'Wibble'Peter Oborne on form here...
Personally selected highlights include...
"...Last week, Martyn Gilleard, a Nazi sympathiser in East Yorkshire, was jailed for 16 years. Police found four nail bombs, bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat. Gilleard had been preparing for a war against Muslims. In a note at his flat he had written, "I am sick and tired of hearing nationalists talking of killing Muslims, blowing up mosques and fighting back only to see these acts of resistance fail. The time has come to stop the talking and start to act."
The Gilleard case went all but unreported. Had a Muslim been found with an arsenal of weapons and planning violent assaults, it would have been a far bigger story.
There is a reason for this blindness in the media.
; it is so entrenched, so much part of normal discussion, that almost nobody notices. Protests go unheard and unnoticed.
Why? Britain's Muslim immigrants are mainly poor, isolated and alienated from mainstream society. Many are a different colour. As a community, British Muslims are relatively powerless. There are few Muslim MPs, there has never been a Muslim cabinet minister, no mainstream newspaper is owned by a Muslim..."
and
"...Islamophobia – defined in 1997 by the landmark report from the Runnymede Trust as "an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination" – can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among newspaper columnists, and in the Church of England. Its appeal is wide-ranging.
"I am an Islamophobe," the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee wrote in The Independent nearly 10 years ago. "Islamophobia?" the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle asks rhetorically in the title of a recent speech, "Count me in". Imagine Liddle declaring: "Anti-Semitism? Count me in", or Toynbee claiming she was "an anti-Semite and proud of it".
Anti-Semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion.
Not so Islamophobia. Its practitioners say Islamophobia cannot be regarded as the same as anti-Semitism because the former is hatred of an ideology or a religion, not Muslims themselves. This means there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims: as far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned the normal rules of engagement are suspended.
"There is a definite urge; don't you have it?", the author Martin Amis told Ginny Dougary of The Times: "The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. Not letting them travel. Deportation; further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or Pakistan. Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children." Here, Amis is doing much more than insulting Muslims. He is using the foul and barbarous language of fascism. Yet his books continue to sell, and his work continues to be celebrated.... "
Peter Oborne's Dispatches film, "It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim", will be screened on Channel 4 at 8pm on Monday. The pamphlet Muslims Under Siege, by Peter Oborne and James Jones, is published next week by Democratic Audit.
An honorary Conspiraloon Alliance membership is winging Peter's way
-
And whilst picking TV highlights for the coming week it would be criminal not to mention the eagerly awaited BBC Conspiracy Files documentary which is going to finally settle all that insane speculation about WTC7's sudden, but not entirely unexpected, demise...
"9/11: The Conspiracy Files
Highlight
Sunday 06 July
9:00pm - 10:00pm
BBC2 London & South East
The Third Tower
There might come a point where you'll find yourself nodding sagely and murmuring, "Mmm, yes, that could have happened, because I must say it sounds very plausible." But you'll come to your senses. Conspiracy theories are nonsense and this particular supposed plot is dafter than most (spread, of course, by that conduit for poisonous nonsense, the internet). Apparently, the 11 September attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration with the collusion of the secret service and the New York fire and police departments. The evidence? The fate of World Trade Center 7. The 47-storey building was home to various government agencies - it wasn't directly hit by a plane, but collapsed after being badly damaged by a subsequent fire on 11 September. Conspiracy theorists (or teenagers talking rubbish on message boards) claim it was blown up by a controlled explosion, though no-one can explain why or to what purpose. Watching this whole "conspiracy" edifice totter in the face of actual evidence is greatly satisfying.
RT reviewer - Alison Graham"
Alison appears to have issues
.
191 comments:
"spread, of course, by that conduit for poisonous nonsense, the internet" - He's right. The BBC is one of the most viewed websites in the world.!
lwtc247
it's a wonderful review isn't it
I can't wait to see what she'll write when the BBC airs its 7/7 mockumentary later in the summer
"Apparently, the 11 September attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration with the collusion of the secret service and the New York fire and police departments." I seem to have missed that twist on what I understood to be the conspiracy of 9-11. Strange that... and Doh! he forgot to mention 'holocaust deniers' before they went to press! Damn!
But what do I know? I only converse via the poisonous {spooky noise} INTERNET {end spooky noise} and not the peer reviewed Radio Times.
lwtc247
I now know Oborne writes for a 'respectible' UK newpaper, but didn't when I watched a program he made about the British and the Shiah malitias in the South of Iraq a couple of years back.
I looked for the usual propaganda and lies and found surprizing little. He seemed as honest as they get (even if he was manipulated a wee bit) so (and if I understood this post correctly) I have a bit of respect for 'ol Pete.
lwtc247
a taste of the 'actual evidence' gathered by the BBC here
so many media whores, so few lamp posts...
more top tele tips
- on C4 on monday...
The Miracle of Carriage 346
a curious title given that whatever miracles may have occurred they certainly didn't happen on carriage 346
Carraige schmarraige, bomb schomb, death schmeth, London schmondon. Its only details.
Dont allow them to get in the way of the war of terrorism for heavens sake.
lwtc247
Sadly I can't watch the C4 program as I'll be setting off for Manchester Airport to once again leave this beautiful country behind.
The excerpts I read of the both 'new labour and the media class' and his latest one were all on the money. While I might not share his politics, there's nothing wrong with oborne's sense of smell.
Luton train didn't exist, Carriage 346 didn't exist, no-one appears to know what the bombs (?) were mde of.. Plenty of Miracles on the Piccdilly line.
Now if only those CCTV cameras had produced a recorded image which could be recovered....
Make a good TV drama .. ooops I see there is one due...
It's not so much a fear of Islam but a dislike for it's backwardness and in fact, the cultural retardation that all organised religon inflicts not only upon it's subscribers but also those that don't believe.
Certainly Islam has been unfairly targeted when all religion should be targeted (by targeted I don't mean acts of violence but rather exposing of the key elements and an allowance for an open and fair debate on it's impact on world culture so it can be challenged) for it's negative impact upon humanity but Islam holds a pretty nasty worldview.
It's not so much a fear of Judaism but a dislike for it's backwardness and in fact, the cultural retardation ...etc.
Indeed, you could replace Islam with any of the major religions and in fact the minor ones: Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists etc...
It's not so much a fear of Islam but a dislike for it's backwardness and in fact, the cultural retardation that all organised religon inflicts not only upon it's subscribers but also those that don't believe.
I lived 2 years in a Muslim land.Sudan.Never once did I get hassled.Not once in those 2 years.That included wandering the Dafur region.I always found the people courteous and friendly.Infact 99% of the time people went out of their way to help you.
Islam is as fine and faulty a religion as the rest.It´s not the religion but the person to adheres to it that is the problem.
911 was an inside job.Anyone who says otherwise is an asshole.911 is the litmus test of political truth these days.
Anyone who ducks the question or avoids an answer in the political arena should be viewed with the highest suspicion.
Daniel Hoffman-Gill - not a Muslim name that, is it?
Don't think you fool anyone with half a brain with your thinly-veiled pseudo-intellectual bullshit-racism do you?
You're so backward it's unbelievable!
"Islam holds a pretty nasty worldview."
What a mind-bogglingly uninformed and hateful thing to say!
Spineless orientalists like you have been coming out with this unfounded garbage for centuries.
I'm glad you didn't get hassled in Sudan, that doesn't make the Koran any less of a nasty document on which to base your life; all those people who were firendly to you (and if they were Muslim) would also equally share the belief that a holy war would one day come to earth and all non-Muslims, if not converting, will die and burn in hell.
The follower is only part of the problem, the religion itself is fundementally flawed, a devout Muslim who follows the Koran to the letter is not a marker for tolerance or peace.
That is not the followers fault but rather an ancient document that has no bearing on modern life.
Shahid: no, my name is German in origin, does that matter?
I'm not trying to fool anyone, if you want to class me as a racist (the last time I checked, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists etc were not a race of people) than by all means do so but it only exposes a knee jerk reaction to someone probing the idea of belief in a God/Gods.
Islam does indeed hold a pretty nasty worldview. The last time I read the Koran and researched in depth Sharia law I found it (along with the laws of any relgion that haven't moved on from the Bronze Age) backward thinking and pretty hateful in their male-centric and capital punishment form of development.
Death penalty, stoning, the covering up of women, the idea that the Koran (full of grammer errors, switches to the third person to cover when the prophet is speaking rather than God, spelling mistakes and mis translation from Hebrew) is the word of God and a copy of this flawed document is kept in heaven, all points to a problematic world view.
Islam's (and indeed all the major religons) view of endtime alone is so barbaric and bizarre, in all the blood and destruction and the death of all those Jews that it makes it an unsavoury belief.
You're either with us or against us is an ancient idea, it's as offensive now in the mouth of Bush or anyone who believes in a judgement day when non-believers will all die.
I don't see unfounded garbage, I see religion providing all the evidence you need that it is a nasty little concept we should have grown out of long ago.
Where do you get off spreading such ridiculous, uninformed claptrap?
As for your first paragraph, Hoffman, please cite the relevant Qur'anic passage.
Like other hateful orientalists before you, your vision fails to take in the genocides committed by non-religious entities in the course of history, attributing crimes to Muslims that they have yet to commit. Meanwhile Hoffman, you ignore the crimes of Israel, a Jewist Zionist state guilty of racism, murder and slow-burn genocide over 60 years. You ignore the crimes of America, a Christianist state currently in the middle of a generational war against Muslims (you hate Islam, you don't mind the bodies...) resulting in the deaths of over a million Muslims to date.
You ignore Hitler. You ignore Stalin. In short, you're a one-dimensional racist. The new kind though. Euston Manifesto or Tony Blair or new-liberal or whatever the fuck. Put any label on it you like - it's Muslims you hate.
Either way, you are quite happy when Muslims are butchered and raped and burned and holocausted because we are backwards and we don't know any better.
Only a hateful secular Zionist, masking their contempt for Muslims with a token disregard for other religions would come out with the incredibly patronising "this is not a followers fault".
Apologies Daniel, in my ire, I saw Hoffman as your first name.
You want me to believe that an neo-orientalist understands Arabic grammar?
Aren't we now rather getting away from the point of Stef's post?
You are defending Islamophobia. I despise it, as well as the excuses for it (and you seem to have plenty!)
Are you really telling me that Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and all the other foolish efforts to explain where we come from and why we are here, are not full of silly laws that not only repress but also encourage 'us and them' behaviours?
I'll be citing nothing, Islamic law and the Koran is accessible to all who want to read it (as I have done), the laws and punishments for the various and numerous possible infractions are clear to all.
I wondered how long it would take for someone on this blog to pull out the 'non-religous people do bad things to' which leads to Hitler, Stalin and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
First off, of all the supposedly non-religious movements that have all caused trouble, no one was killed for atheism, unlike people who are killed for Islam, for Christ and so on. Killing non-believers is acceptable practice in all the holy books, that's the whole point.
Also, all the supposedly non-religious movements aped the successful modes and methods of religion for their 'success'.
Also, in your pro-Islam froth, you've missed the fact I've made it clear I have an issue with all religion, I care as little for the Christian way as I do for the way of those that follow Islam. The same goes for Judaism, I've ignored nothing, it is you in your blind, religious rage that has failed to see I have lumped in Islam with all the other silly Bronze Age movements.
