Panorama: Muslim 1st, British 2nd
02 April 2009, 05:26 PM
#271
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite me mentioning that this question has been answered before again I will spell it out in a way that your tiny intellect can handle. British citizens whatever faith have every right to offer an opinion on how the country should be run. Muslim or not being British entitles them to an opinion and the right to voice it.
02 April 2009, 05:45 PM
#272
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you just go round and round in circles producing nothing new and no real proof of the statements that you persist in making. Carry on like that and you might disappear in a nasty place!
There is of course a great deal about Charles Darwin on the Net. I have included a quote or two to indicate his thinking. Incidentally please show me exactly where you say that I attempted to defame him or his work. If you check you will see that I said that there was no reason why I could not accept his theory and hang on to my personal beliefs, he said himself of course that he did not consider that his work did not cause him to doubt the existence of a superior being. Putting inaccurate satements about what I am supposed to have said does nothing for your argument.
Statement by Darwin:-
"I had no intention to write atheistically….I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence."
Quotes from articles about his work:-
"This did not mean, however, that an ultimate Creator and designer of the universe was deleted from his philosophy of nature. He did not believe that the universe was self-explanatory and in the late 1850s and early 1860s was still willing to describe the laws of nature as ordained by the Creator in such a way that the highest good we can conceive – namely the production of the higher animals – would be brought about. In his large book on natural selection, of which the Origin was a summary, he explicitly defined what he meant by ‘nature’ in order to make this clear: “By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe."
"This is not Darwin the atheist of popular caricature"
"In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.
A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions."
He did vary from what he thought was as a theist to an agnostic as he lived his life but he never was an atheist.
Are you able to differentiate between and atheist and an agnostic by the way?
I think you would do well to take your own advice and make sure you know all the facts and it would help to keep an open mind too. By the way, you are not in a position to accuse me of twisting facts. You have been very quick to tell me how I think, in such a way which you consider will best serve your purposes.
Your style of constant attack leads me to wonder if you are actually fully confident in your stated beliefs.
You rudely called my post laughable, I think the statement you made, coming from an atheist, and reproduced below, really takes the biscuit!
"Jesus Christ man.... I beg you.. please read what I said!!!"
Why use the name of someone you say never existed?
Les
There is of course a great deal about Charles Darwin on the Net. I have included a quote or two to indicate his thinking. Incidentally please show me exactly where you say that I attempted to defame him or his work. If you check you will see that I said that there was no reason why I could not accept his theory and hang on to my personal beliefs, he said himself of course that he did not consider that his work did not cause him to doubt the existence of a superior being. Putting inaccurate satements about what I am supposed to have said does nothing for your argument.
Statement by Darwin:-
"I had no intention to write atheistically….I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence."
Quotes from articles about his work:-
"This did not mean, however, that an ultimate Creator and designer of the universe was deleted from his philosophy of nature. He did not believe that the universe was self-explanatory and in the late 1850s and early 1860s was still willing to describe the laws of nature as ordained by the Creator in such a way that the highest good we can conceive – namely the production of the higher animals – would be brought about. In his large book on natural selection, of which the Origin was a summary, he explicitly defined what he meant by ‘nature’ in order to make this clear: “By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe."
"This is not Darwin the atheist of popular caricature"
"In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.
A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions."
He did vary from what he thought was as a theist to an agnostic as he lived his life but he never was an atheist.
Are you able to differentiate between and atheist and an agnostic by the way?
I think you would do well to take your own advice and make sure you know all the facts and it would help to keep an open mind too. By the way, you are not in a position to accuse me of twisting facts. You have been very quick to tell me how I think, in such a way which you consider will best serve your purposes.
Your style of constant attack leads me to wonder if you are actually fully confident in your stated beliefs.
You rudely called my post laughable, I think the statement you made, coming from an atheist, and reproduced below, really takes the biscuit!
"Jesus Christ man.... I beg you.. please read what I said!!!"
Why use the name of someone you say never existed?
Les
>
02 April 2009, 07:57 PM
#274
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you just go round and round in circles producing nothing new and no real proof of the statements that you persist in making. Carry on like that and you might disappear in a nasty place!
There is of course a great deal about Charles Darwin on the Net. I have included a quote or two to indicate his thinking. Incidentally please show me exactly where you say that I attempted to defame him or his work. If you check you will see that I said that there was no reason why I could not accept his theory and hang on to my personal beliefs, he said himself of course that he did not consider that his work did not cause him to doubt the existence of a superior being. Putting inaccurate satements about what I am supposed to have said does nothing for your argument.
Statement by Darwin:-
"I had no intention to write atheistically….I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence."
