Unreliable Darwin


Should I trust Darwin?

The following debate took place on Channel 4:

August 2008:

flamin nora said:

Tonight I let my 6 year old son stay up and watch "the genius of charles darwin" and even though this is what I believe, I had a sense of unease about allowing him to watch it.

my son he believes anything he is told (father christmas, tooth fairy, god) and I worry that unraveling the myths of god that are so ingrained into our society may only give him problems (especially at school). But I dont want him to continue to believe something that isnt true

should 6 year olds believe in god?
should they be taught evolution as fact?
is he too young to even be thinking about this?
if so, how do I answer his questions about god?

Omrow said:

Kids believe in God unless brainwashed otherwise.

So, it is natural to believe in God.

Just because some men have dug up a few bones, in no way proves that God did not create them.

Even Dawkins himself says we cannot rule out that there is absolutely no God whatsoever.

So why on earth did you give your child wrong information.

Did you know scientists have discoverd a "God Spot" in our brains?

If you have full faith in Dawkins then thats your right.

Many other scientists do not accept Evolution as FACT.

Some of the world's greatest scientists actually believe in the existence of God.

So, by you telling your kid that there is no God, you have potentially led him astray.

Programming, or "brainshwashing" children either way is not a nice thing to do, especially for a mother.

Its best simply to teach the child things that have no disagreement whatsoever, and have been established as FACT beyond all doubt.

Evolution does NOT yet fall into the FACT catagory.

I hope that helps.

gfere said:

wow, who'd have thought channel 4 would be a hotbed of creationism. its like peering throgh a lens back to the dark ages or something looking at the comments here. sooo atavistic. cool!

"Kids believe in God unless brainwashed otherwise.

So, it is natural to believe in God. "

sweeping statement. i never believed in 'god'- whatever that is. i had a neutral upbringing and was simply interested in nature. found nature contradicted 'woo/superstition' and moved on. didnt need to grow up to be taught those things were obviously human failings of perception and intellect, unlike some. thats your first proposition proven wrong then. lets see whats next. oh, sorry forgot. if it IS natural for kids, doesnt that make it rather childish anyway. hmmm

"Just because some men have dug up a few bones in no way proves that God did not create them."

actually, its the FACT those bones change through the strata that proves evolution. lets call it 'change'. some strata even have completely different remains, that also alter through the layers. evolution remains proven (pesky satans tricks accepted)

"Even Dawkins himself says we cannot rule out that there is absolutely no God whatsoever."

like he can't totally rule out the invisible underwater kingdom of jeebus and his friend the magic purple starfish. and millions of other magic unfalsifiable things (due to their invisibility and ineffible magic properties). wanna defend all the things i can make up - cos they are in the same category as 'god' - whatever that is.

"So why on earth did you give your child wrong information."

maybe in your little world of magic. but not the REAL world of *Reality*.

"Did you know scientists have discoverd a "God Spot" in our brains?"

thanks. it proves god idea it is just a material effect of neurons, - probably as a side effect of a useful purpose, or maybe useful in itself, like 'gayness' improves the reproduction of sisters and therefore the gene for gayness, even though it is negative to the individuals reproduction. but why is god spots turned off in huge numbers of individuals if its soooo useful. youd think it would be useful for god to talk to everyone, not just nutte, er ahem i mean theists. if its not an altogether useful thing, maybe it being selected out by NS, like the little toe is getting smaller. whatever, its not universal.

"If you have full faith in Dawkins than thats your right."

i dont have faith in dawkins. i like him cos he stands up for naturalism, the only intellectually honest worldview, and seems a decent straight talking person. i had my ideas (almost the same cos based on reason) long before i read a dawkins book. he just clarified some issues. i'm sure you would share his views on many a bulshi te idea that you'd dispute too, ie doctrine of islam, reincarnation, alien visitations etc etc. its just he's got the intellectual integrity to come out and say its all bullshi, not arbrarily pick and choose random bits as true, defending them to death in spite of all evidence. you do not have this ability (like most) and therefore cant claim any integrity.

"Many other scientists do not accept Evolution as FACT."

99.9% of biologists DO accept evolution as true. and biologists are the only ones that matter. but in fact most other scientists do accept it too, apart from a tiny minority that have a over riding emotional religious agenda. your point?

"Some of the world's greatest scientists actually believe in the existence of God."

so, they are only human. its the science they do that matters. if they cannot make a rational account for their personal belief then it is as irrelevant as in a layman like yourself.

"So, by you telling your kid there is no God, have potentially led him astray."

not if its a false proposition.

"Prpgramming or "brainshwashing" children either way is not a nice thing to do, especially for a mother."

i agree. dont do it to your kids. stick with facts we know like gravity/evolution/hitting your head with a brick hurts etc

"Its best to simply teach him things that have no disagreement whatsoever, and have been established as FACT beyond all doubt. "

and also things that have been proven true by science but contradict religious myths. they will then learn an important thing about people - they are mostly idiots that lie to themselves for all sorts of spurious reasons that dont have any connection with a humble interest in accepting what is true.

"Evolution does NOT yet fall into that FACT catagory."

...cos its not mentioned in your bronze age magic book, and upsets the future agenda you think you would prefer.

"I hope that helps."

it doesnt. its the very antithises of help. and all thats good, decent and honest. a display of mendacity that one would not expect from a mature adult who had a proper and complete education.

"Let's all stick to common sense"

you start !

its a woo eat woo world

Omrow said:

Some scientists are a complete disgrace to science.

They twist research and present it to the public as if it were a FACT.

Like any other organisation, scientific community also contains many liars who fake their finding and pretend to know advance science.

Great scientists can turn out to be a fakers.

Mr Whizz said:

And they get outed - bad science fails the peer review or repeatability processes that are built into the scientific method. The scientists that try to pull the wool over the scientific community's eyes never succeed for long. Anyone wanting to dupe the world with bad science can't succeed. The scientific method is inherently self-regulating. Again, the links you point to simply highlight that - I am puzzled yet again by why you feel comfortable linking to them given that they undermine your own point.

Omrow said:

Why not.

There is black sheep in every community.

Scientific community also is not immune from having idiots, fanatics, terrorists, fundemantalists, and so on.

Just take a look at Dawkins; how he twists science to suit his whims.

Others scientists scoff his methods.

Billy Bumbly said:


You think the Sun is a good newspaper (actualy think it is a newspaper).

You think CERN will end the world.

And your a creationist.


Also common sense is a right load of tosh. So lets not stick to it.

Omrow said:

Billy Bumbly.

What has the sun newspaper got do with Dick Dawkins?

We are here discussing whether or not one should trust men who say they are monkeys.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

Greenjack said:

"Kids believe in God unless brainwashed otherwise. So, it is natural to believe in God."

utter rubbish
kids know nothing of god (or any other imaginary being) untill they are introduced to the concept by others, usually their parents. This is when the brainwashing starts!!


Geowizard said:

Hello everyone, many people would consider Darwinism as the answer to the how and not the why. For instance some scientists still believe in god by drawing on observation and evidence i.e. with the Miller-Urey experiment could god not have been the bolt of lightning and that’s it?

I personally believe in Rudolf Clausius's First Law of Thermodynamics. I would probably be considered an atheist by most but I do not, as I don't limit myself to what can be proven with modern science. We know practically nothing about our universe, there are endless possibilities in our universe and for any group on either side to say they have the answers or that either is wrong defies logic.

Darwinism is FACT, in that fact is a theory backed up by substantial and overwhelming evidence that is so likely it is accepted as basically true. The FACT is that there has been absolutely no substantial evidence to counter Darwinism, there is not one peer reviewed paper to counter Darwin, in fact there is not one qualified evolutionary scientist that counters Darwinism. The people who oppose Darwinism usually have absolutely no experience or education in the area and simply replying to every argument with "god put it there" does not equate to evidence. Having worked with the fossil records on a daily basis for the last decade a child could see the logical evolution and adaption to environment. One such species which shows the emergence, evolution and extinction of a species was the trilobite. We see in the records how they began as soft bodied creatures (soft sediment trace fossils), then evolved into hard shelled creatures, then began to specialise with many unique morphological features developing (elevated eyes etc.), and then there eventual inability to adapt and extinction.

As for atheism extreme atheists can be almost as bad an ultra conservative religious people. The fact is that there have been many attempts to create an atheist society usually forcefully and all failed. The simple fact is that most people on the planet are not educated and to them the only way to distinguish right and wrong is by their religious rules. With greater education comes more questions and with more questions becomes a better understanding of the benefits of doing the right thing.

As for your child, children will take their parents word as gospel (excuse the pun) so with that you take on a great responsibility to provide accurate information while encouraging them to answer their own questions. The fact that your son seems interested in the answers is a great sign for his future development. The idea that humans naturally have a higher being instinct has been shown before in excluded people behavioural experiments (sorry don't have a reference, just remember reading about it). Humans have this instinct but Darwinism can to some extinct show that this feeling is a part of our survival and communal instincts. The belief in a higher being is an inevitable part of sentience. While I am not opposed to people believing in a higher being I am strongly opposed to organised religion. Living your life by a set of dogmatic rules laid down 2000 years ago is totally counter active to human social and overall evolution. The "why" is what makes our species so unique; Humans will only pull themselves out of current turmoil and begin the road to an evolved and enlightened species by asking "why" again and again. If humans keep following the current religious dogma without ever using our sentience then humans can never hope to continue social evolution. Religion can be dangerous for a child as living your life as a good person for fear of reprisals is not living. For now he is only 6 so I would just let him be a kid for another while and let him make his own mind up.

Full disclosure: I would just like to point out in case Omrow decides to challenge my knowledge on the subject as I am a firm believer in full disclosure. I have advanced degrees in Geology, Geophysics, Palaeobiology, Paleoclimatology and Computer Science; I also have minors in Experimental and Theoretical Physics, Mathematics, Asian Languages, Biology and Chemistry. I also have a master in Paleoclimatology and Geology. All from the University College Dublin and I have my name on 2 geological papers and 1 paleoclimatological paper.

