I think Ali will have to pay up

[phildidge]

i think that Phyllis needs to chill out and have a little girl's backyard tea party with Hitler and Neville Chamberlain.

Hello Muhammad bin Lyin

I am bit worried for you, keep posting pictures of little girls, is there any reason why you keep pictures of little Girls?
Has the story Aisha, got you all worked up? The real you has let the cat out of the bag, we know why you are so interested in the aisha story now, dude people like you make me sick, so disgusting, should be locked up.

[phildidge]

Phil, you already said all of this and we already laughed at it and told you what was wrong with it. Do you have anything NEW to say?? Stop repeating yourself, OK?? I doesn't get any better the second time around and no magic happens, and it gets quite stale the 5th or 6th time around. Stop being such a girlie Phil.




We honestly didn't really care what you had to say the third time around, why would you think we care the 6th time around?? Now go back to your stupid little forum where they are stupid enough to actually treat you with respect. Go cry on somebody else's shoulder.

Hello Muhammad bin Lyin

I am bit worried for you, keep posting pictures of little girls, is there any reason why you keep pictures of little Girls?
Has the story Aisha, got you all worked up? The real you has let the cat out of the bag, we know why you are so interested in the aisha story now, dude people like you make me sick, so disgusting, should be locked up.
You have been found out sicko, fancy keeping pics of little girls, some people are so twisted, it all makes sense now, you try an hide behind blaming someone else, when you really are the pervert, I could handle you being a bigot, but this, is way to much, hope some day soon you are caught and convicted.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

I'm going to try one last time to try to get some sense into you phil, in as respectful of a fashion as I can possibly muster up, and believe me, I am gritting my teeth.

1) You came on here all assumptive and cocky that you have met Ali's challenge. And you even said "I'm afraid Ali will have to pay up. Afraid?? What where you afraid of? That was a presumptive, cocky, disingenuous statement where you fancy yourself an intellectual, and suddenly, out of all who attempted, it was Phil Didge who finally succeeded as if nobody else ever thought of your angle. As to why or how you could fancy yourself as such when even basic things such as your spelling, let alone your methodology of reasoning are an absolute horror show, I can never begin to know.

2) You were told that the challenge was to prove Ali wrong, not to try and prevent him from proving he was right. If you don't like the challenge, than tough titty. 99.99999% of internet sites don't even have any offer of removal and hence a challenge. He is allowed to make the challenge whatever he wants. Period.

3) When you realized the error you made, you then attempted to alter the challenge and make it for Ali to prove he is right, rather than you prove he was wrong.

4) It was clearly explained to you that raising doubts about one's claim might prevent the claim for being proven right, but it does not prove it wrong.

5) You then switched it over to a court or legal situation where you said he could be sued for libel if he can't PROVE his accusations. So let's see what a genius legal eagle you are.

http://www.independentproducerhandbook. ... n-sue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

5A Defamation : Who can Sue?
Individuals

Any living individual can sue for defamation; the dead cannot i.e. an estate or relatives of a deceased person cannot sue for libel over defamatory statements made about the deceased person.

In this case, we're not even talking about members of the estate. So once again Phil, you're full of sh!t and are simply talking out your hole where sh!t comes from. Yet we all have to listen to your bunghole bullhorn.

Hey everybody!!! Listen to ME!!! I'm PHYLLIS!!! I'm IMPORTANT!!! I've got something to say!!!! It's funny how the most stupid ones takes themselves with the most self importance and seriousness.

6) You then try another angle. If Ali were to submit this as a paper it would be rejected by scholars (one of which you are proven to not be). When asked why a scholar can critique a paper but not a publicly published book, you never answer because you realized the flaw and we're all supposed pretend as though that was never mentioned.

7) You were told clearly by Darth that the only way one can come to any conclusions about anybody in history is to use whatever sources one has available, and to prove these sources wrong, one must find better sources that contradict the sources used. SECSEE MAMA attempted something very similar when it came to Ayish'a age of marriage. She tried to find other hadiths that would contradict the hadiths being used. Although I don't think she succeeded, she certainly had the right idea and for as much as I don't have a lot of respect for her intelligence, she at least understood what needed to be done, whereas you did not.

8) SECSEE MAMA quoted a whole bunch of glowing commentary and/or opinion of Muhammad by some western authors without quoting who they were and what their sources were for arriving at these conclusions. You completely let that go. Suddenly, there was no reason to question the sources. So there's your bias, while you call everyone else biased. If something says nice things about someone, it is not to be challenged. If something says negative things about someone, it is to immediately be challenged.

