that's right, i didn't say shit. that was my whole point. i didn't say shit because most of that criticism and "blasphemy" in the early days of this site did not come from a place of total fucking stupidity, like it does with you.

you don't "offend" me, brian. it seems like you wish you did. pretty much nothing offends me, and it would damn sure take someone with a lot more brains than you to even come close to doing it. you annoy me. there's a difference. offense come from the content of a person's ideas. annoyance comes from a deficiency in a person's character.

and i am absolutely open to question. people ask me question me all the time. old seer just questioned me one on this very thread. unlike you, i answer those questions straight up, if i can. unlike you, if i can't, i say i don't know. you, on the other hand, deflect, dodge, ignore, flee, and you certainly never admit you don't have something figured out. you're a coward and a liar. those are the things that annoy me about you.

http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-in-Danger-Join/149777/?key=ST90d1cwMHRAbS4xNjtBaDhQaXNpM0JyMXYdaiwgbllQFA==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/frc-fellow-whole-country-s-being-conscripted-pride-parade

You stupidly argued cultural differences when I am arguing that the SOURCE is the book regardless of boarders. The homophobes in the story above use the same bible to justify that absurdity that Russian Christians use to discriminate against gays. Only an idiot would claim the source is not religion and not a holy book. Arguing that others use the same book to promote compassion does not change that the source is the same. Not liking how someone "interprets" a book does not change the fact that the book is still the source.

oh, and again i'll ask, have you read the whole bible? have you read the whole quran?

Let alone the Hadith, which if I am not mistaken is far more applicable to day to day practices of Islamic culture. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was a speech given by Fatimah  (a woman) that started the path to the sunni-shia divide.  

I think you are being too generous, I think he gets everything from Harris and Dawkins and given the reading comprehension problems (which btw my previous offer to pay for an online university course still stands) I  suspect it mostly comes from tv shows like the OP.

How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book?

I can find nice stories in Harry Potter and Star Wars, but no one turns that into a religion or tries to run political parties on it.

Neither the Koran or Bible or Torrah or Talmud or Vedas were written by scientifically literate humans. They are merely tribal books refleting the societies ignorant desires of that time BACK THEN.

None of them reflect modern society or secluar pluralism. 

Today's moderates and Liberals of all reiligions are STILL getting their source of morality from the same words in the exact same books used to justify dominance and opression of others. 

Get your fucking head out of your ass. Rights and claims are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. You cannot separate the liberal left and the fundy right from the fact that they BOTH are using the same source. The key to more civility isn't walking on eggshells. The key to more civility is to stop ignoring ugly truths. No one is expecting a godless utopia and a religion free world. But morons like you are to fucking stupid to accept the reality that BOTH compassionate people and ignorant religious fascists are STILL using the same sorces.

You want women like Malala to have more rights? You want women in Saudi Arabia to be able to drive and not have to ask sexist idiot men for permission. Then stop pretending that it is cultural having nothing to do with holy books.

All you are stupidly doing is giving cover to the bullies and religious fascists.

 The part bible where Lot fucks his daughters? Dashing babies against rocks. Bears mauling kids for mere name calling? Infanticide of the Egyptian firstborn. And exactly what was the purpose of an all powerful god inflicting pain on the entire world in the form mass genocide in a flood? You stupidly going to claim there are not people who still today believe that tripe? Ask any medical doctor the pain caused by lungs being filled with water and drowning causes. If we go by that story that would mean babies and women and even non violent people drowned merely for belonging to the wrong club.

You want to cherry pick kind stories and are unwilling to take the collective motif into account. The book starts out with an absolute power. This is not an ellected official. This character does not need humans permission or consent and you will not find that anywhere in the book. He only takes kindness on those who defend him and throughout the book at best is tollerent to outsiders like a pet our house guest. But at the end of that book, even if your infraction is not believing, you still have no say in where you go in the afterlife. He is violent himself to dissent, and goes right back to revenge at the end of the book.

The kindness the god of Abraham shows in any of those books is no different than a Mafia boss. Will be kind to you as long as you do his bidding, will leave you alone at best if you do not question him, but you are fucked if you cross him or challenge him. Cherry picking the kind motifs out of it does not change the totality of the character.

how do you know it says those things? you haven't read it. you've just been told it says those things. do you know the literary and historical context? do you know how it was traditionally received by its audience? how can you criticize something you have no knowledge of?


it's just like if someone were to ask you, "what does iwbiek say?" you would no doubt tell them i say religion should be given a pass, that we should avoid offending believers, that multiculturalism is more important than anything, that I find blasphemy offensive, and that i think you want religion to be banned by force. yet anyone who would read my actual words would know i say none of those things, either implicitly or explicitly.


now, please note, i am NOT saying what the bible/quran/whatever says or doesn't say about every single issue, nor am i supporting it. i'm saying how can you KNOW what it says without actually reading it? how can you call yourself honest when you devote so much of your life to calling out sources you've never read? don't you think you should read them if you're going to condemn them? really, don't you think you should?


and again, how am I the one cherry-picking? YOU are the one taking isolated passages that have been handpicked for you by new atheist pundits totally out of context and using them to condemn the WHOLE BOOK. I, on the other hand, am talking about the WHOLE BOOK when i say there's no justification of slavery in there. you have yet to prove me wrong on that. no surprise there because you can't.