Hitler, by the way, was a Catholic and developed his anti-Semetic additude from the the long history of Jew bashing that has been perpetuated by the Christian source since the beginning of the Christ cult, indeed the one thing that that Christians and Muslims have in common is their use of the Jews as marvellous scapegoats for the ills of their Gods world.
Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly.
I take no pleasure in anyone getting butchered, which is why I would like and am encouraging a world without religion, which by it's very nature is hateful and divisive.
Finally, are you calling me a Zionist? Which is amusing because I find the Zionists and as repulsive as the silly people who believe that virgins will be awaiting them in heaven when they kill innocents.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending anyone being hateful to anyone, I just see all religion as a major world problem and the sooner we grow out of our obsession with a an angry father figure, the better.
@daniel
It's not so much a fear of Islam but a dislike for it's backwardness and in fact, the cultural retardation that all organised religon inflicts not only upon it's subscribers but also those that don't believe.
whilst this might explain your personal antipathy towards Islam it doesn't even start to explain why Islam and Muslims are being singled out by the political-media class Oborne refers to in the way that they are
The media obsession with what is apparently the imminent imposition of Sharia Law on the UK being a case in point
Aside from a handful of carefully sought after and selected Muslim whackjobs no one is actually calling for such a thing and Muslims have so little representation in our establishment that it couldn't happen in the forseeable future anyway, but an awful lot of people are farting on about it as if it were just around the corner
Now why would that be?
And let's not pussy around here - for an awful lot of racists slagging people off for being Muslim is just a PC way of slagging off people for being pakkies
And that Stef, is why it's hard to have a proper discussion about religion.
Any challenge can be dismissed as racism, when in reality, race is not the issue but the impact of a belief system.
Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
yes you are a racist,of the worst kind.A racist who believes himself to be intellectual!one of those sneaky fuckers who try to rationalize their racism.
Oh dear, an anon coward wades in too far.
I'll say this again, show me where I've been racist and also, some news for you, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Jehovah's Witness etc are not races of people.
I'm glad you didn't get hassled in Sudan, that doesn't make the Koran any less of a nasty document on which to base your life; all those people who were firendly to you (and if they were Muslim) would also equally share the belief that a holy war would one day come to earth and all non-Muslims, if not converting, will die and burn in hell.
(you talk some shit mate)
Hoffmann-Gill
I'll say this again, show me where I've been racist
the above sir is racism by default.
Christianity is the worst religion on the planet for fire and damnation etc,,,by the way i adhere to no religion.I view them all as activities for the spiritual children.However I respect all peoples beliefs and hold non higher or better than the next.
And that Stef, is why it's hard to have a proper discussion about religion
at least a couple of the folks who've posted here and underneath the previous exchange are atheists. Me, I'm an agnostic
What we have in common with the couple of Muslims who have responded here is that we believe, we know, that religion is being used as an excuse to distract people from very earthly, very wicked, endeavours
The anger comes not from any theological differences with your personal views but from the murder that has been done, and continues to be done, in the name of western civilisation and our ever-diminishing freedoms
I'll start shitting myself about the threat posed by Islam when a few hundred thousand Muslim soldiers forcibly occupy a few Christian countries. In the meantime, just in terms of soldiers on the ground, I think it's pretty clear who the barbaric aggressors forcing their values on other people are
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said
Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly.
you are clearly a nutter sir.
jolly well provide a link where the koran says such a thing.
provide a link or shut the fuck up.
Killer or apostate, you're either with us or against us?
Poppycock
Anon (both of them):
I'm not 'talking shit', have you not read the Koran and the endtimes for the Islam faith? That is what will happen in their opinion. And again (this grows tedious), Islam is not a race of people. I agree that Christianity has plenty of same such nonsense but I disagree with the respect bit, I have no respect for people who believe no-believers will burn in hell.
As for evidence, Sunni Islam makes it clear that: A great war between Muslims and Jews in Palestine resulting in the total loss for the Jews. Before this, Jesus kills all the infidels (ie: non-believers).
Is that clear enough? Just read the book.
Stef: we disagree on the fact that religion is being used, religion is part of the problem. Also, I've made it clear that I have an equally large problem with Christianity and it's ability to justify killing and harm to others.
Anon:
Poppycock? Sorry, just saying that is not an arguement winner, are you not clear that part of Islamic endtimes is the killing of the infidels.
Glad you mention Apostates, are you aware of the punishment for being an Apostate? Death.
I rest my case.
Can I take a moment to tell you what you believe, Daniel?
No? Of course not, how could I do that?
But you presume to tell each and every Muslim what their own religion means to them?
Poppycock.
Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
There are plenty of online versions of the Koran so provide a link to back up your claims,,,if you cannot provide a link then shut the fuck up.If you can provide a link then I will shut the fuck up.
fair dinkums what?
Tom:
I'm not telling anyone what their religion means to them, please show me where I have done that. I am merely picking out certain elements of their faith that is, to be kind, pretty backward. Unless, you don't see those elements of their religion as backwards or because they are religious concepts they are immune from any discussion or debate.
Anon: the level of your debating skills doesn't really warrant a response, just read the Koran or google Islam endtimes.
I'm disapointed that when I make certain points that defeat the arguement presented by some people here, they are ignored and new points opened up instead.
Stef, I think it best that as with that other thread I now withdraw to stop this becoming a tat-for-tit exchange that people swear in.
Take care.
the Koran
so Danny boy find me a para or two to back up your claims
"Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly."
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
no link eh!??thought not because what you are saying is wrong.You have probably never read the Koran.I have the Penguin version.
you have to laugh at people eh,,,banging on about Islam and how evil it sis blah blah whilst 10s of thousands of Iraqis are being wiped out in Iraq,,,fuckin joke or what?yim
Bloody hell! I only went away for a bit to watch the tennis and the thread has exploded!
First, Daniel, I will address your points tomorrow if that's OK, I have some work to catch up on.
Second, if you don't like Zionists, then I retract my accusation and apologise.
More tomorrow.
Daniel, I don't aim to have "arguments" generally. I was merely pointing out why you've offended certain posters on this thread, it's not hard to see.
Militant, evangelical secularism as a religion is just as nasty as what it's meant to oppose.
Oh before I go - "Religious rage" - that's really quite funny. I get angry enough without religion.
Islam teaches me to control my anger. Nowhere is it encouraged in Islam. So when I go off on one, like I did earlier, it was in spite of my religion, not because of it.
As for:
"Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly."
First, "Koran" is disrespectful, orientalist and incorrect. It's "Qur'an" and nowhere does it say in the Qur'an that Muslims must kill Jews in a Holy War in End Times. Please provide the reference. (I know my Qur'an)
As for you being the arbiter of my faith, well I find that amusing. I'll ignore that one.
The rest? Tomorrow.
It seems to me that Daniel Hoffman-Gill is demonstrating exactly what Peter Oborne said in his article!
I would have to agree
The follower is only part of the problem, the religion itself is fundementally flawed, a devout Muslim who follows the Koran to the letter is not a marker for tolerance or peace.
That is not the followers fault but rather an ancient document that has no bearing on modern life. - Hark, utter ignorance, blind predjuice fear and lies all rolled into one, doth spake!
lwtc247
Slightly spurious accusations of casual racism have become far two common these days and have a distinct whiff of intellectual laziness combined with a large dollop of balderdash.
If you cannot dispatch your protagonist's ideas without impuning his character then it would be better you don’t bother at all.
I have personally been accused of being racist in the past, in the context of some of my mutterings about the way migration has been managed in this country
So, I am not unaware of the point you're making
The irony is, of course, that many of the same Nu Labour droid fuckers who were chucking accusations of racism around so freely are now coming out with stuff that would have made Enoch blush
...and all part of The Plan
But I'll stand by my point that BNP types are now able to repackage 1970s era Pakkie-hate as a supposed principled stand against 'barbarous' Islam
I said I'd come back and answer Daniel's points, but I spent my spare time reading The Shock Doctrine today on the back of "The Myth of Muslim Barbarism and its Aims".
It's Muslim corpses littered across the world by the hundreds of thousands and Muslims in rendition and torture camps. Yet you pick out Islam as the biggest evil, while stupidly, naively misquoting and misrepresenting left, right and centre.
So my considered, if not Muslim response to you is "Go fuck yourself, fucker."
I am just old enough to remember watching tv coverage of the final stages of the Vietnam war - the South Vietnamese army being chased down Highway 1, anarchy in Saigon, the helicopters taking off from the roof of the US embassy - and thinking to myself 'what the fuck is that all about?'
...which means that I am just old enough to remember another time when hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in their own countries to protect our sacred way of life and superior values
Back then it was 'godless communism' we were supposedly being saved from, as opposed to unGodless Islam this time around.
The specifics of the excuses may change but the hypocrisy and the slaughter are constant
/ raids 70s movie archive for umpteenth time
"Back then it was 'godless communism' we were supposedly being saved from, as opposed to unGodless Islam this time around.
The specifics of the excuses may change but the hypocrisy and the slaughter are constant"
Yet, all the time, it was all simply a mechanism to transfer wealth from poor to rich via the mechanism of fiat currency.
Also, all the time, as it is now, it was quite transparent; it was obvious to all that this was happening; it was obvious to all how it was happening. Yet, silly conspiracy theories such as, it's the communists, the jews, the muslims; are peddled by shills, swallowed by fools and regurgitated by Ickean repeaters.
I've trotted back when in reality I should no doubt just stay clear, because quite frankly, the knee-jerk, ill-informed, foul mouthed reaction to what I've written is alarming to say the least but as I'm peeved and have a spare 5mins (although why I'm bothering I'm not too sure) so here goes...
Firstly, glad to see people have stopped calling me a racist because they now realise they don't know what a racist is and was using the word thinking it would end the arguement but it didn't. At least someone has learnt something.
Anon: I've made it clear, if you want to defend the koran, read it, it's not my job to educate you on the flawed nature of the document and I can't stress enough that all religions want the entire world to either follow their faith or perish. That is the basic, anti-human principle of heaven and hell. It's not equal opportunities, apostates die and burn in hell, how civilised is that?
Also, what have the deaths in Iraq got to do with a freedom to critisise religion? REMEMBER PLEASE, all religion is to me anti-humnanist and backward, a repressive device for humanity.
Tom: evidence please for the oxymoron of 'Militant, evangelical secularism' in my writing. I'm not militant, unlike many people who would kill for their god, evangelical doesn't even make sense but certainly, unlike those who follow a god/gods, I use reason and evidence and will change my mind based on these rather than utilise the word of 'god' written during the Bronze Age.
Shahid: anger is a part of all religion, not just yours, I see plenty of war, violence and anger in all the major religious texts. How can the death penalty for apostates not be carried out in anger at them renouncing their faith?
As for my use of koran, I try not to offend on purpose but where I can don't like to use capital letters for god/gods or for other religious terms; it's about breaking the cycle that religion is a topic that can't be touched, that is somehow special, lofty. The sooner it is bought to earth, debated openly, it's contradictions, errors, repressive behaviours and Bronze Age backwardness can be exposed.
The war between the Jews and the Muslims, leading to the destruction of the Jewish people is a major sign of the beginning of endtimes for Sunni Muslims; along with the descent of Jesus who will do some killing of his own. Are you denying this?
I tell you what Shahid, instead of me talking about endtimes (and you know full well that Sunni Muslims require a cleansing of the Earth of non-believers, either by violence or conversion); why don't you fill us in on this lovely moment; spend extra time on the fate of non-believers...