9) This is why your sense of reasoning is simply blinded by excess emotionalism and is flawed at it's core, whether you have the best of intentions or not

10) When all of the former 9 failed, it became time to resort to merely calling everyone haters and bigots and to go off on a diatribe about how hatred never works historically. This was why you were really here in the first place. Not to meet Ali's challenge. You hated Ali and therefore meeting his challenge was simply a way you thought you could get back at him and shut him up. The superheroine defending the weak. Yeah, they sure looked pretty weak in that Lars Vilks fiasco, eh?? You came in here riding on your high horse and turned out to be a horse's arss.

11) Peace and understanding will always work, hatred and animosity never work, right?? Well, like I said Phyllis, go have a little backyard tea party with Neville Chamberlain and Hitler. Just because Islam does not have an army to speak of, doesn't mean it can't practice "stealth jihad", which is precisely what Saudi Petrol dollars are funding, and you are their unwitting stooge.

I think that at this point, you have managed to stink the forum up with your utter nonsense and little girlie emotions, and perhaps some deodorant is needed.

[Cassie]

Phildidge,
we have provided not one evidence that islam is evil? How many times do we have to bring up verses like 9:29?

Kill all those who disbelieve in Allah.... etc.

How exactly is that not evil? Even in Muhammad's day? This is just one example that proves Islam is evil.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Let's just play the video one more time. Remember, these aren't radical exceptions, this is the cream of the crop. Muslim college students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nIFSq3e ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Here's another definition for who can sue for slander or libel according to the US legal system. The other one I posted involved the UK

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_ ... ements.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Winning Your Defamation Case

Filing a lawsuit is one thing, but winning it is another. To prove that defamation has occurred, you would have to first prove that the statement was indeed false.

Our genius legal eagle Phyllis seems to think that Ali has to prove himself right rather than someone proving his statements to be false. Have you proved Ali's statements to be false?? Well Phyllis?? Are you going to answer this?? Why in God's name such a moron would start to bring up things such as the law and court and libel is simply beyond me. What an absolute proven embarrassment you have made of yourself. Now go post THIS on your little friend forum. Obviously, you won't, even though you're fair, impartial and non biased, right?

[phildidge]

Muhammad bin Lyin

Ah you are beginning to see how pointless it is to insult me as you are out of your league, am worried you like pictures of small little girls though. Your points.

1) I have challenged Ali, the challenge is still open, just because you say it is not, means nothing, unless you are Ali of course, are you?
2) Never asked him to remove the site, but asked him to back his claim with credible evidence, which all theories require, he hs not provided this, so his claim fails.

Please read by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James M. McPherson:

"Historical revisionism is a practice in historiography in which a historian reinterprets traditional views of causes and effects, decisions, and evidence. It is said that "history is written by the winners." Thus, it is essential that we look at history with a critical eye. As such, it is an accepted and important part of historical endeavor for it serves the dual purpose of constantly re-examining the past while also improving our understanding of it. Indeed, if one accepts that history attempts to help us better understand today by better understanding how we got here, revisionism is essential. Only idiots take history wholeheartedly as indisputable facts.

Issues arise, however, when a historian presents a revisionist thesis, such as "America was founded by a radical Zionist cabal" or "Communism had its origins in Picasso's Blue Period," and do not back it up with anything resembling credible facts. They may even deny the credibility of those facts or ignore contradictory evidence. This is exceedingly rare, but when it happens it usually has much more publicity than the "boring" academic revisionism."

As I have stated, none of these alleged citations serve as credible evidence for the Mohammed who purportedly shook up the world - for a variety of reasons, including that none of them are earlier than the end of the 7th century and therefore do not constitute the testimony of eyewitnesses.

3) No error made, he has not backed his claim with credible evidence.

4) no doubts are being raised, with no eyewitness accounts, it is all hearsay and not credible.

5) I gave an example, if he tried to prosecute Mohammed, it would be thrown out of court, due to the evidence not being credible, they do not use hearsay and this is a fact.

6) No new angle, just stating the obvious, he knows he would be made a laughing stock, which he would and making you aware of this, that is not changing anything.

7) See point 2, as already explained.

8) My debate has no reference to MAMA's, so your point is invalid.

9) Not flawed, but correct, I have not been shown credible evidence for his claim, hence why his hypothesis is flawed.

10) When all 10 are correct and people deny what I am saying or do not want to believe that what I am saying is in fact true, they resort to trying to wind me up and fail, unless you can provide credible evidence and this is still open, your arguemnt is flawed.

11) I think I have been able to rubbish a silly claim and have you all dancing around, as you cannot or even show that what i am saying is wrong.

Nice try, so easy to refute your post.