Quotes from articles about his work:-
"This did not mean, however, that an ultimate Creator and designer of the universe was deleted from his philosophy of nature. He did not believe that the universe was self-explanatory and in the late 1850s and early 1860s was still willing to describe the laws of nature as ordained by the Creator in such a way that the highest good we can conceive – namely the production of the higher animals – would be brought about. In his large book on natural selection, of which the Origin was a summary, he explicitly defined what he meant by ‘nature’ in order to make this clear: “By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe."
"This is not Darwin the atheist of popular caricature"
"In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.
A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions."
He did vary from what he thought was as a theist to an agnostic as he lived his life but he never was an atheist.
Are you able to differentiate between and atheist and an agnostic by the way?
I think you would do well to take your own advice and make sure you know all the facts and it would help to keep an open mind too. By the way, you are not in a position to accuse me of twisting facts. You have been very quick to tell me how I think, in such a way which you consider will best serve your purposes.
Your style of constant attack leads me to wonder if you are actually fully confident in your stated beliefs.
You rudely called my post laughable, I think the statement you made, coming from an atheist, and reproduced below, really takes the biscuit!
"Jesus Christ man.... I beg you.. please read what I said!!!"
Why use the name of someone you say never existed?
Les
There is of course a great deal about Charles Darwin on the Net. I have included a quote or two to indicate his thinking. Incidentally please show me exactly where you say that I attempted to defame him or his work. If you check you will see that I said that there was no reason why I could not accept his theory and hang on to my personal beliefs, he said himself of course that he did not consider that his work did not cause him to doubt the existence of a superior being. Putting inaccurate satements about what I am supposed to have said does nothing for your argument.
Statement by Darwin:-
"I had no intention to write atheistically….I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence."
Quotes from articles about his work:-
"This did not mean, however, that an ultimate Creator and designer of the universe was deleted from his philosophy of nature. He did not believe that the universe was self-explanatory and in the late 1850s and early 1860s was still willing to describe the laws of nature as ordained by the Creator in such a way that the highest good we can conceive – namely the production of the higher animals – would be brought about. In his large book on natural selection, of which the Origin was a summary, he explicitly defined what he meant by ‘nature’ in order to make this clear: “By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe."
"This is not Darwin the atheist of popular caricature"
"In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.
A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions."
He did vary from what he thought was as a theist to an agnostic as he lived his life but he never was an atheist.
Are you able to differentiate between and atheist and an agnostic by the way?
I think you would do well to take your own advice and make sure you know all the facts and it would help to keep an open mind too. By the way, you are not in a position to accuse me of twisting facts. You have been very quick to tell me how I think, in such a way which you consider will best serve your purposes.
Your style of constant attack leads me to wonder if you are actually fully confident in your stated beliefs.
You rudely called my post laughable, I think the statement you made, coming from an atheist, and reproduced below, really takes the biscuit!
"Jesus Christ man.... I beg you.. please read what I said!!!"
Why use the name of someone you say never existed?
Les
I also see you asking for proof where you believe I've targeted you specifically when, in fact, I've used the term 'people' & 'types' in most if not all instances.
I've come to see quite plainly that you've answered, justified and explained very little of worth. What you have done is constantly turn it back to you and some personal affront. This doesn't surprise me one bit as religious types (there, I go again) use the very same tactics and obfuscations in order to wriggle out of answering the questions. It's remarkably childlike in its application. It also plainly shows a lot about the lack of understanding in the subject matter.
I did say that you could find cut down, misquoted and out of context statements and theories to the contrary because it's been shown on a number of occasions that religious types (there's another one) like to spin this around in a cheap and tacky attempt at deflecting the awkward questions by attacking the man rather than his valuable ideas and work (just like Einstein). It's well documented, plain to see and no secret that Darwin did struggle with his initial orthodox doctrine and, as a scientist, rightly looked at and wrote about all the possibilities. Some of these would have asked the question about the existence of a deity.
Ultimately, we could do this all day long, but Darwin died an Agnostic (and your petty attempt at getting a rise from me asking if I know the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is from the same childlike stable we see all too often.)
On one thing I agree. This is futile and it will be my last response to you on the subject until I see some light of free and open thinking and intelligent discourse rather than finger pointing and a 'tit for tat' style of response.
So I will leave with a few checkmates and a sadness that religious intransigence is alive and well.
Last edited by Alan C; 02 April 2009 at 08:10 PM.
02 April 2009, 09:02 PM
#276
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People, you included have a knack of hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see, if you were really that interested you would look for yourself and contact the muslim groups and institutions who are combating extremeism, the opposition to the Muslim fundamentalists is in perfect proportion to the tiny number of people who are extremists but you are convinced that Muslims are some scarey bunch of nutters who want sharia law and no amount of forceing reality down your throat will change that.
Visiting my local Mosque isn't going to give me that UK perspective.
More importantly....
I'm far from saying the Muslims are a scary bunch of nutters. Why can't you read my posts and quote me correctly!!
I'll say it again for the hard of understanding as this was a reply to you!!!
Luan.
