Up next.. 56 year old Mohamed and his 6 year old bride Aisha!

Er.. probably not.

Nice Save...!
>> ^marbles:

>> ^gwiz665:
...and mohammed, the prophet of the muslim faith, was a child rapist.

pics cartoons or it didn't happen!

>> ^gwiz665:

...and mohammed, the prophet of the muslim faith, was a child rapist.


pics cartoons or it didn't happen!

We have a law like that too.. It's bullshit and mohammed, the prophet of the muslim faith, was a child rapist.

This girl is way off about the law and its consequences. First its not like anyone in Ireland got a say in this, second its not like anyone was ever arrested or will be. This has less to do with religions power in Ireland (it has f all these days post child raping) and more to do with political correctness, multiculturalism and the danish mohammed cartoons.

Blasphemy laws were always on the Irish lawbooks going way back, since it was an offense under the 1937 constitution to be blasphemous towards christianity they had to update that for multicultural 21st century ireland. For the most incompetent, corrupt and clueless government in Irish history, the cheapest, easiest and most half assed way of doing it quickly was to pass legislation rather than having a referendum to update the constitution and thereby have a public debate which would have been universally against the blasphemy measure, even the Christian churches.

Anyway, lots of people are doing their best to be charged with blasphemy but so far no winners. Ireland has a lot of unenforced or rarely enforced laws on its books, this is just one that invites ridicule from all over the world and deservedly so.

All quite depressing really.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well put - you should be a writer or something.>> ^KotDBook:

Quantummushroom's response is why I said publishers feel it's "edgy".
You're right. Hitler and pedophiles are too easy. There are plenty of contemporary examples of why attacking Christianity is easy. The book won't deal with that (only with what's in the Bible...and zombies). The video was about why people should learn what's in the Bible.
I'm not claiming to offer up a brand-new theological paradigm. There are a ton of arguments and counter-arguments, and I'm presenting them in a narrative. The reader will decide which argument makes more sense. Is there a hell? What happens to dead babies who haven't accepted Jesus? How do you reconcile "free will" with a deity that offers immortal rewards? What does the Bible say about eating feces and drinking urine?
Since the Bible's perfect, it should stand up to questions. It has all the answers, right? So isn't exposing people to those questions a good thing? Why is exposing people to the concepts of the Bible "bashing"? Are you only allowed to pick it up if you agree beforehand to accept everything within it without question?
How do Christians expect to convert atheists and other religions to their faith if they can't learn about it? Can you only biology if you agree not to ask any questions? Okay, bad example.
And yes, there are good and bad people, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). And a few bad Popes or Holy Crusades or Inquisitions doesn't mean that every Christian is evil, necessarily.
Good luck with your Mohammed book. I'd skip the slideshow.

Quantummushroom's response is why I said publishers feel it's "edgy".

You're right. Hitler and pedophiles are too easy. There are plenty of contemporary examples of why attacking Christianity is easy. The book won't deal with that (only with what's in the Bible...and zombies). The video was about why people should learn what's in the Bible.

I'm not claiming to offer up a brand-new theological paradigm. There are a ton of arguments and counter-arguments, and I'm presenting them in a narrative. The reader will decide which argument makes more sense. Is there a hell? What happens to dead babies who haven't accepted Jesus? How do you reconcile "free will" with a deity that offers immortal rewards? What does the Bible say about eating feces and drinking urine?

Since the Bible's perfect, it should stand up to questions. It has all the answers, right? So isn't exposing people to those questions a good thing? Why is exposing people to the concepts of the Bible "bashing"? Are you only allowed to pick it up if you agree beforehand to accept everything within it without question?

How do Christians expect to convert atheists and other religions to their faith if they can't learn about it? Can you only biology if you agree not to ask any questions? Okay, bad example.

And yes, there are good and bad people, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). And a few bad Popes or Holy Crusades or Inquisitions doesn't mean that every Christian is evil, necessarily.

Good luck with your Mohammed book. I'd skip the slideshow.

"Edgy?"

For your clever representation of Christianity you select the mentally-deranged vermin of a "church" already universally despised and condemned by an overwhelming majority of Christians.