[phildidge]

Phildidge,
we have provided not one evidence that islam is evil? How many times do we have to bring up verses like 9:29?

Kill all those who disbelieve in Allah.... etc.

How exactly is that not evil? Even in Muhammad's day? This is just one example that proves Islam is evil.

Cassie

Then I guess all the abrahamic faiths are:

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Muhammad bin Lyin

Ah you are beginning to see how pointless it is to insult me as you are out of your league, am worried you like pictures of small little girls though. Your points.

1) I have challenged Ali, the challenge is still open, just because you say it is not, means nothing, unless you are Ali of course, are you?

I never said the challenge was closed. Of course it is still open to everyone. Another foolish statement. You altered the challenge from one of proving him wrong, to him proving himself right and then claimed to have met it. That's a FACT

2) Never asked him to remove the site, but asked him to back his claim with credible evidence, which all theories require, he hs not provided this, so his claim fails.

You said the challenge was met and said in the very title, I'm afraid Ali will have to pay up. The challenge involves removing the site AND paying up, so a claim of him having to pay up ultimately involves him removing the site as well. Yet another logical fallacy you have made. His information and sources are as credible as we have available. As Darth clearly told you and you ignored, you need to find another, more credible source to contradict him. That is the only way you can prove him wrong. Casting doubt is not the same as proving someone wrong, and the challenge is to prove him wrong, in no uncertain words

Please read by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James M. McPherson:

"Historical revisionism is a practice in historiography in which a historian reinterprets traditional views of causes and effects, decisions, and evidence. It is said that "history is written by the winners." Thus, it is essential that we look at history with a critical eye. As such, it is an accepted and important part of historical endeavor for it serves the dual purpose of constantly re-examining the past while also improving our understanding of it. Indeed, if one accepts that history attempts to help us better understand today by better understanding how we got here, revisionism is essential. Only idiots take history wholeheartedly as indisputable facts.

Issues arise, however, when a historian presents a revisionist thesis, such as "America was founded by a radical Zionist cabal" or "Communism had its origins in Picasso's Blue Period," and do not back it up with anything resembling credible facts. They may even deny the credibility of those facts or ignore contradictory evidence. This is exceedingly rare, but when it happens it usually has much more publicity than the "boring" academic revisionism."

Looking at what he writes with a critical eye and proving him wrong are not the same thing. So you will have to admit that when you claimed that Ali will have to pay up, you were wrong. But we both know you can never admit if you make a mistake. Ali used the best sources available to us. That is all that anyone can do. Otherwise, you are saying that nobody has the right to write anything about Muhammad, and yet when some author writes good things about Muhammad, you do not question it let alone raise a stink. So admit it. You are as biased as anyone that you accuse of bias.

As I have stated, none of these alleged citations serve as credible evidence for the Mohammed who purportedly shook up the world - for a variety of reasons, including that none of them are earlier than the end of the 7th century and therefore do not constitute the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Why does this mean that Ali will have to pay up? That's the title of this thread.

3) No error made, he has not backed his claim with credible evidence.

Then are you willing to admit that the claim in the very title of this thread is mistaken?

4) no doubts are being raised, with no eyewitness accounts, it is all hearsay and not credible.

That is called "raising doubts". It what universe is this not so?

5) I gave an example, if he tried to prosecute Mohammed, it would be thrown out of court, due to the evidence not being credible, they do not use hearsay and this is a fact.

No, you said he could be taken to court for libel. Do I have to re-quote you?? Now you are being "less than honest".

6) No new angle, just stating the obvious,

The obvious is that the challenge reads that you have to PROVE him wrong, and by saying that Ali has to pay up, this means you have contended that you have either misread the challenge, or that you have indeed proven him wrong. There's no way around that Phyllis, no matter how hard you try and how stubborn you are. Mama never taught you how to admit when you've made a mistake, that much is obvious.

he knows he would be made a laughing stock, which he would and making you aware of this, that is not changing anything.

Is that what the title of this thread is?? If not, then yes, you have changed your angle and that much is actually proven

8) My debate has no reference to MAMA's, so your point is invalid.

It references the bias you have where you give a free ride to those who write glowingly of Muhammad

9) Not flawed, but correct, I have not been shown credible evidence for his claim, hence why his hypothesis is flawed.

That was not your initial premise, and your initial premise was faulty.

10) When all 10 are correct and people deny what I am saying or do not want to believe that what I am saying is in fact true, they resort to trying to wind me up and fail,

Phyllis, they're not winding you up, they are purposefully laughing at you because your intial assertion, which you even titled the thread as, was proven wrong 45 pages ago. What else can someone do at that point with someone who is unreachable and stubborn and incapable of admitting the clear error they made??

unless you can provide credible evidence and this is still open, your arguemnt is flawed.

