51. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183249 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Al rawandi

still distorting and you are telling same tonue twister?

A lot of Muslim people out there believe in Islam and you are trying to say opposite.

Why do you hate Islam Or Chrsitianit Or Judaism?

Or why do you hate the truth?

52. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183248 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Evolins have another title

Distorters

To Starpsongled Eagle

Hmm let me guess or assume or think,

Are you dawkins?

To Bonzai

Two blind men talking
and you started at what age?


Colwyn Abernathy

There is clown position. you fit in. bring the pictures alone.


Evolins
distorters
smearers
twisters

I think Monalisa is in the line.

53. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183072 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 10:34 am

Still you are saying same thing.
the prophet Mohammed married with aisha at the age 9 and he waited for two years. A

Second

Still you are talking about six years old creepy stuff that western sick minded people do it.

third

You are giivng me Iran where there is no real Islam teaching applied. One of my colleque is Muslim and he said there is no real islamic country on the earth?

If the iranians made a such a law, to me, it is totally wrong.

Can you defend what you defend without distorting?

54. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183067 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 10:25 am

(Notice that Al-Rawandi has not insulted your wife. Don't insult Anna.)

Insulting 1. 5 billion people's prophet is a very big insult. And I never meant to insult and i just asked questions. That means i did not use you and verb but i used helping verb and subject refering to an analogy.

Second mutual respect is a civilized manner for civilized societies.

55. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183060 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 10:13 am

Colonialism of the distorting Mind"

Al rawandi

When I told you that you are twisting and distorting, you said, "No"
Let me clear what you said,

"Once a woman was washing the whole clothes since the semen was on it for fear that their prayers will not be okay. Then Aisha told her that she could wash the dirty part only, which will be enough for praying proving that she once did the same for the prophet's clothes."

Please when you say something say the beginning and ending; So IT IS NOT BRAGGING!

WHO SAID WHAT, WHERE WHEN AND WHY?

We, western societies try to judge religions with the present circumstances, perceptions, conceptions and conditions which lead us not understand the religions and their people. Or worse we know the truth but we still distort it to feed our beaten egos.

The marriage of the Prophet Muhammad(P) to cAishah bint Abû Bakr when she was at quite a young age has been the focus of quite a bit of criticism in the West. Unfortunately, in this Neo-Colonialist Age of Smart bombs, MTV and the Big Mac, some of those who profess to be Muslims have themselves become critics. Many Muslims, faced with the juggernaut of allegedly "universal" Western liberal values that have permeated almost everyone around them, sheepishly avoid discussion of such "embarrassing" Islamic issues. It is a keenly true observation that even though the European powers have pulled their colonial armies out of Muslim lands and granted them "independence", an even worse plague continues. This curse is "Colonialism of the Mind" and it is more dangerous since it is much more subtle. Insha'Allah, this article will be a contribution to making both Muslims and non-Muslims aware of not only the objective facts regarding the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah, but how to understand it in light of Islam and life in the "modern" world.
Regrettably, for those of us trying to spread the truth of Islam in the West, we often have to agree with the Orientalist W. Montgomery Watt when he wrote:
Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.1

56. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183033 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 9:00 am

As for your post about Anna, I think that is a little out of line. I don't brag publicly about my personal life or my sexual life the way Muhammad did, or the way any number of his sexual conquests did. And frankly it is out of line to be posting such a thing about Anna.)

Sorry neither the prophet's personal life. You are first out of line and it will continue if you do so. You cannot be so ugly and a bad example on behalf atheists.

What you feel is felt by the Muslims as wel, I believe. How do you feel to get smeared? So you better stop it rather than giving advice to me.

i DON'T LIKE EITHER TO TALK ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE.

57. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183028 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 8:54 am

What does this mean shithead?

Hi my name is clearmind.

58. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183027 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 8:53 am

al rawandi you and i know that you are distorting; the following quatation is not from a we pager reader but from Orientalist scholars.

So What's The Verdict?