GC8's obvious frustration is borne from those very minorities getting a seemingly unfair amount of airtime compared to their friendly, decent and upstanding brethren. The same brethren who are seemingly incapable of mounting a decent defence against this vocal minority.
GC8's obvious frustration is borne from those very minorities getting a seemingly unfair amount of airtime compared to their friendly, decent and upstanding brethren. The same brethren who are seemingly incapable of mounting a decent defence against this vocal minority.
I really do despair at the imbecilic nature of these type of responses and the crass way at scoring some form of cheap point with such obvious misquotation and unbelievable assumption when in fact it makes you look like a prat because you can't be bothered to read the post before spouting off drivel....
You and Les are so tied up in a blinkered and self centred approach to the argument (whilst simultaneously blaming others for doing so) that you are incapable of mounting even the simplest cogent rebuttal.
Last edited by Alan C; 02 April 2009 at 09:14 PM.
03 April 2009, 04:20 PM
#277
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see irony, satire & sarcasm are not your strong points. My use of the name Jesus Christ was full of those.... But sadly, again, you deflect it all in what you believe is an intelligent question; with the by convenient by-product of not answering the question nor recognising you were wrong. I'll point out the childlike nature of this below.
I also see you asking for proof where you believe I've targeted you specifically when, in fact, I've used the term 'people' & 'types' in most if not all instances.
I've come to see quite plainly that you've answered, justified and explained very little of worth. What you have done is constantly turn it back to you and some personal affront. This doesn't surprise me one bit as religious types (there, I go again) use the very same tactics and obfuscations in order to wriggle out of answering the questions. It's remarkably childlike in its application. It also plainly shows a lot about the lack of understanding in the subject matter.
I did say that you could find cut down, misquoted and out of context statements and theories to the contrary because it's been shown on a number of occasions that religious types (there's another one) like to spin this around in a cheap and tacky attempt at deflecting the awkward questions by attacking the man rather than his valuable ideas and work (just like Einstein). It's well documented, plain to see and no secret that Darwin did struggle with his initial orthodox doctrine and, as a scientist, rightly looked at and wrote about all the possibilities. Some of these would have asked the question about the existence of a deity.
Ultimately, we could do this all day long, but Darwin died an Agnostic (and your petty attempt at getting a rise from me asking if I know the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is from the same childlike stable we see all too often.)
On one thing I agree. This is futile and it will be my last response to you on the subject until I see some light of free and open thinking and intelligent discourse rather than finger pointing and a 'tit for tat' style of response.
So I will leave with a few checkmates and a sadness that religious intransigence is alive and well.
I also see you asking for proof where you believe I've targeted you specifically when, in fact, I've used the term 'people' & 'types' in most if not all instances.
I've come to see quite plainly that you've answered, justified and explained very little of worth. What you have done is constantly turn it back to you and some personal affront. This doesn't surprise me one bit as religious types (there, I go again) use the very same tactics and obfuscations in order to wriggle out of answering the questions. It's remarkably childlike in its application. It also plainly shows a lot about the lack of understanding in the subject matter.
I did say that you could find cut down, misquoted and out of context statements and theories to the contrary because it's been shown on a number of occasions that religious types (there's another one) like to spin this around in a cheap and tacky attempt at deflecting the awkward questions by attacking the man rather than his valuable ideas and work (just like Einstein). It's well documented, plain to see and no secret that Darwin did struggle with his initial orthodox doctrine and, as a scientist, rightly looked at and wrote about all the possibilities. Some of these would have asked the question about the existence of a deity.
Ultimately, we could do this all day long, but Darwin died an Agnostic (and your petty attempt at getting a rise from me asking if I know the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is from the same childlike stable we see all too often.)
On one thing I agree. This is futile and it will be my last response to you on the subject until I see some light of free and open thinking and intelligent discourse rather than finger pointing and a 'tit for tat' style of response.
So I will leave with a few checkmates and a sadness that religious intransigence is alive and well.
In the first place, I was pretty certain that you used His name deliberately in a childish effort to upset me and you have of course admitted that. You must be very short of a convincing argument if you have to resort to that kind of behaviour. I asked the question about it to give you the chance to explain yourself. In all truth, all you have done so far is to do all to quote me incorrectly in order to try to gain an advantage. You are not actually interested in any kind of proof, you prefer to attack unpleasantly with inference and statements which actually prove nothing! Satire,irony and sarcasm are a poor way to try to carry an argument!
I have not wriggled out of answering anything in fact, I have told you my beliefs and that I cannot prove He exists, and you can't prove the opposite. How much clearer do you want that?