Is the title of this thread still correct??

11) I think I have been able to rubbish a silly claim and have you all dancing around, as you cannot or even show that what i am saying is wrong.

Was that the challenge?? Is that why you said Ali will have to pay up??

Nice try, so easy to refute your post.

You failed in every single attempt and I answered each of them meticulously and piece by piece, in no uncertain terms. Any sane, rational person can see this. But if one is as stubborn and emotional as you, they simply refuse to ever see it. We know you by now, Princess Prozac.

[phildidge]

Muhammad bin Lyin

It was me answering your points, ha ha, you make me laugh and I showed and proved they were wrong.

Of course he has to pay up, he has no evidence to back his claim, this is clear and simple, I have shown that without credible evidence, the claim cannot even be made, i have shown this countless times, now all you can answer is the same point over my showing 11 points were rubbish as usual, you now say I was wrong, how?

1) Is the evidence that Ali used factual, the answer no.

2) Has this evidence been proved as factual, the answer no.

3) Is there any other evidence for his life, very little.

4) Does history take verbal stories as fact, the answer no.

5) Are there any eyewitness accounts, in his lfetime, the answer no.

6) Did Jesus smash up the Temple?

7) Was Jesus born in a stable?

If I was to claim the last 2 points that he did, using the gosples, I would be a laughing stock, as they are not taken as facts, yet you wish to do the same with Ali's claim, classic, history is not formed from hearsay.

I have asked Ali for credible evidence to back up his claims and as yet he has not replied, I wonder why, because he knows he has none, as it is based on mythical writing.
Sorry you cannot except this and think you are right, but sad to say you are wrong, unless you have some authentic evidence, no, unlucky mate.

[crazymonkie_]

Dear crazymonkie you most certainly are a culus.

Know what helps when you're trying to insult someone? That the person knows what the word means. This? It's meaningless.

"Dont you dear me" ha ha ha, what a sad angry little boy you are, getting all uptight on a forum, bless you my son.

Hurhurhur. Not even close. I just despise fake niceness. What you did and are doing again is trying to look better by pretending to be cordial. But you do such a poor job of it that it's clear it will never work. I'm not getting uptight, I'm just not dealing with your nonsense. It's like the plagiarism you did- I didn't let that slide and I'm not letting the fake niceness slide.

The powers of dedcution you seem to claim to have are hilarious, considering I show all prohets in all the faiths are bad, all the dieties are myths and tyrannical genocidal loonies, I show Moses as a killer, why would I insult people that are revered in Islam idiot, just shows what a complete mahousive head you are and you must be a tad special not to have realised something very simple as this.

You haven't shown that all the prophets in all the faiths are bad, nor that all the gods of all faiths are/were myths and "tyrannical genocidal loonies" (does that include Dionysus? Just wondering). Just in Judaism. You continue to downplay or deny the rottenness of what Muhammad did and you do occasionally thrown insults at Paul- but he's not a prophet and never was considered one. Nor, my *honestly* ex-Catholic discussion opposite, is Muhammad by anyone's standards but Muslims.

You'd insult people who were revered in Islam *sometimes* if you were a fake Muslim. This happens all the time- Muslims sometimes say "we respect Jews and Christians, blahblah", and then the next thing is "Oh, you should read Exodus, Moses did this and that". Your approach is EXACTLY the same as ALL the other Muslims who came out here. The only difference is that you've been lying the whole time. If you'd just admitted you were a Muslim to begin with, none of this lying business would have been an issue.

As to calling Christ Yeshua, that is his real name, you use the Greek translation of his name, just like his mothers name is Miriam, but it is Mary in English, for someone who claims to be a teacher, this is basic common knowldege, what do you teach the ABC to 2 year olds?

That's not at issue. What is at issue is that you're using the pronunciation that NO Catholic, ANYWHERE, uses. So you're a liar about being Catholic, and it was another piece of evidence against you.

As to christianity, it is universally agreed it is the teachings of Paul that are followed today, some scholars believe that Paul was more important than Yeshua in establishing Christianity, Yeshua came with a clear message, but Paul transformed what had been a been a fringe movement of Jews into a religion that embraced all peoples that spread through the Roman Empire.

*Religious scholars* might say this, but mainstream Christianity? Nope. And definitely not Catholicism.