Omrow said:

Geowizard claims to have advanced degrees in Geology, Geophysics, Palaeobiology, Paleoclimatology, Computer Science, Theoretical Physics, Mathematics, Asian Languages, Biology and Chemistry.

Wow. All that education from Dublin.

Irish degrees. That says it.

He forgot to add to the list his degree in Advanced Brainlessness. But he did not need to. We can all see that already. He is naturally qualified in that department.

It seems that the Atheists need a bit more evolving.

Give Atheists a few more million years and perhaps they might become use to logic a bit better.

Athiests seems to be still incapable of using their brain properly.

Even Dawkins makes a mess of reason.
He uses poor arguments in a desperate bid
to try to convert everybody to his absurd supersitions.

Its sad to see a "Professor" make a mockery of himself.

GPB said:

at least geowizard is trying to understand the world which at the moment appears to be more than you can claim. i'd put my lot in with those qualifications over your... what do you have again? and whats more obsurd, species of animals evolving from older ones or someone rising from the dead after being crucified and speared? hmm, difficult to choose.

as for the evolving crack i'd say watch it. it may seem hippocritical for me to say this after what i've just posted but i'll say it anyway, petty cheapshots prove and decide nothing.

Greenjack said:

It clearly shows desperation when people resort to personal abuse. How sad ! Is this the best you can reply with [Omrow] ?


Mycor said:

I don't think there is a need to 'teach' religion to give children a moral compass. I think children can be brought up to value society, to show respect and compassion for others, to respect the laws of the land and society, to respect other people's property, to share for the common good, to respect and value animals and nature, and all the things which most people would consider as moral without the need for religion. Young children mostly learn by copying their parents so if parents at in a moral way then the children will most likely do so. No need for God.

rabbitinburrow said:

[replying to flamin nora]

I grew up without any belief in God? And I am convinced that it is much healthier for the mind.
In fact is kind of a brainwash to teach your child to believe in God and since it happens so early in the development it will be hard to drop the belief later...
Let him find out for himself, when he is old enough to think for himself.

malcom and monica said:

I am embarased to say that I have only just stumbled upon this thread,and am humbled by some of the elequence esp. by the learned prof,when set against the ignorent uncalledfor abuse from Omrow.Very sad.This particular gent,on another thread,places great faith in his participation with many vergins in paradise.It is my hope that by allowing such folk to mouth off, will eventually bring about the downfall of religion in general.


Evolution Fiction


This debate took place on Channel 4.

“The Genius of Charles Darwin”

August 2008

C4 Editor said:

Tonight on C4 at 8pm we are showing The Genius of Charles Darwin, the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection presented by Richard Dawkins.

You can discuss the issues and post your comments below

TheReformedPastor said:

Here we go again, yet another attack on Biblical Christianity by Dr. Dawkins - I predict that this series has little to do with Darwin, Darwin is merely the vehicle that Dr. Dawkins is using to attack Biblical Christianity.

I believe that the reason for this is that Dr. Dawkins knows that Atheism is in trouble. After 60 years or so of being the predominant philosophy in this country and having a huge influence over all areas of our lives and public bodies such as Education, Social Services, Penal policy etc, it has totally failed as a philosphy.

1cantell said:

It's not about religion. It's about reviewing facts, checking evidence and coming to conclusions based on what we know.
On that basis religion is a basket case and if we stopped indoctrinating our kids with it - so brilliantly illustrated in tonight's programme -it would wither and die.
Shame about the tooth fairy,too!

MissLittler said:

You are absolutely right, and let us be clear; it most certainly is not about religion.
It is about establishing the facts and coming to a measured conclusion.
This broadcast has yet to produce any new 'evidence' thus far and I have severe doubts if it will in subsequent programs. There is nothing 'brilliant' in 'indoctrinating’ our children that; out of mud came mind!!
And on that basis, bring back the tooth fairy all is forgiven!

Molecular Machine said:

Dawkins is a master at presenting a "Staw Man" argument and then demolishing it! Almost nothing presented in the programme was contrary to the understanding of creationists - save for the introduction of common ancestry, which crept in without firm evidence.
The evidence for 'variation' which was the main thrust of the programme is, of course, undeniable. No creationist I know thinks that all the 'Darwins Finches', for instance, were separate creations!!
The real issues lie ahead, such as the origin of complex cellular information - and life itself - I suspect a Just-So story coming....

mike the h said:

A number of evolutionists have argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Like a lot of Dawkins work the programme was laughable by anyone who has slightly more witt than an ape.

stve said:

Good programme, but nothing new.
The problem I have with Dawkins, as with other evolutionists, is they start from the premise that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive. ie. Evolution is a fact therefore God does not exist. Their argument against the existence of God is the contradiction in the Bible about th eorigins of life on earth; that the Bible claims an earth far younger than the evloutionary evidence suggests, means the Bible is incorrect and consequently God does not exist. The Bible was written by people, modified and edited by religious leaders with politcal agendas and consequently may not be an authority on all things. (a different topic). If Dawkins was to argue that evolutionary evidence shows the Bible's account of how or when the world began is incorrect then I could go along with it; but then the evolutionists make this huge leap to the conclusion "therefore God does not exist".

I offer an example. Suppose God, standing on the top of a mountain, pushes a large rock from the top and it rolls down the mountainside. Suppose now that Newton comes along and sees this rock and in his genius, describes why this rock is rolling down the mountain. Dawkins comes along and does a series saying how smart Newton was, the Law of Gravity exists, the evidence is overwhelming; Gravity, not God, is alone responsible for the motion of this rock down the mountain. Therefore God does not exist. How does that follow?

Come on Dawkins; get real. yes, Evolution exists, but how does it follow that God and evolution are mutually exclusive?

Omrow said:

We know that the tale of men emerging from monkeys is only a theory.

In other words, its nothing but a guess.

In schools and universities, it is still taught as a theory and NOT as a fact.

Dr Dawkins has been lying on TV. He said it is a fact.

Many scientists would disagree with him on this issue.

Scientists are divided on the theory of evolution.

This matter is not yet settled.

Many scientists do not accept that we can say for sure that man came from monkeys.

Dawkins is just like a religious fundemantalist who gets carried away by his fanaticism.

Dawkins is overzealous. He is desperate to convert people to accept his point of view.

I think he has degraded himself by not being honest with the public.

Channel 4 program should, therefore, be seen as nothing more than a propaganda campaign led by Professor Dawkins.

Jezzy29 said:

Unfortunately, Omrow, I have been informed by people on here that theory actually means fact in science circles. and fact doesnt have to be proven fact. But don't mention Evolution is unproven because that upsets people. afterall, nothing is proven therefore evolution is just as much fact as gravity.. even though we can see gravity in action every minute of every day... this is all starting to get on my nerves..

Omrow said:

You cannot say nothing is proven by scientists.

Earth is now proven to be round and NOT flat as ancients used to believe.

It is also now proven that Earth goes around the Sun, and that the Sun does NOT go around the Earth.

It is also proven that the Moon is NOT made of cheese.

So, dont try to protect the Evolution Theory by saying it it is not proven because nothing is ever proven. Its a pathetic tactic.

Jezzy29 said:

I don't think my sarcasm came through very well in my last post. I was trying to make the point that comparing the fact of gravity to the theory of evolution is ridiculous because one we can see acting on us every minute of every day and one is something that has evidence but will never be able to prove unless we can travel in a time machine. But scientists are saying that both are fact. Just silliness isn't it?

Omrow said:

No they are not. Scientists are NOT trying to say that monkey theory is a FACT. It is only the likes of Dick Dawkins that preach such rubbish.

Many scientists are sceptical about evolution.

They still catagorise it as a THEORY.

As we all know that "THEORY" is NOT same as a "FACT".

Some scientists write books for schools and universities.

These books say:

Gravity is a FACT.

Moon of Jupiter are a FACT.

Earth's rotation is a FACT.

Evolution is a THEORY.

Even on things like climate change scietists are divided on whether it is fact or a thoery.

American scientists tend to say that there is no global warming. Europeans scientists disagree.

Similary, the monkey theory is causing a big diffrence of opinion among the scientists.

There is no agreement as yet whether human emerged from apes or not.

Until they agree, how on earth can we claim anything for sure on evolution.

I cant put it any simpler than that.

Jezzy29 said:

I'm just telling you what the people on this forum say. I think there is a problem here because scientists have a different definition for 'theory' and 'fact' than we do in general usage.

Have a look at wikipedia.Fact in science is something that has observable evidence, but isn't necessarily proven, theory in science is an interpretation of evidence. Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.

The problem is, the lay person doesnt know this and thinks 'fact' means 'proven fact' when really it means 'there is observable evidence to suggest this'. Therefore, scientists and Dawkins are misleading us.

Omrow said:

There is a BIG difference as to what a THEORY is, and what a FACT is.

Everyone knows. Fact is true. A "theory" MAY be true, or, it may be wrong.

Scientists do not have a different definition as to what a THEORY is.

Lets not confuse the matter.

I always ask this to my university teachers. They say theory is a "hypothesis" that may turn out to be wrong.

Whereas a "FACT" can never turn out to be wrong. It will always be correct.

No matter how much Dr. Dick Dawkins continues to yell, we know the scientists still say that evolution of man from monkeys is a THEORY which has not yet been established as a FACT. It might be proven false tomorrow or in ten years time.

Bloodthorn said:

I don't know why religious people get so upset about evolution. Just because evolution proves that creatures have evolved over billions of yeara it doesn't say that god doesn't exist. I mean come on if your a supreme being immortal and eternal you can surely take the time to watch the evolution of simple creatures on planet earth. As for the religious texts that people keep on saying that they are facts of gods truth remember that they have been written not by god himself but by a mere fallible creature called man.

RDSG said:

I am myself a scientist, and think Darwin was a genius. Even though I agree with Richard Dawkins that it should be taught at schools, I am chocked by the way he attacks religion and tries to force people into his beliefs(atheism).

As a scientist you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being which might be considered a God, and which could exist outside our universe, and could even have played a part in its creation.