Why that's like making child rapist roman polanski the poster boy for all H-wood directors!

Yes, the Holy Bible endorses slavery, but it was Christian abolitionists in America and England leading the fight to end that evil institution.

Castigating the Catholic Church (bold, courageous target!--that's never been done!) for "teaming up" with Hitler?

It's so easy and Hollywoodically-correct to bash Christianity.

A book about pedophile zombie mohammed: that's balls. Maybe I'll write that one.

Liberals don't like this Dr. Cosby as much:


We Cannot Blame the White People any Longer

By Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.

I can't even talk the way these people talk:

"Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...".

And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.

And then I heard the father talk.

Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.

People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.

The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.

These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids.

$500 sneakers for what?

And they won't spend $200 for "Hooked on Phonics."

I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.

Where were you when he was 2?

Where were you when he was 12?

Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?

And where is the father? Or who is his father?

People putting their clothes on backward. Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?

People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?

Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles (piercings) going through her body?

What part of Africa did this come from?

We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa.

I say this all of the time — it would be like white people saying they are European-American — that is totally stupid.

I was born here, and so were my parents and grand parents and, very likely my great grandparents. I don't have any connection to Africa, no more than white Americans have to Germany, Scotland, England, Ireland, or the Netherlands.

The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans as regards to Africa — so stop, already!

With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap...and all of them are in jail.

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.

We have got to take the neighborhood back.

People used to be ashamed.

Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' — or men or whatever you call them now.

We have millionaire football players who cannot read.

We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks, have to do a better job.

Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.

We have to start holding each other to a higher standard....

Mohammed VI on the phone with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Mohammed: Inorite? It's fucking bullshit! Gah...

Mahmoud: Don't worry Mo, we'll make them some bullshit false promises and they will go home.

Mohammed: Well they fucking better. You know what? This is all fucking Hosni's fault. That fucking pussy couldn't keep his fucking peasants under control. Bastard.

Mahmoud: Ya... Hosni's always been a pretty big pussy. Hey listen, Mo, I gotta go, but call me if you need me. Otherwise, I'll see you at Abdullah's next week. He's going to be fighting a bear against a lion! Yippeeee!

Mohammed: Hahaha! Ok, take care Mahmoud.

From Wikipedia:

The 2011 Egyptian protests are a series of street demonstrations, protests, and civil disobedience acts that have been taking place in Egypt since 25 January 2011. The demonstrations and riots began in the weeks after the successful Tunisian uprising, and many protesters are carrying Tunisian flags as a symbol of their influence. Specific grievances have centered around legal and political as well as economic issues: police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections, corruption, restrictions on freedom of speech, high unemployment, low minimum wages, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Mohamed ElBaradei, seen as the most likely candidate for an interim presidency, called for the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak as a possible objective.

As of January 29, at least 95 protester deaths had been reported (27 in Suez, 23 in Alexandria, 45 in Cairo), along with 10 policemen. 750 policemen and 1,500 protesters have been injured. The capital city of Cairo has been described as "a war zone", and the port city of Suez has been the scene of frequent violent clashes. The Egyptian government has attempted to break up and contain protests using a variety of methods. Anti-riot police groups have been responding to areas with shields, rubber bullets, batons, water cannons, tear gas and, in some cases, live ammunition. For the most part, the protest response has been non-lethal, although there have been fatalities. The government turned off almost all Internet accessand imposed a curfew, claiming that minimizing disruption from the protests is necessary to maintain order and to prevent an uprising of fundamentalist Islamic groups.

International response to the protests has generally been supportive with most governments and organizations calling for non-violent responses on both sides and peaceful moves towards reform. The protests have captured worldwide attention due to the increasing integration of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms that have allowed activists and onlookers to communicate, coordinate, and document the events as they occur. As the level of publicity has increased, the Egyptian government has made increasing efforts to limit internet access, especially to social media. On the eve of major planned protests on Friday, 28 January, a nationwide internet and mobile phone "blackout" began, though before dawn the following morning it was reported that the blackout for cell phones had ended.

