvious enough. I was disproving (not really like I needed to) Haakon's claims that the Koran is intolerant and racist, whatever that means.

And I know the schematics of the Jihad (struggle).

[Haakon]

....

So basically you're criticizing something without a basic understanding of it or without having basically read it for yourself.

Basically.



A man should have the integrity to call out something on a lie, an error, a misunderstanding, an inconsistency, and more. Just because this lie/error/misunderstanding also happens to coincide with your personal philosophy (i.e. criticism of the Quran with no real understanding of it and misinformation) doesn't make it any less ****.

Eh?

I'm criticizing the ideals behind monotheism. I do not need to know anything by heart in order to have an opinion about cults formed by power hungry men in order to gain power and that eventually evolved into religions.

all the monotheistic religios have trademarks such as being intolerant towards women, gays, atheists and people who dont agree with them. I keep my integrity in tact by be pointing out these issues as the very basics of these religios are hostile towards mankind and the evolution of man.

Reason and science is highly corrosive to religion, and I have no issues with speaking my mind about it. If peoples faith is trong enough to actually belive in magic and invisible friends then their faith should be strong enough to endure critical questions and opinions.

I shall remind you that religion is not an exact science, its fiction. YOu dont really need a degree in it in order to have an opinion on it.

It is wrong from any angle, and the correct response is, "I apologize and will seek to further understand the issue at hand so that I may speak on it with actual knowledge and authority," rather than "you seem to know an awful lot about dem Muslims, you closet Muslim."

Listen. When a person gets on the defensive about religion while knowing much about it while at the same time claiming to be an atheist without really knowing anything about atheism, then I do dare to question said persons religious view.