You insinuate that religious belief means that I am likely to obscure the truth. That is wrong and a completely unfair accusation. Maybe you said that I would present biased statements because you know that those statements exist! Once again you are throwing wildy innaccurate insults in an attempt to present an argument. So far I have not seen any kind of actual proof from you over what you believe. Hardly surprising because there aint none! All you have said so far is that the Bible is wicked and wrong! You can't prove that either and that is not valid anyway when it comes to the acceptance of a supremely powerful being! Show me where I have quoted the Bible in defence of my beliefs! I just don't think you are capable of discerning why that should be necessary, since so far that is the only argument you have presented anyway. Interesting that the Christian church is preparing an apology to Darwin for the original attitude to what he was proposing all thos years ago since his theory is accepted by them too now
When it comes to Darwin, once again you have struggled to find a defence by saying that I was trying to attack him and his ideas. are you actually able to read text? I did nothing of the sort, I said that his theory does not in any way undermine my beliefs in the same way that they did not prevent him from feeling the possibility of a superior being having been responsible for the design behind the existence of all we know. He said that at times it made him sway between being a Theist or an Agnostic. This is fact and is recorded in his letters to his friends. He was never an atheist. That is also recorded fact-look it up why don't you. I certainly have done no twisting of the recorded facts and accusing me of that does no good for your argument. Incidentally, before you shoot your mouth off again, let me say I have the utmost respect for Darwin's great works. Incidentally, are you prepared to tell us how an Agnostic feels about a God? Its not difficult!
Had you been prepared to have a civilised discussion about all this, it might well have been quite interesting. In your early posts you were saying that you only wanted to discuss these things with a view to us understanding each other's point of view and maybe learning something to boot. I suspected differently and as it turned out I was right. You seem to have been looking for a platform to shout me and those of us who do believe in a God down and you have generally acted in the sort of way that indicates you to be unwilling to accept that we all have our own point of view and also have a right to that view. Your statements have been unnecessarily abusive and have consequently proved nothing.
Les
03 April 2009, 06:05 PM
#278
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man. I am so tired of shooting your posts down in flames that's it's now beyond a joke and actually now quite tiresome. What started as a little sport has become a chore re-re-repeating the same old arguments.
Your last post contains so many misquotes, inaccuracies and lies from previous posts that I can't be bothered clicking on the quote button to do exactly what I did to Luan.
What I have found out is that you're quire adept at obfuscation & spin. I look back on the ridiculous attempts at seriously answering a question about a fantasy god with some humour. This isn't just you. But the hundreds of similarly blind and and deluded religious who ran aground when trying to explain the unexplainable.
As I close, I hope others can see the inane attempts (Dedrater certainly stumbled across one) at you answering a question with a question and misquoting enough times as to actually make you believe you're answering a question or point where there isn't one.
Once I see that you can actually answer a straight question with a straight answer, then my posts to you are over.
Your last post contains so many misquotes, inaccuracies and lies from previous posts that I can't be bothered clicking on the quote button to do exactly what I did to Luan.
What I have found out is that you're quire adept at obfuscation & spin. I look back on the ridiculous attempts at seriously answering a question about a fantasy god with some humour. This isn't just you. But the hundreds of similarly blind and and deluded religious who ran aground when trying to explain the unexplainable.
As I close, I hope others can see the inane attempts (Dedrater certainly stumbled across one) at you answering a question with a question and misquoting enough times as to actually make you believe you're answering a question or point where there isn't one.
Once I see that you can actually answer a straight question with a straight answer, then my posts to you are over.
04 April 2009, 12:18 PM
#280
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 April 2009, 04:17 PM
#281
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an agnostic.....
And I'm happy to share my views on what we are; agnostics believe no more in the word of the Quaran or Bible than we do in Homers Odyessy all are just tall tales that pertain to have place, date and event markers but none have been proved to be true!
We (agnostics) may consider there is something else out there..... but we'd like proof first
And I'm happy to share my views on what we are; agnostics believe no more in the word of the Quaran or Bible than we do in Homers Odyessy all are just tall tales that pertain to have place, date and event markers but none have been proved to be true!
We (agnostics) may consider there is something else out there..... but we'd like proof first
04 April 2009, 04:20 PM
#282
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man. I am so tired of shooting your posts down in flames that's it's now beyond a joke and actually now quite tiresome. What started as a little sport has become a chore re-re-repeating the same old arguments.
Your last post contains so many misquotes, inaccuracies and lies from previous posts that I can't be bothered clicking on the quote button to do exactly what I did to Luan.
What I have found out is that you're quire adept at obfuscation & spin. I look back on the ridiculous attempts at seriously answering a question about a fantasy god with some humour. This isn't just you. But the hundreds of similarly blind and and deluded religious who ran aground when trying to explain the unexplainable.
As I close, I hope others can see the inane attempts (Dedrater certainly stumbled across one) at you answering a question with a question and misquoting enough times as to actually make you believe you're answering a question or point where there isn't one.
Once I see that you can actually answer a straight question with a straight answer, then my posts to you are over.
Your last post contains so many misquotes, inaccuracies and lies from previous posts that I can't be bothered clicking on the quote button to do exactly what I did to Luan.