Overcoming cultural bias or admitting your own double standards is not always easy. For some people, it takes years for them to admit that they've been hypocritical. Hopefully, the thoughts presented here will plant the seed of reflection in some people so that they may reflect on the truth. Admitting that there's a problem is often half the battle, so before the reader heads off to make a final personal judgment on where they stand on this issue, I want to provide some more food for thought. Montgomery Watt, a long time scholar of Islam, had some choice words on how the West should judge Muhammad(P). I have never agreed with many of Watt's conclusions about Islam, but I have always viewed him as one of the more open-minded and open-hearted Orientalist scholars. Possibly, this is because he was more of a promoter of understanding than a narrow-minded Christian missionary. Years of studying Islam brought Watt to this conclusion:

The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are that he was treacherous and lustful . . . Sufficient has been said above about the interpretation of these events to show that the case against Muhammad is much weaker than is sometimes thought. The discussions of these allegations, however, raises a fundamental question. How are we to judge Muhammad? By the standards of his own time and country? Or by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today? When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam . . . From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or 'an old lecher'.10

(From the web page)

59. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183019 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

qomak on

are you al right? You are calling your name again and again? Wrong mutation? God forbid

60. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183018 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 8:42 am

Colwyn Abernathy on

Hello My name is clearmind
and you are troll as we can guess according to do our rule; thanks zara.

Is it your picture? Oh man are you a human being or a wrong calculation of blindwatcmaker?

Sorry whatever you are?

61. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183016 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 8:38 am

"Colonialism of the Mind"

Look! al Rawandi

First still you did not quit your habit: Smearing and distorting and I have to ask you the same question whatever you say about the prophet, DO YOU DO THE SAME AFTER YOU ARE DONE WITH ANNA BANANA SO YOU KNOW IT AS THE BLIND MEN ANALOGY REFERS. This is so pathetic. Self description of athesits' MIND

I am trying to be logical but you are going hateful? Why?

Why do you hate Islam or Muslims so much?

Were you a Muslim before? Or you are a google finder keeper because I found your twisted web page but IT IS NOT A BOOK, PAL OR A LOT OF BOOKS.



LET'S HEAR THE TRUTH.. Sorry I did not have soooooo many books like you, sorry JUST web pages BUT they are enough to reveal the truth
.
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html

http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/prophets-wives.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html


As anyone reads the web pages above, which you can have more, you will see the truth. The prophet Moahmmed' marriage with Aisha is legal and other wives became a messenger reciting Hadiths and deliver them to other women. The web pages have enough information.

Will smearing on prophets and distorting the truth about Islam and prophets prove that evolution is correct?

You read a lot books about Islam and the hadiths that Mustesriks made it to distort Islam.

AGAIN WHAT IS YOOUR PROBLEM WITH Islam?

TAKE IS EASY BUDDY. It is not good to distort too much.

62. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182974 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 7:04 am

To epeeist

Let's think it over. One day british newspaper made the headlines that a guy was caught and arrested for child abuse but they kept the name classified since the guy is famous or trying to be famous. So that guy is , say, Dawkins. Then what? Can we consider all atheists are child-abuser? No we can't. The same story. The wrong personalities or misdeed will not bring any harm to any divine religion which definetely forbids any child or wife abuse. Bad examples will not cover the truth since they are mud and the sun cannot be covered by mud.

63. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182961 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 6:49 am

(Muhammad was a child abuser... and he was a Prophet, can't say he isn't a believer.)

Al rawandi

You are smearing and distorting again buddy. I spent one week out Prophet Mohammed's life and I challenge everybody here to do the same thing if they find any event like this(not from your imagination) in his life and any other prophets' life.

His life is vastly written in diffrent Muslim writers so you can't distort the truth just because you want to prove that some Christians priests committed child abuse or to win your argument.

Child abuse is again a sickness of mind where there is no REAL FAITH IN GOD OR NEVER FAITH IN AT ALL.

Now some atheist people did some child abuse then can i say all atheists are child abuser? I can't. I did not see any of you doing such a bad thing neither did you.

By the way, evolins are the supporters of evolution.

64. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182953 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 6:40 am

Al rawandi says with good English
you don't know truths

(Learn some English buddy...)

Yeah you're right. stsrting with you?

Truth is uncountable. oops!

65. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182949 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 6:34 am

Clearmind- what religion do you believe in? What nationality are you?

Hmm accroding to this web page
I am Russian
I am pakistain
I am Malasian
I am Turkish
I am Hungarian(!)

according to al rawandi
I am muslim because I ate the cake(!) This is really funny. Oh man my gray brain cells have so much fun today

to others I am Christian

To me
I am a beleiver like in Shrek movie, who will defend any divine religion.

