Rachel Maddow has Donald Trump's tax returns

You continuously ask the same question over and over.

I give you citations and you refuse to acknowledge them and again, reminder, of the two of us i am the only one providing citations and i have asked you for numerous citations myself and youve ignored every single one of them. All you seem to want to do is rephrase the same question, mince my words and IMO intentionally ignore points made. So if you'd like me to address some of your questions, ask your questions and from this point on ill just copy and paste what i already wrote since you dont seem to be reading it. But im not putting any more effort into this if youre not going to bother reading anything. A quick example of this, this was your last question/response:

Zen Buddhism was not principally about consoling communities and controlling them. It was about spreading the superiority of Zen Buddhism and it's adherents. This lies at the heart of some of the more recent hatreds between the Japanese and Chinese, even before both of the world wars..

You some how came up with this response to my paragraphs of:

You're getting the affects of religion mixed up with direct interpretations. Obviously religion has a... controlling and community affect. Which is what this book speaks of, yes? How it was used to help garner support for country and community. Any ideology can do this and its very, very, very different from direct passages telling you to do specific things. Which again, is what we are talking about with Islam. This is actually the point people try to make when they attempt to fully excuse Islam, when they say "any religion can have false interpretations" or "be bastardized" or whatever they want to say. This is why we say they are wrong, because we can show them the literal passages that obviously have an affect on country and acts in war......

.........As for NanteNbo, i dont know what to tell you.... you dont seem to understand the vast difference between a religious text preaching something, and a warlord or politician using religion or a preacher using religion. You're completely removing the human experience, the human context to this all. If you want to show that a religion teaches something, then show the religious text promoting this. Humans are greedy and petty and stupid, people want power by any means, that is NOT the same thing as a religious book promoting this power by any means.

So either you have a very hard time with reading comprehension or you're simply reading one or two sentences and then repeating yourself over and over, which i wont be a part of.

On Boko Haram, you gave a link that was an opinion piece which cited an article, that was not even an article, but a single man's opinion from a roundtable discussion in France of some sort. No empirical evidence nor polling of any kind was included. So I ask you to prove Boko Haram is proliferate with Christians. Your failure to do so in any way does not assuage the burden of proof being upon you.

On Zen Buddhism. If you want to use the fabric of our lives argument, and also insist that these eastern religions are merely ethical philosophies, not that philosophy is rather open ended, and Zen Buddhism is an interpretation of such. Zen Buddhist leaders were actually doing what they did based upon plausible, although tenuous, readings of certain scriptures and viewpoints from earlier Buddhist thinkers.

The line of reasoning is: I am the shepherd, humanity is the flock, the shepherd is acting within the Buddha nature when he culls part of the herd for the betterment of the herd as a whole. This is conforming to the Buddha nature. Crappy moral reasoning? Most definitely! Plausible, given the work faith does for the believer? Certainly.

With boko i gave you an article AND told you exactly what you needed to search for if w/hundreds/thousands of results you felt that was inadequate. Sorry man, im not going to do all your research for you. At that point your stance should have been "okay well let me look into it" instead, you just continue to demand citations. I do believe this is also the doc. that interviews religious mixed groups. I did mean to get this to you earlier, my bad for not. youtube.com/watch?v=1kimbo5c0Ak

I said eastern religions are mostly philosophies or have original text based as philosophy and almost none fit the same religious type as most monotheist or Abrahamic religions. .... I went into detail on the differences and cited the original texts.

I dont know why you're so intent on leaving the human factor out of this whole thing. Humans are petty, jealous, seek answers, seek power, etc. They can take anything and twist it, its why we see (uncommon but they are out there) people twist Darwins work into an ideology of superior species.