The Jerusalem Church led by Yeshua's brother James, was at odds with Paul, as the faith wass still to teach Judaism, but with hailing Yeshua as the messiah, as someone who claims to be an ex-christian you would know this by reading the New Testament:
In Gal.. 2 Paul announced, "I opposed Peter to his face because he was wrong." He went on to indicate that his differences were not only with Peter but also with James and the Jerusalem Council regarding dietary observances Paul accused Peter and the Jews with him of hypocrisy, frequently hurled at Jews in the New Testament.

I sense another undeclared quote. Do I need to google this, or will you actually put up a URL this time? Hint: USE THE GREY BUTTON AT THE TOP OF THE BOX WHEN YOU TYPE IN THE RESPONSE THAT SAYS "URL". It's right next to "Img" and "Normal".

Also, WRRRRROOOOOONNNNG:
Gal. 2:6-10- " 6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Oooops! Looks like "cunning Paul" wasn't opposed and didn't oppose ANYBODY. Oh, except some guy named Cephas, who was pretty much a Christian Jewish separatist.

So it is quite clear that you have not the first scooby doo with Christianity, let alone in regards to Islam, I have studied countless accounts be scholars in both faiths, you have made your deduction, over reading a web site and that just sums up your inability to study anything, English teacher my hairy culus.

"Countless accounts" being the stuff you can scrounge up that agrees with your totally wrong view, or that you can take way out of context so it looks like it agrees with you?

I clearly know Christianity better than you do, and it's ridiculous that you're still clinging to this lie of being ex-Catholic.

Do you even know where Ireland is?

Gee no, I need a map to find my own a$$. Teach me you fake teacher, where o where is this mythical land from which you claim to spring?

Yet you claim I have lied, Ifreann na Fola is all I can say to that,

Uh huh. You might have LIVED in Ireland for a while.... it doesn't take but a few days to learn the strongest swear words in ANY language. Two of the first words in Spanish I learned were "Puta" and "Culo". Knowing swear words doesn't mean a thing- and besides, Irish is damn near a dead language anyway. It might be making a comeback, but rare indeed is the person who knows it fluently.

again you throw a tantrum, without any proof,

If you don't give me proof, there is no proof. Therefore I am justified in saying what I do. And it's not anger, it's not a tantrum, it's showing you for the fool and the liar that you are.

which again is very comical, believe what you like, I know who I am, though have a feeling you are unsure who you are,

Riiiiight- *I'm* the one lying about who I am on the Internet (THE INTERNET!!)

how much did your bride from Thailand cost, hope you didn't get a nasty suprise on the wedding night?

Aw gee, shucks, that really hurts man. Owie. None of your damn business, but I married my best friend and one of the most amazing people I've ever met. Bet you never will.

Oh, and a homophobic snipe too- like EVERYONE would rather be with a dead girl than a live boy, right?

Was Jesus a qualified teacher, was Ghandi, was Nelson Mandela, you don't need to be qualified, to be a teacher, I will let this bit of common sense sink in for a minute.

You do if you claim to be a teacher of whatever subject. You claimed to be a history teacher. Then you said you weren't *really* a teacher. Which makes you bupkis. Nuffin. Zero.

Actually, less than that, because you lied about it- and did a bonehead move by plagiarizing without a second's thought to the ethics that any first-semester teacher would have learned before setting foot in a class.

[As to what you think Jewish law should be I suggest you look it up,

What *I* think? K, now I know you're a Muslim- I told you, it's an internal Jewish thing. You'd have to talk to them, but I know from talking to some myself (a few Orthodox, a few Reform) that for sure there is no way to keep all of it. I explained why earlier. They are the people you need to be talking to; I'm just reporting what they told me.

the first 5 books of the bible, or the Torah, are belived by Jews to be the word of god handed down to Moses, that is known by any child in the Jewish faith

Sure, by most Jews. But again- the tribes don't exist any more. There are no more groups of Jews who work in this or that capacity in, say, the Temple, or preparing ritual sacrifices, or something like that.

And also, it's not as if all Jews believe it's dictation. I'm pretty sure most think it was *inspired* by god... though of course it's quite easy to find those who think it's literally dictated word for word.

And before you even mention it, yes, I know, and I'm sure the Jews know, about how Moses dictates his own death in the last book of the Torah. That's one reason why quite a few Jews say the Torah was "inspired by" god. In a way similar to how 300 was "inspired by" Herodotus.

I started to use "dear" as micky taking, yeezee worked it out, but I guess when you have the intellect of a nat I am not suprised you did not see this and that is the bases for you're deduction to me being a muslim, oh my Sherlock Holmes eat your heart out, thank goodness you don't work in law enfocrement.