Maybe I am angel since you tick my name and you got none and as angel if I curse Al rawandi that he can get such a mental sickness that he can scream like pee in my ears pee in my ears, but I would not do that maybe I would who knows

66. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182940 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 6:26 am

(Clearmind can't even figure out that I was just trying to get his goat)

Nope! Your comments are full of sexual implications and insults.

So
As an atheist, why are you so much interested in sex? Is this typical? Or is it just you?

67. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182938 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 6:22 am

(that these "holy books" contain about as much truth as "Noddy and Bigears go to Toytown"
that classifying women as property and allowing them to be both physically and sexually assaulted is despicable now and was despicable when their religion was invented
that the rape of 9 year old girls is unacceptable)

As statitics say that in my country Usa and England child kidnapping are very common. and the guys who caught are not believers, at least indeed real believers.

Child abuse is a sick mind and a mind that has no fear of God and judgment day. So pretending, smearing and distorting and the best way to attack to cover up the sick guys' ugly things make atheists look bad? Isn't it?

68. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182933 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 6:16 am

Al rawandi loses it again?
(Clearmind can't even figure out that I was just trying to get his goat.... Hey wait, clearmind, in your part of the world, do they have sex with goats... and if so, do they count as a wife or concubine?)


(Do they have sex with goats...)

Two blind men....
and do you?

Oh you got me. I am so afraid. Please you are so smart. Oh man this guy is killing me. I have got one wife. What about you? Still you did not answer my question; How old banana is?

69. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182862 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 4:04 am

(Seriously? How has Clearmind not been banned by now? Now he's suggesting Al-Rawandi is a paedophile/involved with Fanusi, and has mentioned Anna again. What the hell?)

Ban him again? Al rawandi STARTED IT. He offended 1.5 billion Muslims already. As a believer, this is really UGLY. You keep swearing and smearing because you want to insult Jesus and other prophets? A SIGN OF WEAKNESS a sign of losing battle as a last resort. Do this kind of attitude displays what kind of personality evolins have! This is really so sad.

No intelligence allowed
No nice personality allowed.

Swearing and smearing is the ace card on this web page.

70. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182858 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:57 am

(Clearmind, are you Turkish? What do you think of Harun Yahya)

(Well he is from Turkey and his argument about creation is very overwhelming. I suggest you to read it. If you go to google and write creation of God you can have it.)

71. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182857 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:55 am

(So there are multiple "prophets", in different times, which preach this message.

There are also multiple people in different times which preach alternate messages. Yet I suspect you would not call them prophets.)

Would you please tell me which prophets say the the thinsg that conflict?

72. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182849 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:30 am

(Al, I reckon you're right about murkymind being muslim. I debated a muslim for a while and he never could understand that physical and civil laws are not the same either.)

Your brain and IQ is not enough where I am from and What religion I belong to. Keep guessing? It is getting funnier. May be I am Mormon Oops I slipped it(!)

Oh man! It is getting funnier and funnier to tease evolins' IQ if there ..........

73. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182847 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:23 am

RIMMER RIMS
(I'd assumed emptyhead was Pakistani from the speech rhythms and some of the phrases. Any chance?)
You are very smart rimmer? What is your IQ? So you don't like Pakistanis? It is not good. Now discrimnation page added.

74. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182844 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:19 am

Hadith when the Quran is held to be complete. It certainly can't be complete if there are Hadith required to fully understand God's will and all that jazz.)....

Last two weeks I spent my free time reading Qur'an's translation and the prophet Mohammed's life.
To my understanding, Hadiths are the interpretations of Qur'an and explain them in detail. They are not separated.

75. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182842 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 3:15 am

Well well evolins are at it again;
I am Christian
I am Muslim
And I am Jewish
So what?
But Thank God I am a human being that I can think I did not come from a water worm.
The funny part
Once I was Russian
Now I am Malasian
May be Pakistanise or Turkish.
Next is I am Sweden?

History repeats
To Al Rawandi AND TO THE SAME KIND AS HIM
If you want to SLANDER something using by my name or getting name same as mine or do something similar became a typical attitude of atheists, thanks to you and a few of you because you are desperate this is what an atheist does when he is stuck,; TO ATTACK congratulations, you are displaying a very good attitude on behalf of this web page. You know the rule; bad words belong to the owner of the mouth it spreads. I do not know you, but I am married and I have an eight year old daughter. I am not desperate. I am believer. The best thing is that I am not swearing, slandering, TWISTING AND BEING FUNNY UNLESS I TALK ABOUT ET when necessary.

Al growling and smearing rawandi?