Which again, is something you can twist anything to. This is what you're not accounting for. Any form of ideology or government or religion or even fact, can be twisted in these ways. Forms of government are twisted in these ways. Religions, even the non-horrific one's can be, scientific theories can. What you're citing is not necessarily the details of a religion, rather the nature of humans seeking power. And if we take this back to the beginning, its just simply shows why its silly to compare ZB to Islam. Islam actually demands these things, you dont need to falsely or oddly ill even say, "interpret" the writings of the Quran and Hadith to come out with totalitarianism. With ZB you HAVE to have someone else come along and add to the original texts or dramatically take everything out of context and well beyond its original meanings to get what youre suggesting, and its ALWAYS done in the name of individual or state power. Look at the example you proved where you had to take a single sentence, out of context and out of meaning in order to suggest it was a promotion of war. When the reality is its not a command for anything, its a suggestive path with no consequences for not following, and is really just a way of promoting a mental state of "its all the same".

Anything that is a tool for someone to grasp and use as power, they will exploit and use in this way. This is also not to say that eastern religions dont have their own problems that we tend to not see with Abrahamic, of course they do. As Hitchens (who you seem to like) would say, its immoral and wrong to preach peace to the enemy when men women and children are being slaughtered. THAT is an issue, but nothing youve attempted to cite with ZB is within the founding or base of the philosophy itself, you have to go further than that to find it and again, like 20th time, its not an extension of whats inherent to ZB, its a bastardization used by people seeking control and power. Islam in a literal reading of, demands the worst of humanity. I have yet to figure out how youre unable to distinguish the difference between a religious commandment that we see in say Islam, and philosophical suggestions with zero punishments for not following that we see in ZB... these foundations are very different.

So ive spent more time on an original reply than i wanted to, so you can answer me my question. What did you get with the thought experiment i gave you? What are the results?

You gave me this site: http://dailypost.ng/2015/07/13/most-boko-haram-members-are-christians-report/

This site gives zero citations. It says most Boko Haram are christians, and says this is from a report. No such report exists. What they said, without citation, is that this information comes from Radio France International reporting of the European Conference on African Studies. This is not a report. The speaking of Christian membership comes from ONE SPEAKER in a roundtable saying it, not reporting even a single number. Pure, unadulterated conjecture. Nothing more. Hell, in the paragraph before this claim, it is said they dont really even know much about Boko Haram at all!!

Once again, prove Boko Haram's Christian membership, like you claimed earlier. Because every article I am seeing links to the article you provided in the first place, or are testimonies from christians who either fought or escaped Boko Haram massacres. In 6 pages of google search on Boko Haram Christian membership, I have one article that lists a single christian Boko Haram member. 1!!!!

Islam apologists are in full force on these boards. Good luck.

It makes me wonder how many Jews have to be lit on fire, or gays thrown off buildings, or German cafes have to be blown up for people to recognize a goddamn pattern, and honestly look at who the pattern is unique to. Hell, I was able to spot this shit when I was 14, and I was a christian then!!

People are more about the idea of being open and understanding. Understanding a reason, doesn't justify it. This generation sucks at comprehending that.

I dont even think my generation gets that far. You cannot understand a reason to begin with if you refuse to upset the narrative rolling the reels within your synapses.

I had a hard time being polite with this response.

You're clearly not reading what has been expressed and you continue to be very dismissive of basic facts and reality and you demonstrate this by dodging any question posed to you and intentionally misrepresenting nearly everything ive said, as well as some of your attempted quotes.

You, for some reason, have this very big issue with us gathering as much information as possible and applying all aspects of an issue before moving forward... thats pretty ........... basic right? This is a 101 as it gets in problem solving, right? Are my expectations too high here?

I asked you to gather information, and you refused. For like the fifth time, prove Boko Haram, as you claimed, was proliferate with Christians members. Remember, Boko Haram having tons of Christians is what you stated showed Christians were just as brutal. It is not very helpful for your argument when your own criteria are not followed by you, who made the positive claim.

You are the one defending Islam, and stating it is not uniquely violent. At no point did I so much as even imply that faith was not the deeper problem. It is you refusing to accept the differences between ideologies.