Also, I never picked out or called Islam evil, people keep getting excited, running their mouths off and in the froth trying to pigeon-hole me as a racist *sic*...my problem is with religion FULLSTOP. I know it's cool at the moment to get het-up about Islam-bashing but the daft vigour with which some of you have fought that corner, makes me think that the biggest danger of Islamophobia is it's impact on the free discussion of religion as a serous waste of humanity.
And come SOMEONE please tell me why fictional documents written during the Bronze Age still have relevence in the modern age? How can we take these books seriously, when clearly they are not written by god/gods, are full or errors and reek of male-centric, repressive behaviour errant during that period in human development?
Stef: firstly, you're as guilty as I am regarding ploughing a lone furrow, yours is an obsession with 'the man' being behind everything and mine being an obsession with religion being behind everything. Long before the man, there was a bigger man called god and believe you me he reeked some pretty horrendous crimes on humankind and sadly, still is.
May the force be with you all.
Stef: firstly, you're as guilty as I am regarding ploughing a lone furrow, yours is an obsession with 'the man' being behind everything and mine being an obsession with religion being behind everything.
Yes, I do
But I am open to modifying my views. I've done it before and I'll do it again
I only arrived at my conviction that elitist theft, not religion, is what really makes the world go round as adult and after I'd seen a thing or two in one or two parts of the world. I'm an empiricist and I'm more than happy to drop any pet theories in the light of facts and experience
And my experiences have driven me to a particular conclusion
And, at risk of repeating myself, the reason for the anger shown on this thread is the fact that an awful lot of people are being killed in the name of this clash of civilisations canard, whilst the people posting here are certain that the real reasons for the slaughter are theft and the pursuit of hegemony. As valid a reason to get steamed as I can think of
anon,
again.
I also adhere to no religion.But I respect anyones right in which ever form to worship God.
I personally think Islam is an alright religion.Mohammad wrote some pretty cool stuff.He is up there with the best of the teachers,Buddha Jesus take yer pick.
All this AlQuaeda shit is just that.Shit.Itß´s a Pentagon psyops.
Once in the Darfur region of Sudan.A man let me stay the night in his house( I was heading back to Nyala).It was round stone hut approx 4 mts in diameter a stone Toukel.He gave his bed to sleep on whilst he slept on the ground.I heard him awake twice during the night to pray to Allah.His devotion impressed me deeply.He cooked his food over a hole dug in the ground!
18
Hardly any sculpture exists in Muhammedan religious or secular art. To reduce all risk of idol worship, Muhammed forbade all representation of living beings. Whereas the Hindus, the Greeks, and the Romans put their gods into stone, wood, metal, and paint, no follower of his was allowed to do so. That is, the Formless was not to be thought of as Formed.
I personally think Islam is an alright religion.Mohammad wrote some pretty cool stuff.He is up there with the best of the teachers,Buddha Jesus take yer pick.
...which leads onto the question as to whether unscrupulous bastards hijack and subvert decent movements - religious/ environmental/ political - to serve their own ends
My first thought is that the answer is 'yes, a lot'
I doubt very much if many people would have a big problem with what Jesus reportedly taught. Quite a few people do, however, have issues with much of what was layered on afterwards
Daniel, you seem to want to convert the religious to your way of seeing things. Good luck with that.
What's the alternative, to ban and burn books you don't like, or to try to discuss things in a reasonable way without blanket assertions?
If one person "kills in the name of their God" and another kills for some other cause, does that make them any less a killer? I can't see how.
@Daniel - your scholarship is really shallow and your taunting doesn't make you knowledgeable. I asked you to quote the Qur'an where it says Muslims are meant to wipe out Jews at endtimes, you were unable to do so.
Ergo, you know jack shit and continue to spout nonsense and groslly misrepresent and distort Islam while soldiers and mercenaries kill Muslims and rape and burn the women and children and while innocent Muslims are banged up for years in torture chambers that you want filled with Muslims because you're the kind of person whose irrational fear lends succour to those getting away with such hideous crimes.
You are like the Friedmanites (Friedmaniacs) intellectually bolstering the juntas and dictatorships of South America and about as morally repugnant.
Stef:
I'm as open as you are to modification of my knowledge, changing your mind is a strength, not a weakness, on that we agree. We also agree that evidence and experience enables our views, I have plenty of evidence and experience that lean me towards religion, IN ALL IT'S FORMS, being a device to hold back humanity.
Also I'm afraid I've already made clear that the idea that humankind has twisted the wiseness of Jesus, Mohamed or any key religous figure is tosh, from the mouth of Jesus and Mohamed came calls for violence and murder and the purging of faiths. Jesus also still believed in the god of the old testement, who is one of the most violent and repressive creatures ever created.
Pure, hairbrained fallacy to think that religion has somehow a pure form that 'we've' distorted, it was broke from the very first second of it's creation by the men who created the myths and just as the relgions of ancient civilisations have become myth and legend so will Christ and all his like.
Anon1:
I used to think that tolerating people's religious beliefs was the answer, I even saw blind faith in angels, the earth being a few thousand years old and that an omnipitent being hears your prayers, as a sign of strength.
Whereas I will not oppress someone for their religious beliefs, I will certainyl not treat it as a badge of honour but something, like any other belief, is up for investigation and discussion.
I also think that in much religious thinking OF ALL FAITHS there is little to respect or admire.
The prophet said some pretty nasty things too but that's not the point, that point is basing your life on the alleged sayings of a Bronze Age man and his imaginary god is not just blind faith but self-delusion on a destructive scale, especially when it impacts on people other than yourself.
And I'm glad you think that (adjust tin foil hat here) the Islamic terrorists are all MOSSAD/CIA/someone else apart from people who kill in the name of god and for good religious reason.
Lovely Darfur story that proves nothing, if you awoke to find him slautering (spl) cattle for Zeus would you be equally as impressed? Or if he was praising Elton John as the new Messiah? If no why not? It's all blind faith.
Tom:
I don't want to convert anyone, I don't have a religion, I want there to be a freedom of debate to challenge religion and what it holds back and encourages in hummanity.
Bit confused by your second bit as I've said none of that and have already outlined that but lack of reading seemingly going on but I'll repeat, if you can convince me that religion is not a hinderence to humanity, you've my ear.
Shahid:
I've made it clear Shahid, tell me about endtimes and the cleansing of non-Muslims from the earth and their deaths and also deny that Sunni Muslims believe that one of the major signs of endtimes is a war between Muslims and Jews that leads to the Jews destruction/conversion.
The reason you can't is because you know that is an integral part of the prophecies and that those words are written in heaven, in a book, a perfect book, full of all it's errors, changes of tact and violence.
Shahid, tell us how humankind came to be made from clay and water and that we are not descended from apes?
I'd be keen to see the reference where JC calls for violence and murder
He slapped a few money changers around (thumbs up from me) but, off the top of my head, that's about it
If you actually witnessed this alleged "descent from apes", all well and good. If it's something you believe in because Father Dawkins told you, I'm not as impressed. Your faith may be touching, but not very convincing.
...and as for the clay and water thing, the last time I looked, and it was quite recently, the secular explanation for the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter was just as faith-based as any explanation your average sky god believer comes out with
Stef:
Fine, take divorce for example which Jesus did not approve of at all, no matter what the circumstances, no one has the freedom to break this bond and on this matter as in all others, he turned to the old testament and deuteronomy for punishment, which is death by stoning.
I could go on, because Jesus (and everyone seems to forget this), believed in the old testament as the world of god, in other words he believed that, as laid down in deuteronomy, punishment for worshipping a foreign god is death, if you refuse to kill those that worship falsely you must kill them in turn.
To quote Christ: (Matthew 10:34)
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Holy war is not an Islamic invention.
Finally Stef, you have come to this, defending the Islamic belief that man was made from clay in perfect form with no evolution from any other life form at all! Dear me man, you've lost your mind. You try and defend a backward concept by pointing at the issue regarding the beginning of time and all matter and try to draw a similiarity!!!
I thought you might be above such sillyness.
Tom:
BRILLIANT! As with Stef you make na effort, in the defence of a religion to deny evolution and pass it off as a religion, I'm sorry but that makes you look very silly indeed. The evidence of evolution is all around us, both written in our DNA and in our spare ribs, the structure of the eyeball and all the other joyous advancements of nature over billions of years.
Forgive me, in my haste I forgot to to mention that the koran, the perfect book, kept in heaven, cannot itself agree on what man was made of: water, clot, clay or dust.
I wouldn't care so much if millions of people did not treat this book as the word of god and as a perfect guide to life and font of knowledge.
Who is looking on to see if anyone is silly?
Not God surely? Einstein?
Man is mostly made of water, as it happens. Nobody reads the Bible expecting to find a cutting edge medical textbook.
I'm not defending any belief system
I'm saying that no viable mechanism for abiogenesis has been put on the table for testing
Not silliness at all
Unless you can come up with one that is
As it happens, as an agnostic with a couple of earth science degrees to my name, I do think Darwinian evolution is a crock but for simplicity's sake let's just stick with the clay/ water thing
I'm saying that secularists believe, as a matter of faith, that life came spontaneously into existence out of inanimate matter without any testable explanation for how that came to pass
Am I wrong?
Tom:
I'm looking on and all this defending of Bronze Age science is cringe worthy.
Glad to see you're retreating though, although your comment on the bible speaks volumes in that you don't take seriously the terrible nature in which religion holds humanity back. Millions of peple do read it and use it as their template for science and life: millions.
Also, you seem to be keen on cherry picking, which no tonly makes the whole bible pointless in the first place (who are you to cherry pick) but also brings into question that many people find that attitude offensive becasue the bible is the word of god, every single bit of it.
Stef:
Yes, very wrong.
You are defending, vigorously, you took a question regarding the islamic belief on the formations of humans and took that to abiogenesis, which is totally different and moreover, there are plenty of theories on the table and at some time in the future, after much evidence, research and trail and error, a answer in some form will be offered and it will be based on evidence.
Remember, religious people answered the problem of abiogenesis a long time ago and no matter what evidence is presented against it, they remain unchanged in their belief.
Are you saying that evolution is nonsense? If so I'm afraid that I will find it hard to take you at all seriously anymore, and you'll forgive me if I put evidence based practice of the entire scientific community above your lay-knowledge and the fact that you're arguing a position you don't actually believe in to defend religion.
Science is not a matter of faith, there is plenty of evidence to point to evolution (I can't believe I'm even arguing this, heartbreaking) and thus that we were not made in god's image from clay and water.
Do you actually believe this?
Good grief Stef, you seem to have painted yourself into an intellectually bankrupt corner to fufill an arguement to defend faiths that will have you burn in their various hells.
@dhg
I asked you to point me to the secular explanation as to how life started in direct response to you asking the same question from a Muslim
I asked you this question to demonstrate that the secular response is just as faith based as the Islamic one
You answered with a prophecy
So, I'm struggling to see how you have demonstrated that my statement is wrong
As for the evolution thing, yes, I am saying that I believe Darwinian evolution is a crock. That is not the same thing as saying I am a creationist
I have yet to encounter a mechanism which explains the origin and diversity of Life and I'm not about to embrace a flawed one just because I am told the only alternative is to embrace religion
Sure there is evidence that supports Darwinian evolution - but that requires a certain degree of selectivity as to which evidence you use. Plenty of other stuff which doesn't fit in has been sidelined and trashed over the years
I also hold a BSc and Msc in Earth Science from regular British Unis so I'm not entirely a lay person
Now if you had pointed me towards a viable explanation for how Life got going in the first place I would feel like I was in a corner.