This is basically what religions have been doing for thousands of years - drowning out the other voices. We have the one true word, so sayeth Rachel Maddow/Glenn Beck/Ron Paul/Mohammed/Jesus/dag/etc.
>> ^NetRunner:

Words fail to describe how awesome this paragraph is.
I think the issue with the word "bias" is that people have forgotten the real meaning of the word. Arguments are only "bias" because it's become synonymous with "expresses a view I don't share".
The tragedy of this is kind of thinking is that it actually ends up causing a real bias: confirmation bias (or what you called "echo chamber syndrome"). This new definition of "bias" encourages people to tune out information that doesn't fit neatly into their own viewpoint because -- by definition -- it's "biased." As a result they wind up seeing only the things that confirm their preconceived notions, hence the name confirmation bias.
In my opinion, the key to living in modern society is being ever vigilant for confirmation bias in yourself, and doing your best to try to remember that no one holds a viewpoint that they themselves think is untrue.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

>> ^spaceman:

Why I don't care:
1) You once believed in a god.
2) You are a guy.


@spaceman | The reason why the rest of us watch and listen to "just some guy; who believed in God":

The only reason you can type your sentence is from/due-to "other" men. Religion in all forms is from "other" men (unless you claim to hear voices or a physical divinity; but, please, not as an affront to you, make sure you're not psychotic or schizophrenic before telling us your interesting story as that is the case almost always; same with drug use; same with some other illnesses: narcolepsy, sleep walking, night terrors/sleep paralysis, and many other sleep related issues and all nervous system illnesses). Only a few things below talk more about what you said.
--------------------------
--------------------------
A little more to add to the conversation. Hopefully, this gets it all out as it will be fairly long, but the video is hard to reply to in a short manner. I hope this covers a large extent of what I wish to say about this very well done video witness/testimony.


One set of values you can research and witness to it's validity on your own, as he has done. Science also allows for this methodology, using the well known precept of "The Scientific Method".

A quick example is that many people of faith, even Evid3nc3, talks of feeling "x" with their "hearts" and knowing "x" with their "soul". In science there is nothing more than a simple, yet complicated, physical processes. It's all a creation and manifestation in your brain; if you think you "feel" something with your heart you're causing minor self-hysteria to the extent of creating a minor hallucination.

The "soul" is called the(primarily in psychology, neuroscience, and neurology; there are many other terms that try to mean "you"; typically, in grossly inaccurate ways, such as: ghosts, "psychic" remote viewing, many religions use of the magical-energy-divine soul, etc...) psyche which is typically (starting from the outer-functions and moving into core-functions) sensory systems, language center, feelings, memory, and then the key-piece the neo-cortex. So it must be understood that your brain does a lot of things still baffling (mostly the mechanics or mechanisms of function and chemistry), but the overall picture is fairly clear.

But, the brain is not a floating energy source, nor is it an absolute definition at any given point or time. Depending on how and where you look at the brain the very concept of you is different. It more akin to superposition of an electron or a kaleidoscope; the definition of you is not concrete until measured and even then you are already not what was measured.

Even from what little we do know, belief plays a central role in how our neo-cortex makes decisions and operates (even with memory and other functions, which is why we do make many mistakes as it's due to how our brain physically commits to anything it must or will do; it's perhaps the single best reason to show why, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."; you don't understand the human condition if you cannot forgive...). Could this translate into a bigger picture; our connected neurons telling us to accept faith and belief, sometimes, because that is what it does at the small scale?

*Offtopic Look up articles, books, and videos (look at TED for Marvin Minsky, Jeff Hawkins, Craig Venter, Jonathan Haidt and others --some of which are here on the sift-- related topics on there like the Mind, AI, facial-pattern-contextual-semantics-divergent-cat vs. dog software based Recognition, and then other media pertaining to 'Artificial Intelligence') or if you want to know strictly about how the brain works and makes it's decisions, look for a type of setup called a "hierarchical structure"; also known as a pyramid or pyramid scheme. One cell makes a decision based off of the accumulations of "guesses" the other millions of cells connected to it made; these cells are fundamentally the foundation for that setup, but the neurons are more flexible than that as each can be a parent and also part of the "foundation" structure, making the brain a fantastic structure. With time this becomes accurate (this occurs in less than a few milliseconds), although our vision, for an example, is horrifically distorted and wrong, if you could look at one "frame" based on a few cells. Only a small fraction of the frame would be correct; literally it would be as though your senses got one pixel correct in a 1080p image. Yet, repeat this millions of times with different data sets each round (and this is done as said above, fast) you get an accurate picture; or at the least 20/20-to about one-arc minute (the resolution for the human eye, on average).