Therefore if you cannot disprove the existence of a God scientifically, it is appalling for him to discount it so aggressively. Even worse is the fact that he does not realize himself that atheism is a faith as well.
The only difference is that you believe that there is no God, but you cannot prove it. Whilst other religions believe that there is a God, and cannot scientifically prove it.

Therefore I think it is scientifically incorrect to be so close minded, and to not be open to possibilities which have not been scientifically disproven.

leesparky said:

As a scientist, can you disprove the existence of fairies? Are you in fact, open to the possibility that they exist too????

RDSG said:

Until proof is given that they never existed, I cannot say for certain that they haven't. Although I'm pretty sure they don't have a bank account to store their money, so that they can pay for the kid's teeth. And since there is no evolutionary evidence for any creature resembling a ferry we can deduce that it is highly unlikely they ever exist in our planet.


Religion of Atheism


Is Atheism religion?

This topic was discussed on Channel 4.

Nov. 2008

CDarwin said:

Definition of religion: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

Omrow said:


Religion means: Any belief system that is acted upon by two or more people.

Atheists do hold a set of beliefs, albeit irrational, and, they do act upon these beliefs.

The bases of Atheists' belief system has changed over the century.

Currently it is based upon a silly monkey story.

jzzermonty said:

No, Your wrong. Religion is

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

LOOK IT UP. You have a computer.

Omrow said:


That silly definition is an Atheist definition of what they think religion is supposed to be.

Again, as usual, Atheist are again trying to impose THEIR irrational belief on the rest of humanity.

No one has to buy things from the monkeys.

jazzermonty said:


a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

How can this be a silly definition Omrow? Are you making up new meanings for words now as well as your sky faries? You really have to try harder Omrow

The Carpenter said:

Omrow said: Religion is any belief system that is acted upon by two or more people.

So when Martin Johnson picks his XV believing they'll beat the aussies, Brain Smith tells them what attacks he believes will score against the aussies and Mike Ford tells them how he believes they should defend, and the XV start acting on what they've been told, at exactly what point do they become a religion?

If you're going to 'make a point', so deluded & so vague that it's completely meaningless, there's really not much hope for you is there? Try & tighten up your "definition" to the point where it's meaningful, then we can decide whether atheism is a religion or not (a little clue; IT'S NOT!).

quote:Atheists do hold a set of beliefs, albeit irrational - and, they do act upon these beliefs.

Atheists hold no beliefs, beyond not believing in God or Gods. This (as you've admitted elsewhere) is a rational position.

quote:Bases of Atheist belief system has changed over the century. Currently it is based upon a silly monkey story.

I assume you're just misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution again, try learning about something before you comment on it.

Omrow said:

Some religions exists only for a very short while.

Others do last longer, evidently.

Football has also become a religion.

One thing is for sure:

Beckham was no God. He married a cow.

Chairman Al said: [Omrow's replied in bold]

Why is it that religious people need to put people in boxes?

Perhaps for the same reason that Atheists do?

Faith believers can take two of the most different people on earth in terms of culture, personality, nature, appearance and mentality but if they both have no interest in spirituality or belief in a supreme being the faithful want to put them in a box called "athiesm".

Maybe because thats what Atheism is?

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that completely diverse people will group together on the basis of what they don't believe.

But facts on the ground show that they do.

If they did then I must also be a member of all the people who do not believe that there is a hot bowl of steaming chicken soup on Mars waiting as a prize for the winner of "I'm a Martian get me out of here! "

No Martians. Lets just stick to God.

Please accept that having a spiritual "faith" is not essential to life.

Who said it is? Ignorance can indeed be bliss. Many a joyful Atheist live quite happy lives without bothering with things that they are incapable of comprehending.

Please also accept as fact that a large majority of people will not believe in your particular spiritual "faith" and have either choose another one, from a list of thousands of alternatives, or have decided not to bother with whole pomposity of having a spiritual faith at all.

Yes. Accepted. What you said is common sense and the same thing is stated in muslim holy book: Majority tends to behave sheep.

The Carpenter said:

Omrow, is "not playing golf" a hobby?

Omrow said:

You're a carpenter.
What would you know about golf. Its a gentleman's game.
Stick to making crucifixes.

jazzermonty said:

I have a project in work that involves a large number of people working in conjunction with each other for a common objective. We act apon the belief which is that we will deliver the project. At the start of the project we don't know if this will be successful. As the project continues through it's evolution the confidence level rises. We use all our experience and knowledge (based on facts, not faith) to deliver the project so that my company makes money and therefore survives. So is this a religious practice?

I have faith that the project will succeed as I know the expertise of my collegues will ensure this. As there are no supernatural beings involved does this still qualify as a religion?

Omrow said:

Many "isms" are religions.

Capatialism has been called a religion by many people.

Money is its "God".

You try to reach your "heaven".

jazzermonty said:

I'd still love to find out Omrow's handicap though as he's accused Carpenter of not knowing about Golf. Obviously he does play the game and therefore can comment quite confidently on the subject.

Omrow - I ask again, what's your handicap?

Omrow said:

I shall not be talking about my golf ratings here.

Why do you guys divert from the discussion at hand: "The Voice of Monkeys".

Atheists are often like drowning men clutching at straws.

It is an obvious fact that most Athiests are incapable of basic reasoning.

That is why any thinker would notice that Athiests tend to do silly things during a discussion.

They love to change the topic and then flee when their stupidity is proven.

Thats a sad existence.


Atheists and Logic


Logic and Religion

This debate took place on Channel 4:

November 2008

malcolm/monia said:

"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".
Fair point I am thinking,but..Oxford Concise...the science of reasoning,proof,thinking or inference.
Particular scheme of or treatise on this.
A chain of reasoning.
The correct or incorect use of reasoning
It goes on at length....

Kinder Bueno said:

what an interesting point.
Firstly, let me just go a little off track in order to make a point.
Many people such as Athiests or Agnostics, may not be convinced God exists because of unanswered prayers.
There "logic" is that, there is no god, hencewhy prayers do not get answers.
Also, when prayers are answered for other people, it may be coincidential.
Well thats one way of looking at it...
In Islam, the "logic" is that unanswered prayers is actually a test. I believe (and many Muslims) believe that Allah is testing us to see if we have enough faith in him, and carry on praying to him even if he doesnt answer our prayers, its just a test of how strongly we believe in him.
This is what Athiest/Agnostics and Muslim believe (well the points I've made..seperatley ofcourse)
Secondly, with the idea of evil occuring on Earth.
An athiest/agnostic believe that if God was all powerful, wouldn't he be able to stop evil from taking place?
Which leads them to believe that there is no god - and thats fair enough...It is pretty logical to believe that way.
However, a Muslim believes that again Allah is testing us.
With Natural evil; earhtquakes, draughts etc, he wants to see more fortunate people helping the poor and by causing natural pain and suffering, it is testing if we will donate money to help the les fortunate (I know it sounds cruel, and this is what causes the big argument about if God was "good", why would he do - but this is what we believe)
With Moral evil such as robbery etc, this again is a test.
It seems sometimes that evil people are getting the more luxirious things in life by stealing etc, an Athiest may argue, if there was God, why would he let evil people have a good life...which again is their "logic".
A muslims "logic" is that, again it is a TEST. (I know Im boring you with just using 1 explanation for this, but this is the simplest way of putting it)
We believe that, again "Good things come to those that wait" and if someone has enough faith in God, it will lead them to paradise, as they had trust and faith in God...which is what he tests.
There is a Muslims logic, which differs from an Athiest.
Sory for being ignorant, but I'm unsure what Christians believe about this; Can any christian give any points on what they believe evil is taking place etc...?
Hopefully I have stuck to the point...?

The Carpenter said:

"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".

Strictly, no. E.g. If someone told you that their mathematics was different to yours you'd probably start smiling nervously & edging towards the door.

Logic, in the "if A then B" sense is formally structured and in the same way that maths questions have correct & incorrect answers, logic has correct & incorrect chains of reasoning.

Less strictly, logic still provides a very useful framework and can tell us when someone has drawn an erroneous conclusion and where the error has occurred.

I suspect the real difference though is in the "real" world rather than the "logical" world. Here we're looking at the evidence, some of which may be contradictory & deciding how much weight can be attached to each part. Chances are, you're attaching more importance to some pieces of evidence and they are attaching more to others. The point here is to be clear about what is evidence and to establish whether the logic (/ reasoning) is sound.

(In religious debates, there are clearly some source of evidence that are better than others, but sooner or later you'll probably run into the "But god wrote this book" argument & the "I think my anecdotes are really important" argument, there don't seem to be many others. I'm guessing this is a religious argument btw.)

Try asking how their logic differs to yours; what their evidence is; and to show their reasoning (just like a maths exam really)

malcolm/monia said:

May you GOD bless you for your views.I am so gratefull for your caring approach to this sensitive topic!
Yes TESTING appears to be the core 'raison d'etre' of apparant poor or nil response from 'god'.But logic now tells me that this is strong evidence of 'his' non existance.It also seems to me a 'heads,he wins,tails we lose,situation.
I would furthermore like to appogise to you and your tolerant brothers & sisters for what might come accross as an arrogent posture,with a tendancy to ridicule.
I am a very kind and caring person who just does not 'buy' God,and get Soooo angry with the extreemists in your,or in any religion,but it does appear that your religion is the worst.
I really feel that we you and your moderate scholars are not proactive enought to head off Muslims who advocate that God is the only power to punish,and our police are sinners,etc,etc.This attitude is corrosive not only to the stability of the moral framework of any society,but nothing to engender a better relationship between religious & non religious world wide.
Sorry to moralise & go off topic,but much work needs to be done by good & caring folk like us.
Faith is ilogical,in it's entireity by definition.
So Yuze has postulated that logic has a gradient & you have implied that 'they' have evidence, by the use of the word 'others'...I am now even more confused.

The Carpenter said:

Logic has a gradient!? I have no idea what that even means. Maths doesn't have a gradient, neither does logic.