And I would be delighted; as you would have provided an answer to a question which has been bugging me, and one or two other people, for a very long time
One of my favourite Archbishop Dawkins' quotes taken from his interview with Jonathan Miller in the BBC's 'A Brief History of Disbelief'
Jonathan Miller: Something has to explain the novelties themselves.
Richard Dawkins: Well, the novelties themselves, of course, are genetic variations in the gene pool which ultimately come from mutation and more proximately come from sexual re-combination. There’s nothing very inventive or ingenious about those novelties, I mean they are random. And they mostly are deleterious (most mutations are bad). So you really need to focus on natural selection as the positive side and its only natural selection that produces living things, which have the illusion of design. The illusion of design does not come from the novelty.
JM: What was it about that early novelty, before it culminated in something as useful as a feather? Where could natural selection get its purchase upon something which was no more than a pimple?
RD: There cannot have been intermediate stages which were not beneficial. There’s no room in natural selection for the sort of, um, foresight argument – that says well we’ve got to let it persist for the next million years and it’ll start becoming useful. That doesn’t work. There’s got to be a selection pressure all the way.
JM: So there isn’t a process, as it were, going on in the cell saying look be patient…
RD: No…
JM: …it’s going to be a feather - believe me!
RD: Yes, that’s right, yes.
RD: It doesn’t happen like that... there’s got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can’t think of one, then that’s your problem not…not, not natural selection’s problem. Natural selection…well I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so, and so powerful.
Daniel, there are lots of different versions of the bible, which one are you saying is 100% authentic?
You see, I agree with some of the points you've made. I just don't know why you have to be so jolly bolshy about the way you often make them.
Now whether I agree with what the elite leadership of the religions do is a different question. It doesn't detract from people's right to read or believe or doubt whatever they please.
50 billion Elvis fans can't be wrong, can they? Maybe, but that's something a little bit like democracy.
Tom:
Regarding versions of the bible that proves my point, it's as much a document from god as the Vauxhall Astra handbook.
I've been bolshy (read the full comment exchange to see the change of attitude), only recently, under the un-remitting nastyness of some comment makers and then the frankly bizarre, convoluted positions Stef has taken to further this tat-for-tat by taking it step by step off-topic.
Of course people can believe in what religion they want, I never said they couldn't, this all started by me saying that religion needed to be more open to examination and I got called a racist. Forgive me if my tone is a little peeved when I suddenly seem to have a responsibility to defend science and reason.
By the Elvis logic, anything is acceptable? I mean killing witches had more followers than not but I presume you can see that it was fundementally wrong, or the millions who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old? Volume of subscribers does not instantly configure accuracy when THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BASED KNOWLEDGE OR USE OF REASON.
Stef:
Firstly, your last comment which is a dig at Dawkins, fair enough, take all the cheap shots you want at a well respected scientist but it does make you look a little bit daft because the use of Archbishop is as flawed as your need to push your 'scientific credentials' as a defence mechanism.
Is it because Dawkins and many others see Agnostics as perhaps the worst of all? Fence sitting leads to a lot of splinters in your arse? What was the quote supposed to prove by the way? Dawkins has never preached a religion but evidence based scientific practice, take all the shots you want in the defence of those that wish humankind to be held back with repressive and ancient methods; why are you defending this thinking? You seem to figthing a cause just because, oh well.
Secondly,
I asked for the Muslim take not on the start of life (please keep up and read it) but how humankind came about.
I will not accept the arguement that science is a faith, how many times does this need to be hammered home? Evidence, reason, openess to new information are as far removed from religion as is possible. This is common mistake but I surprised you are keeping pushing this well dispatched agenda.
I think that it is nigh-on impossible to debate seriously with someone who thinks that evolution is a 'crock', you must realise this Stef? You can fence sit till you die, seems to be what you're doing not only with religion and science, yet politically you're entrenched in a rather bizarre worldview.
My commitment to evolution is based on looking at all the options and seeing that, currently, it is by far the best answer to the vast majority of questions regarding the development of life on earth: using evidence, research and all the means at our disposal.
It seems to me that you're holding out for something, as if it's either religion or science; the two are not comparable, surely you can see that?
I've investigated much concerning evolution and it seems that the tin-foil hat wearer in you likes the conspiracy theories of science also.
Fine, stay there waiting for something else, I'll push onward with this, investigating, open and committed.
I'm glad you've shared your qualifications with us, but disapointed that the discussion has got this far off topic and this tit-for-tat and I'll be frank Stef, as the blog 'owner' you had a responsibility a long while back to step in on the offensive behaviour shown towards me that has led me to keep hammering my points home after I withdrew.
Being called a racist and being sworn at when my behaviour had been not deserving of that, was bad form indeed but you did not step in to help the situation seems like more fence sitting and by doing so you tacitly approve of the actions of those people.
And this bizarre scientific tit-for-tat seems to be intentionally figthing a corner merely for the sake of it, when you should be looking out to see how the visitors to your blog are treated.
All the best on the fence!
Daniel - I've asked you to provide the reference. You know nothing about Islam. You remind me of another shrill moron who tries to ruin lives while spouting nonsense.
Where's the reference in the Qur'an?
You know nothing about Islam. Nothing.
I would educate you, but you're not interested.
If you had the gumption, you'd admit that there is nothing in the Qur'an that matches your claims.
You've been asked again and again to produce the reference. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
Don't worry, I know my Islam, and I ask you, but you can't answer, the REAL bodies that are dead thanks to the supporting hatred of arrogant murderer-supporters like you, are they Muslims or are they not? And you're talking about some vague "endtimes" nonsense?
You're a google scholar! You know nothing about Islam!
So you were going? What happened?
"Forgive me, in my haste I forgot to to mention that the koran, the perfect book, kept in heaven, cannot itself agree on what man was made of: water, clot, clay or dust."
If you dropped your arrogance for just a second, I could give you a very good answer to this, but you're here to hate whilst acting like a poor little victim.
There are more and more people like you about, shrill and arrogant people, full of hate and devoid of understanding, getting your understanding from google instead of asking those who actually understand.
You think you understand, but you don't. You just hate.
Oh by the way, please do explain how quadripeds step-by-step managed to "naturally select" their way to full bipedal movement, when bipedal movement is actually mechanically LESS efficient....
@Daniel - I'll give you a little clue about some of the really elementary mistakes you're making; you really need to read the Qur'an in Arabic.
Muslims do not accept a translation as the Kalamullah (Word of Allah). You don't think this is practical, but that's because you have no faith. And that's where you're stuck.
Example - you referred to 'clot'. The word "clot" is never used. The word in Arabic is `Alaq - the nearest translation is "clinging thing" and if you know anything about embryology, you'll know that the fertilized egg actually attaches itself to the uterine wall and clings there as it is growing.
I know, this is not enough for you. It is not even the beginning, but I'm not trying to convince you that Islam is right, I'm trying to show you that in your blind hatred and arrogance, you are not conforming to any rational standard of discussion.
You were asked to provide a reference. You were unable to do so, but tried to turn the tables. That is just plain shoddy. You will find you have made many mistaken assumptions in your journey of hatred.
"There are more and more people like you about, shrill and arrogant people, full of hate and devoid of understanding, getting your understanding from google instead of asking those who actually understand."
shahid, good posts man. Why don't regular people (of different religions/beliefs) just meet up and talk directly to each other instead of pointing fingers at each other over hearsay?
Would that be taking too much power? I think some elitists think so. Yet its so obvious that 99% of all people are reasonable, despite their beliefs. I find the secular humanists to be arrogant too. I was one for quite some time before I grew out of it.
defending of Bronze Age science is cringe worthy. - another unsubstantiated claim.
What you hate and repeatedly attack straw-man fashion, is the distortion of religion which you cast as "religion", and despite the differences being pointed out to you, you persist. I see neither rhyme nor reason holds sway with you.
And as for the values of the thing you religiously oppose, it has provided the best economic system (usury free, inflation free and offers market access for all) the best penal code, the best civic code, the best personal moral code, the best spiritual code, and last but not least, the best approach as to the above i.e. the freedom to accept it or not.
Clearly it has no place in todays society.
I gave mr Hoffman the benefit of the doubt but have concluded after this statement that he is unbalanced.There is a malaice behind his logical way of looking at things .It may be due to his profession that he seems to be unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality your statement
"Lovely Darfur story that proves nothing, if you awoke to find him slautering (spl) cattle for Zeus would you be equally as impressed?"
illustrates this.
Seems also that your knowledge of Jesus is questionable.
I could go on, because Jesus (and everyone seems to forget this), believed in the old testament as the world of god,
the above is nonsense.
By the way many even question if there was a historical Jesus but that is neither here nor there.
@stef,
yep for sure throughout history the belief in God has been used to manipulate the masses.The council of Nicea is a good example of this.
First Council of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius[2]). Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
And still it goes on...
Shahid:
I can provide plenty of references from that nasty book but the point is that would still not be enough, as the references I have offered for other people have still not been enough. This stopped being a useful debate a long time ago and your refusal to answer my questions, as well as then insert a dig at evolution clearly illustrates the fact that you believe man was made from clay and that apostates should be killed.
But for the record some references:
Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90
Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
Fight in the way of Allah. 2:190, 2:244
War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
Those who marry unbelievers will burn in the Fire. 2:221
Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19
They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion. 3:24
Apostates will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:86-88
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89
For the wrongdoing Jews, Allah has prepared a painful doom. 4:160-1
I could go on, no doubt you'll claim it's all a mistranslation but the list is endless...
Also Shahid, you keep dragging it back to some odd point about Iraq as a smokescreen to deny that you believe in a brutal, nasty little religion.
Finally, you want me to explain why some creatures moved to bi-peds and some didn't? Read some proper books man and then come back to me.
Anon1:
Oh dear, lovely dig about growing up, nice to see it's not moved on here one bit, the trouble is a faith in a myth is a sorry option but I'll leave you to ideas of heaven, stoning and eternla hell fire for non-believers.
lwtc247:
Defending of Bronze Age science is cringe worthy, is not a claim but a fact, just as defending Bronze Age morals and ethics is also a silly thing to do unless you think women are second rate and worth half the value of a man?
I've also already dispatched with the novel idea that humankind has somehow manipulated and distorted 'pure' religion. How many times are people going to bang this drum?
Sorry? What has provided: "the best economic system (usury free, inflation free and offers market access for all) the best penal code, the best civic code, the best personal moral code, the best spiritual code, and last but not least, the best approach as to the above i.e. the freedom to accept it or not.", religion? This doesn't make sense, as none of these things come from religion and certainly they offer no useful model.
Anon2:
Nice and useless dig at my profession which shows as much understanding of what it is as some people here have of racism, religion and science. Well done! Any malice you may notice has already been explained, read other comments. The Zeus quote you use shows nothing, what is it with people here quoting me and then just saying, that proves my point? Bizarre debating technique here.
My knowledge of Jesus is pretty good, can you explain to me why you think that Jesus did not believe in the Old Testement, considering he was a Jew and exstensively reference the OT in the NT, indeed Jesus is an effort to tie the OT Messiah tradition to the NT in the first place. Have you never read the bible or understood it.