How is it your slandering and smearing going? Oh man? You don't have to tell your private your life to us. But if you wanna go on, be our guest. The more you talk like that the more you describe your life to us.
You know the rule;
The actions and words of those who do. by zara


Two blind people are eating their dinner, meatballs. One blind asked, "are you eating two meatballs at a time, the other said, no I am not. Your blind friend left already. The blind said " I thought you did the same thing because I am doing the same thing.
So are you pedophile? By the way how old is Banana? Then you assume that others do the same? Are you close to Fanusi? (Apart from evolution)

The mudman got mad and started throwing mud in the sky. Unfortunately, all mud came back on him. Oops.

Al rawandi Take it easy. Don't get that mad. Swearing and slandering will not prove anything but only this page turned out to be a sexually disoriented web page after you started dating web page? A bad example

Swearing holy prophets and Jesus is not a new thing but as I said and Zara said
The actions and words of those who do. by zara



Layla are you a pretender? How come you write so well while you are not a native spaker? any mutation, evolution?

76. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182499 by clearmind on May 20, 2008 at 9:10 am

(Says who, on what grounds?
Double standards won't do.)

Many prophets lived in different times and told the same truth. There is God and there is judgment day.

What about evolution?

On what grounds you prove it? Who proved it?

77. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182498 by clearmind on May 20, 2008 at 9:07 am

(don't understand how clearmind can write this,

"Simply claiming ... won't do either. First, you'd need to supply evidence that this was the case,"

and then write this with a straight face.)



Oh man this is getting funnier. Latso you wrote something and your guys think that I wrote it. Please surrender to the authorities.

78. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182495 by clearmind on May 20, 2008 at 9:04 am

Oh man it is gonna be a long day.

Neuro

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to use an ad hominem [abusive] argument, just for my own fun. Then, I will briefly set forth a hypothesis. This hypothesis will not satisfy you, but if you were really a curious person, you would research it further.

1) Please use correct grammar.
The use of 'was' denotes sense of pastness/time.
The use of 'were' denotes situations hypothetical or contrary to fact and wishes or desires

81. Comment #181724 by latsot on May 18, 2008 at 4:23 am

ANOTHER HINT: simply claiming that society's laws are derived from religion won't do either. First, you'd need to supply evidence that this was the case and second you'd need to explain why more-or-less universal taboos against things like murder and theft pre-date formal systems of law.

Latsot, be careful there's a grammar police, but he is rookie. So he got the wrong guy.

Way to go Neuro. Way to go!

79. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #182293 by clearmind on May 19, 2008 at 3:42 pm

To al gone

first cool down. Do not continue to describe yourself with the bad words.
second,
Look chap, you are sitting in your armchair with all banana and you are trying to comment on the issues like palentines' struggle with watching only news and acting like you know it all while a little palestine girl was shot to death on the way to school or another innocent jewsih boy is dead because of suicide bombing. Do not commnet on people who are suffering on both sides just to feed your argument Ego.

How is the language of TRUTH?

80. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182291 by clearmind on May 19, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Diacanue

At least I am smarter than the guys on this web page, who are supporting evolution. BECAUSE I CAN THINK.

By the way what are the chances to write a comment for you without insulting and swearing?

At what age did you start swearing?

81. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182288 by clearmind on May 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm

To alrawandi

While you are saying ignore him, you are not ignoring? So what is your problem? At least you can do better things like writing articles and having interviews weekly to save evolution.

God, after awhile we will have another jungle, a jungle of artcles and interviews which is surely unclear to serve what?

It is not like that if I write more then i prove more that evolution is true.

Mr Dawkins, i realy wonder, what are you trying to prove?

82. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182285 by clearmind on May 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

ANOTHER HINT: simply claiming that society's laws are derived from religion won't do either. First, you'd need to supply evidence that this was the case and second you'd need to explain why more-or-less universal taboos against things like murder and theft pre-date formal systems of law.


The laws of society did not rain from the sky or mutated or evolved. God created us and taught us through his prophets and the books how to live in the world;

The physical laws of the world enable us to live safely - like gravity that we obey it and we do not jump off the building and we obey the divine laws like do not lie, kill. do adultery, be homesexual, massasre, and on.

These laws started with the first prophet Adam and passed on to other prophets.

83. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182130 by clearmind on May 19, 2008 at 8:59 am

manic-depressive on

(would truly like to know what exactly you argue. Could you please clarify, since your name suggests that you are more ague than us a-theist few?)

