Yeah we bringin you the hardcore, the real raw type shit
You ain't never seen nothing before like this
Its all real, all ill, and all natural
We all kill, all still, an blast at you
I like blood, I like tasting ya flesh
I like slugs, I like David Koresh
I like anything thats related to death
I like any king that can reign with his fist
Now back to the topic at hand
Steadily Shine, Shine Steadily with my fam
Im the one who put the nail in the cross
I'm the one who told the world about an alien corpse
I'm the one who brought the truth to the light
If you listening to me you couldn't lose in a fight
Abusing the mic, with the force of five lions
Anybody fuckin with Paz can die trying

I'm a caged lion, always dying to hurt you
Always a believer that my rhymings a virtue
You just a heathen, and you lie like the church do
I can't believe that Allah hasn't cursed you
You too commercial, you still a disgrace
You like to sit around with women watching Will & Grace
I can't over-stand your sweetness
You should try hire a therapist to beat this
I'm being facetious, you should heed this
I'm the one who hammered the first nail in Jesus
I'm the definition of Toxic
Anyone who ever got close to me got sick

We like heavy metal, listening to Sepultura
Remain calm, study Islam, and read Torahs
You can't follow the paths of Mans Hill
You can't study the math and can't ill
You can't over-stand what I believe
You drown in an ocean of God and can't breath
It's like I've been involved with beef
Since the days that i lost my teeth
with the god and reef
I learn how to worship Allah
I learn how to rhyme, and I teach it to yall
I'm speakin to yall
Its hardcore, real rap
Real Slugs, Real Clips and Real Gats
You real wack, and thats how I feel
And thats the reason that I got a reason to kill

Yeah.. follow me daddy
Jedi Mind
What's the fuckin deal

I would like to add to and refine IAmTheBlurr's comments.

I haven't thought about this specific point much, but it does seem reasonable to say that atheism is not a belief system. This would mean that, in addition to the possible atheistic comments Blurr listed above, we could add "Huh? A god? What's that?". That is, a person who had never been exposed to any supernatural idea would also be an atheist. This is the point that Sam Harris is trying to make--that atheism is the default state of a mind. I suppose this means that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, although agnosticism has the additional connotation of "and I don't care".

Incidentally, it is not the case that nothing can be said about god's existence. When it comes to considering the veracity of claims, the notion that we can only say "true", "false", or "I don't know" is an oversimplification. Instead, every claim exists on scale from 0% to 100% probability of being true. The only things that exist at 0% are those that are logically impossible, and the only things that exist at 100% are those which are a logical necessity; any claim which depends on "facts" is somewhere between, but not including, 0% and 100%. A 0% claim would be "I am standing 15 feet to my right"--a self contradiction; a 100% claim would be "I am right here". "I am on Pluto having tea with green Martians" depends on facts--observations, measurements, etc--so it can not be 0% or 100%, but we can easily imagine it's so close to 0% that in a casual conversation we would say it's impossible.

There are various definitions for "god". People learn the meanings of words not by some Matrix-like scenario where a perfect copy of the information is transferred into their brains, but by how they see the words used and not used in their everyday experiences. Every individual has a unique set of experiences, so everybody has unique definitions for every word they know. This, by the way, means it is important to define relevant words when having a serious conversation; this is done in both science and law. Any definition that is self contradictory has a 0% probability of being true. We all have contradictory beliefs; it's impossible to review every idea you've ever had every time you form a new idea. A difference between a rational person and an irrational one is that the rational person is willing to reevaluate his ideas when the contradictions are brought to his conscious attention. Any god whose entire definition is "all loving, all knowing, all powerful" is arguably self contradictory if you accept disease/war/etc as true facts.

Any god definition which contradicts facts that are sufficiently close to 100%, and which has no other facts in its favor(I happen to know of no supernatural god definition with facts in its favor) will be comparatively close to 0%. So, a god that depends on creationism is so close to 0% that in casual conversation we would say such a god is "batshit lunacy". This is the case for the god defined by the Bible, as a whole, as well as those of the Torah, Koran, and most other religions.

Even if you have a god definition that is not self contradictory, and has no facts for or against it, its probability of being true will be closer to 0% than 100%. One line of reasoning works like the following. The number of possible propositions a person could make, alternatively the sea of ideas that are either true or false, is infinite. But the number of things that are true is finite(if you don't want to buy that, then "there are an infinite number of false variations of each true statement" works as well). Thus, a proposition with no facts for or against it is essentially just a random item on this list of all possible propositions, which contains more falsehoods than truths, and so the proposition is most likely false. People have intuited this on their own and it shows up in all sorts of contexts, such as the legal system's presumption of innocence.

Based on all the above, most people's idea of god is so close to 0% it's as false as the idea that the moon is made of cheese.