I'm a bit more sure about what "evidence" actually is, though so I'll deal with that. It's fair to say I probably wasn't clear enough on this point.

There are some pieces of evidence that are reliable, these are called evidence.

Then there are the types of "evidence" that religious types tend to use in their arguments. These tend to fall into two categories:
1 - "But god wrote this book" &
2 - "But my anecdotes are really important".

Religious types tend to call these things "evidence", often they actually think that they are evidence, but they aren’t. They should be called anecdotes, or irrelevant, or anything else, just not evidence. The argument is in showing that they are not evidence & why they are not evidence (but anecdotes/ not provable etc etc) and, to a lesser extent, what is evidence & why it is evidence.

So, I agree. There is no evidence that god(/s) exist (*); there are anecdotes; there are (badly written) books claiming divine providence; and there are some really strange attempts to string these into a coherent world view. But evidence? NIL.

Hope that helps.

(* - That I'm aware of/ that stands up to scrutiny.)
one other point, you'll frequently see that a religious argument runs out of steam at exactly the point you or I might think it gets interesting.

Kinder Bueno's initial response, is probably quite a good example of this. With God "testing" us (/ humanity/ Muslims/ etc) by making other people suffer. The idea of God wanting to test 'us', probably does satisfy (on some level) KB's curiosity.

At this point you or I might want to start asking about why 'we' need testing; why god couldn't find some other test that doesn't involve torturing other people; why does an omniscient god need to test anyone etc etc. But KB seems happy with the answer that we're being tested without needing/ wanting to explore further.

KB - I really don't mean to put words into your mouth or misrepresent you. I'm using your post as an example purely because it's to hand and is fairly typical of this type of response. I hope you do think of and ask the sort of questions I've suggested and that you keep thinking through whatever answers you get.

You have to apply logic to the answers you get as well as to the initial premise.

malcolm/monica said:

I have just read that the Islamic fifth article of faith states that paradise is a physical place where MEN will be allocated a harem of beautifull WOMEN who will bear them children.
NOW....logically who will raise them?,the women,the angels or God ? ...Or as Yuze would say,who knows,who cares Allah knows best...or was it Osman.To tell you the truth,it is all becoming a bit of a blur.
I think that is the game plan.
I think that this is the 'muddy pool' that you,Carpenter,are looking for!

The Carpenter said:

...and why are these children given free entry to heaven without going through the whole earthly life tests process first?

Fundamentally, this whole "afterlife" malarky (whether Xian/ Islamic or whatever) is just an excuse to get round the absence of evidence of God operating in a just way. By pushing the rewards/ punishments into the realm of the unknowable they gain an excuse for the lack of evidence they have for a just (/benevolent) god here on earth, without then going on to examine whether the position they put themselves in is in anyway reasonable/ logical.

Mycor said:

Presumably it's a test of your faith, so if you lose faith or question god as a result then you've failed.

The points KB made about prayers, evil etc being a test make sense within the constructed world of a religion and are a man made explanation of why things happen based on the premise that a god exists. They are not logic as they arrive at a conclusion based on information that cannot be confirmed ie that a god exists.

Pure logic will be the same for everyone, but as TheCarpenter said we live in the real world and people come to conclusions about 'evidence' based on their preconceived ideas. That's why I don't think logic can really effectively be used to argue against religions. I wonder whether, since in the real world not all information is available or reliable, that strictly speaking you can never come to a purely logical conclusion on anything anyway - perhaps those with a wider knowledge of logic and philosophy would like to comment on this please.

I think you can lay out a pretty good logical argument for the non existence of a god to someone of faith but they will still keep their faith. Why is this? What is it in the human mind that makes someone have faith and someone else not to? That's the bit which fascinates me.

A couple of general thoughts; since, as I said above, logic seems to be irrelevant to faith why do some people of faith try to argue that their position is logical? This seems wrong to me, why not just stick to the 'I believe' line, it would seem much simpler. I saw a program about the Medieval Mind recently and was interested that although they talked in those days about natural disasters being acts of god and believed comets to be portents and signs, they also understood that these events were natural. It was bit like 'we know a comet is natural but it is a bad idea to do something important on a day when one is in the sky. I thought that was an interesting way of thinking and maybe not how we would imagine it.

malcolm/monica said:

I think that they keep the faith really to hedge their bets,but that can't be right cos God would know.
I think maybe they are just gullable or stupid...but that can't be right either.
I think that the average human suffers from the survival instinct of 'save me ,save me'syndrome.
That's gotta be it!!!!

thank you for your comments Mycor.

As a non-believer,the Coran states that I shall not be befriended by a true Muslim.Why is this,where is the logic,& who has the hidden agenda?

Omrow said:

Obviously, God would have the true logic.

He made the stuff.

Therefore, no matter how much we may try,
we cannot change the rules of the game.

Since God is said to be the "most logical" Being in the Universe,
it should be obvious to any thinking person that all of God's laws would be reasonable.

And, as is evident in this thread, as well as many other discussions,
most Atheists are incapable of using simple logic.

Also, the Atheists have no understanding of what religion is.
They make up their own twisted definitions and try
to make the rest of humanity swallow their irrational crap.

I mean, what do Atheists know anything about how to reason.

Most Atheists are intellectually bankrupt.

Just take a look at their own words.

Freethinker15 said:

Who ever said god was logical? There are countless examples of where this is not the case; if you are attributing logic to the logic in this world, which is the only logic that is worth caring about anyway. Any other logic outside this is irrelevant to our well being as it does not exist.

None of god's law are reasonable; only those created by man as man knows man
(god has no clue, btw I am talking as if he exists which has not yet been proven so I should say fairy dude). If god was reasonable he should have known that the kind of demands put on human are impossible to adhere to and are counter to reason and evidence.

I think (which can be verified with evidence) ultimately logic and reason is universal, no matter one's viewpoint.

The only thing that stands in it's way is the god virus as demonstrated on this forum and many others.

It's no surprise that where ever you are born in the world as soon as you start to think and embrace science etc, people become atheists. Religion, on the whole, depends on your geographical and cultural location.

so why do reguarly either not answer my questions or, by your own admission, fail to understand them?

You should try picking up a book that challenges your own narrow preconceptions of the world for a change. Of course, your books of myths wont let you as you might miss out on all the goddies in heaven (which is hilariously materialistic btw).

Omrow said:

Because, as is the case with silly statements put forward by most Atheists, many of your questions and claims are replete with irrationality.

Basically, you do not know how to talk sense.

Kinder Bueno said:

I think you are being disprectful to an Athiest's views. How can you expect them to respect your views, if you don't do the same.

Omrow said:

They dont. Thats the problem.

They want to force their Atheism on everyone else. Just take a look at them.

Atheists say all religious people are deluded.

That is their opinion.

As for me, I think Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing the facts.

Any thinking person can easily see that most Atheists cannot use their brain properly.

Freethinker15 said:

hmm, sorry I forgot your love of the scientific method. lol. Note your respect for the scientific method! If you truly respected it you would try to learn all that it has to offer instead of mindlessly repeating the same old garbage.

well, yeah religious people are deluded that's invit if you can't provide any facts or evidence. You et al have to prove this is not so.

Instead of being derogatotory, I dear you to actually back up your claims with reason and evidence independent of the Koran! If the Koran is true, should be easy. Now, lets hear of your scientific expalanations for life etc.

The Carpenter said:

[Omrow claims Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing facts. ]

Let's pretend for just a few more seconds that you can actually answer questions without resorting to pointless insults.
- What exactly do you mean by the "scientific way of establishing facts"?
- What "absurb methods" are used by atheists?

sinic said:

I suppose the clever dick who created the title of this thread thought that he had identified a contradiction religious contemplation cannot possibly have a logical basis.

It really depends on what you mean by religion.
If you believe that religion is only identified by the silly anthropomorphic trivial moral directives found in say Catholicism or Islam then of course it is possible to argue that logic and religion are incompatible.

Pointing this fact out is what makes Dickie Dorkins feel so good about himself.

However if you are intelligent enough to recognise, and it seems not many are, that limits appear to exist to the logical insights of which puny dangerous socio pathological humans are capable then the so called dilemma is seen for what it is...a dichotomy for dimwits.

Mr Whizz said:

Science's approach is as follows:-

1. Be sceptical about claims and explanations.
2. Demand evidence before believing something to be true.
3. Test to see whether the evidence supports the claims.
4. Consider whether alternative explanations better explains the evidence.
5. Look for evidence that shows the claim to be false.
6. Repeat from the top.

It's the best way of exposing explanations and claims as being false. It's also the best way of homing in on what might be true.

It's striking how different the above approach is to religious dogma.

Regardless of what particular explanations you might believe to be true, applying the above method should help highlight where you need to be doubtful.

Again, science sees doubt as a strength and absolutely necessary in improving our understanding/knowledge. Religion sees it as a weakness and strongly advocates having "faith" rather than having "doubts".

One advances knowledge. One holds it back.

It's not about differences in logic - it's about differences in attitude.


Quran Debate


This debate took place on Channel 4

July 2008


The TV Show - Web Producer:

Last week, Channel 4 broadcast The Qur’an - a two-hour film that explored the history of the Islamic holy text and looked at how it is interpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world.

Not surprisingly, the channel has received a great deal of viewer feedback on the film – not only though Viewer Enquiries, but also on our forums, which have hosted some extremely interesting debates in recent days.

Did you watch The Qur'an? What did you think?

balaclava9 said:

I am an agnostic; I believe that all religious fundamentalism is bad.

I watched the first programme ‘It shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’ which appeared to start with the view that Muslims are (wrongly) getting a bad time and steered the programme and players towards that conclusion. The presenter failed to ask Muslims the hard questions and failed to develop issues raised by anyone criticising Muslims. I found the second programme ‘The Qur’an’ balanced and most informative. It answered a lot of my questions and has caused me to research deeper into those question revealing some illuminating answers.