Ive never defended Islam. Not once. You assume that because you don't read what i very clearly state. Its not the promotion or defending, its wanting to know all the details of a scenario that is NOT a result of one single thing and that cannot appropriately address a problem with your nonsense of wanting to ignore the reality of these situations.

The old line of "They're all equally as screwed up!" Ignores the unique violence within Islam, and it is coincidentally the same line of reasoning that apologists like Buhkari, Hassan and Aslan routinely use. Remember it was you who stated that in the real world, there is no threat from the middle east. Your argument seems to be "The problem does not exist, so how can I defend something?" Absurd, asinine.

I do get annoyed with the capital gains tax. It's incredibly frustrating to pay around 50% of my income in taxes, whereas people that make far more than me, pay 15%. That is not fair. I understand that capital gains/investments, etc. are harder to tax and you want people to invest for economic reasons, but it's still unfair.

You once again alter something i said. I never said this. In fact i went out of my way to detail unique issues with Islam right now. But you dont really care because youre not interested in actually reading what i very clearly stated, you just want to assume and than argue.

"Remember it was you who stated that in the real world, there is no threat from the middle east."

Example 2 in a what? Four sentence response? Boy you're doing good here.

I said as an American the terrorist threat is not of major concern for us, for Europeans its an increased concern but is something we've discovers you have to strengthen your own convictions to handle. This was as a result of you ignoring that for America or Europe, they are not really a military threat so you decided to go with Sharia courts.

When you're able to accurately quote or paraphrase someone, get back to me. Until then i dont know what to tell you, but youve demonstrated to be completely incompetent in doing this.

Your fist post in this thread started with the sentence "In the real world there is no threat of the middle east."

But now it seems your opinion is that of "It has not happened to us, therefore it is not a problem!"

So congratulations, your opinion is different, and yet you are still morally confused, and promoting an immoral position.

Also, for the sixth time, back your assertion of Boko Haram Christian membership with a single piece of verifiable information, Mr. "When you're able to accurately quote or paraphrase someone"............

Oh ya? Is that all i said, or did i say: "In the real world there is no threat of the middle east. The threat is from rather small groups of people that come from these areas, who have been armed by the US and Russia. Iran is the only threat to the US or any European nation, and IMO Iran has demonstrated self preservation as well as anyone."

Which you gathered by reading the sentence where i state terrorism is a not a threat to us but definitely a larger concern for Europe and then how to address sharia in these countries..... okay.

Here's the constant problem you've displayed. You seem to be completely unable to work in detail and nuance. This entire argument is due to your complete inability to understand that the situation we face is the result of and driven by, numerous issues. I have no idea how someone can be so stupid that they cant recognize this, but apparently youre on this path.

Ill tell you what. I asked you a series of questions that i never got a response to (instead you ignored them while demanding citations i have already given you) and i asked you to give me the results of the thought processes that youre intentionally avoiding responding to. So when you get around to that, ill get around to giving you more than the citations and then where to find further citations that i have already given you.

"Debating" with you, as i mentioned before, has been on par with a creationist. You demand evidence from me that you will not give yourself. When i provide evidence you dismiss it for no valid reason (for some reason expecting there to be peer review on the current groups of Boko.. this seems to be your attempt at the scientific process, while some how failing at it), the intentional misrepresentation or misquoting of my words. Of course lastly, the intentional ignoring of questions posed to yourself or the answering of questions with another question. When you can stop doing these things and start doing the things youre demanding of me, things i have already done but you want to dismiss but things you absolutely refuse to do... then we can move on. Until then its just going to be you intentionally lying.

You can throw as many paragraphs as you want, you are promoting a "Does not happen to me, not a problem" line of reasoning. Nuance? "ah nah, it's just a few small groups of people with ak47s, that is all it is!!" Pathetic argument which is not supported by the facts. Decades of pew and gallup polls clearly, empirically show that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims that support ideas antithetical to liberal values. And hey, it's not like the US has any diplomatic or cultural ties with Europe, so, not our problem!!! And of course we are not diametrically opposed to the values of Islam, no no no.