Sure. I started my debate with how logical evolution theory is. Logic draws the physical possibilities of any happenings. Beyond logic, God's act starts.

Now if you tell me, there was a chemical particles rain from the planets and then there you go a small pond existed. Then amino acids came to happen (in right order) or happened to exist by unexplainable luck and chances, and then, Dna popped up again all by itself and chance in the right order and code, there you go a sweet cute water worm turned up out of LUCK AND CHANCES, then we all came from a little worm. Logic will stop this comedy right away; nothing can happen by itself and without a design.

If you still don't get it, you can ask Mr dawkins.


To Phil rimmer
so I must assume from your unwillingness that your answer is YES

Assumptions became a trait of evolution;
You assume that there were planets
You assume that there were chemicals rains
You assume that chemicals made the amino acids
You assume that amino acids made DNA
You assume that DNA CREATED WORM
You assume that WORM BECAME our ancestor

This is really funny. An idea full of assumptions. If one assumption is wrong, evolution is gone forever, which was gone already.

to dingodave
("Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.")

A few quotations from me:
Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.
When dealing with people(evolins), remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity"

(Earthly masters as they would God, (Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling,)

Being a slave of my vanity, pride, prejudice assumptions, contradictions and delusions is the worst slavery.

Second we obey God not because we fear but to be grateful and thankful for creating us. The one who loves obeys whom he loves. Fear is for non-believers or atheists. For a believer, there is no fear.

(Religious people with sick mind are able to do anything since they are doing God's work and will be rewarded on Judgment day.
As my daughter says "Like same!")

People are not assigned to be prosecutor of God or carrying out God's Punishment. A true believer can't be a murderer and a murderer can't be a true believer.

If Hitler were an atheist, then, we will assume all atheists are Hitler, Is it fair? Nope.
I donna wanna say "Ignorance and prejudice is always getting in the way." So I do not say it.

84. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #182084 by clearmind on May 19, 2008 at 7:50 am

Al-gone with the evolution pops up:(Clearmind is wooter. Just ignore his pathetic ass.)

clearmind says
pathetic:miserably or contemptibly inadequate

if one guy writes three books a year, almost have three interviews, write three articles a week and his supporters do not allow any logical and scientific argument and expels the logic and logical guys by swearing and insulting, can ve call this guy Dawkins and his chaps?

Who fits in the defination of pathetic.

If I believe that i am right i would not write books again and again to try to prove that my idea is correct. Self-absorbed people can never make it. Truth is self evident so is creation while evolution needs a lot of pillars to lean on and without central pillar, logic, it is imposible to stand up.

Insulting is another pillar to defend evolution
I saw a many people by sharing their ideas, but facing swearing and insulting, they just quit. This is irritating

85. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181926 by clearmind on May 18, 2008 at 8:08 pm

To Tony
I don't know the rule. The biggest rule in language is to write what you mean, in order for it to be understood with the least margin for error.

Okay let's paraphrase it for the sake of SEMANTICS.

Bad words belong to the the mouth that pops up.

Example, IF I said you are STUPID, then, i will calling myself indeed. But i never call or insult anybody on my comments. This is an attitude of believer.

Now let's see:

Tony : (You are a credibility-free and clarity-free propounder of immature nonsense.

Clearmind, your mind is as clear as, though more potent than, a chili-fed baby's formerly empty diaper.)

Nice to meet you. I am clearmind.

86. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181924 by clearmind on May 18, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Phil said (Sick minded religites however feel that they can act as judge and jury, knowing as they do, the true mind of god. The punishments they inflict upon "possessed" children, for instance, are perhaps the purest form of evil I know.


Now he asks, (Oh and where did the quotes around "possessed" go? Don't tell me child possession is a possibility!....Is it?)

Now what?

I would not discuss something metaphysical with someone who is blinded by only physical things. It would be asking a blind man to watch a movie together.

87. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181692 by clearmind on May 18, 2008 at 12:49 am

Diacanu says:
(If you need fear to make you be good, then you're not really a good person.)

Clearmind clears again;
I need to be good not because I fear only but also I follow God's orders and laws.
A good person means not to lie, not to twist, not to distort, not to smear not to swear when they lose, not to insult and finally not to cheat. So do the evolins fit in or believers fit in? Starting with you Diacanue, how many visitors did you turn off this web page by your swearing?