I would like to see a probing and ‘no holds barred’ investigation into the ludicrously obvious truth that the Qur’an is the words of men and not God. I would like answers to the questions like those listed below:

1. Why would God choose to deliver his message verbally to an illiterate man and over a period of 23 years, particularly as the same God wisely decided to deliver his original message in writing when he gave Moses his Commandments?

2. Why did God, after delivering unambiguous and unequivocal commandments to Moses feel the need to deliver a different message (or at best the same message in a different way) to Mohammed?

3. Why did God need 23 years to deliver his message, was it because (as it seems) that he kept changing or amending the message he’d delivered the year(s) before?

4. How do Muslims reconcile the fact that, although God kept changing the message he delivered to Mohammed, they have no way of knowing which message came first and which was God’s decided final version.

5. Why has wearing the veil and sporting long beards suddenly (over the past 10 years) become de rigeur for British Muslims?

6. Why is it that the Muslim world has failed to contribute anything of significance in the world (other than big Mosques and suicide bombers) for almost 700 years.

7. Why (despite massive oil wealth) us the Muslim world less well advanced than the western world and the Muslim man ion the street poorer than his western counterpart?


Every other debate I have seen on TV is a trawl through the detail of verses of the Qur’an producing verses which suggest that Islam is a tolerant peaceful religion and an interviewer who is too frightened to point out the many hateful and contradictory verses.

Omrow said:

Most western scholars say Quran as exists today is the same text as that left by Prophet Mohammed.

Muslims believe that Quran is word of God which he revealed to Mohammed through Arcangel Gabriel.

Quran was revealed bit by bit; and took over 20 years to complete. It is same size as the Christian New Testament.

Last verse of the Quran was given to Prophet Mohammed by Gabriel in March 632 A.D.

He died 3 months later.

Today his grave in Medina is the second holiest site to Muslims. First holiest place is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca containing "The Kaabaa" - The "House of God" built by Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael.

nitpicker said:

The Quran was officially collated in about 656 under the third Caliph (similar to a Pope) Uthman. This was to unify the tribes and stop the fighting between students and teachers. And to concentrate all forces on other ambitions.
After the compilation all fragments and miscellaneous tracts and documents were ordered to be burned or destroyed. The Quran is a comparatively new book; and its’ followers for some reason, or lack of, regard much older holy works as being corrupt.
Other Biblical holy scriptures are said to be corrupt due to altering and editing. …. Just how can that be said after the editing and burning of 656CE?
At least a lot of the pre Christian early evidence is still around, and being discovered still, for debate.
The last time books were ordered to be burnt is was during the nazi regime.

Omrow said:

This is simply not what muslims believe.

Prophet Muhammad left the Quran as given by Angel Gabriel.

mintbox said:

I've never met such a bigger bunch of idiots in my whole life! How do you convince someone to believe something when there hell-bent on proving it wrong, no matter how much evidence is brought forward there is always gonna be morons who like to disagree because they hate the fact that there wrong. They will never accept being wrong but continue talking nonsense just for the sake of it, and the qur'an doesn't recommend kaffar (non muslim) bashing, but does say defend yourselves. By getting a harmless quote from the Qur'an and turning it into to something malicious is not an intellegent thing to do. I'd be the first to admit that islam does have it's faults NOT THE RELIGION but one or two idiots who got it wrong, doesn't mean blame the whole muslim population for it!. But i know that the killing of innocent muslims won't stop, well let me inform you that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, more and more people are converting to islam, so the more you insult us the bigger and better we get, so please continue. Before i go i ask you to ask yourselves just one question, have you ever considered the notion that muslims might be right?, i mean just consider it, what if, just WHAT IF muslims got it right?, where will your intellgence and long words get you when your face to face with god?, knowing that you insulted him, his prophet, and his religion, can you imagine what god's gonna do to you? boy, i feel sorry for you... actually come to think of it no i don't!, you were warned. And as for the good non muslims i will pray that god shows you mercy, and guides you to the right path.

balaclava9 said:

You speak of harmless quotes from the Koran. I’d be grateful if you would explain the peaceful tolerant aspects of the below verses?

Sura 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

Sura 5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

mintbox said:

balaclava, sura 9:5 i guess you haven't read the whole sura, this refers to the battle field, and how to conduct war, in islam there certain times when we are allowed to fight or not, for example the month of ramadan, this just refers to that "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans". Are you showing me this quote because it says fight and defend yourselves? what else do you expect muslims to do on the battle field, not fight? i find there to be nothing wrong with this quote.

as for the second quote, i admit i have no answer for not because there isn't one but its because i have not researched into it, but there is an answer i assure you. Islam is not a religion of hatred but of peace. The prophet muhammed (pbuh) stopped a battle because there were animals grazing! all you've done is got a quote from the Qur'an and made it out to be bad, but you can't be blamed because even muslims interpret quotes from the qur'an wrongly.

balaclava in the quote you gave there is written "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" this just proves that islam is a religion of peace even forgiving those who try to kill them.

balaclava9 said:

AT the risk of being labled an 'extremist' I'd be grateful for you views on the below verse from the Qur'an which suggests that a man can beat a disobedient wife. From what I have read, Muslims agree that he can beat her but only 'lightly'!!!

Omrow said:

There is no tapping mentioned in muslim holy book.

Qoran clearly says if your wife is getting out of line, then teach her a lesson with your hands.

Muslims are allowed to beat their unruly women.

Normally women get a slap across the face. Some muslims say they have to use a proper beating to bring a bad woman to her senses.

It is no point trying to hide these facts.

Truth is the truth. Live with it.


Domestic violence in Britain is on the increase.

So many women are beaten up in their own homes.

In most western countries even atheists hit their women.

This is not because muslims holy book tells men to beat their wives.

Men of all faiths, and even those with no faith, tend to do that anyway.

Tequila nic said:

True and in the UK it is against the law to hit your wife.

Is this true in, say, egypt, syria or iran?

PS Are you going to tell me where the original koran is kept?

Omrow said:

Dispite the law, men in UK still beat their women. Domestic voilence in rising.

In muslim countries, there is no law against beating up your wife. You can hit them as much as you like as long as they dont die in the beating.

Original Qoran?

Muslims believe it is kept with God in a very safe place.

We only have a pure copy as revealed to Prophet Mohammed in 630 AD.

Tequila nic said:

Why is there no law?

Omrow said:

Come on Nic.

Learn to think beyond muslims.

Why is there no law in Britain against parents slapping their children?

Answer: Democracy.

Most people don't want it.

Tequila nic said:

Smacking is allowed in the UK, although parents can get into trouble if they leave a mark on their children's body when they smack.

Do you think the women in Iran were asked if they wanted to be beaten?

Do you have a link to any source that would confirm this?

Omrow said:

Come on Nic. You can do better than that.

Do you think children in Britain were "ASKED" if they "WANTED" to be beaten?

No one likes being beaten in UK. But our MPs feel that sometimes it has to be done.

Therefore, our Parliament passed the law that said parents can beat their kids.

Poor kids, now legally terrorised in England.

Tequila nic said:

OK I’ll try and type this so you understand


Even a single slap (if it leaves a red mark) can land you with a criminal record.

This is because our MP’s decided that if you hit a child and it leaves a mark it will be considered as an assault.

Do you understand now?


I also take it you cannot find any evidence that Iran asked its population if they wanted to continue to be allowed to beat their wives.

So try again.

santorini said:

also children are minors whereas wives are adults so i think it is a different scenario. Children have been vunerable in Britain but things improve as years' go on and they have more rights (maybe they have too many at times but that is another debate).

To me the allowance of hitting your wife belongs to victorian times and not 2008. Also what is your feelings on mutilations of females which takes place in Africa and seems to be happening here in certain circles?

Omrow said:

If a society accepts that helpless children can be beaten by adults - children who are actually vunerable and innocent little angels - then it is very strange to have double standards and object to adults beating adults.

Adults are not helpless like children.

Either physical beating of anyone is wrong, or it is not wrong.

Make up your mind.

We in Britain, as well as our friends in America, allows adults to beat little children.

This is really quite sad.

santorini said:

Personally i don't think there is anything wrong with giving your child a slap which is totally different to beating your child. The parent is in charge of discipline and they live under their roof. children are certainly no little angels. I don't agree with neglect or bullying but there are shades of grey like everything.

An adult is a grown up and i think it is wrong for a man to hit his wife who he has promised to love and honour. maybe he might lose his temper but be sorry afterwards but to think it is acceptable to do this is another matter and out of date IMO.

In an ideal world there would be no violence

CDarwin said:

Let us understand this religion more;

Is there a preferred way of beating a disrespectful wife? Are only hands allowed or is some kind of weopon recommended?

Omrow said:

In Britain, my dad used to get beaten with a cane in school.

Many fathers remember getting beaten in bording schools.

It was torture.

Terrorising kids to brainnwash them in national curriculum.

I think weapons like canes are very effective way that European nations use to make people get in line.

We have a saying in Bournemouth: "Spare the rod - spoil the child."

Muslims use same line of reasoning to straighten their "babies".

malcolm/monica said:

I no longer have the patience to debate with religious raving lunatics,who make it up as they go allong

Cardigan said:

Hmmm - know what you mean but we can live in hope that a Muslim will come along with enough intellect to put forward some sort of defence.

Omrow said:


But muslims have been told in their holy book not to engage the idiots.

So, I suspect that its going to be a long wait for some people.

Unless both parties are willing to use reason, what benefit can any discussion bring?

Cardigan said:

I so totally agree with you. I've consistently asked for nothing more than clear concise reasoned debate based upon evidence. OK we can all put forward an opinion but where it is not evidenced some give the opinion with some logic of how you get there. I promises nothing less and ask for nothing more. . . . You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

Omrow said:

Cardigan. Only a very few people are willing to walk the path of sense.

Most people believe whatever suits them best, even if their belief is contrary to all reason.

Who would have thought that even in 21st century, most people from all sides still stick to their own party lines rather than the truth.

santorini said:

i suppose it is because the people who follow Islam are so conditioned to it that it is too frightening for them to step outside this comfort/control zone.

I am a christian and i do question at times but i think it is important to listen to others points of view and be open to debate.

