LiveLeak Remove "Fitna" After Death Threats

Popular video site LiveLeak have been forced to remove the controversial film critical of Islam FITNA after it received death threats from primitive, violent intolerant muslims.

On visiting LiveLeak visitors are greeted with the following message;

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

I personally don't see this as a sad day for freedom of speech. I see it as a joyous day in which islam has exposed it's self as the intolerant, Savage violent religion that it is. Which is ironically the very thing the film by Geert Wilder set out to expose. So thanks Islam, Thanks for making our point for us.

It's also ironic that many so called "moderate muslims" are seeing this as a victory for islam. Do they think the film has been removed out of respect? Do they think the film was removed as a gesture of good will? It was removed because, In typical fashion, Muslims start threatening to kill people every time they don't get their own way.

If you are a muslim and disagree with the films content you should also disagree with it's removal. It;s removal is a direct result of the very thing the movie was exposing.

If you haven't seen the movie yet, Youtube still have it on their servers. Fitna The Movie

Fitna Movie

The movie critical of islam by Geert Wilders, Fitna.

Fitna The Movie

Court Upholds 10 Commandments On Public Land

A nearly 50-year-old monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments does not violate the Constitution just because it sits nearly alone on public grounds in a Washington city, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The division between church and state is a core principle of American democracy, but courts have long struggled to find exactly where the dividing line falls.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited precedent rulings in this latest case, which involves a 6-foot-tall (1.8-meter-tall) granite monument near the Old City Hall in Everett, Washington, about 25 miles north of Seattle.

The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. "Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.

How on earth can a monument depicting the 10 commandments from the christian bible not be solely religious? They are religious rules. By definition it is a religious monument, And it's on public land, owned by you, The tax payer.

Prayer In Schools Is Un-Christian

Attempts by christian groups to have prayers reintroduced in schools is in direct violation of the teachings of the bible. It goes directly against the god they are supposed to be praying to.

In Matthew 6:5-6 jesus said "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret."

This verse is telling christians, In no uncertain terms, That prayer should be something done in private. It is NOT something you should do in public or around others.

So why do so many christians flat out disobey this order and insist on praying in public? It's because deep down they don't really believe this shit any more than i do. They know it's not the word of god. Because if they did believe it, They would go out of their way to make sure they followed every aspect of it to a tee. After all, Who would want to piss of that mental case.

Is It Possible To Argue For The Existence Of God Without Using Logical Fallacies?

In my countless attempts at trying to have reasonable conversations with the religious it has become apparent that every line of argument they take essentially boils down to a logical fallacy. A mode of reasoning that is entirely flawed.

It has drawn me to the conclusion that no argument for the existence of god can ever be logically sound, And as such any argument for the existence of god can be dismissed.

The most popular fallacy used is the argument from ignorance. The theist will assume that your inability to answer a question they pose or give an explanation of something is in fact evidence for their explanation. They will ask how the big bang came about, As if our current lack of an explanation gives credibility to their "magic man done it" theory. This is some times referred to as the "god of gaps". They wait for a gap and shove their god in to fill it.

The second most popular fallacy is the argument from design. The theist assumes that because the laws of physics appear to be fine tuned that they must have been fine tuned, And because no explanation can be given as to how this may occur naturally they invoke the god of gaps and say "magic man done it".

The third most popular has got to be their good old straw man argument where the theist will say "Scientists believe we evolved from rocks.. So how long does it take a rock to evolve in to a cat?". They completely misrepresent the claim made by science and turn it in to something they feel equipped to counter and ask you a question based on their misrepresentation.

Last but not least, A fallacy that all religious people are guilty of, And a fallacy which name escapes me at the moment, Is when a conclusion is reached and then evidence is gathered to support that conclusion. The theist will already be of the opinion that a god exists and after the conclusion is reached they go off looking for evidence to support than conclusion. They have the scientific process back to front.

So are there any arguments for the existence of god that are at least logically sound? are there any arguments that can't be dismissed straight away as being abominations in logic?

Christians Reject Nanotechnology on Moral Grounds

Thanks to Jasal for emailing this in.