Phil rimmer says:

(All the police and judges will be pissed off that sick minded atheists have no fear of them.) Sick minded religites however feel that they can act as judge and jury, knowing as they do, the true mind of god. The punishments they inflict upon "possessed" children, for instance, are perhaps the purest form of evil I know.)

No need police. LOGIC POLIS IS ON THE CASE.
Punishment of possessed children or other wrong applications of some people who claim they act on behalf of God or holy books, will not bring any harm to the truth of God. Personalities and religion are different. If some believers misinterpret religion, this is their problem and they will face the God's judgment in hereafter. So you're saying is like you saw Dawkins working on a worm and trying to find out the DNA codes of all animals in it DOES NOT PROVE THAT EVOLUTION IS REPRESENTED BY DAWKINS. ONLY.

Is that clear?



Clearmind clears again.
gcujimmysays
(And strangely,to you, all the non believers I know manage to behave in a decent and moral manner)

Regarding decent and moral manners, you can read the comments of diacanue, al rawandi, and my old chap reverend, then, you see how they have good manners(!); I donna quote their comments here. See yourself.




Robotaholic DREAMS:

(the atheist always wins which cheers me up and I also get to see the bible/koran thumper get demolished- so it's a PLUS PLUS!)
Clearmind clears:

I love it when the evolins delude that evolution is fact and defeats bible or Qur'an or believers. Funny enough, I always felt the otherwise. Indeed if you say anyone that we all came from a water worm, the guy will ask us, "Are you all right?"

Mindless , fruitless efforts along with delusions, and dreams contribute a lot to the fact that evolution is still in the little pond giving it a head start or a huge credit how little pond existed with chemicals in it?

Sweet dreams! I donna wanna say sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite because I wouldn't help it to ask where is the bedbugs' spot in evolution tree or why did they exist since they are easy to disappear â€" natural paparazzi.

88. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181625 by clearmind on May 17, 2008 at 5:25 pm

(You are an idiot. Keep preaching it, brother. Theism surely regrets your allegiance.)

Bad words again. You know the rule. As for preaching, compare to Mr dawkins' fruitless and numberless interviews, articles, BOOKS, I WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE PREACHING.

As for Hitler, He was certainly not a NORMAL GUY, with his obsessed mind and fascits acts. As an abnormal guy, he did not commit right things.

Atheist people with sick mind are able to do anything since they have no fear of God and Judgement day.

Thanks God, dawkins is only writing books and having interviews ONLY, THOUGH HE IS TRYING TO KILL LOGIC IN EVOLUTION THEORY, whic is a crime as well in terms of hiding the TRUTH.

89. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181501 by clearmind on May 17, 2008 at 10:08 am

Ah Ben stein! Did you see what you did to evolution? Poor dawkins if he could do he would have written 10 articles a day and 5 interviews a week just to wipe out bad defeat in stein's movie? WE are now goint to another evolution jungle, but not about tree, it is about a jungle of articles and interviews.

Logic says; I am smarter than evolution, and evolution says i am defetaed in a battle against logic.

If I were Dawkins, I would buy a farm and make a little pond, get some worms, wait for the evolution to happen again. At least, i would not be so stressed out to prove evolution is a fact by walking and talking around newpapapers or pushing tv channels

90. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181500 by clearmind on May 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

(Riandouglas pops up: For future reference, it's the little button labeled "delete" or "del", near all the other little buttons you hit with what would appear to be your forehead.
Hope that helps)

How do you know that? Any experience? Hold on what is your written on your forehead? Oh my god? Why did you write something like that on your forehead: Npo intelligence allowed.

Ah Ben stein! Did you see what you did to evolution? Poor dawkins if he could do he would have written 10 articles a day and 5 interviews a week just to wipe out bad defeat in stein's movie? WE are now goint to another evolution jungle, but not about tree, it is about a jungle of articles and interviews.

91. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181494 by clearmind on May 17, 2008 at 9:53 am

(Islam teaches beheading, Christianity and Atheism do not. This is a specialty of Islam, and there is no denying such a thing.)

I have been reading Islam and Qur'an lately, and I I could not find any verse in Qur'an beheading infidels or killing innocent people carrying a bomb?

But i read this about the prophet Muhammed's life; Once one of the prophet's companion killed a non-believer , in a war - but the non-believer just said he believed in God but the companion still killed him because he thought he said it because he was afraid. And when he told this to prophet Mohammed, the prophet stood up and said 'did you look into his heart' with an angry voice three times. He meant that 'how do you know that?'