Omrow said:

Your fear of Islam is apparent from your first sentence.

Also, if you did question things then you would have never believed in Trinity because it is competely against human reason. It just does not make sense at all.

Tequila_nic said:

Ive seen it on muslims forums where muslims have been told not to ask questions becasue it makes them kaffir.

Omrow said:

I too have seen fear on non-muslim forums where people are told not to talk to muslims because they might end up converting to Islam.

santorini said:

Yes you may be right Omrow. Not because i am frightened of being converted but because of the violence and intolerance that seems to come with Islam. I am not saying all Moslims are like this. I see it as a threat to democracy and freedom and our way of life. I do not like the way christians and jews are treated in Arabic countries e.g. Ethiopia or the Sudan. I do accept it is not all black and white and clear cut at times in these areas.

For example all the uproar with the cartoons printed in the danish paper or the death threats on Salmon Rushdie.

I am not trying to be offensive but honest.

Omrow said:

How nice.

A christian telling muslims that christians have no violence in their past.

Also, that Jews are victims of Palestinians violence.

I bet he would soon say that American christian military forces in Iraq are only defending themselves, and that it is Iraqi muslims who are violent.

And here comes his "our way of life" speech to muslims as if Christian world can hold a candle of morality muslims.

To sum up, with narrow minded people its always like the following:

"We in west are better than you in the east".

And also muslims who refuse to think, say:

"West, Christians and Jews are dispicable and most depraved people on Earth and will burn in Hell."

Ofcourse, both sides can continue have this type of condemning match. But I dont think there is any benefit to either side in this.

santorini said:

Omrow i am talking about now not the past. Yes christianity was violent but so was the rest of the world at that time and life was cheap. Yes there is a problem between the Jews and palestinians and it is complex.

I don't think i am particularly narrow minded by having my opinion. It has come about from some of the unpleasant things in Britain which have happened in the past 20 years concerning certain groups of Moslims. They are not very nice and wish Britain harm yet they are happy to take money off the state and have housing provided. they do not work but live very comfortably and do not worry about having a large family.

Again i know not every Moslem is like this.

John BE said:

Even if most Muslims were tempted to extremism, there aren't enough of them - and the fact is that most Muslims are ordinary peaceable folk who just want to get on with living their lives like the rest of us. Any sympathy they have towards extremists is generated by the peculiarly idiotic and vicious policies of the people that govern us.

Ever heard of Tertullian, santorini? The humorous Christian writer in north Africa back when there were persecutions back in the Roman Empire, third century AD?

He quoted the cry of the mob: "Christiani ad leonem!" "Christians to the lion!" That was when they used to put convicted people in an arena to fight lions to entertain the crowd. And then laughed at them: "All those Christians, just to one lion?!"

But he said something else, more seriously. "Sanguis martyrorum ecclesiae semen". "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". And it worked out that way - the Church actually grew as a result of persecution.

And human nature's still the same, and it's no different for Muslims. I've just watched a film on Newsnight about American soldiers in Sadr City, the Shia suburb in Baghdad. After 9/11 I remember watching a New York woman on TV crying and saying over and over again "Why do they hate us?" If she watched that film, she'd have her answer ...

Omrow said:

People who are violent would use any justification for their actions.

Fanatic muslims misuse Qoran to justify their violence.

Militant Catholics in IRA and Protestants in Ulster both twist the Bible to strenghten their cause of terrorism.

It is human nature to look for support to sell your misdeeds.

Evil is evil whoever takes part in it.

constantius chlorus said:

I don't remember the Catholics or Protestants ever quoting the bible during their time.

parklaneyid said:

Omrow, its clear from this statement that you have absolutely no idea of Irish history. The two groups were fighting over territory and not over any religious differences; unlike the Sunni-Shia conflict!

Omrow said:

Yes. But all sides do use holy scriptures to justify their fighting positions.

People can use anything to carry on fighting.

Are you telling me that you really dont know that before carrying out their bombing campaigns on eath other, the IRA, UDF, UVF, and others did not get blessed by their respective Priests?

You dont know this?

You have clearly been brainwashed.

Maybe you have not heard of Reverend Ian Paisley?

I can tell you a few things about that priest who is now a "peaceful" man.

Omrow said:

My university's media studies' professor says media games never stop.

A Christian man who hates Islam has killed his sister because she converted to Islam.,21985,24464249-5012751,00.html

Christian man shoots his sister for converting to Islam

AN Egyptian Coptic Christian shot at his sister and her family, killing her husband, after she converted to Islam and married a Muslim, a security official said today.

Rami Atef Khella, 28, broke into the Cairo apartment of his sister, Miriam Atef Khella, and sprayed her family of three with gunfire, killing Ahmed Saleh and injuring Miriam and her daughter, the official said.

Notice how the BBC presented the news story. You would not guess it was a Christian from the headline would you?

I think they were shocked after thinking that only muslims are supposed to do such things.

The Carpenter said:

No, that her family was Christian wasn't even mentioned until the first sentence in the article!

In fact, I couldn't even find the bit in the article where it actually says that he hates islam! The ... so and soes!

So, why don't you tell us what the headline should be? (6words or less please)

Omrow said:

Why six word headline.

When it comes to muslims, headlines often run way over 6 words.

They could have just stated the facts:

Christian kills sister for "becoming Muslim".

Freethinker15 said:

Maybe its because being a Christian for many isn't the be all and end all, like it is for many muslims.

Omrow said:

Or, maybe, you have fallen only for the anti-muslims propaganda?

Visit to the America's "Bible Belt" would enlighten you.

Fanatics exists in all religions.

look at this: Jews riot and try to force Muslims to oberve jewish religious events.

Notice the headline again.

The Carpenter said:

So, in your opinion (as a media studies student?), what makes
"Christian kills sister for "becoming Muslim"
and better headline than
"Egyptian killed in sectarian row"?

also, this: "Jews riot and try to force Muslims oberve jewish religious events"

I entirely agree with you, obviously we should all be more tolerant and condemn violence in all it's forms whether religiously "inspired" or not. Hopefully you'll take this chance to condemn the violence against Muslims and the violence committed by Muslims as well.

Santorini, why don't you take the blinkers off, just for a few seconds? Christians are just as capable of committing murder as anyone else. You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

santorini said:

yes of course mr carpenter. it just reminded me of the situation in Ireland. i don't think i have blinkers on.

Omrow said:

People often make a fatal mistake when, without knowing, they develop three criteria:

One for their own people; one for their opponent or "enemies"; and, one for those whom they dont really care about.

I recommend that we all simply use one same standard to judge our own group as well as others.

I believe this would surely lead to a better world, a fairer society, and it would lead to peace between people.

The Carpenter said:

Sounds good to me, Kant said much the same thing in advocating that we should "Act only in accordance with a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law", but he always was a bit of a wordy type. The name escapes me, but someone else managed to put it more simply a couple of thousand years ago(?), something about 'doing unto others'(?), from out to the east somewhere? Oh, it's come back to me now, it was Confucius.

Omrow said:

Thats right. Its an Islamic motto.

Its a Golden Rule for establishing peace and justice.

Muslims believe God sent 124,000 Messengers to guide mankind.

Confucious was one of God's Prophets.

His real name was Master Kong.

Western visiters to China did not like him very much, so they mutilated his name.

No1 is innocent said:

Does Islam actually have any of it's own prophets, or does it just lay claim to prominent figures from other religions?

Omrow said:

Muslims say they were all Islamic.

Muslims believe that Jesus was sent by Alla, so he was an Islamic Prophet.

Gotum Bod, known as Buddha, was also God's Prophet.

Master Kong is another.

Daood, known as David, is also Islamic Prophet.

So were, men like Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Solomon, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and so on and on.

In fact, all the Prophets mentioned in Bible are Prophets sent by God.

Muslims claim that a total of 124,000 Holy Messengers were sent by God. Mohammed being the final one. He died in year 632 A.D.

Did you know, Islam did not begin with birth of Prophet Mohammed. It began with the appearence of the first MAN some 14,000 ago. He was pious. God chose him to be His Prophet.

Biologists have recently confirmed that first true humanoids emerged some 10,000 years ago.

This is what Muslims believe.

The Carpenter said:

124,000 prophets in 14,000 years? Thats nearly 9 prophets per year for 14,000 years, followed by none for 1,400years. Hardly seems fair to me.

And what was God doing before the first man appeared? Waiting?

Homo Sapiens first emerged about 250,000years ago, or aren't they "truly humanoid" enough for you?

Democrat said:

Would it be asking tooo much for Ch4 to air a programme on atheists, science and THEIR view of religion??
I am sick and tired of seeing programmes about Muslims/Islam etc, with all the exhortation for "respect" to be shown etc..excessive respect if we bear in mind 9/11 and 7/7!!
And incidentally, can we have these "Muslims" identified by their nationality instead of a religious label????
IE: British Asian/American Asian.German Asian etc etc.
The religion is (to me) totally irrelevant, but media seem to be falling over backwards not to get their windows broken in sucking up to this objectionable collection of religious bigots.
We need to do as the Americans do...your country must come first, then your religion is protected, but hard times to those who put religion before country.
Maybe a requirement to put a union flag on every mosque to show their true allegiance would be a start???
As for any holy book, we are wasting time on a myth...more science please!! (After all it is the 21st Century)

Yuze said:

I agree. Stop showing programmes on Islam.


Debate 2:

This discussion took place on Channel 4

July 2008

Islam on C4

The TV Show
Web Producer

This week, Channel 4 is broadcasting a selection of programmes that explore the Islamic faith. With both The Qur'an and The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World, commissioning editor Aaqil Ahmed believes the channel is contributing to a new understanding of Islam in the western world.

Visit The TV Show website to find out more, as Aaqil explains his motivation for commissioning both projects.

If you've watched any of the programmes featured in C4's Islamic season and would like to share your views/ask any questions about what you've seen


johnbee said:

I wat5ched most of the program about the Qur'an. It was a completely typical BNP/Tabloid anti muslim rant, even down to the showing of a brutal mutilation of a little girl's private parts while she screamed pitifully in protest. Absolutly bnothing at all to do with the actual Koran (as it is spelt on the copy I read a while ago.

balaclava9 said:

I not only watched the whole of both programmes I taped them and have re-watched them.