What citations did you give me to back up your claim of a massive Christian membership in Boko Haram?

For the seventh time, back up your claim of Christian Boko Haram membership with a single study or infographic map. A link to an op ed sending you to a guy asserting a point in a roundtable discussion, providing zero facts, is not attributable evidence of any kind.

I debated in college, and you are not debating, you are simply refusing to back up a tendentious falsehood you brought forward. Below, I will show you information on Boko Haram that actually utilizes empirical studies, polling, and CITATIONS to peer reviewed works. Coincidentally, these cited examples give no support to your claim of high Christian membership in Boko Haram, weird!!

http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/553?highlight=boko+haram

http://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.cl/

https://www.hudson.org/research/10172-nigerian-al-qaedaism-

First sentence in and you demonstrate an inability to read. Congratulations.

Not only have you said this before, but i addressed it the last time you said it and put you in your place when doing so. Apparently that place was lost. At this point i dont even know what to say to you except that you're a liar. It sucks we've gotten to that point but you've been corrected on these things so often that any reasonable person would think to themselves to re-read what was said and then address it. You on the other hand have had your ass handed to you, at least half a dozen times on the subject of misquoting or mis-paraphrasing myself or someone else and at this point there is no excuse to continue to do so and to do so is going to be you intentionally lying.

The point of mentioning this, since its entirely lost on you, is that we are not up against a nation. You attempt to rationalize that this is happening by suggesting Sharia is the same as these terrorists, and while Sharia definitely a concern for those of promoting equality and freedom, its not something you should be connecting here, the in way you are. Id like to go into detail but i feel it would fall on deaf ears.

Oh yah? They taught you to not cite anything in debate? They taught you to avoid answering opposing questions in debate? Now, i remember debate class and i remember losing debates if i missed responding to one thing or answer questions with questions.... which is your bread and butter here. And once again id like to point out this is the first time in our entire conversation you've decided to give any citations for anything, despite being asked numerous times in the past on numerous points you made and you never doing so..... and what youre citing is not even a point you made, its in an attempt to dismiss my point and apparently you didnt even read them. At least not the Stanford one.... or you did read it and decided that what was mentioned was not worth further investigation... either way you tell your teacher how badly you failed. Remind me what college you went to and who your debate professor was?

BTW, here is from that Stanford article you linked:

"a Christian from southern Nigeria, Boko Haram carried out a series of bombings during Jonathan’s presidential inauguration in May 2011."

Your own citation tells you that maybe... just maybe, you should do a better job looking into this.

BTW i did not say it was a "high christian membership", i said it was about a quarter for certain groups in certain areas, many of these groups are actually at war with other Boko groups........ But hey, why should you try to quote someone accurately when you can lie?

The European Conference on African Studies set to hold this week gave Nigerian researchers an opportunity to meet in Paris and took part in a round table entitled

"Within and around Boko Haram in Nigeria". Read the comments of two researchers below: Ini Dele-Adedeji (School of Oriental and African Studies):

* Boko Haram's pledged allegiance to the Islamic State "Transnational, international aims - I have not seen evidence to support that. So I think they want to carve out a Sharia state in a part of northern Nigeria. But I don't think they intend for it to cover the whole of sub-Saharan Africa."

Murray Last: University College of London: 1. Lack of knowledge about Boko Haram "The real problem of Boko Haram is that no one has actually infiltrated them or if they have, they haven't come out, or they've joined them. So the level of knowledge about the insides of Boko Haram is remarkedly small."

2. Boko Haram leadership - Abubakar Shekau "If you analyse the photographs you seem to have so many people that might be Shekau. Shekau has been pronounced dead by the Nigerian press and army so many times. So what one's dealing with is quite possibly the title of leader like Shekau, which could be applied to anyone."