What I have found out is that you're quire adept at obfuscation & spin. I look back on the ridiculous attempts at seriously answering a question about a fantasy god with some humour. This isn't just you. But the hundreds of similarly blind and and deluded religious who ran aground when trying to explain the unexplainable.
As I close, I hope others can see the inane attempts (Dedrater certainly stumbled across one) at you answering a question with a question and misquoting enough times as to actually make you believe you're answering a question or point where there isn't one.
Once I see that you can actually answer a straight question with a straight answer, then my posts to you are over.
I have made simple statements about my beliefs which are easy enough to follow and your problem is that you cannot find an answer. I think you may even be suffering from a lack of confidence in your own beliefs and that is why you are reacting in such an illogical manner saying that I am guilty of emulating your despairing attempts.
You give away your motives in your first sentence. You regarded the whole business as a "bit of sport" and I can only deduct from that your intention was to have a exchange where you would be able to make a fool out of those with religious beliefs. The fact that you have not been able to do so, or even prove the statements that you have made has obviously thrown you and maybe your attitude and rantings can be attributed to that. The only thing you have managed to do is to run down the Bible, without any real success either. Does not prove a thing!
The fact is, I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else for that matter, and I have deliberately not bothered with that. With your blinkered reaction, what a waste of time that would be!
You were metaphorically "peeing your pants" when you tried to coerce me into this discussion in the first place, you even told us that it would be a good thing to discuss it all to encourage more understanding of each other's views. What a joke that was! As it was, your initial attitude was enough to convince me of the futility of engaging with a person like you. You seem to put your own required interpretation on what I might say or even to put words into my mouth to suit what you want to say. When it comes to "obfuscation" I have to hand it to you that you seem to be very well practised in that at least.
I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt which was why I stated my simple beliefs but it is pretty obvious that my initial suspicions were right.
I get the impression that you will not accept that anyone else has the right to have their own beliefs if they are different to yours. You seem to be the epitome of the person that you accuse of trying to force religion down peoples' throats! That is something that I personally decry, either coming from such a person, or from someone like you trying to bludgeon people into your own beliefs. It is as though tolerance is a dirty word with you.
My interpretation is very straightforward, people should be free to make up their own minds and if you follow your conscience in an honest manner-that should be good enough.
If you want to go banging off again misquoting what I have said and deluding yourself that you have shot me down in flames, that is up to you. Frankly I don't give a damn! Believe what you want, it does not matter to me as I said some time ago. you must follow what you personally have faith in.
Les
04 April 2009, 04:25 PM
#283
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nobbering about...
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an agnostic.....
And I'm happy to share my views on what we are; agnostics believe no more in the word of the Quaran or Bible than we do in Homers Odyessy all are just tall tales that pertain to have place, date and event markers but none have been proved to be true!
We (agnostics) may consider there is something else out there..... but we'd like proof first
And I'm happy to share my views on what we are; agnostics believe no more in the word of the Quaran or Bible than we do in Homers Odyessy all are just tall tales that pertain to have place, date and event markers but none have been proved to be true!
We (agnostics) may consider there is something else out there..... but we'd like proof first
04 April 2009, 06:34 PM
#285
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More importantly....
I'm far from saying the Muslims are a scary bunch of nutters. Why can't you read my posts and quote me correctly!!
I'm far from saying the Muslims are a scary bunch of nutters. Why can't you read my posts and quote me correctly!!
Where the hell in that is me referring to and convinced that they (Muslims) are nutters and scary !!! FFS!!
I really do despair at the imbecilic nature of these type of responses and the crass way at scoring some form of cheap point with such obvious misquotation and unbelievable assumption when in fact it makes you look like a prat because you can't be bothered to read the post before spouting off drivel...
You and Les are so tied up in a blinkered and self centred approach to the argument (whilst simultaneously blaming others for doing so) that you are incapable of mounting even the simplest cogent rebuttal.
I have spent time on other threads trying to counter you ill formed judgments with actual facts and knowledge, you refused to even pay the slightest attention to anything that pointed you in the direction of reality
04 April 2009, 08:50 PM
#286
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les - There you go again with the 'me', 'me', 'me' mentality again. You still answer nothing by turning the whole debate to you and me. Personalising it when that doesn't need to happen.
Yes. I am challenging your belief. But keep that self-importance in check because I'm challenging the belief system and not you personally.
In fact, your type of argument is of the classic 'personally incredulous' variety. Otherwise known as the 'argument from ignorance' (i.e a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true). Look that quote up on Wikipedia.
The main statements behind this are 'I find it hard to understand' or 'it is impossible to believe'... That type of thing.
Sure, you can use the same against me... BUT (and this is a big but) I have given multiple examples of where the bible appears impossible to believe (I can save you the trouble by quoting them if you accuse me of not doing it... so be be careful).