You can't just say, after I've evidenced the contrary, that Jesus did not believe in the OT, he wrote it! (If you believe that nonsense in the first place that is).
You don;t have to tell me that a historical Jesus may not have existed but the point is million sof epople do, take his word as law and believe there will be second coming.
Your arguement is confused, poorly backed up and weak.
And your @Stef bit once again mines this pointless and error ridden furrow that god is somehow a manipulation in the hands of man, which it is but only because that even in its purest form it is anti-human and repressive.
I'll say this, some people seem a wee bit too concerned with facile conspiracies when the real danger of repressive religious practice and religious empire building, whether that be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist is hanging over us
My writing has never been about Islamophobia because the bigoted writings of journalists only make it harder, as illustrated here, to have a reasoned debate about religion and the damage it has on our world.
@dhg
you really don't get it do you?
you just don't see that your faith in a idealised version of 'science', which in reality is just as flawed with human frailty as organised religion, is itself a religion
I've asked you very direct questions you've replied with prophecy, putting words in my mouth and attempting to goad me with personal insults
I've pointed you to a quote where Dawkins admits that faith plays a part in his view on evolution - you describe it as a cheap shot
I've asked you a direct question about a verifiable mechanism for the origin of Life - you responded with a prediction and tried to pass it off as evidence that my position on the origins of life is wrong when it patently is not
I told you I can see the flaws in existing evolutionary theory - you tell me I'm an nutcase because I don't embrace the existing one because the alternative is to believe superstition
do you honestly not see how you've behaved in exactly the same way as the stereotypes you revile?
Stef:
What I don't get is how the debate has got to this point from this comment:
"It's not so much a fear of Islam but a dislike for it's backwardness and in fact, the cultural retardation that all organised religon inflicts not only upon it's subscribers but also those that don't believe.
Certainly Islam has been unfairly targeted when all religion should be targeted (by targeted I don't mean acts of violence but rather exposing of the key elements and an allowance for an open and fair debate on it's impact on world culture so it can be challenged) for it's negative impact upon humanity but Islam holds a pretty nasty worldview."
I have no 'faith' in science, I do not idealise science but I do enjoy it's basis on evidence and rigourous testing and flexibility to learn, to evolve and change over time to gain an improved worldview.
I've answered many, many questions over here; clearly regarding the start of time I don't have an answer because if I did that would make me a Noble Prize Winner. But just because (and I think we will one day) we don't have an answer doesn't make it any weaker.
It's funny that you mention personal insults, it's not nice is it? Certainly I regret my part in that but you must see that I left this thread on a peaceful note after many insults towards me but they just carried on, it was an error to return, I knew it would be and said as much but I couldn't stand aside and let such ill-informed nonsense (not by you at this stage) be left unchallenged.
As for the Dawkins quote, I'm not his protector, but it does smack rather of those people that use words used by Einstein to make him out to be a believer in God when the man never was. I can only imagine the care with which Dawkins had to use words to avoid his ideas being denigrated.
I'm sure Stef, you know the feeling, I certainly do.
I have not insulted you or tried to play any cheap shots. You have not shown me the same courtesy
I have absolutely no problem with the Scientific Method but my contention is that it is often not applied and much of what passes for popular science is tainted by ego, greed, subjectivity and plain stupidity
I believe that the Scientific Method is a nice idea which is corrupted by people and that there are parallels with the corruption of spiritual thinking
And I am not asking questions about the start of Time I am asking a question about the origin of Life
You have heaped a pile of abuse on me for saying that science has been unable to explain Life and that I am unhappy with its existing 'answers'
So, it's only fair to ask you to point out the mechanism I'm supposed to, and you presumably already, believe in
I'm still waiting
Stef:
Indeed but the treatment of me on your blog, you blog where you have a responsibility I would add, has not been cool. It is only human that after a period of time my behaviour would turn more aggressive as I was attacked and backed further into a corner.
I take on board what you say baout scientific method not being applied but I must say that the sheer volume of scientists working in a whole variety of fields enables, over a period of time, for the 'good' to out in terms of outcomes and data that can be trusted and built on.
Your view is a pessimistic one, mine is more optimistic.
As for a corruption of spiritual thinking, I would classify all religion as a corruption of spiritual thinking.
I believe that regarding the start of life on earth (my point to Shahid was on were humans came from, clearly I believe that humans evolved from a long line of ancient relatives and creatures and will keep evolving and/or be surpassed) evolution points to a process of development from simpler organisms to more complex ones, we can draw that line.
Evidence of basic life forms goes back 3.7 million years, I think that RNA holds the key to the very first forms of life in what was a wonderful early environment for the creation of life forms.
I certainly think that a more believable and testable idea than man was made in god's image and woman from a rib in their whole form with no evolution.
You see, religion offers us nothing on how we came to be here but many people use it as a device for just that and such people would hold back investigation and research as they have the answer.
Do you want that Stef?
@Daneil - you are a slandering, misrepresenting, lying ignoramus.
1) Your translations are by the BNP
2) Your contexts are wrong
3) You are a lying Islamophobe and probably the worst "scholar" I've ever encountered.
I asked you, for the thousandth time, to provide the reference for your view. You failed to do so.
Instead, you quoted translations that are not recognised by any Muslim, that are not only inaccurate, but misleading and stripped of context, utterly meaningless.
What is your agenda here?
Stef? Will you allow this misleading hater with an agenda to misquote so shoddily?
I will address just one, even though the hatemonger has been allowed to get away with not providing a reference for his original bogus claim.
The Islamophobes always quote out of context (he has yet to address a single one of my challenges), but this one is the worst lie:
"Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89 "
Can you allow this hatred to continue?
Here is a recognised translation of just that verse, completely out of context again: (though bear in mind what I said about knowing the Arabic)
"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."
Now, should I really have to:
a) Correct the deliberate distortions of hatemongering Islamophobe? (If you don't believe me even on the basics, look up any recognised English 'translation' to see how badly this hater is putting words in that don't exist as well as completely mistranslating)
b) Explain the context of the verse? (I mean, some of these are so stripped of context it's bizarre he expects anyone with half a brain to fall for it)
c) Explain the history of the revelation and it s context and applicability?
d) Have to defend against utter falsehood, such a waste of time, when he hasn't done us the courtesy of backing up his original bogus assertion with a reference, as requested several times?
I'll be happy to discuss any aspect of the Qur'an with anyone with an itoa of decency, but this guy is so off the rails, so consumed with hatred, spreading such blatantly false propaganda (even compared to normal Islamophobes, this is some of the worst misquotation and misrepresentation I have ever seen)
For example, if what he says is true (and it isn't), why would Allah also say in the Qur'an:
5:69 "Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."
Before Daniel the hater and backer of the murderous regime of the Christian Zionist butchers Bush and blair etc is allowed to continue to spread anti-Muslim hate speech here, he should be made to provide the reference he was originally asked for from the Qur'an.
Or fuck off, like he promised. Because this troll-fuck has been found out again and again and again and still he persists in spreading his BNP-like anti-Muslim lies, distortions, misrepresentations and deliberate fabrications.
"Finally, you want me to explain why some creatures moved to bi-peds and some didn't? Read some proper books man and then come back to me."
I didn't say that. Don't misrepresent me as you have done my religion.
And books like what? The Selfish Gene? The Blind Watchmaker? Done that. You are a devious man - you ask me to read proper books when you have clearly not read a single English translation of the Qur'an as recognised by any Arabic scholar, quoting a BNP version? Risible!
Tell me which book to read that explains how any species moved to a mechanically less efficient method of locomotion with every infitessimally small increment being advantageous as compared to "normal" quadripedal movement.
BTW - my skepticism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not based on the Qur'an. (I used to believe in evolution by natural selection - the Qur'an technically doesn't contradict it)
Like Stef, I don't have an alternative, but I do believe there is a quasi-religious orthodoxy whose interests it serves to back a flawed model. Science has always been like that, until someone comes up with something better. I'm waiting for that 'something better'.
You go on about Iraq - it's simple - while people like you - 2-bit-google-scholars of Islam who search with a BNP filter - continue to revile our creed - it makes it that bit easier for you to accept your Zionist masters Bush and Brown murdering Muslims all over the world.
While you froth with Nick-Griffin-like-hatred and misunderstanding of Islam, pretending to know the Qur'an when you're quoting some BNP version and quoting something you say was from the "koran" (sic) without ever providing a reference despite repeated requests for some "endtimes" (Christian word) scenarios that have not surfaced, effectively condemning all Muslims of some perceived crime that has yet to happen - in the meantime - real Muslim bodies are littered around the globe - whilst hateful twats like you are actually just fine and dandy and free to abuse the living members of families of those same victims of bombs you paid for with glee.
And that's the point, isn't it? You're free to hate Islam and Muslims like me for some distorted version of a religion you know NOTHING about and which you got from the BNP, while real Muslims are banged up or murdered.
If that makes you a cunt, then so be it.
81 comments Stef, is that a record?
@all
some of the stuff I've read here has made me wince but I really don't want to start down the slippery slope of tinkering with posts
'81 comments Stef, is that a record?'
not even 83
I had an extended dingdong with a 'strong' atheist a long while back which I recall may have hit treble figures
One of the interesting things about science,as opposed to the big organised religions, is that every now and then things do go tits up and scientists are obliged to concede that very much of what they knew to be 'true' was in fact wrong
For example, I got into geology only 10-15 years after plate tectonic theory achieved acceptance and the text books were still being rewritten (and the old ones quietly trashed) - the amusing thing being that plate tectonics doesn't stack up either
Scientific Truth is demonstrably mutable and when I hear characters like Dawkins talking about evolutionary theory as if it were set in stone for all time I start all twitchy and intolerant
You know, the Arab (and predominantly Muslim) world has had significant Jewish and Christian minorities.
If What Daniel says is correct, why are these minorities in Muslim countries still around?
Compare their treatment even in Iran, never mind the Arab countries, to that of Palestinians occupied by Israel.
I think I'd trust evolution a bit more (though not much) if it didn't have a nutjob like Dawkins as its mouthpiece. His messianic zeal doesn't help his cause. Especially when he gets all fundamental.
Shahid:
Thanks for the kind words.
I presume you are playing the translation card? Dismissing the fact that any of these words and ideas are present in the Koran? I presume you want me to find a translation, indeed you want me to read Arabic no doubt, even though some bits of the Koran are themselves translated from Hebrew, and a reading that fits your view?
I like the fact that the bit you chose was just as nasty as the bit I chose, it was no more palatable or easy on the eye.
I'm glad you quoted 5:69 as that highlights the problem, found in all holy books, they are full of errors and contradictions, so yes it does say that and then goes on to say:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah
The thing is, Allah gets it wrong, quite often and can't make his mind up, these contradictions are part of the weakness of all religion.
I'll let your final, expletive ridden rant speak for itself, it certainly puts you in a wonderful light.
All the best.
nah don´t tamper with posts stef unless there is outright unfounded hate speech.I have no problem with the "f" word (although my wife does!)
danny boy however is full of it.A man intoxicated by the exuberance of his own verbosity!
once again he talks total shit when he says,
"My knowledge of Jesus is pretty good, can you explain to me why you think that Jesus did not believe in the Old Testement, considering he was a Jew and extensively reference the OT in the NT, indeed Jesus is an effort to tie the OT Messiah tradition to the NT in the first place. Have you never read the bible or understood it.
You can't just say, after I've evidenced the contrary, that Jesus did not believe in the OT, he wrote it! (If you believe that nonsense in the first place that is)."