3. Number of fighters, salary and Christians "It's almost certainly bound to be about 5,000, but some people put the numbers up way higher. The other problem is that of course as far as we know it's quite a good job, at one point you could be paid 400 dollars a month for just simply joining them, you wouldn't have to go fighting, you would spend your first months doing logistics or training. It's quite profitable joining Boko Haram because you not only loot places, but you share the loot out at the end. And the third point that I think is important to realise is that there are plenty of Christians who are part of Boko Haram because it's a job." Read more: https://www.naij.com/486149-report-claims-many-boko-haram-members-are-christians.html

I was going to pull up the actual research papers, but i figured its lost on you anyway. Youll find some stupid reason to dismiss this or pretend it does not exist. The simple fact that you make proclamations that suggest otherwise, while being unwilling to research the topic yourself after i gave you a previous citation and a source for more, THEN your own citation demonstrates to you that maybe you should do this furthering of research, tells me that no matter what i give you it wont be acceptable. Like it or not you argue exactly like a creationist.... which makes sense given.............

I will say this much, after another post of yours its all coming together. You're an AIU type guy.

The majority of your post consists of "No! You're dumb, so I cant explain my claims to you!!" Despite me already bringing pew poll results done in the majority of Muslim countries, excluding many of the most repressive and violent Muslim societies.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

On boko Haram:

1 incident? That is what you can find to prove your claim? 1 incident?

The first post you even mentioned Boko Haram, you in a sentence about Christian barbarity, included "or siding with Islam to murder jews (Boko)" seeming to imply you thought Boko Haram was not in fact an Islamist group, but a Christian one siding with Muslim killers. Odd. You followed this, a few posts later, with "And btw, again, Boko Haram is like 25% christian, it depends on the region and how common this is." You made a general statement that Boko Haram is, like 25% Christian, then stipulated that this is simply a region by region phenomenon. This assertion, contradictory in itself, was backed by another man, in a roundtable discussion, without citing a single piece of evidence, simply stated Boko Haram has a sizeable Christian membership. In attempt to prove this claim, you send me on a citation loop that contains zero verifiable data.

Look at your last post. You give me Naij.com, which simply copies and pastes the same info you gave me before. The information goes to Radio France International's "Report", which was actually a roundtable discussion in which these men speaking stated "The real problem of Boko Haram is that no one has actually infiltrated them or if they have, they haven't come out, or they've joined them. So the level of knowledge about the insides of Boko Haram is remarkedly small." One of them made the claim, entirely unverified and unsupported by a single piece of data, and you refuse to accept, or at least admit that this is not verifiable information.

You have not even answered my first critique of your position, which was asking you to prove your assertion that violence undertaken by Muslims and Muslim groups, despite being passionately articulated by these killers or groups, is indeed not an direct result of Islamic teaching, but is a socio economic issue. Please prove that, and beyond it, prove as to what the reason is for this being a problem uniquely pervasive within the Muslim world, as opposed to other impoverished and oppressed groups who do not undertake wanton slaughters of non combatant civilians.

Your attempts to make me sound foolish are kind of flat. You attempt to say I brought no cited works. A. You made the positive claim that there is no threat from the Middle East, because apparently you are right, while intelligence analysts, historians, anthropologists, and political scientists are not. B. I brought Pew studies to bear pretty quickly. The last three reports I brought to bear in my last post each had over 40 citations a piece.

The middle east is the biggest thread on earth right now. Liberals will deny it because they want you to believe global warming is going to go around murdering people.

Really? Is that what they consist of? Are you sure you're not reading your own posts? I find this funny given how many times ive written four or five paragraphs explaining everything, included citations or sources, and your response is to avoid everything but then write out a single paragraph about how wrong i am because i refused to do your research for you.