The prophet mohammed's life is full of merciful anecdotes and facts like that. Even once he changed his way of his army because of the an ant hole on the way? His life is very similar to jesus Christ in terms of mercy and understanding.

Christianity or Islam have never been presented in its real grounds after Jesus and Prophet Mohammed. Your judgement is based on your newpaper news not the reality.

Athiests do not behead but they do censorship, right? Trying to behead the ideas? Or being a clown in terms of worm stories and when the LOGIC STAND UP FOR IT, there you go, cencorship steps in, with a so-called valid excuses, different name usage? We really don't buy it. what was the expression again, i remember; no intelligence allowed.

92. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180721 by clearmind on May 15, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Today's pop quiz question: What language is this?:

zxcv/nmm,.///yuiopqwert! Thus yhnujm/> bgtrfv%//qazxsw?

Well, a;kdfuo992myo, but generally ,couahthiwy78gowng. So, yes.

avmnr03934g you buddy!

A. Human's language
B. Evolins language

You got it. This is evolins' language. The language popped up when DARWIN and RUSSELL trying to figure out the evolution tree and once they started swearing at each other, they created this language. As a sweet memory to their contribution, evolins use it now and then.

Thank you Darwin and Russell.

What About Dawkins? Any memorial thing about him? Sure very soon! We will reveal the language about him.

93. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180408 by clearmind on May 14, 2008 at 8:12 pm

To fanusi in his fanus only


Mr dawkins is a very nice guy and he is very kind and he is a very caring person.
But Dawkins is a dummy walking around talking around interviewing around trying to prove that we came from a little water worm.

Now I delete the first paragraph

Dawkins is a dummy walking around talking around interviewing around trying to prove that we came from a little water worm.

Does it ring the bell?

I has been reading entire Qur'an and the prophet Mohemmed's teachings and his life last couple of days and then I found that FANUSI is absolutely TWISTING THE TRUTH.


(Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you)

Like DAVID, the prophet Mohammed has defended himself and his people when they were attacked.

Second before Mohammed started the war, he certainly ordered his soldiers NOT TO KILL

CHILDREN WOMEN, ANIMALS, THE PEOPLE IN ANY RELIGION PRAYING IN THEIR TEMPLE, AND TORCH THE HARVEST OR HOUSES.


(The Qur'an also allows for child-rape.
Well? What's your answer to that?}

This is the biggest lie and smear I have ever heard. Give me what verse in Qur'an or Bible says that? ARE You are talking about yourself. You know the story of two blind men in my previous comments? Or talking about American soldiers raping Iraqian girls and burning them alive?


Fanusi get out of your fanus and tell the truth who are you? What are you? GENIE? And why are you smearing on religions? Does SMEARING MAKE EVOLUTION TRUE OR MAKE YOU LOOK FANUSI?

94. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180403 by clearmind on May 14, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Mr dawkins is a very nice guy and he is very kind and he is a very caring person.
But Dawkins is a dummy walking around talking around interviewing around trying to prove that we came from a little water worm.

Now I delete the first paragraph

Dawkins is a dummy walking around talking around interviewing around trying to prove that we came from a little water worm.

Does it ring the bell?

I haeb neen reading entire Qur'an and the prophet Mohmmed's teachingn and his life last couple of days and then i found that FANUSI is absolutely


(Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you)

95. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #178019 by clearmind on May 10, 2008 at 9:05 am

(Or how they are traditionally interpreted? Or the long history of jihadist expansion? Do you know anything about this subject at all?)


What about the British expansion in Africa, exploiting gold mines and diamonds?


Okay let's clear the way out of false ideas and smearing;

1, Respect prophets and people's beliefs is a necessity of being Human being. You cannot make cartoon of Jesus or Moses Or Prophet Mohammed just because you want to improve that there is a freedom of speech. Our freedom starts within us and ends where other people' s boundaries start.

2. Raping, killing, massacres, oppression, exploitation, and other bad deeds has nothing to do with any religion teachings. Our desires, personality, ambitions, and weaknesses are always getting in the way and when we lose the battle, we start justifying ourselves to cover our bad deeds and make them look good deeds. Religion is the truth and if anyone looks into it carefully he will find the right way. Okay Let's go to Iraq for peace (not for oil)

3. If Lord Winston says there is no evolution two years now, then what? Is he the criteria or any standing point that you can stand on it? Evolution is a delusion and not only one dozen of lord Winston will not change it. Seeker of truth has got many scientists as well to prove otherwise, so what? Truth is still there.