Jesus never wrote the old testament you clown.
being brought up a Roman Catholic in Glasgow we had the Bible drummed into us relentlessly as a kids.
danny boy said
"My knowledge of Jesus is pretty good, can you explain to me why you think that Jesus did not believe in the Old Testament
The truth about Jesus and about his teaching is hard to find today. For it is buried under a man-built mountain of deliberate falsification and superstitious accretion.
the old Testament!!!i doubt Jesus was even aware that such a fable existed!.Let´s just say that Jesus did exist.Jesus and Muhammad were Mystics/philosophers.They were saying the same things basically at different times to different peoples/culture.Mystical truth is timeless.Buddha Lao Tzu etc etct
Just checked bleeding heart Dan's trackback to this blog. Amazing how he continues to spread lies.
Unless he speaks Arabic, he has not quoted "vast tracts" of the Qur'an anywhere here. So he is a liar.
Further, his quotations cannot be verified and are out of context.
He is crying about all the things he's been called, without telling his readers (some of whom are Muslims no doubt) how insulting he has been to the religion and the sacred text of over a billion Muslims.
He says he hates all religion equally, but that doesn't really come across, does it?
He says he "got swore at". Diddums!
It's OK for you to offend the sensibilities of over a billion people with your lies and drivel, misquotations and misrepresentations, spreading hatred by accusing us of the same! Bravo!
No comments on his blog post though.
Daniel, if you want to investigate what lies underneath Islam, I suggest you spend less time with your shitty stick poking us and our beliefs and a bit more time with some real Muslims and the humility to learn.
You think religions are evil, Islam in particular, but you don't see that it is Muslims who are the victims. How does that stack up?
BTW, you were meant to provide a reference from the Qur'an for your original allegation. You never did. And you never could.
Daniel, you continue with nonsense, and you have failed to address any of the points you were supposed to.
Now that you have been caught with your trousers down, stealing from the till of the BNP, let's go back to the original point shall we?
Provide the original reference from the Qur'an for the original point. And not from a BNP version please. Feel free to use any of the accepted translations of the meanings, i.e. Shakir, Pickthall, Ali or even a recent one like Bewley.
No Muslim can take you seriously. You are a laughing stock. Just like loads of other orientalists before you who thought they found out what Islam was by looking at us through their lenses of hatred, you have been found out and you still cannot answer a single question you have been asked to answer.
Shahid again:
You can move your goalposts all you want, I get the feeling that no matter what, my stance as someone who holds no truck in the koran, the bible or any other mythical text will always put me at odds with your belief system.
What form of killing is best for Apostates by the way?
Bi-pedal movement brings lots of advantages, rising the head, greater field of vision and more importantly for the development of humans, it leaves limbs free to do other things; like write silly books with the spare feet. Also, not all bi-peds are slow, evolution is not about top speed but development to deal better with your environments.
And Shahid, was man made out of clay or not?
Also, I've made it clear, even though you are desperate to paint me as otherwise, I can't get along with ANY religion, certainly not the Zionists, or the Christians. What does make me laugh, is that I can be a BNP lover but also a Zionist.
You seem confused, it must be all the silly typing going to your head.
You ask why are the other religious minorites tolerated in Muslim countries and the answer is, there are many painful examples where they are not; the Christians in Iraq for example, nevermind the bloody in figthing between Sunni and Shia.
Finally calling Dawkins fundemental means you don't know what a fundementalist is.
Please see Salafism for reference.
Stef:
I am not encouraging or would support editing or deletion in anyway but I think you have a responsibility to oversee the debate.
Onto your second point, firstly, it is a rare moment indeed when one of the basic scientific 'rules' is turned upside down but of course the wonderful thing about science is that it is open to change, rather than being fixed and finxed for thousands of years, so that ancient thinking on let's say women, or drink or violence, still carries weight in the modern world.
Changing your mind is a benefit not extended to people who renounce god.
Dawkins, by the way, has never said it is set in stone or immutable, it is an ongoing process.
I think you get twitchy at just about most things.
Daniel: According to your blog, you've got yourself "a new nigger".
I see, us Muslims are "niggers" are we? And you sir, massa, have got a better religion for us sir, massa, yes bwana?
White man ALWAYS knows best sir massa, we Muslims r just poor niggers, can't do anything for ourselves, need your firm, white hand to tell us what to believe and how to live and seek your protection.
Nice metaphor Daniel. It's always cringeworthy when a white man says he isn't racist and freely bandies about the term "nigger", thus offending blacks and Muslims (sometimes both at the same time) without realising.
Now do bring that original reference.
(BTW, is it nice for you to get more attention on Stef's blog than you do on your own?)
Provide the reference and admit you used incorrect translations Dan. Nobody can take you seriously as a white man trying to set us poor fool niggers right about our religion otherwise Dan.
I'll get to your side-tracking evolution points eventually. Just be a man and admit you were wrong on your original outburst. You are a man, aren't you Dan?
(Don't spout words you know nothing about Dan, you sound like other shrill, white bloggers who suddenly realised how crazy and murderous us poor fool niggers were, while us poor fool niggers looked on in bewilderment)
Anon:
Please keep up, Jesus is the son of god and also god and the spirit all in one, if you're a Christian that is.
So the OT is the word of that god, a god that Jesus both is and believes in (who made up this shit I've no idea but don't shoot the messenger), you may have been bought up RC but you certainly don't seem to know that Jesus, as a Jew followed and even quoted from the OT, he particularly likes Moses and uses him as a great example.
Like most RC people you like to deny that the OT is even part of your cannon, because it is full of some pretty horrible things.
I love it, an RC who thinks that Jesus didn't follow the OT!
Shahid Again:
Rant on dear boy, the more you type the more the hateful bile drips from you.
I gave you evidence, you then deny it and ask for more.
The tactics of denial will not make it go away.
I stand by what I said, religion, in all it's forms is a device that represses and holds back humanity and offers nothing to move us forward to establish a better sense of humanity.
I'll leave you to hang by your own words Shahid, keep 'em coming along with the insults...
Shahid Again: (have you just got up?)
Have you read the 'We've Got Ourselves a New Nigger' article on my blog? I'd do so before you sling around accusations, otherwise you're going to look even worse then you already are.
I can assure you that in the context of the blog post I wrote (you should read it before you comment) the term is correct and suitable.
As for attention, if you mean comments then I don't count comments as attention, only the most simple minded do so.
Now calm down before you type another response and have a cup of tea.
All the best!
What's the matter Dan, don't us poor fool niggers deserve a response from honourable white man?
You said: "Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly."
Reference from the Qur'an please. (From the Qur'an, not the BNP version you've been pulling made up stuff from please)
Oh what's the matter Dan, don't you like your contradictory words stripped of context?
Now, again:
You said: "Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly."
Reference from the Qur'an please.
Shahid Again and Again:
Keep using the word all you want, I just don't think you understand the blog post it referred to though, read it and tell me.
No matter what level of quote I provide regarding the removal of non-believers, which I already have, you will call it a BNP translation.
So I'll put up the same bits again but that surely is going to get tedious.
If it hasn't already...
ok this is my last comment on this stuff.
My bottom line is live an let live.All religion is fine by me just so long as they don´t try to ram it down my throat.
To me Islam is fine,I´d even put it a good rung or two above Christianity.
I was brought up Roman Catholic but abandoned the faith aged 11.Zen Buddhism appeals to me personally.
Fair play to you Danny boy for taking the insults well!and banging on regardless.
One last thought on Jesus.Very little .is actually written by him if anything at all.I suspect nothing is actually recorded by the man himself.The Apostles did most of that after he had died so Danny boy you are being disingenuous by "quoting Jeezus direct cause it was his mate s who wrote it after he had either died or sneaked of to India!
Muslims in Kashmir and elsewhere revere both Jesus and Moses as “noble prophets“ of “Bani Israel“ (Children of Israel), as the Quran makes a number of references to them. Dr Swamy also pointed to the belief of many Kashmiris that they were one of the “Lost Tribes” of Israel. “It is a matter of great interest that Prophet Moses is buried in Kashmir and that Jesus too had visited the Vale, went to Ladakh to visit the Hemis monastery where he took Buddhism as his faith, returned home but left it again for Kashmir to escape persecution, and died here in Srinagar,” he said. The Janata Party leader said that the team he has set up would do methodical research on the subject and come out with its findings “which everybody in the country would be interested in.”
but all that is another story!
Jesus in Kashmir,India(BBC Documentry)-1
Anon (presume it was you twice with the vid also):
All the stuff about Jesus not dying or being ressurected (spl) is very interesting indeed, many other faiths use this offensive (to those that believe the Christ story) tale to ridicule and de-stabalise the Christian faith in order to win over converts.
Live and let live is all good but the religious do not want to live and let live, their's is a belief system of US and THEM.
Thanks for the fair play.
As for Jesus, of course he didn't write a bloody thing, the mythology of the NT is that his disciples took down his words and his stories and adventures to share his teachings with a wider world.
But Jesus and his disciples, down to a man, were all Jews, indeed the Christ cult was Jewish only until the gentiles crept in and made the Christian faith lean towards the anti-semitism it is now famous foe.
To most Christians the idea that Jesus was not resurrected and ran off to hide in India is deeply offensive, I personally don't mind but these interpretations are part of the problem.
It would be interesting if the BBC tried to make a TV show regarding the numerous wives of mohamed, or the treatment of the Jews at Medina, or slavery.
For what it's worth, such investigations are like trying to find Mount Olympus, building myths on myths.
Did anyone actually watch Peter Oborne's program on Monday night I referred to in the post?
At one point Oborne was talking to an old bloke on the street in Stoke and he referred to Muslims as being like an infestation of cockroaches that needed stamping out
Language like that is as awful as anything I heard as a schoolkid in South London back in the 1970s
Different issues have become conflated in this thread
There is a perfectly valid debate, and struggle, to be had between those with secular and religious viewpoints - and that struggle will run and run
The issue which personally gets me steamed up is a different one
It is clear as day to me that there are interests playing the religion/ clash of cultures card to justify aggression and theft
Before Islam it was Communism that was set up as the big bogeyman and very similar language was used - an oppressive ideology which threatened to take over the entire world domino style and which therefore had to be fought in the most brutal manner in other people's countries, before the contagion spread to our own - as if western capitalism was any less aggressive or virulent
Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't dying and killing to preserve any precious western values - they're dying and killing for oil, for drugs, for water, for land and anything else the bastards pulling the strings think is worth stealing
and imho playing along with the lie that there is some kind of legitimate struggle for light and reason going on in those countries is to play into the hands of those bastards
@ stef,
It is clear as day to me that there are interests playing the religion/ clash of cultures card to justify aggression and theft
Before Islam it was Communism that was set up as the big bogeyman and very similar language was used - an oppressive ideology which threatened to take over the entire world domino style and which therefore had to be fought in the most brutal manner in other people's countries, before the contagion spread to our own - as if western capitalism was any less aggressive or virulent
Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't dying and killing to preserve any precious western values - they're dying and killing for oil, for drugs, for water, for land and anything else the bastards pulling the strings think is worth stealing
and imho playing along with the lie that there is some kind of legitimate struggle for light and reason going on in those countries is to play into the hands of those bastards
I´m with you ALL the way on that.