BTW, did your college debate professor tell you that polling is a reliable source? Did he/she teach you that its some how better to recorded history and investigative journalism? Did he/she also teach you to completely ignore what the other person has said? I feel the answer is "yes", because if it was "no", you wouldn't be running in these circles. While funny enough, if "yes", than you had the worst debate teacher in the country who did not even teach you debate 101.

Again, apparently reading very basic English is a big problem for you.

I suggest going back and reading what i actually said.

Another great example of your inability to read basic English.

As for your citations, one was a poll (which as someone who took college debate you know how flaws polls are... right? Because you took debate in college, right?) and the other didnt detail anything you thought it did, and in fact if you read it you should have....... actually read my previous post to finish this sentence.

I also find "point A" to be very entertaining. It does a great job of highlighting your inability to read basic English, while also diving into your biggest problem; the fact that historians, political scientists, anthropologists, etc. are saying the same thing as me. Ill even say the outspoken atheists, say the same thing as myself. But apparently you're too simple minded to read basic English to be able to fully grasp any of this.

I find it quite funny, your attempt to discredit the information I provided, with dozens of sources, by showing one of those sources is a poll. Wow. This is at the same time, asking you, who made the positive claims, to provide proof of your assertions. I have asked you nine times now, to prove Boko Haram's Christian membership, and you cannot even stoop to providing information, except for a guy saying something once during a roundtable discussion, and a single Christian Boko Haram member, literally one member.

Prove political scientists, anthropologists, historians, etc are saying exactly what you are saying, that Islam is not at this moment a unique threat. I await more conjecture.

Here is a fact: There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who, under certain circumstances, could accept the indiscriminate murder of non combatant civilians in defense of Islam. No other religion has this level of support for this type of terrorism. The information below, which excludes a lot of the most hardcore Muslim states, shows this to be true. Disprove this information

Instead of simply repeating myself over and over and demonstrating how you fail at basic reading, i will just keep telling you to go back and read what i very clearly stated on every single thing you've mentioned and have some how, managed to misrepresent what i said. I should have stuck to it before and i didnt, and thats on me. But until you learn to read basic English and can accurately quote myself or others, we are done.

I quoted what you said, verbatim, and pointed out the contradictions. I ask you for the 10th time to prove your initial assertions of Boko Haram having a sizeable Christian membership. You brought me no citations, merely your absurdly easily discredited website that contains no citation, but a single assertion by one person, without a single piece of data. You made the positive claim, now back it up with data.

From my above post, which quoted what you said:

The first post you even mentioned Boko Haram, you in a sentence about Christian barbarity, included "or siding with Islam to murder jews (Boko)" seeming to imply you thought Boko Haram was not in fact an Islamist group, but a Christian one siding with Muslim killers. Odd. You followed this, a few posts later, with "And btw, again, Boko Haram is like 25% christian, it depends on the region and how common this is." You made a general statement that Boko Haram is, like 25% Christian, then stipulated that this is simply a region by region phenomenon.

And this is all to back up your claim that Islam is no threat, going "Nuh uh, there's a Christian terrorist group right here!!"

1 citation was investigative journalism.

1 citation was a peer review study by three academics.

1 that you gave, was a general overview of mostly events that contained information that should have told you to look into the subject a bit more.

None of it matters because you did exactly what i knew you would do.

Prove you wrong?

You gave me one site, along with another that linked to the original site. On neither was there a single citation. Give me the citations, and then if they are credible, yes, I will admit your assertion of Boko Haram's christian membership. However, this point proven on your part would do nothing to prove your original assertion, which is that Islam is no threat.

Hillelslovak is a creationist attempting to masquerade as something different. Its very easy to tell given how he demands information from someone else, while never living up to those standards himself. The dismissal of citations and data simply because he feels like it. The way he says things and phrases things is very telling... "Unique". Using this word in places it does not belong and using it to describe the situation with Islam right now. When anyone who knows anything about the history of Abrahamic religions knows this is not unique, its the par for the course. The constant changing or shifting of topics. The intentional changing of what was said, w/a response to what had been intentionally altered. The complete avoidance of questions where he knows the answer is damaging to his position. etc.

