Muhammed Ali would have ended the war in just 6 rounds. Maybe 5 on a good day.

Congratulations! Your video, George Carlin on Muhammed Ali and the Vietnam War, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 235 Badge!

Your video, George Carlin on Muhammed Ali and the Vietnam War, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Different cultural values. Alright then, @SDGundamX

The claim is that these places are examples of islamic countries 'filled with nice people'. I'm suggesting that @StukaFox's list of vicious police-states is perhaps not best chosen to illustrate this view.

There's a difference in category, isn't there, between being muslim and being japanese or american. It would be absurd to say, "I am japanese because I believe..." just as it would, "I am a muslim because I happened to be born..."

Now, we can actually make sweeping and not the less factual statements about people on the basis of their shared characteristics. Japanese people are born within such a set of geographical coordinates, or to parents who hold citizenship with the state of japan, or have naturalised following a particular procedure. Millions of people lumped together in a single sentence, and without assuming they're all alike.

Muslims, like rats or serial killers, aren't all alike and they don't all believe exactly the same things. Nevertheless by definition there really are certain specific beliefs to which they must all hew. Or show me the muslim who doesn't believe that there's a god, or that muhammed received its doctrine.

If you find basic, universal islamic beliefs repugnant (as every decent person must) then it is correct, objectively correct, to generalise your antipathy to all muslims, however many millions there may be, however widely spread. The apology from number and diversity fails completely.

Chin blow carries mechanical force from mandible directly to the skull with no soft tissue shock absorption along the way--and the direct mechanical force of the blow translates to fore-and-aft movement of the skull WITHOUT any rotation absorbing the energy---skull imparts blows force directly to soft tissue of the brain as the inertial mass of the brain leaves it standing in place, being sloshed through the normally cushioning layer of cerebral spinal fluid to make direct mechanical contact with the inside of the skull (albeit through the layers of the pia, mater and dura) ----forebrain and probably including midbrain structures---and then whipsaws backwards with a contra-coup impact on the back the brain as the head snaps back. (occiput/visual centers)

The mechanical impact of the brain tissue on the inside wall of the brain probably causes (now I'm guessing, but it's an informed guess) the neurons to respond to the blow with a mass ionic depolarization/electrical potential trigger---and concussion.

If he's only averagely unlucky, he'll also have a intra-cerebral/parenchymal micro bleeding---and if he's really unlucky, he'll keep getting in that ring and he'll end up like the NFL players with serial concussions or like Muhammed Ali. A demented, Parkinsonian cripple.

Don't get hit in the head.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

Lets do a challenge, you pick ANY religion or specific denomination of any religion on earth (except Islam) for me to draw (and specify any insult of your choice that I have to take responsibility for), and I'll draw it and post it under my real name in all the usual places. You draw prophet Muhammed just standing there, and post it everywhere under your real name.*

*If you are dumb enough to accept, I'll chicken out because I'll be worried about your safety, not mine.

to be a great man it matters what one does off the playing field (Muhammed Ali) . Trying hard and being skillful at something are not qualifications for greatness, just as receiving a large divorce settlement does not make a woman a "whore". That's to say nothing of the super inflated pay packets that are routinely handed out to top sports people. Sounds like a bitter misogynist.

Defining the term is to me a largely semantic issue. The way I see it, most atheists are also agnostics, and most agnostics are atheists. The dictionary definition I would say is that atheists answer in the negative to questions like "Do you believe in God/That Jesus was the sun of god/that god created the universe/that Muhammed talked to god/other religious claims"

No, I do not believe in any of those things. Thus I am an atheist.

I am also an agnostic, because I can never be sure of anything. There might be tooth fairy for all I know.

Someone who calls themselves "agnostic" and avoids the term atheist, well, I cant speak for them, but I suppose they almost believe in god or something, or think its 50/50 or think that it is impossible to make up your mind.