You've not refuted, argued against, defended or justified one of them. You've used the neat Personal Incredulity argument and the equally brilliant 'I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else for that matter, and I have deliberately not bothered with that.'
A simply classic (and somewhat childish) statement. This neatly absolves you from having to make any sort of response and puts a nice lid on the empty container that is your religion and your ability to mount even the simplest defence. And you call me blinkered???
Your entire stance is around the continued foot stamping and very weak Personal Incredulity attacks on hoping the reader hasn't bothered going back through the posts or has just come late in... this is Luan's constant technique.
You make it too easy.
Yes. I am challenging your belief. But keep that self-importance in check because I'm challenging the belief system and not you personally.
In fact, your type of argument is of the classic 'personally incredulous' variety. Otherwise known as the 'argument from ignorance' (i.e a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true). Look that quote up on Wikipedia.
The main statements behind this are 'I find it hard to understand' or 'it is impossible to believe'... That type of thing.
Sure, you can use the same against me... BUT (and this is a big but) I have given multiple examples of where the bible appears impossible to believe (I can save you the trouble by quoting them if you accuse me of not doing it... so be be careful).
You've not refuted, argued against, defended or justified one of them. You've used the neat Personal Incredulity argument and the equally brilliant 'I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else for that matter, and I have deliberately not bothered with that.'
A simply classic (and somewhat childish) statement. This neatly absolves you from having to make any sort of response and puts a nice lid on the empty container that is your religion and your ability to mount even the simplest defence. And you call me blinkered???
Your entire stance is around the continued foot stamping and very weak Personal Incredulity attacks on hoping the reader hasn't bothered going back through the posts or has just come late in... this is Luan's constant technique.
You make it too easy.
Last edited by Alan C; 04 April 2009 at 09:08 PM.
04 April 2009, 09:07 PM
#287
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luan - The fundamentalists are a separate group even in the Islamic community. So I expect them to be challenged my Christians, Catholics and Muslims. But we see little of it. How's it religious wanting a Muslim to challenge that his faith has been hijacked for bad things?
Of course I have a serious issue with fundamentalism!! Don't you? I care not where it comes from; Religious groups or the National Front! It's destructive and causes pain, heartache and division: it must stop!
You getting the message yet? Or do you want to keep misquoting and making me sound like one of the fundamentalists for wanting to stand up to British democracy and freedom? Which one is it?
Of course you can't. See my post to Les.... Either post the quote or quit with the desperate accusations... Pathetic.
I know you're not a Muslim. That has nothing to do with it. You can be a Jew, Mormon or Plymouth Brethren for all I care, we're talking about challenging fundementalism and putting certain Islamic (and therefore quite unique) beliefs before being British.
Of course I have a serious issue with fundamentalism!! Don't you? I care not where it comes from; Religious groups or the National Front! It's destructive and causes pain, heartache and division: it must stop!
You getting the message yet? Or do you want to keep misquoting and making me sound like one of the fundamentalists for wanting to stand up to British democracy and freedom? Which one is it?
Originally Posted by Luan
You have indicated this many times and I cannot really be bothered to go through all the threads and gather them up for you.
See my post to Les.... Either post the quote or quit with the desperate accusations... Pathetic.I know you're not a Muslim. That has nothing to do with it. You can be a Jew, Mormon or Plymouth Brethren for all I care, we're talking about challenging fundementalism and putting certain Islamic (and therefore quite unique) beliefs before being British.
Last edited by Alan C; 04 April 2009 at 09:08 PM.
04 April 2009, 09:18 PM
#288
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 April 2009, 09:27 PM
#289
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 April 2009, 09:35 PM
#290
While I haven't gone right back through this whole thread, I honestly don't see the point of flogging this issue yet again. So many threads have 'discussed' religion/beliefs, and they all go the same way. People argue about it, insults get passed about, but there never is any real conclusion. At the end of the day there isn't any 100% proof at the moment either way, so why people can't just accept that people have the right to believe what they want is beyond me. You may disagree, think people are mad etc. but what really is achieved by going round in circles, with little likelihood of changing the other viewpoint?
I doubt most, if any people support extremism who are posting here (from the religious grouping/those who aren't against religion). They just want their views to be accepted, if not agreed with.
I honestly don't see why people get so hung up on what someone else thinks, that will probably rarely if ever effect them. Yes, I am all for extremism being dealt with, and I am in no way alone, but I don't see the need for constant attacks on religion as a whole. Think what you like, just do no harm along the way, that goes both ways.
I doubt most, if any people support extremism who are posting here (from the religious grouping/those who aren't against religion). They just want their views to be accepted, if not agreed with.
I honestly don't see why people get so hung up on what someone else thinks, that will probably rarely if ever effect them. Yes, I am all for extremism being dealt with, and I am in no way alone, but I don't see the need for constant attacks on religion as a whole. Think what you like, just do no harm along the way, that goes both ways.