I actually don't believe you here. I think you're just backpedaling because yeezeevee gave you an excuse you could use. You were doing it days before Yez pointed it out, and I'm pretty sure even he was joking about it. Since you've backpeadaled before in this thread, I don't believe you when you decide to tell us what you "really" meant or what you "really" typed. You were trying to be fake nice, you never were a teacher of any kind, you never were a Catholic, nor a Christian of any kind....

(by the way- still waiting for a summary of the significance of Mother Mary and the Saints... be specific, and use your own words.)

...and you DEFINITELY are NOT an atheist.

Of course many will disagree with me here, most are blind followers of Ali's,

Mmm. Not me. He was long gone from the site before I started posting. I'm also not a blind follower of Dawkins (great geneticist, but he should stay away from ethics), Hitchins (entertaining, but a complete tit), Darwin (rather old) or anyone else you can think of. And from what I've heard from people who did post with him, I probably would have really conflicted with the guy. In fact, I didn't even know this was *his* site for several months. It was just an interesting anti-Islam site with some good posters.

i did realsie this when I came and actually enjoy debating here, not that like with yourself it is very taxing, in fact it is very easy.

Of course it's taxing with me- I ask hard questions and broker no bullsh!t. If that's a problem, too bad. When I need to be, I'm very blunt. And I don't let people get away with lies or nonsense.

As to pointing out where I am wrong, that is funny, as you have been incorrect in everything you said, as I have shown, here ends the lesson for the day.

Funny- I keep responding to your posts, pointing out how YOU'RE wrong (Paul opposing Peter! You can't BUY this kind of humor!!!) and still waiting on a few things. You like to skip over things you don't want to or can't answer, throw some insults in there, and still think that you're winning. If I wasn't sure you weren't like this in real life, it would just be sad.

As to the rest of your rants, I did enjoy and made me laugh, so thanks, another person, who lives in fear of his own shadow, good luck with that and your newly wed, maybe she can calm your fears.

Quite the opposite... and none of them were rants. They were thorough responses. You're still doing horribly in the debate, and the fact that you chose to ignore the points about moderate Muslims being about as useful as male nipples doesn't make the truth of it go away. Just makes you look afraid to talk about it. I've answered all your points (such as they are), now let's see if you can respond to mine.

[phildidge]

Hi Crazy

Will leave the name as that, as you are clearly cuckoo. When you don't understand an insult, it shows you are very ignorant, which makes it even funnier.
Notice the sentence: all the prohets in all the faiths are bad, clearly your claim of teaching english is rubbish, as to faiths, I mean the 3 main abrahamic, I have stated this a few times on here, Mohammed was bad if I go by the writings and so were all the rest, as an athiest religion to me is man made, the work of men to control people, so why would I like mohammed, when I give him the same time of days as other faiths none, what I don't do is say a faith is evil, especially when they are as bad as each other, many people believe through love, some also do through fear of death. I don't insult Paul, just show it is his line of teaching that christians follow today, how is this insulting him, you presume to much and get it wrong everytime. I debate muslims also, but you chose what you wish to believe my little cherub, as judging by your powers of deduction I am not suprised you get everything wrong.

My approach is to show all the faiths are wrong, this includes Islam, I show comparrisons between them, to show up the ridiculas claims made by some on here, if someone said to me they think the 3 main faiths have 3 evil gods, I would agree 100%, it does not mean though that people are taught this in faith, in Judasim, Christianty and Islam, they are taught their faith as one of peace and love, even though verses contradict this, which are used by extremists in all of these 3 faiths and they then carry out acts of evil. So when people claim it is one, I show easily how this is wrong.

So by calling Jesus, by his correct name, I am lying about being an ex catholic, even though it has been shown on here that I went to St Joseph's College, a catholic school on Beulah Hill and taught by the De la salle brothers, my head teacher was Brother Anthony if you are interested and a little known fact is Roddy Mcdowall attended this school, now how would I know that, or that there is a tradition of how the eagles heads turned on the villa at the school when a man commited suicide there or any other question you would like to ask, I even attended St Anthony's Primary school, would you like any more evidence, or would you like me to keep making you look really stupid and clearly show how bad you perceive people or even a faith for that matter?
I will await your apology, ha ha.

Opps looks like you missed a bit

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Plese look up, The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied by historians to an Early Christian council that was held in Jerusalem and dated to around the year 50. Then you may learn something, as you know little of Christianity and its origins, based on the written works

Of course mainstream Christianity will not admit, the same in islam, when scholars show how a faith is formed, man alive are you dim.
:
A dead language you say, blimey, best you don't go Ireland mate, I was taught this as a child though have not spoken in years, but many still do in villages. So again you know very little.