Christian versus Islam,Al CIAeda etc is all a PentaNeoCon(emphasis on Con)black ops.Still though The Ruskies are getting pissed opff at the moment so look for Son of Return of Cold War 2 coming to a cinema near you soon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/features/2003/09/fastest_milkman_in_nottingham.shtml
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill recently failed in his attempt to set the World Milk Float Land Speed Challenge
Apparently he stopped to argue with a pint of Gold Top for several hours.
Thanks for googling me there, it was an acting job some time ago, a documentary on ITV and great fun it was to.
However, I would like to clear up that MOSSAD did not sabotage my milkfloat.
A favourite Vonnegut quote on the stuff that's been covered in this thread...
Mr. VONNEGUT: Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally.
INSKEEP: How are the scientists behaving tribally?
Mr. VONNEGUT: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.
INSKEEP: Does that mean you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?
Mr. VONNEGUT: Look, if it’s what we’re thinking about all the time; if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher, it’d be on my mind all the time as to how the hell we really got this way. It’s a perfectly natural human thought and, okay, if you go into the science class you can’t think this? Well, alright, as soon as you leave you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion. Also, I think that, you know, it’s tribal behavior. I don’t think that Pat Robertson, for instance, doubts that we evolved. He is simply representing a tribe.
INSKEEP: There are tribes on both sides here in your view?
Mr. VONNEGUT: Yes.
INSKEEP: May I ask what tribes, if any, you have belonged to over the years?
Mr. VONNEGUT: Well, it’s an ancestral tribe. These were immigrants from north of Germany who came here about the time of the Civil War, but anyway, these people called themselves free thinkers. They were impressed, incidentally, by Darwin. They’re called Humanists now: people who aren’t so sure that the Bible is the Word of God.
INSKEEP: Who are denounced by some religious people as secular humanists?
Mr. VONNEGUT: Well, that’s exactly what I am. The trouble with being a secular humanist is that we don’t have a congregation. We don’t meet, so it’s a very flimsy tribe, but there’s a wonderful quotation from Nietzsche. Nietzsche said, Only a person of deep faith can afford the luxury of skepticism. Something perfectly wonderful is going on. I do not doubt it, but the explanations I hear do not satisfy me.
I love these Vonnegut quotes:
"How on earth can religious people believe in so much arbitrary, clearly invented balderdash?....The acceptance of a creed, any creed, entitles the acceptor to membership in the sort of artificial extended family we call a congregation. It is a way to fight loneliness. Any time I see a person fleeing from reason and into religion, I think to myself, There goes a person who simply cannot stand being so goddamned lonely anymore."
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying."
...another favourite link on neo Darwinism - this time MP Schutzenberger
I picked Vonnegut very deliberately
Schutzenberger was a great mathmetician but not much of a biologist, indeed his views on evolution casued much embarrassment to his peers but lovely piece all the less.
Glad you quoted Vonnegut very deliberately, I'm a big fan of his.
So it goes...
indeed his views on evolution casued much embarrassment to his peers
yes, I keep meaning to edit that wikipedia entry
Hi Dan, I see you didn't get around to providing the reference on alleged Qur'anic "endtimes" mass killing of Jews being mandatory for Muslims to be Muslims then?
Aren't you man enough to admit when you've been found out? Or are you here just to promote hatred and spread orientalist propaganda?
Oh come, come Stef; you're denying that his views on evolution are a little extreme to say the least and that he is often used by creationists as a totom?
Or are we going to argue about this ad infitum as well?
Shahid: forgive me if I stopped taking you seriously a long while ago, I have already provided all the information regarding the facts I stated. How long are you going to keep this going the pair of you?
200 comments perhaps?
As for when the hour comes, you know that all non-believers will be destroyed, this is outlined in 6:31 and 69:13-15
5:33 outlines the torutre of Jews, 5:51 how they can't be taken as friends, 62:6 more bits on their death
And let us not forget Mohamed's treatment of the jews of medina.
Lovely stuff!
I'll end with 9:73...
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.
FEEL THE LOVE!
Can I also refer to Sura 21:96, 27:82 and 43:61 which outline the major and minor signs I have mentioned, please see 3 for ref:
Major Signs:
1. Gross materialism
2. Women outnumber men
3. Muslims defeat Jews in battle; Muslims and Christians battle unbelievers together, then Muslims defeat Christians in battle.
Minor Signs:
1. Increase in bloodshed and war
2. Contraction of time
3. Religious knowledge decreases
4. Prevalence of the ungodly
All the best.
ok Danny boy and this is for you.
BIBLE VS. KORAN
another anon here.
DHG, when I mentioned that I used to share similar views as you, then grew out of it, I really do mean that I matured, in my views and in my humility. Your response to me leads me to believe you don't get where I'm coming from. To be frank, the response was a tad bit sophomoric, and somewhat arrogant.
I'm agnostic btw. I have learned a lot from someone close in my life, who is deeply spiritual, not part of any organized religion. Growing up she was exposed to the bible, the koran as well as other beliefs. Its hard to put into words, but I liked this quote:
"Something perfectly wonderful is going on. I do not doubt it, but the explanations I hear do not satisfy me." I have learned to respect her beliefs, since I have become more humble in what I don't know. Call it intuition, or whatever.
Rationality is a great thing, but I think we humans are probably more than just flesh and blood robots (Penrose hasnt explained conciousness yet, is Kurzweil's singularity really going to come?). The Renaissance period in the west was partly due to the philosophy of seeing man as an image of 'god'. That man is more than just a thinking animal. The empiricists are also a philosophical tribe, and the empiricists are having a hard time explaining it all.
btw... You also realise that myths are not just contained to the religious world? Myths are everywhere. Heck, you can be as rational as you want, even with bad data, but like a computer, garbage in->garbage out.
I will say this though, that the west has benefited a lot from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods.
So continue to vilify religion as the real cause of strife, when as people on here have pointed out, religion, nationalism etc.... are mere fronts for the real purposes.
Some of the biggest atrocities in the world happened under atheistic regimes which viewed people as no more than livestock.
First Anon (far too many anons here):
thanks for link, I feel that both documents are of little use so a comparison is like trying to find Mount Olympus (and I don't mean the real one near Litochoro).
Second Anon/Agnostic fence sitting:
You'll forgive me if my response was not to your liking but as I've rather a lot on my hands over here and have been extensively insulted, you'll see why politeness is not top of my agenda.
I never suggested we are robots but I do suggest that when we die we die and that we are indeed thinking animals, although that's not fair to animals who also think, so we are differently thinking animals who currently dominate the earth (although domination is not guaranteed, I am not a human fascist).
Myths are of course everywhere and no doubt our current faith fads will turn that way sooner or later, it is what we replace them with I am keen on.
Sorry but once again the 'athiest' atrocity nonsense is trotted out which is on a par with telling a story about how a Muslim man was nice to you, hence Islam is alright. I'm getting tired of repeating dealt with points. No one was ever killed 'for atheism' byt plenty die 'for god'. Also, I've already freaking said, those regimes used quasi-religious set ups as a working model and also inherited religious influences regarding which race was subhuman or not.
Religion is not the only source of the world's issues (I never said it was by the way) but it is certainly an underrated and powerful factor.
And may I add I don't see nothing wrong with a little bump and grind.
Come on Dan, it's really simple, you are taking the talk everywhere else in your scattergun hatred and ignorance. It's really very simple:
You said: "Would you not ageee that the Jews must be extiminated when endtime comes? The Koran makes this jolly clear, do you believe in this Holy War or not? If not, you are not a Muslim clearly."
Reference from the Qur'an please.
You talked about a Holy War at endtimes in the Qur'an where it states that Jews must be "extiminated" (sic)
Now stop being a patronising buffoon caught several times misquoting and misrepresenting and present the verse (in context) specifically supporting your ridiculous assertion.
I have plenty of patience. In your own good time.
(Don't sidetrack, I know you're good at that, one thing at a time, do you think you could manage that?)
@Stef - Islamophobes welcome here to repeatedly spout shit and not provide a reference whilst continuing to spread hatred?
And once again Dan, if Islam is the threat, why are Muslims lying dead around the world, with wars supported by your Friedmanite hatred? Bwana? You got a betta religion fo me massa? Sure massa! Wipe my kind out sir massa!
Just found out where you've been getting your messed up quotes from:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/int_list.html
With books like:
"Islam and Terrorism" by the Islamophobe Mark Gabriel
"The Caged Virgin" by the discredited Hirsi Ali
and others proudly displayed, your interests and real agenda are transparent.
I've made my point.
The reason the Islamophobe Daniel couldn't provide the reference is because it doesn't exist. What I was waiting for was a frank admission of fault, so that I could engage with him like a decent person. He couldn't do that because of his agenda.
What Daniel was actually referring to, but in his hubris, failed to understand, was a decontextualised and distorted version of the ahadith, the Prophetic Traditions, compiled some time after the death of the Prophet (saw). But he doesn't know that. Like other shrill Islamophobes, in his blind hatred and ignorance he just bandies terms around without a clue. I would explain the ahadith, but only to people who are interested. Dan is interested only in his agenda, which to be fair, he made plain very early.
He hates all religion (despite Social Darwinism killing more people in the 20th century than in all the wars in history combined) but reserves special hatred for Islam. So, close-minded, unable to listen to arguments, unable to provide accurate translations, unwilling to even look for them, here he is, with his hate-filled agenda and he has the temerity to accuse Muslims of dangerous close-mindedness.
He is not interested in the truth, because his mind is made up and is firmly shut. That actually makes him more close-minded than the Muslims he has insulted and maligned in this thread.
I know where you're coming from now Dan, so don't worry, no more comment from me to you.
Your hatred of Muslims (sorry, the "new niggers"), brazen Islamophobia and complete and utter disregard for half-decent scholarship means there's no need for me to take you even half-seriously.
So to wrap up from my side, I'm sorry I swore at you, that was my weakness and was unnecessary and uncool. Thanks for participating and I hope I didn't put you off Stef's blog, my favourite on the Internet. Now that I know where you're coming from, I am at ease with you.
Feel free to say anything you like following this, but unless I see a complete volte face, I hope you will be happy to hear that I am not engaging with you on this thread anymore.
Peace Dan. (Sincerely meant)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yYhnkxdfI
fd"tinkering with posts." - Please don't. That would be disasterous.
Dear brother Shahid. We must suffer these rancid fools who talk such utter ill-sourced rubbish. If they preach falsehood they will, as DHG has done many times here, soon hang themselves on the rope of free speech afforded to them.
Your response was perfect: Engage them. And your replies were in the main justified. You and the other non-Muslims here have identified the multitude of junk claims swollen with lies, deceptions and dodges by DHG. Well done to you all.
As we all know, Islam and ALL religions must be open to challenge, becasue there are sincere people out there with real questions and real concerns AND questioning things claimed to be religious helps identify the rot that has made inroads into undermining it.
Remember most of these people live behind a curtain which is there for the purpose of keeping them ignorant, hateful and fearful. DHG may be sincere but has done a grossly horrible job at showing it.
This could have been (and still could be) a good debate if points are addressed one at a time and ALL parties supply references to the evidence they claim to have, but in light of what DHG has written here, the onus is absolutely on him to bear the standard of calm, sourced and rational inquiry into things he claims concerns him.
/ loving that rope of free speech
Blimey Stef. How long have you been a leftie then???
"I've noticed in the left-wing UK blog universe that much hand wringing is going on about the dreaded evil of Islamophobia"
roughly the same time as I've been a creationist
Good grief, it goes on...