Full disclosure: I consider myself an atheist. I think that religion is untrue, inherently dangerous, actively harmful to individuals and society, is child abuse, and needs to be eradicated.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Now Bill, how would you feel if someone insulted Stalin or Castro or Pol Pot or Chavez or Che or Chomsky or Kucinich or Nader or Obama?


what's that gotta do with anything in this video?

Oh noes... he criticized the Torah! How courageous.
God: "Exit, stage right even..."

>> ^Morganth:
Bill conveniently left out the preceding words that say "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt."
The Amalekites didn't simply attack the Israelites when they were leaving Egypt, they actually attacked and slaughtered the group of them that was lagging behind i.e. the elderly, the sick, pregnant women, young children - tens of thousands of them.


Of course, and what's more, it all actually happened and ancient historians were there to measure and count the numbers of all the fallen so that no account in the bible would be exaggerated or any number hyper-inflated.

>> ^Morganth:
Bill conveniently left out the preceding words that say "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt."
The Amalekites didn't simply attack the Israelites when they were leaving Egypt, they actually attacked and slaughtered the group of them that was lagging behind i.e. the elderly, the sick, pregnant women, young children - tens of thousands of them.


That's right! Eye for an eye makes it a completely justified genocide.

Your video, Bill Maher Criticizes The Torah, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying, and you're certainly way more schooled that me.

It is of course dangerous to generalise from anecdotes - I threw them in because clearly I now have a bias and they're part of the reason why.

Maybe there's something in the practice of modern Islam that's not working.

I tell you what's funny is that when I went to church for the funeral in June I remembered *everything*, all the amens and hosanna in the highests and exactly when to stand up or kneel. And this is after many years of not going to church.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
former catholic eh?
many people come to me from the ecclestiastical teachings of catholicism very confused.
cant blame them...the doctrine of the church is contradictory to the teachings of jesus,and the papacy has for centuries amended doctrine when it so suited them.
which is EXACTLY my point.
substitute catholic for muslim and my point my become clearer.
religious dogma and doctrine has always been the whipping tool of those who hold the reigns.preying on the weak,poor and ill-educated to submit to a doctrine that is contradictory to the teachings of <fill in holy messenger HERE>.
i could spend hours debunking the biblical (quran,torah,KJV) scriptures that have been misused to perpetuate a misnomer on:womens rights,sexuality,marriage,sin etc etc eeeeeetc.
most atheists i know are not in reality atheists,just agnostics who have peeked through the veil of the church and found it lacking.
many of them are angry,feeling betrayed by an institution that so often stated that they were right.
no...they werent.
the thing i find most funny is that every spiritual "leader"(if i may)has denounced the church of that time as being a form of evil fomenting more evil.
but i digress (i know..shocker),
my point is that islam has enriched human society tenfold.
by creating the most egalitarian society 500 a.d
womens rights 525 a.d
property rights 525 a.d
the continuation of sciences,so while europe got bogged down in the 600 yr dark ages and the church raped the countryside with its inquistitions,islam was not only preserving but helping to restore as much of the library of alexandria as it could.
fairness,justice,honesty virtues held in huge regard.
humility and reverence for all creation.
these are worthy things to admire.

maybe its the history teacher in me,i tend to look at information in giant blocks.the ebb and flow of time,forces of social upheavel and political unrest changing one national landscape to form into another.philisophical tectonic plates if you will.sometime i forget the here and now.
the teachings of mohamhed and jesus are poignant and wise.
i do not like the polarized nature of our countries,it only leads to danger.
i am sorry that the situation is where its at in your country.
by your response i can never know,but i can guess:
the newly immigrated islamic community is using its religion to strongarm the rest of the community to bend to the churches wishes.
i shall look more into this,i welcome any anecdotes you may wish to reveal.
while i still feel the billions of muslims are being misunderstood due to these few who butcher a beautiful text to garner their desires.
that is NOT from islam..nor christianity for that matter.
but they keep saying thats exactly what the text says dont they?
and they could not be more wrong.
those who are unfamiliar with islamic text base their assumptions on these selfish people.
sad sad sad....
what could have been a good and righteous thing is now an instrument of divisiveness.
bah...rambling again.
thank you for the reply my friend,i do hope this makes a modicum of sense.
namaste.