One set you can't test, we call that belief or faith. "What is the reasoning for taking the leap of faith?", this is what you have to defend at this point. If faith is your only defense, I will (like many others will) assume you haven't looked into your own faith enough yet or you even refuse to look out of fear of being wrong. If you do not understand the topic you must be willing to ask for help as he did or you'll be a slave to your willful decision of ignorance, to the extent that you feel compelled to defend them, but you never convince anyone except yourself--and for yourself it is only because of the rote-righteous indignation.

If it's true it should withstand all scrutiny. Unless truth isn't your ultimate goal. Then, for us and many others there is no reason to follow your faith. Usually, this type of merit and defense are directly related to age due to learning this all when you're a child and devoid of an intense ability to decipher, attribute values, connect, and draw in a belief (if with some facts and proof you could call it a hypothesis).

It's all from men... I'm wagering you're dismissing this flippantly due to religion; if not what exactly is your point, as I truly would like to know why and where this claim of non-relativistic knowledge comes from, without a woman or man?

Also, if it has to do with his belief in being mistaken for believing in God that's a moot point as we have all erred in life. I know of no person that has reliably been able to "claim divinity", other than Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc... But, we also know now that mental illness and other factors can account for any manic or psychotic leanings. We also know magicians (or magister, proper) have been around A LONG TIME.

Plus, as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Which then one must ask another question, "Can divinity itself ever be established as being magic only?". This is then rounded up by a statement from Larry Niven (sometimes called Niven's Law(s)), "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.". These collide and distinctly form a conclusion about divinity and any of it's powers (descriptive magic or divinity and it's "how to use it" manual are indefensibly getting closer in each step to being more akin to physics; plus the Christian God hates magic, which begs the question, "Why do you need a God, if we can exact the same effects?"):

Divinity can only hope to use advanced knowledge and technology in a collusion to bring about one standpoint alone: "divinity" if described by God in any kind of ruleset (some of it is in the bible, already) stands on a rigorously tested and time shown: shaky ground.

Men would be gods whether God existed or not.

(P.S.: only the beginning and some bits here and there are for you, @spaceman. The rest is for our vestibule.)

Again I must add that this is a great find @dystopianfuturetoday.
You're doing yourself a great disservice not watching it (or all of it as the case may be).

Quit sending me private messages from your sockpuppet accounts, choggie.

In reply to this comment by OmarBinHashishin:
How about sticking with this?
I am a new user who knows the member formally known as choggie, the same who created this account on his behalf upon request.
He described a scenario in which the actions or inclinations of a few douchebags on the site who for lack of administrative mandate or simply users with an opinion who otherwise tend to remain voiceless by withholding judgment for sake of spectacle or novelty, are suffered.
At first glance, and a second, I would tend to agree that some are not commandeering the cart for the sake of the passengers. Why then, would I be addressing you?

No problem with it, consider the matter "taken up" with dag or lucky.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Your use of pseudo-intellect reminds me of an old not-friend who liked to say the same thing. And this comment came out of nowhere, didn't it?

And how generous of you to give the 10th vote on choggie's last six videos that were published:

http://videosift.com/video/Bob-Andy-Marcia-Young-Gifted-and-Black
http://videosift.com/video/Judas-Priest-S-I-N-N-E-R-1982-Mid-South-Coliseum-Memphis
http://videosift.com/video/Bike-Tricks
http://videosift.com/video/Buzzcocks-Orgasm-Addict-Live-London-1989
http://videosift.com/video/Rasta-Gourmet
http://videosift.com/video/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-Confirmation-Hearing-Excerpt

I know you weren't trying that hard this time, choggie. Chic's working out pretty well for you, so why not stick with that.

Ban.

And as usual, if anyone has a problem with this, take it up with @dag or @lucky760.

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