04 April 2009, 11:15 PM
#291
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I haven't gone right back through this whole thread, I honestly don't see the point of flogging this issue yet again. So many threads have 'discussed' religion/beliefs, and they all go the same way. People argue about it, insults get passed about, but there never is any real conclusion. At the end of the day there isn't any 100% proof at the moment either way, so why people can't just accept that people have the right to believe what they want is beyond me. You may disagree, think people are mad etc. but what really is achieved by going round in circles, with little likelihood of changing the other viewpoint?
I doubt most, if any people support extremism who are posting here (from the religious grouping/those who aren't against religion). They just want their views to be accepted, if not agreed with.
I honestly don't see why people get so hung up on what someone else thinks, that will probably rarely if ever effect them. Yes, I am all for extremism being dealt with, and I am in no way alone, but I don't see the need for constant attacks on religion as a whole. Think what you like, just do no harm along the way, that goes both ways.
I doubt most, if any people support extremism who are posting here (from the religious grouping/those who aren't against religion). They just want their views to be accepted, if not agreed with.
I honestly don't see why people get so hung up on what someone else thinks, that will probably rarely if ever effect them. Yes, I am all for extremism being dealt with, and I am in no way alone, but I don't see the need for constant attacks on religion as a whole. Think what you like, just do no harm along the way, that goes both ways.
People believing they were abducted by aliens, those that have seen Nessie or fairies in the wood fall into the same category.
My problem comes in that belief. Sure, people have believed in a god for many thousands of years and of course there's no proof either way.... but... should we just laugh it off as a harmless past time?
I don't think so. We're not talking about a few people believing in fantasy fairies here, we're talking of millions of deluded people.
Let me give you one example... George Bush and Tony Blair both believe in god; devoutly.. George Bush has admitted that god told him to go to war... 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.""And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
Though Tony kept his a little more quiet, he's recently started bringing up his religion in his new role.....
My question to you is: Should we then accept that these men have heard a voice in their head and this voice told them to go to war? Should we accept that this is what they believed? Please explain the differences with, say, the Yorkshire Ripper. He heard god voice too.
Do you feel comfortable with this? Leaders taking their country (and other countries to war) based on a voice only they heard?
The backlash we're seeing form Islamic fundamentalism is their belief that the Christian West is trying to colonise and convert them away from their faith... Who can blame them with statements like that from the president?
This isn't made up Atheist propaganda... I'm afraid it's very real.
Still think we should just let it go?
05 April 2009, 02:25 PM
#293
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I haven't gone right back through this whole thread, I honestly don't see the point of flogging this issue yet again. So many threads have 'discussed' religion/beliefs, and they all go the same way. People argue about it, insults get passed about, but there never is any real conclusion. At the end of the day there isn't any 100% proof at the moment either way, so why people can't just accept that people have the right to believe what they want is beyond me. You may disagree, think people are mad etc. but what really is achieved by going round in circles, with little likelihood of changing the other viewpoint?
I doubt most, if any people support extremism who are posting here (from the religious grouping/those who aren't against religion). They just want their views to be accepted, if not agreed with.
I honestly don't see why people get so hung up on what someone else thinks, that will probably rarely if ever effect them. Yes, I am all for extremism being dealt with, and I am in no way alone, but I don't see the need for constant attacks on religion as a whole. Think what you like, just do no harm along the way, that goes both ways.
I doubt most, if any people support extremism who are posting here (from the religious grouping/those who aren't against religion). They just want their views to be accepted, if not agreed with.
I honestly don't see why people get so hung up on what someone else thinks, that will probably rarely if ever effect them. Yes, I am all for extremism being dealt with, and I am in no way alone, but I don't see the need for constant attacks on religion as a whole. Think what you like, just do no harm along the way, that goes both ways.
Les
05 April 2009, 02:37 PM
#294
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les - There you go again with the 'me', 'me', 'me' mentality again. You still answer nothing by turning the whole debate to you and me. Personalising it when that doesn't need to happen.
Yes. I am challenging your belief. But keep that self-importance in check because I'm challenging the belief system and not you personally.
In fact, your type of argument is of the classic 'personally incredulous' variety. Otherwise known as the 'argument from ignorance' (i.e a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true). Look that quote up on Wikipedia.
The main statements behind this are 'I find it hard to understand' or 'it is impossible to believe'... That type of thing.
Sure, you can use the same against me... BUT (and this is a big but) I have given multiple examples of where the bible appears impossible to believe (I can save you the trouble by quoting them if you accuse me of not doing it... so be be careful).
You've not refuted, argued against, defended or justified one of them. You've used the neat Personal Incredulity argument and the equally brilliant 'I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else for that matter, and I have deliberately not bothered with that.'
A simply classic (and somewhat childish) statement. This neatly absolves you from having to make any sort of response and puts a nice lid on the empty container that is your religion and your ability to mount even the simplest defence. And you call me blinkered???