former catholic eh?
many people come to me from the ecclestiastical teachings of catholicism very confused.
cant blame them...the doctrine of the church is contradictory to the teachings of jesus,and the papacy has for centuries amended doctrine when it so suited them.
which is EXACTLY my point.
substitute catholic for muslim and my point my become clearer.
religious dogma and doctrine has always been the whipping tool of those who hold the reigns.preying on the weak,poor and ill-educated to submit to a doctrine that is contradictory to the teachings of <fill in holy messenger HERE>.
i could spend hours debunking the biblical (quran,torah,KJV) scriptures that have been misused to perpetuate a misnomer on:womens rights,sexuality,marriage,sin etc etc eeeeeetc.
most atheists i know are not in reality atheists,just agnostics who have peeked through the veil of the church and found it lacking.
many of them are angry,feeling betrayed by an institution that so often stated that they were right.
no...they werent.
the thing i find most funny is that every spiritual "leader"(if i may)has denounced the church of that time as being a form of evil fomenting more evil.
but i digress (i know..shocker),
my point is that islam has enriched human society tenfold.
by creating the most egalitarian society 500 a.d
womens rights 525 a.d
property rights 525 a.d
the continuation of sciences,so while europe got bogged down in the 600 yr dark ages and the church raped the countryside with its inquistitions,islam was not only preserving but helping to restore as much of the library of alexandria as it could.
fairness,justice,honesty virtues held in huge regard.
humility and reverence for all creation.
these are worthy things to admire.

maybe its the history teacher in me,i tend to look at information in giant blocks.the ebb and flow of time,forces of social upheavel and political unrest changing one national landscape to form into another.philisophical tectonic plates if you will.sometime i forget the here and now.
the teachings of mohamhed and jesus are poignant and wise.
i do not like the polarized nature of our countries,it only leads to danger.
i am sorry that the situation is where its at in your country.
by your response i can never know,but i can guess:
the newly immigrated islamic community is using its religion to strongarm the rest of the community to bend to the churches wishes.
i shall look more into this,i welcome any anecdotes you may wish to reveal.
while i still feel the billions of muslims are being misunderstood due to these few who butcher a beautiful text to garner their desires.
that is NOT from islam..nor christianity for that matter.
but they keep saying thats exactly what the text says dont they?
and they could not be more wrong.
those who are unfamiliar with islamic text base their assumptions on these selfish people.
sad sad sad....
what could have been a good and righteous thing is now an instrument of divisiveness.
bah...rambling again.
thank you for the reply my friend,i do hope this makes a modicum of sense.
namaste.

great post GEO!
so basically netanyaho is saying:
"we shall have all the weapons and control and you all can have a flag and an anthem and THEN we shall call you a palestinian state"
and the collosal prick award goes to........
i think we can also give a douche award to britain for amending the balfor declaration giving converted khazars 55% of palestinian lands in 1922.
and lets not forget america in 1948 for rushing like a horny teenage boy to vote its new girlfriend ISREAL into nationhood.

the isreali/palestinian conflict is probably the largest propagator of muslim extremism towards the western world,and is not easily going to be rectified.
who profits?that is my question...
because as usual,it is the common man,the poor that pays the price for the arrogance of the political,influential and the elite.
and by what right do the converted khazars claim isreal?
aaaah..thats right.a book.
lovingly called the bible.or torah..no matter.
this travesty of humanity makes me crazy with rage.the millions that have suffered in the name of god,that still suffer today.
self-righteous murdering fucktwits,
in the name of god?
my ass.

ok....
this is pure tripe.
first,there is no sign of a debate.
for a debate to happen there has to be two opposing views.
second,while this teacher may have had a "born-again" experience,which is fine,he seems to be more prosyletizing than debating,which is not fine in the realms of a "debate".
i have seen kent hovind debate,his skills are less than extraordinary,and is usually left shackled by his own inept and circular logic by an experienced person of science.think it was dr bennet,but i could be mistaken.
the man built a museum in order to perpetuate his premise that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.that alone disqualifies him in any rational discussions about creation.
mr hovind claims to be an evangelical,but in actuality he is a fundamentalist.
the written word IS the word of god...period.
to entertain any other theory,premise or reality is to deny his whole belief system.this is the main reason he promotes creationism so fervently.
the fact of the matter is:the bible is the written word of man and anybody who looks deeper into the matter will see that plainly.