Creationist!! The positively supine lengths you will go to in order to not admit your assertion was wrong!! lol!! Creationist!! I did not know that asking someone to actually prove their assertions with information is akin to fossil rabbits in the pre cambrian!!

Learn what unique means. Group A can be reliably expected to riot, burn, murder, behead, harass, intimidate, and blow up human beings for offense to their religion. Groups B-Z do not do this, and have not resorted to anywhere near the violence group A has undertaken on a reliable basis whatsoever, in decades, and hundreds of years for some groups. Group A is unique.

I'll post a video below, and you will be free to try to prove that this type of thinking is not a threat, or a unique one.

Tell me, why are Islamic fundamentalists so dangerous? Would you say that the fundamentals of Islam are bad? What about Jains? Would you be afraid of a fundamentalist Jain? I would think not, because the fundamentals of Jainism could not be used rationally to commit violence against others, as Jainism's core tenet is non violation of living beings. So tell me, if Islamic fundamentalists are dangerous, do the fundamentals of Islam play no part in the wicked things it's most ardent adherents undertake? Answer truthfully once, without obfuscation.

@n64dd

See.

This desire to ignore 2500 years of abrahamic religion destroying the world in order to call the current state of Islam "unique". There is nothing unique about it, its not the only religion with or once had wide spread blasphemy laws. As stated before this is simply par of the course and should be expected of all three Abrahamic religions if one is paying attention and that expectation comes from all of religious history.

This complete ignoring of my assertion that he then turned into his own assumptions instead of paying attention to what i very clearly stated.

The constant attempt at bringing up Jainism as a comparative religion because he knows he cannot use the abrahamic religions. So he brings up a religion that consists of less than 0.001% of the worlds population, instead of one that represents 15-20% and is nearly exactly the same.

This ignoring that fundamentalists generally being extremist and outrageous in behavior is not unique to Islam.

Even down to the "Hey, ill post a video of some people talking and giving their view of things, and that demonstrates proof". Which i didnt even watch for more than 30 seconds. Not that i need to, if he payed attention to the things ive said, he would know that i fully realize and understand Islam and Islam and Abrahamic history.

This is all classic rationale of creationists. Of those who want to pretend that Islam and Christianity are very different, that Christianity is not guilty of the same crimes, to ignore that these are cycles we see with these two religions. But even worse, to pretend that the problem can boiled down to one thing.

Whether he is a creationist or not, i have no idea. But he sure uses their arguing tactics and seems to have a very similar one track mind. I will however say that we actually tend to see this with "converts" as well. People who where once religious and now identify as "atheists". where for one reason or another they lost their religion but the thought processes that got them there in the first place, are still there.

There's a fairly large "atheist youtuber" that was in a similar box to him (im assuming given what Hil has said) where they were once religious and now they are super atheists! or super anti-religion, to the point where they let it blind them on many issues. Theyll blame religion when it might be to blame for parts of an incident or situation, but there are other human aspects that are also to blame. But this person and i believe Hill, are incapable of understanding this equation. This youtuber did this video on how the world would be so much better without religion, how all these problems would be solved and blah blah blah. We ended up exchanging emails for a while on the subject and i attempted to explain to her (as i have done with Hill) that maybe some individual issues would vanish and most likely things would improve scientifically. But the same people who felt it was a good idea to follow those religions, would still be living. These people who made these horrific choices would still be here on earth, why would we assume they'd make better choices? We dont need religion to come up with a series of horrific ideas that are very damaging to mankind. That would create rather unique scenarios. You don't need religion to have dictatorships or totalitarian governments. Look at what has happened with the "atheist community" with Watson and then ideological feminism. How long would it take for that to morph into murder? Its already an attempt at mind control and original sin basically. Human nature and the human effect is what is left out of these equations for many people and that includes Hill.