Your entire stance is around the continued foot stamping and very weak Personal Incredulity attacks on hoping the reader hasn't bothered going back through the posts or has just come late in... this is Luan's constant technique.
You make it too easy.
Yes. I am challenging your belief. But keep that self-importance in check because I'm challenging the belief system and not you personally.
In fact, your type of argument is of the classic 'personally incredulous' variety. Otherwise known as the 'argument from ignorance' (i.e a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true). Look that quote up on Wikipedia.
The main statements behind this are 'I find it hard to understand' or 'it is impossible to believe'... That type of thing.
Sure, you can use the same against me... BUT (and this is a big but) I have given multiple examples of where the bible appears impossible to believe (I can save you the trouble by quoting them if you accuse me of not doing it... so be be careful).
You've not refuted, argued against, defended or justified one of them. You've used the neat Personal Incredulity argument and the equally brilliant 'I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else for that matter, and I have deliberately not bothered with that.'
A simply classic (and somewhat childish) statement. This neatly absolves you from having to make any sort of response and puts a nice lid on the empty container that is your religion and your ability to mount even the simplest defence. And you call me blinkered???
Your entire stance is around the continued foot stamping and very weak Personal Incredulity attacks on hoping the reader hasn't bothered going back through the posts or has just come late in... this is Luan's constant technique.
You make it too easy.
As I said at the outset that this would be a discussion which was doomed to failure which was why I wanted to avoid it anyway. When I gave you an insight into my way of thinking you seized upon it as an excuse.
This was about my beliefs, no one else's, especially since I would not presume to speak for someone else on such a subject.
It is pretty obvious I think that you were hoping to use such a discussion as a vehicle to impress us all with your ideas and have not been able to prove anything so far. Most of the things you have said in your posts seem to come from a fertile imagination, almost "Walter Mitty" in fact! They certainly bear very little relation to what I said anyway.
If it is so important to you, why not go into preaching mode to us all, you did say you were hoping to "show the way" as they say. I fully realise of course that it must have been very irritating to you that I never gave you a foothold to lay into me. There isn't one in fact. If that puzzles you, think about that man whom we both admire for his works.
One point however, when it comes to the US ex leader and our ex leader, who would believe a word they said anyway? Any excuse for their shameful acts with regard to that war more like!
Les
05 April 2009, 07:31 PM
#296
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so you're not a bible thumping, scripture preaching Christian. But you are a Christian who looks to the bible for something. That makes you a target to be challenged for those beliefs. It's nothing personal. It never was.
But why the hell come on a religious thread, make some comments about religion and promptly close up?
Why give your viewpoint(s) and then offer no avenue for someone to challenge?
Why go to all this trouble for nothing? All you've archived is a troll like stirring..
It was doomed to failure because it was one sided.... you allowed no discourse.
As for Blair and Bush... their 'shameful acts' as you say were tainted with religious piety.. We're going to be suffering from that religious tainting for quite some time.
It would be good to have received some opinion on my questions back to Lisa, but your kind words to Lisa (which I agree with) show the same old operating model of agree / disagree and then give no reason why!
But why the hell come on a religious thread, make some comments about religion and promptly close up?
Why give your viewpoint(s) and then offer no avenue for someone to challenge?
Why go to all this trouble for nothing? All you've archived is a troll like stirring..
It was doomed to failure because it was one sided.... you allowed no discourse.
As for Blair and Bush... their 'shameful acts' as you say were tainted with religious piety.. We're going to be suffering from that religious tainting for quite some time.
It would be good to have received some opinion on my questions back to Lisa, but your kind words to Lisa (which I agree with) show the same old operating model of agree / disagree and then give no reason why!
Last edited by Alan C; 05 April 2009 at 07:40 PM.
05 April 2009, 08:52 PM
#298
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone posted this up yet? Seems to have some validity to the direction the thread has taken. 
(a 'non-believer')
YouTube - Open-mindedness
(a 'non-believer')YouTube - Open-mindedness
It was a little difficult to follow at times, but the premise was sound.
It's very easy for people on both sides to fall foul of that premise, especially on here with just the written word that can be taken in many way.
But you always hope you can hit that middle ground and strike the right balance of open mindedness and robust challenge.
05 April 2009, 10:09 PM
#299
Scooby Regular
Not seen that before, thanks.
It was a little difficult to follow at times, but the premise was sound.
It's very easy for people on both sides to fall foul of that premise, especially on here with just the written word that can be taken in many way.
But you always hope you can hit that middle ground and strike the right balance of open mindedness and robust challenge.
It was a little difficult to follow at times, but the premise was sound.
It's very easy for people on both sides to fall foul of that premise, especially on here with just the written word that can be taken in many way.
But you always hope you can hit that middle ground and strike the right balance of open mindedness and robust challenge.
05 April 2009, 10:11 PM
#300
Scooby Regular