The first programme ‘It shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’ appeared to start with the view that Muslims are (wrongly) getting a bad time and steered the programme and players towards that conclusion; failed to ask Muslims the hard questions. I found the second programme ‘The Qur’an’ balanced and most informative. It answered a lot of my questions and has caused me to research deeper into those question revealing some illuminating answers.

Tequila nic said:

I am finding hard to find a version of islam that is compatable with our liberal society

wendymann said:

who is this we and why do you claim that you represent a liberal society?

from what ive read of your posts you are hardly liberal.

maybe if you just referred to the koran as your starting point, since that is the only islam you might learn something. of course one does have to have ones wit about them and be prepared to understand the simplicity and the complexity.

somehow i dont think you have that with in you when it is about islam.

islam tells one not to comment on things that one doesnt understand. it asks one to be on jihad to become a better muslim. it asks one to be respectful with regard to the koran.

what one was being told was that islam and muslims have a belief in a corrupted piece of fiction.

what one was being told was that islam is not a unifying faith that seeks to provide social and political set of directions but one that kills more muslims , is divisive and politically has no relevance to the modern era.

what one was being told was to doubt ones faith, doubt ones fellow muslims .

what one was being told was that islam has no place in todays society because it is backwards, primitive and cannot provide the solutions that are required.

that was the underlying thrread of the film and that is why it is being praised by anti islam anti muslims as being 'balanced'.

blast99 said:

the programme provided evidence to back this up. Islam is a medieval religion obsessed with medieval subjects such as virginity and adultery and how you should behave in the presence of an imaginary being.
One of the best bits that showed the religion's power to infect the mind was when the woman ex-lawyer was arguing against the notion that covering the face might be detrimental to communication with other people. Of course covering the face is detrimental to communication. This is fact obvious to a 3-year-old. Yet this woman rejected the idea as 'baseless'.
I'd heard about the mistranslation of virgin fron grapes (or white raisins) before but it was interesting to see the connection with Christianity and paintings depicting heaven being a place full of grapes! It was also interesting to hear the alternative translations from earlier languages which make much more sense of various parts of the text.

Omrow said:

The fact is that Islam is now the fastest growing religion on Earth.

More and more people are converting to Islam than to any other faith.

Ever since September 11, people who had never heard of Islam are now reseaching the religion and becoming muslims.

More white people convert to Islam than Muslims convert to Christianity. This is a fact.

Channel 4 Television is informing people as to what exactly Islam is and what muslims believe.

Naturally media being biased, TV does gets many things wrong. It is influnced by anti-muslim propaganda from newspapers like the Sun, Mirror, Daily Star and so on.

The quicker we learn to tolerate different views the better it is for everyone.

Intolerance is only speeding up the spread of Islam, and making muslims more determined to fight back.

balaclava9 said:

Entirely so, the probelm is, the Qur'an commands Muslims not to tolerate non-Muslims.

Omrow said:

Not true. I think you need to look into their holy book, the Qoran.

balaclava9 said:

The UK is a Christian country. The UK not only tolerates but has welcomed foreigners into the country and facilitated their worship of the religion despite the fact that their religion commands that they not tolerate non-Muslims.

Muslims in the UK choose to live here (rather than Paksiatn etc.,) presumably because the UK provides them with a better life, yet they offer no allegiance to the country that provides for them.

If Muslims said, I am British first, I intend to integrate and subscribe to British standards and my allegiance is the the UK head of state they would be welcomed by all.

to continue, Islam is not a religion it is an ideology and it is an ideology that promotes intolerance suggesting that God commands it to be so.

Muslims who walk around the streets of this (tolerant Christian) country wearing the symbols of that ideology are insulting the indigenous population who have taken them in and given them succour.

So Omrow, those different views that you suggest I should show tolerance to, please tell me how I should show tolerance to the below verses from the Qur’an that instruct you that you should not make friends with the people who gave a home to thousands of Muslims fleeing Muslim countries to live here in this tolerant Christian country. . . . .

Sura 3 Verse 28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Sura 4 Verse 139 Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
Sura 4 Verse 144 O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
Sura 5 Verse 51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Sura 5 Verse 80 Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah.s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.

Omrow said:

You take verses out of context.

In any propaganda, anyone can take anything out of context and make it suit their own beliefs.

Every honest person who is aware of this type of twisting and disinformation, knows full well that muslim holy book praises the christains and asks muslims to love them.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that Qoran is one of the most advance and beautiful books in the world.

Prophet Muhammad protected christians.He even paid for building of churches in his state. This is tolerance he showed to christians.

No one has yet paid muslims to build their mosques.

I think we need to remain cool-headed and not get things out of perspective.

The following are words of British "Christian" Prime Minster about the muslim holy book:

PM Tony Blair praises the Quran:

"The Koran is practical and way ahead of its time".

"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is".

"I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance".

"Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian." [ Tony Blair 2006]

Greenjack said:

well if TB said it it must be true

Omrow said:

Tony Blair thought that Qoran is probably the most tolerance-preaching religious book in the world.

It is known for its advance laws on co-existence and love between difference cultures, races, religions and so on. To confirm this, one only has to read it with an opened and unprejudiced mind.

Tequila nic said:

Yet he didnt revert, in fact he became a chatholic

Why do you think that is?

Omrow said:

He was not convinced by other stupid things that many muslims believe which are based on sources outside the Qoran.

It is these doctrines that most of the western world has a real problem with.

In fact, any honest thinker would have serious issues with such beliefs.

If muslim belief was based ONLY on the text of the Qoran, then Tony Blair would have converted to Islam.

And who knows, the gentleman is still young.

CDarwin said:

Quite amusing really...arguing over which fairy story is true. Wake up!

Omrow said:

Not quite as amusing as the monkey story told by Darwin, I must say, dear old chap.

Dream on !

Cardigan said:

When it comes down to quoting part of a speech, that’s done all the time by moderate Muslims trying to convince us that the Qur’an preaches tolerance and peace. Take the below

After September 11, 2001, many Muslims came out with the following Qur’anic quote to show that Islam and the Qur’an disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.

Unfortunately, these soothing words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

Omrow said:

If you bother to carefully read the Qoran, you will agree with Tony Blair and Bush that it is most tolerant book on Earth.

You quoted a verse: "Those that make war... and spread disorder shall be put to death "

So what Cardigan?

Actually it was President Bush who quoted this verse from Qoran to show that Islam is not a violent religion at all as media's anti-muslim propaganda tries to alledge. He said it was only some muslims who twist Qoran's teachings.

The muslim holy book is simply saying that the warmongers and terrorists should be put to death.

What your problem?

Isn't that what US is doing already - killing terrorists?

Cardigan said:

I have read here, extracts from the Qur'an, posted principally by balaclava, which advocate hate, intolerance and violence to non Muslims. I am sure you have studied the Qur'an; will you help us by listing the Sura that advocate peace, tolerance and non violence to non Muslims?

Omrow said:

Quotes from Qoran by Mr balaclava are "dug up" and deliberately misinterpreted.

They show only the gentleman's own dislike of muslims. Nothing more.

I can even quote parts of the United States Constitution and show it preaches hate.

So what?

Does it?


Qoran claims to be from God.

Therefore, naturally, it is going to be comprehensive. It would cover every type of human need from sex to slaughter.

From sex on the bed with 4 wives. To slaughter on the battlefield.

Between these two, it offers Divine Guidelines on all daily needs of humans from finance to foul.

After the Bible, Qoran has had the most impact on human history.

Pickthall translation is the only Standard Version from Arabic into English.

Other translations are inaccurate and, therefore, considered unrealiable by muslims.

parklaneyid said:

Very strange choice to illustrate the breadth of human experience. And with such precision!

Why not sex with 5 wives on the floor? Why not slaughter on a University campus?

constantius chlorus said:

Why not allow a Muslim woman to have sex with four men?

Omrow said:

Perhaps if they were like other women, they too wish for such an act?

Muslim women are in no way like any other women.

Go and see.

santorini said:

i don't think i would want to be like that either Omrow. Not every western woman is drunk and promiscous. Moslem women probably are just like Western women in lots of ways and want the same things.

parklaneyid said:

Omrow, don't make such sweeping and loopy statements! I have taught hundreds of muslim women. Almost all of them (though not all)behave and act just like anyone else.

Omrow said:

I am just stating the facts.

Dont try to twist what is clear to everyone, to muslims as well as to the rest of our great country.

We should never shy away from the truth, especially when it is bitter.

God hates those who run away and hide from the truth.

constantius chlorus said:

Ah but whose truth?

John BE said:

From a traditional Christian point of view, it's quite an extraordinary idea that God hates anybody ... but then the early Christians used to reckon that Islam was a sort of Jewish/Christian heresy ...

Omrow said:

Truth is not a property of any one person or a particular group.

God says that everyone has the right to access the Truth, except, of course, the idiots.

God hates the morons.

John BE said:

Your God does quite a lot of hating, for one is is, I understand "all-compassionate and all merciful ..."

Omrow said:

Whose God loves idiots?

Certainly not the God who made this universe.

Even Jesus hated a lot of people. Go read his words.

If Jesus loved people, why did he call them dogs and pigs?

Jesus certainly knew how to curse.

No point running away from the facts.

Truth may be bitter, but it is the truth.

John BE said:

Looks like your Islamic tradition contains things about Jesus that none of the rest of us have heard of ....

Omrow said:

As you all well know, muslims actually love Jesus. They claim that Jesus will return to sort out the mess in our world. To muslims that means Americans and their allies.

Although I have read nowhere in the Qoran that Jesus will take over the White House.

But it is not a bad idea.

I hope he does.

The place is in desperate need of good cleaning.

John BE said:

Mmm - but it seems it's a rather different Jesus from the one I recognize ...

Omrow said:

We all recognise a different Jesus.