Not homophobic, far from it, was taking the mick, though it must have made a mark to explain how lovely she is, fair play and good luck to you, won't dish a woman just because she married a numpty, as I say, hope she can make you see sense.

I do claim to be a history teacher, as it is clear how bad people think history is or what they believe, so I have come to teach, if you don't like me saying that, then sorry I suggest you go have a little cry and hug with the misses.

So when I ask you to look up Jewish law, I must be a muslim, oh dear me, that is hilarious, go figure on that one.

I am telling the truth, it took some time for it to be picked up, as many were just wound up, including yourself, all your answers are "you must be a muslim"

Hard questions I may say Mohammed or homerjay do, but you, so no way..

Have a nice evening numpty

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Muhammad bin Lyin

It was me answering your points, ha ha, you make me laugh and I showed and proved they were wrong.

I answered every single one of them and you know it. How long will you troll this on?? How old are you?? You are beginning to strike me as an unreasonable, stubborn teen.

Of course he has to pay up, he has no evidence to back his claim,

How does that prove he is wrong?? Assuming one has insufficient evidence, then they can't prove themselves right, but how does that PROVE it wrong?? How many times do you need this explained to you?? You can't be this stupid, so it simply means you are this stubborn.

this is clear and simple, I have shown that without credible evidence, the claim cannot even be made,

Of course it can, but it can't be proven. So you are working under the logic that if I make a claim, and I can't prove it right, then I am automatically proven wrong. This is flawed at every single level.

i have shown this countless times,

And I have answered you every single time. You even lied. You originally said that Ali could be sued for libel and then after I PROVED that he cannot, you changed your claim to one of Ali not being able to prosecute Muhammad. Now, you have become a liar.

now all you can answer is the same point over my showing 11 points were rubbish as usual, you now say I was wrong, how?

If you show that Ali cannot prove he is right, this does not automatically prove him wrong in anybody's book under any set of laws or even logic.

1) Is the evidence that Ali used factual, the answer no.

2) Has this evidence been proved as factual, the answer no.

3) Is there any other evidence for his life, very little.

4) Does history take verbal stories as fact, the answer no.

None of this proves him wrong, at best, it prevents him from proving he is right. The two are not one and the same.

5) Are there any eyewitness accounts, in his lfetime, the answer no.

That's not true. Prove that none of the hadiths were actual eyewitness accounts passed down orally. All you can do is to make the blatant assumption that since they were passed down orally, they might not be accurate. But you only have an assumption. All you are saying is "chances are.....". That's not proof that all of them were passed down inaccurately, or even any of them.

It is the best evidence that anybody can gather and even if you say it falls short of evidence, the challenge does not involve Ali proving he is right, as you are desperately trying to alter it to, the challenge is for YOU to prove he is wrong. All you can do is to cast doubt on his sources, but that does not prove he is wrong, it only means he can't prove he is right. Inability to prove one is right simply does not automatically translate into proof that the person is wrong

6) Did Jesus smash up the Temple?

If you mean flip the tables of the money changers, i believe he did. Prove he didn't.

7) Was Jesus born in a stable?

I believe so. Prove he wasn't.

If I was to claim the last 2 points that he did, using the gosples, I would be a laughing stock,

Anybody who says he did rather than saying they believe he did would be a laughing stock. So how does this prove those stories wrong?? I can also say that based on all we have to know about him, he was a great person.

as they are not taken as facts,

And they are not proven wrong, just like you have not proved the hadiths wrong and therefore have no proved Ali wrong. you know that's the way the challenge was stated. Prove him wrong. But you continually dishonestly cheat and try to flip the challenge and demand that he prove himself right. That simply was not the challenge and you know that by now and now we all get to watch you merely be a stonewalling, stubborn liar. Look at how you tried to change your initial claim of someone being able to easy convict Ali for libel in a court, to Ali not being able to prosecute Muhammad in court. So now, you are even caught changing your story and claim, and therefore you are caught as a liar unless you admit you have done this. This is becoming disgusting to watch.

yet you wish to do the same with Ali's claim, classic, history is not formed from hearsay.

I can't prove him wrong. Can you?? NO. You can't even prove the hadiths wrong. All can do is to make an arbitrary assumption that since they were passed down orally, they are most likely wrong. That's not proof at ALL.

I have asked Ali for credible evidence to back up his claims and as yet he has not replied,

Why ask him to prove he is right and then say you met the challenge when the challenge was clearly for you to prove him wrong?? You cannot flip the challenge and then claim you've met it you liar. I call you this now because you certainly understand this after it has been explained to you 10 different times. So now, you are merely a stubborn, stonewalling liar who can never admit he's made a mistake. Shame on you.