Religion is said to be the driving influence behind Americans’ low moral opinion of nanotechnology, according to a researcher who surveyed public opinion on science and technology.

Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

When the survey was conducted in European countries, who are reportedly also key players in nanotechnology, the results were strikingly different.

In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.

Scheufele presented results from the 2007 summer survey on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.

The professor said religion accounts for distinct differences between the moral opinion of Americans and Europeans in regard to nanotechnology.

"The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives," said Scheufele .

First Stem-cell research, Now nanotechnology. Do they oppose every technology that has the capacity to help sick people? It would have been interesting if they asked the people questioned what nanotechnology is, My bet would be that most don't have a clue.

Idiot Creationists Victims Of Their Own Ignorance

The idiot creationists of Florida recently scored what can only be described as an own goal when the board of education agreed to precede the word "evolution" with "the theory of..." in text books.

Both sides are excited about this decision. On one side we have the lesser moronic creationists pointing out that this isn't any different to calling it "evolution" and the evolutionists are happy because now students will be educated on the difference between a scientific theory and a common theory.

One of the tactics used by creationists over the years has been to call evolution "just a theory", Even though we have explained to them what a scientific theory is many times. So now the definition of "scientific theory" will be explained to students and they will see what a powerful too the "theory of evolution" is.

Well done idiots! LOL

Religious People Earn Less

The above graph shows a correlation between religiosity and earnings based on the GDP of several countries. The graph shows that the more religious a nation is* the less they earn.

Now correlation doesn't demonstrate causation, But there is a link there somewhere. Perhaps lower educated people are more likely to be religious (my personal theory as previous studies have shown the religious to have on average a lower IQ) or perhaps poverty makes people more likely to turn to faith.

Whatever conclusions you want to draw from this graph, There is a link between earnings and religiosity.

* Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day.

Religion Of Peace Get Violent, Again

After danish newspapers reprinted the cartoons picturing Muhammad as a protest to the planned murder of a 73 year old cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, who drew some of the cartoons back in 2005 riots have been raging around Denmark as the "religion of peace" demonstrate, Yet again, Just how violent they are prepared to get over the smallest thing.

15 Danish newspapers decided to reprint the cartoons as a protest after police arrested three muslims, Two Tunisians and a Moroccan, On Tuesday for planning to kill the aged cartoonist.

Press around the world should stand united with Denmark and also reprint the cartoons in protest. Even to this day not a single cartoon has appeared in American press without muhammad's face either being blacked out or pixelated. The willing subserviance of the west is both cowardly and dangerous. We shouldn't be afraid to print something on the basis that a minority doesn't like it. If we have learned one thing from islam it's that if you give them an inch, They take a mile.

No doubt the moderate muslims will come out to say how the cartoons are wrong and that we should "respect" their religion while at the same time completely ignoring the barbaric animals threatening to kill cartoonists in the name of their god.

I have a question for these moderate muslims. If Islam is a religion of peace what do you find more offensive? A few cartoons, or murder in the name of islam? If it is the latter, Let's start hearing you make some noise condemning these barbaric animals and less noise criticising those who have the courage to take a stand against them.

The 90dayjane Hoax

If you are one of the people who have bought into this attention seeking hoax, Shame on you.

There have been tons of suicide blogs over the years and this just another in a long line. They are created by people who either need attention or are trying to find some kind of self worth in the way of strangers pleading with them to not do it.

If you have no idea what i am talking about there is a blog called 90dayjane in which a woman claims she is documenting the 90 days prior to her planned suicide. Her blog consists of day to day commentary of her life peppered with assurances that she isn't doing it for attention and full of comments by strangers pretending that they give a shit.

So how do i know it is a hoax? If you look on her blog she says;

I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It's simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I'm not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose.

To me this stinks of a religious person trying to paint atheists as immoral, materialistic machines with no self-worth. surely an Atheists greatest purpose is to stay alive. When Atheists die that is it, There is no reunion, There is no handshake with god and there is no eternal happiness. the Atheist believes we get one life and when it's over it's over.

So logically speaking, An Atheist is far less likely to kill themselves for no reason than someone who believes death is nothing more than a transition to a better place.