4. Reverend, The skeleton is a real one and God's creation does not need any hoax as evolution needed as you will see in the following web pages. No wonder the big skeleton is a big knock out to evolution whether you accept it or not.

Evolution is a big hoax.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/evolution_the_big_hoax.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/4000.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy3-iSgGyz4

http://www.evolutionhoax.com/

The list goes on and on.

I donna wan say laughing boy because bad words belong to the owner.

5. Again if I have a dog and I call him Dawkins, which I would not because I respect each human being as an art of God. it would not be nice. So we have be understanding about other people's feelings and religious choice. And mr dawkings is still pissed off at Ben Stein because his pride is hurt. What about people's feelings?

96. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177881 by clearmind on May 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm

(And what does Western foreign policy have to do with the suppression of women, slavery, and child-rape that is central to Islam?)

In India british soldiers once cut the 50 thousand fabric weavers hands of indian people. Is it barbaric or civilized?


If you judge any divine religion without reading it whole, what you say is only twisting, distorting, spreading and smearing which fits in evolution theory very much.

97. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176894 by clearmind on May 8, 2008 at 9:21 am

Earth to Sam Harris. Earth calling Sam Harris. Answer, please. I, lastgreekstanding, have some astonishing news for you.

IT'S NOT ISLAM, STUPID! Nor real Christianity!

It's " us"---the West. We who have imposed corrupt, brutal regimes in the Middle East; overthrown their democracies; assassinated their moderate and nationalist leaders, waged relentless wars against them.)

There is more, Mr harris, British empire sucked the blood of African countries, killing innocent people, raping, exploting and more ugly things that nobody wants to remember (Watch black diamond)

Religion is a guide to people. Some of them use it to find the right path and some of them use it wrongly and end in misery. Now if one says entire English people are bloodthirsty because of explotion and masaccare in Africa, It would not be fair since most of the English people have nothing to do with it.

If you wanna spread something on religion to prove that evolution is right, this is the funniest way; to attack on some wrong religious practices as a proof with the approach " you see religion is bad so it is not true, then there is no God and that is why evolution is fact."



All for what? All for the control of THEIR fuckin' oil, that's what.
AND DAIMONDS AND GOLD IN AFRICA

Second argument; The big skeleton found in Arabia is a big strike to evolution. The commnets that say otherwise is just to make you feel self-assured. No body could would fabricate bones to prove God's creation, since God's creation does not need to do that as evolution needs to prove it so badly.

Does it ring the bell?

It is very entertaining to see all of you trading jokes and humor to pretend that you are okay while deep inside you are boiling against the Big skeleton proof.

Truth hurts.

98. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176609 by clearmind on May 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Defending the truth

The following web pages show us clearly how tall the first human being was. Of course, atheists jumped on their seats when they saw it first and right away trying to save their neck of evolution, started screaming, hoax, definetely hoax, it is impossible. We are not deluded. It can't be.

What can i say?
Truth always HURTS.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_11.htm

http://www.mechodownload.com/forum/fun-corner/45600-12-meter-skeleton-person.html

99. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176608 by clearmind on May 7, 2008 at 7:02 pm

CATCH OF THE DAY: al rawandi says: Oh no! Did I offend you? Well try this... pull your lip over your head and swallow.


Irate: There is a possiblility. Given that both are cunts, it is not impossible. Get a life.

Hmm. Let me think. I am 1.87 so in this case, tables turned. How tall are you irate in terms of evolution?

And I have got a very nice surprise for you but not on this thread? Let's see how tall the first human being as it was stated in Bible?

100. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176412 by clearmind on May 7, 2008 at 9:17 am

Truth said: Farewell to all.

Truth cannot take a place in a web page where vulture culture like attitudes hiding behind lies and delusions. Truth is above the manners of exchanging humor,swearing, teasing, and belittling.

Expression is getting in the way again;

NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED.

You guys really need to improve your attitudes. The way you act is sinking the evolution faster in the storm of Science and Logic. One guy seeker of Truth dealt with you very nicely without having bad manners. Irate and Al rawandi, why don't you play outside on the beach beaching each other rather than being nasty here.

revered, give up. I told you. You can't fight it anymore?

One million dollar question;

Is there possibility that seeker can be wooter?