I wonder why, because he knows he has none, as it is based on mythical writing.
Sorry you cannot except this and think you are right, but sad to say you are wrong, unless you have some authentic evidence, no, unlucky mate.

Where did you meet the challenge and prove him wrong?? This has been asked of you by multiple people, multiple times and you refuse to give a simple, direct answer to this. That makes you a blatant liar.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Here's another test of your integrity Phil. Did you or did you not say that Ali could be convicted of libel??

[phildidge]

Muhammad bin Lyin

Dear me, what people believe is not proof, they are basing their beliefs on works that are hearsay, not eyewitness accounts, that is what we call faith, not what we call historical fact. Your line of thinking is this, God parted the waters at the red sea, then you say prove this did not happen, you could say that for any claim that has been written down, again history is not done like that, I asked you before, are you a Christian, you did not answer I think?
When works are written down, in regards to avents or people, they do not say it is proof until proven wrong, it requires proof to make it real, like eyewitness accounts, there are none, or archeology, is very minimul, or out side sources, again very minimul.
The egyptians claimed there first kings lived for thousands of years, in their writings, is this proof they did? The sumarians claimed their first kings came from another planet, is this proof they did? The Jews claim Moses spoke to God through a burning bush, is this proof? the muslims claim Mohammed talked to god through the angel Gabriel, is this proof he did?

Can you see how stupid your stance is, belief is not a fact, you have to prove it is a fact, not the other way round.
So Ali is using works, that are not eyewitness accounts and are thus not deemed as historical proof that any of the claims they make happened, if you had other works outside islam to coroborrate them, then that is getting nearer to the truth, but he does not, his claim is hearsay, based on myths, here is the definition for you:

1.A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or event.

2.Such stories collectively

3.A widely held but false belief or idea

4.A misrepresentation of the truth

5.A fictitious or imaginary person or thing

6.An exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

Now either go back to school and actually learn what is a myth and what is history, or go and have a little nap, nighty night.

[aceaxe2]

Phildidge wrote " Is there any other evidence for his life, very little " and " ...archeology, is very minimul, or out side sources, again very minimul... "
You say there is evidence of Mo life .
Let me help your pathetic brain :
1 ) Mo might not as Ali claim to be
2 ) Mo might as Ali claim to be
So you have to prove no.1 is right
I already fire you if I'm your headmaster

[aceaxe2]

Crap , I miss for becoming the 1000 th . I figure out something cool

Axe : Phildidge might be ex christian and real history teacher .
Everyone : Boooo ! No way !
Axe : Phildidge might studied a lot but With his limited brain capacity , he always make poor conclusion . Thats why we think he lying .
Phildidge : ... ( He got me )
FFI member 1 : That can be .
FFI member 2 : Make sense .
FFI member 3 : Poor thing .
FFI member 4 : We been too hard on him .

Phildidge : Guys , if I know you will be so kind to me , I would admitted this from the start . Since born everyone call me stupid , I just want acknowledgement from other .
Axe : But you have talent Phildidge .
Phildidge : Really ?
Axe : Yes , a comedian . Without trying to make yourself look like a fool , you can make everybody laugh

[phildidge]

Phildidge wrote " Is there any other evidence for his life, very little " and " ...archeology, is very minimul, or out side sources, again very minimul... "
You say there is evidence of Mo life .
Let me help your pathetic brain :
1 ) Mo might not as Ali claim to be
2 ) Mo might as Ali claim to be
So you have to prove no.1 is right
I already fire you if I'm your headmaster

I really did not understand any of that gobbledygook, I know my spelling can be bad, when I do not check what I have written, but am unsure what english slang the above is, maybe you could enlighten me, as what is "mo might as Ali claim to be" sounds like a a rap song??.

[phildidge]

Crap , I miss for becoming the 1000 th . I figure out something cool

Axe : Phildidge might be ex christian and real history teacher .
Everyone : Boooo ! No way !
Axe : Phildidge might studied a lot but With his limited brain capacity , he always make poor conclusion . Thats why we think he lying .
Phildidge : ... ( He got me )
FFI member 1 : That can be .
FFI member 2 : Make sense .
FFI member 3 : Poor thing .
FFI member 4 : We been too hard on him .

Phildidge : Guys , if I know you will be so kind to me , I would admitted this from the start . Since born everyone call me stupid , I just want acknowledgement from other .
Axe : But you have talent Phildidge .
Phildidge : Really ?
Axe : Yes , a comedian . Without trying to make yourself look like a fool , you can make everybody laugh

Excellent humour, well done, shame you didn't raise any points as usual..more gobbledygook me thinks.

[aceaxe2]

Mo = Mohammad