so let me throw my two cents here:
first:there are 66 books in the bible (73 if you are catholic),yet there are in actuality 267 books of the bible,all by biblical authors.
why so many books not included in the bible?
nicea council of 325 a.d emperor constantine played a large role in its canonization.understand that before this time christianity looked far different than the christianity you see today,the current christian churches roots started in 325 a.d.
the bible contains the gospels (the good news) of mathew,mark,luke and john.
but there are actually 24 gospels.
*for all you heretics out there i suggest reading the gospels of mary,judas and thomas.you might enjoy the revelations of paul also.all are apocryphal books.
second:understanding that in the time of the biblical writings of the old testament (from the hebrew torah),sacred geomancy,astrology,numerology and a huge dose of superstition,influenced almost all religious texts.they were almost entirely metaphorical.
for example..the book of genesis,which has been written and re-written over and over,is actually a metaphorical representation of the tetragrammaton,which in itself is a graphic representation of creation itself,yet having little,or nothing,to do with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
to use the book of genesis,and all its obvious flaws,to explain and argue the validity of biblical creationism,is not only a poor platform,but lacks imagination.
the only reason i can surmise that seemingly intelligent people keep re-visiting this dead horse,is that they believe whole-heartedly in the "word",
and to allow any other belief is tantamount to having to rebuke god.
this is the fundamental flaw in..well...fundamentalism.
when your belief system is so rigid,based in bad science and even worse theology,you are doomed to either break or dismiss all evidence as heresy.
this is dark ages material,and should be rejected,but sadly its not.

one final note...
if the definition of science is:the study and observation of the natural,physical universe through testing and experimentation,to reach a consensus based on theory and fact.
and if you believe there is a creator.
a creator who created the known physical universe.
would it not then make sense that science is actually the study of god?
is that NOT a more poetic,and beautifully harmonious way of looking at the universe?
because to me science reveals creation to be a much more complex,profound and poetic place than the book of genesis.
who wants to be dust and a rib?
booooooring.
now the story of a single-cell organism fighting,scratching and ultimately co-operating with other single-cell organisms to form more complex,and ultimately what we see today.creatures of all unique and incredible forms.
now THATS impressive!
so ends todays sermon..
please dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses.
next week!
sink or swim wednesdays!

>> ^solvent:
how come he never speaks against the jewish religion??? is he a jewish???

Lets see, that would be the Torah, or Old Testament as some call it..

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Richard Dawkins

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Pi: Hebrew Torah/Fibonacci Sequence (Darren Aronofsky film). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

The 9/11 attacks were carried out for explicitly religious reasons?

I disagree with that, Al-Qaeda like the Taliban uses a very nuanced and selective reading of the Islam, subverting almost all the conduct rulings mentioned in the Qu'ran with regards to warfare, specifically that you do not attack civilians. The 9/11 attacks were carried out because AlQ wanted to nullify the American status of being a world power untouched by violence, hoping that it would illicit a reaction which it and much more given that it allowed AlQ to increase recruitment through the way the US invaded Iraq and the implementation of torture.

Religion has always been used as an ideological system used to brain wash people into committing horrible violent acts, Islam doesn't really advocate subjugation of other religions, if it really did you would see the entire Islamic world rise up against the West. But it does do it? No because the actual teachings of Islam does not support terrorism. Neither does the Bible or Torah support violent attacks yet whole nations carry them out while praying to their gods.

Just as Christianity was used to fuel the Spanish Inquisition to get rid of whole swathes of people from Jews and Muslims to other civilians in Spain, so is Islam used to push forward violent acts. Religion is always used to reach a means to an end.

Furthermore it basically nullifies the actual issues the Arab world has against the US, specifically their continuous support of corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the unlawful invasion of Iraq and its continuing problems and the staunch defense of Israel in the peace process with Palestine.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Pat Condell doesn't even know who the fuck Geert Wilders is or what he stands for.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascist-Exposed-Geert-Wilders-on-R
adical-Islam
Watch Wilders squirm under questioning when interviewed by BBCs Hard Talk and expose himself as a fascist who just doesn't like immigrants.


The thing is : In this case it doesnt matter if Geert Wilders eats babies for breakfast, he is being charged for making a movie that is strictly critical towards ISLAM. Period. It doesnt matter if you, me or Condell agrees or sympathizes with whatever Geert Wilders say, In this matter, he is being charged for essentially blasphemy, if anything..

I know very little about Mr. Wilders, and he might be the biggest asshole on the planet, Judging from the HardTalk interview, I certainly disagree with him on many points, For instance, he wants To use "administrative detention" to round up people who are hostile to his "Values", which essentially means that he is hostile to his own values and should be in detention himself..

The point is that in any case, its all OPINIONS, just like "Allah Ackbar, All infidels are dirt" is an opinion. Both may be good or bad or disgusting, depending on who hears them, but they shouldnt be illegal.

If a Muslim makes a movie with quotes from the Torah, and images of children being slaughtered by IDF's bombs, Many will probably find it offensive, perhaps inaccurate, but unless it ends with "Kill all the Jews", it is still entirely within our Free Speech rights. In America, it would be free speech no matter what, but most of Europe has "Hate Speech" laws, under which threats of violence or death against groups or individuals is illegal, and that brings us to the heart of the issue:

Has Geert Wilders threatened with, or encouraged violence or murder of groups or individuals?

No. (Well, not to my knowledge, and not in "Fitna", which is what he is charged for)

Case closed