Even Atheists recognise a different Jesus to one known by christians and muslims.

Upon his return, only Christ himself
will tell which of us was right and which of us was wrong.

He is the best judge. Perfect, in fact.

Christians and Muslims both love Jesus in their own way.

One says he was God in human form.

The other claims he was an Envoy of God - A Messenger.

Well, we will just have to wait till the day he comes and settles it.

Angelus the Vampire said:

I think the muslim koran also mentions Jesus, although they have him as a prophet, rather than as the son of god.

The Carpenter said:

I think you're right, but then the Koran also mentions a Noah-esque flood, so the fact that a myth can spread from one holy book to another doesn't confirm the original event. All it does is suggest that they share a common ancestor.

There's some rather good sections in God is not Great (by C.Hitchens) on how and why religions adopt different bits of earlier beliefs, including both the probable historic reasons for the Koran and the Book of Mormon or LuisGarcia's list of Easter blessings for the Christians to ponder.

I'll assume we're talking about one massive world wide flood of epic proportions that covered all (or at least the vast majority) of the earth at some point since humans first started communicating in some way, shape or form. (If you want to extend/ challenge that definition, let me know and I'll see what I can do.)

Firstly, if there was a flood like that, where did the water come from? and where did it go to?

Secondly, a flood on that scale would leave massive amounts of evidence, but there isn't any.
e.g. - We would expect to find massive amounts of sedimentation being churned up and re-deposited, but instead of being laid down in it's originally order the densest layers would be at the bottom and the least dense at the top.
- We would expect to find that all the fossils distributed through these layers, either wholly randomly/ all at the bottom/ with the slowest moving or heaviest towards the bottom and the lighter or faster moving animals near the top (delete as applicable).

Since we don't find evidence that fits this massive one off flood, but we find evidence that smaller local floods do occur, that many cultures have many myths about floods. It makes much more sense to assume that the local floods were exaggerated to epic (even biblical) proportions to suit the story telling needs of primitive peoples (who were also scared of thunder & lightning, volcanoes etc) to fit in with the currently popular god myth of the day (& then copied and pasted into later god myths).

Angelus the Vampire said:

A world wide flood does not need to have happened. But a catastrophic flood could hav engulfed completely the area of the author of the story.

For example, in the Ice Age, huge glaciers covered large tracts of land hundreds of miles wide. Behind the glacier builds up a lake of rain water formed over hundreds/thousands of years.

Obviously as global warming happens, ice melts and cracks form in the glacier. Once the glacier melts past a point of no return the build up of water in the lake breaks through causing a huge flood. I Have on DVD somehwere the story of one such event happening in what is now the USA: the flood rushing over the countryside was over 500foot deep, and travelled for hundreds of miles. Without rewatching it (or finding it first) I can`t remember the well known area of the USA this flood travelled over, but the landscape after the flood waters died down is very impressive.

The experts are monitoring another glacier that is getting into a similar state of collapse in Iceland at the moment.

Omrow said:

Noah and the flood, as mentioned in the muslim holy book Qoran, is not a global flood. It was a local flood to drown only the local nasties who poked fun at God's Prophet.

As you know, God does not like his mates being mocked. So, He sent hurricanes, storm, floods and everything and drowned all the baddies.

Noah's son was also drowned because he sided with the pagans and refused to get on board the divine ship. God said, he is worst than a pig, and I will now kill him.

So, there was no world wide flood. Only parts of Turkey and Armenia were flooded. It occoured only in the area around the black sea.

Muslims do not accept the Bible version. They claim it was altered to make it more dramatic.

John BE said:

I read Omrow saying that, because God "didn't like his mates being mocked", he "sent hurricanes .. &c .. and drowned all the baddies", and that God decided to kill Noah's son because he was "worse than a pig". I think your God's way nastier than mine, Omrow!

The Carpenter said:

No, Omrow’s God only killed some people in a localised flood, yours killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & co. Even if you’re going to try and claim this was a smaller flood (i.e. not the flood god promised in Genesis) Omrow’s god only killed one more person (Noah’s son) than your’s did. So I’m not sure that really qualifies him as “way nastier” (or are you now saying that this was just a flood and God had nothing much to do with it at all?)

Omrow said:

Noah's son was drowned becaused he mocked God and refused to get on board.

But the pig, now he had more sense. The pair did get on to the ship.

Mr and Mrs Swine were saved by Noah.

So, God killed Noah's son and saved the pigs.

Lesson of Noah's story is that if
you mess with God's Prophets, watch how the Divine Wrath will destroy you.


Muslims say Islam is compatiable with modern science.

There is no fact established by scientific finding which goes against any text of the book of God - the holy Qoran.

Muslims say only scientific theories seems to contradict Qoran. Never the facts.

Freethinker15 said:

Evolution, as has been explained to you on a number of occassions, is a fact!! Therefore, along with many other examples, your precious book is a big contradiction.

Omrow said:

If the monkey story was a fact, then there would be unity among scientists.

The fact is, that there are still some scientists who do not accept the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION".

I agree that man-made stories can contradict God. But never the facts.

God makes facts. Men make delusions.

Yuze said:

The Prophet said: "Speak of good or remain quiet, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day."

Angelus the Vampire said:

Perhaps your words should be aimed at Omrow. He does not obey this directive, ie speak nice or remain silent.

Omrow said:

What he meant was that reasonable people do not engage in howling.

malcolm/monica said:

We are going off track,or being led off.
'God' said their woman must dress 'modestly'...nothing wrong with that(apart from the God bit)

Where it goes naughty is in recent years history shows clearly that the dress code has tightened...why?,we might ask,this is a man made god imput!

Angelus the Vampire said:


The insults only allowed to go one way, Omrow?

Or aren`t you used to females biting back?

Omrow said:

I am just not used to girls peeing on my shoes.

And I wont let them either.

Segregation is essential.

The Carpenter said:

What's this strange obsession with comparing praying and urinating?

Omrow said:

What about people comparing praying with gender equality?

Is that not a stranger obsession?

Angelus the Vampire said:


So you don`t mind men peeing on your shoes?

Thought you lot executed men of that inclination?

Omrow said:

What do you mean "you lot" !!??!!

You will never understand "us lot".
We humans with our warm blood will not allow ourselves to be sucked dry by "your lot" !!!

The Carpenter said:

How dare you!? You show me one passage in the Koran where it says men can't pee on other men's shoes!

Omrow, do you believe men & women should have equal rights?

Omrow said:

No. They have to bend to us.

Its men's eternal prerogative.

The only way all "real men" like it.

Angelus the Vampire said:

I do believe that the mods are too afraid of your extremist views and religion to censure you properly, Omrow.

And I know that any comment that I make in this forum about how you and your attitude is offensive to me will earn me a visit by the ban stick.

The Carpenter said:

That's right the religion that produced someone so obviously backward (& terrified of women) is Islam.

I've got a little thought experiment for you Omrow. Obviously this implies you're capable of thought, which is just one of my wacky atheistic ideas, but do you want to give it a go & see if we can get at least two of your neural synapsese firing at the same time?

Mycor said:

You've disappointed me know Omrow, just when it was going so well. At least everyone knows where they stand now, which is partly what I've been seeking throughout.

By the way, I wasn't going to comment on your sexual stereotyping of me previously, but will now. I'm male and certanly no less of a man than you (referencing your real men comment). I have a lot of female friends who I consider of equal status to my male friends, men and women are equal in my eyes and should be judged as individuals and how they are not by their gender. If a woman choses to play a role in the family etc where she leaves decisions to the male that's up to her, but the idea of someone having to bend to a man's will is wrong. Unfortunately there does seem to be a theme in Islam that somehow women have to be hidden away and covered up, seemingly because men (is that real men?) cannot be trusted in their presence to control their thoughts/actions. Seems to be more a problem with a macho male culture than anything else and is something I'd be ashamed to admit.

Omrow said:

Real men do not like to bend themselves before women. It has to be the other way round.

Many studies and polls have shown that females like such men.

Daily Mail regularly carries this type of "scientific" research of human desires.

Basically, I dont think any self-respecting woman would like to be seen with a whimp.

Ofcourse, all this has nothing to do with gender equality.

Angelus the Vampire said:

How do you explain then that the women control the money their husbands earn?

Omrow said:

I think all the money in the world belongs to women. They just love cash.

Also, women are very good are looking after things.

Men tend to be clumsy. Which is why they need to trust women with their valuables.

santorini said:

Omrow sounds like he has read that American book on the submissive wife. i don't mind a bit of chivalry from men but not to be a doormat.

Omrow said:

Now, in the 21st century, most women dont like girly men.

Women are once again returning to look for "real men":

No wonder at the univesity so many girls fell for...

More reports on why women dont like whimps:

From girls there is lot of demand for REAL MEN.

Very few women nowadays like arse kissers.

[see sources of these articles in other blogs on the profile]

santorini said:

I like men to be men and not wimps but i don't want a control freak husband either. I want my independence and be able to be myself. There is a way in the middle.

do you think Mr Masoud in Eastenders is a good role model for moslem men. he does seem very moderate

Omrow said:

Daily Mail often reports on how our secular society abuses women's rights.

For Atheists, there is no such thing as equal rights.

Men in high positions get treated differently than women.

They dont even pay women the same amount of money for doing exactly the same job as a man.

Even when women are more qualified, are getting more top jobs, but they get less pay.

Even at an equal rights body, women earn less than men!!

Britain is well behind Latvia and Sri Lanka in giving women equal rights.

A think-tank found that the UK has slipped two places down to 13th in its gender equality table in the past year, being overtaken by third world nations!!

Men just dont trust women to make major decisions. New global report on women's rights has found that women are still less likely than men to get top political and decision-making roles.

United Nations says that even in the 21st century western nations are not giving women equal rights.

Dont blame religion for this.

It has nothing to do with God!!

Angelus the Vampire said:

very true.

But that doesn`t explain YOUR attitude that it`s men`s ETERNAL PEROGATIVE that women bend their will to a man, which is what YOU Claim your god expects.