To me, personally, It seems silly and non-descriptive for my view to use the term agnostic, since I'm agnostic about everything. I have no faith in any religious claim. so non-theistic, or a-theistic is a better fit to describe my view.

I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

Faith isn't based on feelings. Some people may serve God because it makes them feel good, but they are the people who fall away in times of trouble. I serve God because He is God, and He has let me know that in an undeniable way. Believe me, God can give you revelation to the extent that you would say "Lord, it is enough".

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Do you know why there are similarities between Christianity and Islam? Most people don't seem to know this but Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism. There is no difference between Muhammed and Joseph Smith. The only difference is, one came 600 years after Christianity and the other 1800 years. They are both men who spoke with angels and received "new" revelation, which totally contradicts everything in the bible, then wrote new books and claimed it was authoratative over the Old and New Testaments. They're both counterfeit, cultist religions based on Christianity. This is what the bible says about receiving new revelations from angels:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

So, when it comes down to it, it is all revolving around the central claim of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

It isn't a matter of convincing yourself of anything, it is matter of God giving you revelation that He exists. He gives this revelation to those who dilligently seek Him. Neither is empiricism the measure of reality because there are many things that empiricism cannot prove.

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

There are things that even science must assume is true, such as the uniformity in nature. Science can't be done without that fundemental assumption. The same goes for the laws of logic. Where do they come from? Where do you get absolute laws from in this ever changing material reality? Where Why is nature uniform? If you are interested in logic you should investigate these questions.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

What I am saying is that isn't a matter of just knowing, it is a matter of revelation. There are two ways to know something about God. To either be omnipotent yourself, or receive revelation from an omnipotent being. God gives a general revelation in the Creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is facing the evidence that God exists, and He also gives a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^quantumushroom:

You want to promote Islam? PROVE you're not following the edicts of the warlord muhammed. PROVE your religion as practiced in America is tolerant of other faiths and free of honor killings and sharia law.

How would one go about proving such things? They can swear up and down that they meet whatever requirements you demand and they'll just be called liars.

Every culture "new" to America deserves to be poked and prodded. We have a RIGHT to know who our neighbors are and what they believe. When PC bullsh1t prevails, you get an end run around common sense and build mistrust. You want to promote Islam? PROVE you're not following the edicts of the warlord muhammed. PROVE your religion as practiced in America is tolerant of other faiths and free of honor killings and sharia law.

Got into an argument with my dad about why the muhammed drawings were made, and he was all apologetic "why do we need to offend?" and so on. So I got pissed off and argued about principles, and censorship and changed all my avatars to this as a response.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Like your new profile pic ;

>> ^marinara:
like this. Sounds like a classic conversion. Paul from the bible would understand this guy.
This is classic evangelical material. If you don't like this, you would hate Billy Graham. (or any evangelical video)


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
The only book that refers to Jesus of Nazareth more than the New Testament is the Quran.
Jesus is the second most beloved prophet in all of Islam.


That's true, but it also denies Christs divinity and says that a lookalike took his place on the cross and he didn't really die. That alone makes it an antichrist religion, by definition. Not to mention the fact that they don't follow anything He said..so, I would say if they really loved Him they would follow Him.

They also believe He is coming back and not muhammed, which in itself is strange, but they also say when He comes back He will die. It's all messed up. I'm happy they like Jesus but it's not going to do them any good.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, what this is saying is that God has made His existence plain to you. Your idol worship suggests that you prefer a dead god over the living one, probably because it doesn't demand anything of you, like to stop sinning. This is empty and vain, and even if you mean it as a joke I know you're only half-kidding. Which is why I am warning you, because this is a serious sin. It would be better for you to just remain an atheist and believe in nothing than to engage in idol worship.


Surah: 112
Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

I am warning you, for Allah is the one true God, and Muhammed is His Messenger. He has made His existence plain to you, yet you dare worship your false idol Jesus Christ. Sin at your own peril.