Shahid: sections are already provided, I've done my bit now do yours and accept that you believe in a heaven and a hell where non-believers will be tortured and an eternal pain awaits them.
As for Muslims dying around the world, why is that somehow a marker that Islam and ALL religion can't somehow have something wrong with it? Dead muslims = can't debate the Islamic faith.
How can you mention dead muslims and not reflect that the Shia and Sunni forces are massacring one another or the suicide bombers that kill innocents, muslim innocents.
I thought life was precious?
You know as well as I that I'll you've done is not mention the more unsavoury aspects of your faith, (aspects that run for ALL faiths) to make it not look like a backward thinking Bronze Age value system.
I'm sure, if you're right, I'll be burning in hell but I doubt it very, very, very much.
ohthedrama:
Is that meant to be a dig that I make my money by acting?
Well done on that one, considering you have no knowledge of my work, reputation or ability.
Cool.
lwtc247:
Hang myself? (Stef seemed to lap this up, YAY!)
I think I've done pretty well, from one small comment that has led to a whole volley of abuse and tit-for-tat.
You do know that free speech and freedom of expression is a value not highly rated in religion?
If it makes you all feel better, high and mighty (I can see the chests swollen with grotesque pride and it is a repulsive vision) to mark me out as this bigot, fine, it certainly makes it all very black and white for you so you can attack freely.
But you have not, or seemingly can't ever, listen to what is being offered without knee-jerking a spiteful and bizarre reaction.
I'm glad to see you can handle disagreement, or views that don't follow your narrow ideology.
And that goes to all of you.
Finally, the section of my blog post you quote was not actually in relation to this blog but to others in my blogroll; but you'd know that if you read it.
Not everything is about you...
Take care all of you, much smugness all round and don't forget:
"I took her for a drink on Tuesday, we were making love by Wednesday and Thursday, Friday and Saturday; we chilled on Sunday."
its anon here again.
I just visited Danny boy blog "Blurred Clarity."
dan says
"The gist of my argument is we should more vigorously investigate the belief values of all religions in order to see the repressive and negative impacts they have upon our societies. This led to me being called a racist, an Islamophobe and being swore at. I have also had to quote vast tracts of the Koran, the Bible and also defend evolution as well a few other things."
Dan seems to think that somehow religion and societies are two separate entities when infact they are entwined and interwoven.With religion praying on its hapless victims!Just look to Northern Ireland as an illustration of the evils of bigotry and violence under the guise of religion.A nation divided cannot defend itself!!(same in Iraq)
Religions are born from men who have had mystical insight.Buddha Jesus Mohammad etc and as we all know religion in its crass present form is used to manipulate the masses but this in no way invalidates the original message (if you can still find it!) of the Prophet,which is why I tend towards the Buddhist view of things which is still relatively untarnished.
seems to me that mr hoffman has fallen victim to the government propaganda.
Anon:
Never said they are seperate, that would be foolish, of course they are intertwined, not sure how you can read that and presume that?
However, what you call religion being used as a front, in NI, I would argue that religion was the basis for the disagreement and trouble, the fundemental reason, with economic factors coming after the intial establishment of US and THEM, a crucial service religion provides.
I do not agree that any of those men (of course they were) had mystical insight, they did not. Rather they were, if around today, have been carried off as mad because they thought they spoke for god/gods/the spirit of the universe/life force of the universe.
They didn't.
And as for this 'crass' version of religion we have now...*cough* I would argue that religion is actually improved from it's earlier form because back then no one was around to challenge it as a bag of bollocks, at least now we have alternate voices that are not killed for speaking out.
Well, in some countries anyway...
Hang myself? (Stef seemed to lap this up, YAY!)
er, not quite
I was responding to Shahid's earlier question
@Stef - Islamophobes welcome here to repeatedly spout shit and not provide a reference whilst continuing to spread hatred?
and I could be wrong but the widely used expression - 'if you give someone enough rope...' doesn't come from the Koran and, as a general rule, isn't meant to be taken literally
I'm all for giving everyone enough rope
Dan said
"I do not agree that any of those men (of course they were) had mystical insight, they did not. Rather they were, if around today, have been carried off as mad because they thought they spoke for god/gods/the spirit of the universe/life force of the universe."
well that´s your opinion.Unless you have had such an experience you are looking from the outside. Some of the greatest works in Poetry Art Architecture Literature etc(you should know this being an actor) have been created by inspired men who believed in a Divine Power behind the Universe,,,note ´not inspired by Organized religion!
Not only that some of the great Scientific minds throughout history have made the greatest discoveries my a desire to know the Real/God.Even some very recent Quantum scientists ,,,Einstein or Karl Heisenberg for example
Ping-Pong.
I gave references, I've not spouted shit but presented a different view.
I understand that religion is an issue close to many people's hearts thusleading to intense sharing of feelings but the debate had no need to descend to this.
And we've all played our part in that.
Anon:
Sorry but mystical forces at work is certainly not something that Einstein subscribed to and I've already gone into that in people far better trained than me have already put the 'Einstein was religious' thing in the bin because certain religious types think that by trying to 'win' certain figures over to their side they help their cuase that there is a god.
Mystical business is a sliding scale rule down to the belief in an all powerful being who put us all here.
I've had many 'spiritual' experience but I'm emotionally aware enough to see them for what they are, genuine human experiences not some relation to a greater being or eternal life force.
Apologies for terrible spelling in the last one.
@dhg
personally speaking, as a serial sceptic, I don't think I'd be too happy living under any regime where one side of this particular game of ping pong had vanquished the other
and in different times and different places I am just as critical of religious dogma as you are, though I'd probably go about expressing it in a different way
what you seem to missing is that a lot of the anger you have encountered in this thread comes from the fact that people here believe, know, that the spectre of barbaric Islam is being whipped up and used as smokescreen to cover the occupation and slaughter of an awfully large number of Muslims
I would like to live in a world where humankind has grown out of religion; it's not about vanquishing it but for me some kind of progression would be a good thing. Perhaps an understanding that we were not put here my an omnipresent father figure who give us prophets and his son but numerous, complex and wonderful factors.
I also understand that (and I marked this out in my blog), this is not a good time to discuss the impingement of religion upon humanity, certainly, as I've highlighted often in my blog, when Muslims are the current whipping boys for many in power, Jews blamed for everything apart from the stuff blamed on Muslims and C of E Christianity having a colonial schism.
But my worry is that any time this debate comes up people are called racists and Islamophobes, anti-semites, orientalists, pagans, Jew loving kike bastards etc, etc.
May the force be with you.
Yes and we can all play gleaming white grand pianos and think the same and everything will be just fine.
Mark Steel on the subject of it being OK to make up stories about The Crazy Things Muslims Do...
Mark Steel: Wife-beating? That's fine – unless you're a Muslim
What Mark doesn't really explore is the interesting question as to why people are making shit up
Oh dear, asshat alert.
You're only limiting your own perspectives, broaden them somewhat and you'll be fine.
People think the same on many issues, with some minor differences, it's not much to say that it is possible that religion will go the way of flat earth thinking.
The asshat thing was for the John Lemon not you Stef.
I read the article thanks and agree that the bible is full of terrible stuff towards women and everyone for that matter as is the Koran.
It's just that islamic attitudes towards females are currently in vogue, I wish all of the major religons backward attitudes to women were exposed as the terrible chavanism they are but I doubt the current bun will do that being a vehicle for such nasty gender bashing itself.
Help, help! I'm being sworn at!
You really are making yourself look very silly.
Have you ever been in the police force, or was your head always shaped like that?
You do realise by keep popping back just to make a fool of yourself, you make everyone else that frequents here look bad also?
Cease with the digs anon coward, for your own sake before you sink any further from view.
Take care.
lets make a small list.
1.Bin Laden did 911.Bullshit and he is most probably dead.He was a CIA asset.
Osama Bin Laden and Family
@stef,
do you know cooperative research?great site for research all info sourced.
2.London bombings done by 4 fanatics.HIGHLY suspect to say the least(see the Ripple Effect)
3,Al Quaeda exists.Bullshit,AlQuaeda is a Pentagon buzz word.A meme(Mind virus!)
3.The war on Teworr!.Bullshit.One massive scam designed to fool Joe blow and make lot´s of money for certain types of industry,defense being one.
4.We live in a Democracy.Bullshit.The only free people are those with plenty of cash the rest are slaves.Who can you vote for in the UK???Labour or Conservative??the Green Party???UKIP????fuck gimme a break.
I´m an expat so I get my news via my little radio which happens to get good reception of Radio4 and I tune in daily to the Today pro gramme.
The level of blatant propaganda is unbelievable.Everyday there is some shit about Muslims or Islam.
I´m quite convinced all this black propaganda is a softening up process to gain the support of the people before a full scale war takes place in the Middle East.Lets invade those nasty Muslim fuckers and steal all their Oil!!!!look how evil they all are!!etc etc and sucker like Danny boy fall for it hook line and sinker all the time fooled into believing that religion is the cause of it all!!!how fuckin stoopid can you get?wake upü Danny Boy you are being fooled mate.mkkmu
more on the Phantom Menace Bin Laden
Anon:
Sorry, your numbered list merely looks like the mad ramblings of a tinfoil hat wearing loon, I know many people here are proud conspiraloons but I can't take the list at all seriously I'm afraid.
It is so bias in the extreme, so blinkered, so ignorant of basic political and socio-economic rules and riddled with the kind of semantic broad brush strokes used by the very people we have in power.
Everything is not a conspiracy, the CIA and MOSSAD are not to blame for everything, masons do not rule the world, militant religiousity is indeed a problem and the sooner you stop looking for consiracy everywhere and take on board the real world all the better.
And just because feell it, doesn't mean it's there...
Everything is not a conspiracy
...unless its the shadowy global terror network run from an underground base in the mysterious mountains of central asia which can issue directions to its followers in bedsits in the west midlands and finsbury with impunity
... that one's real
It's MOSSAD right?
Or the CIA?
It's just not whomever 'the man' says it is.
I wouldn't knock the abilities of any terrorist group, no matter how losely affliated, to cause harm and death.
Ok mr Hoffmman,
which one of my little list do you disagree with and why?
3 and 4 I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt on.911 for me is like a weather vane or litmus test if you fail the 911 litmus test you are living in a fantasy world.
I wouldn't knock the abilities of any terrorist group, no matter how losely affliated, to cause harm and death.
wot? no evil mastermind directing things from a hollowed out volcano or death star?
you'll be telling me that Al Qaeda isn't planning to use killer robots next
your problem would appear to be not with conspiracy theories per se
just unofficial conspiracy theories
Anon:
It's Mr Hoffmann-Gill to you.
By actually treating your list with any semblence of seriousness, it gives it value; it's like some loon going...
1. Blackpool Tower is a radio antenna to communicate to the Jews when their time has come.
2. The Asian Tsunami was in fact a manmade experiment to see how many Muslims the US could kill.
3. New Orleans flood was in fact a by product of North Korean missle testing.
Stef:
Are you now trying to suggest that al-Qaeda doesn't exist at all?
Madness but at least England are 72/0.
Surely you have a problem the term conspiracy theory and it's connatations?
Surely you'd prefer it if many of the fringe elements that make up those that want a more rigouress and transparent investigation into the political and military workings of the world, were not so liable to drag the whole bloody thing down by saying daft things?
ok mr Danny Hoffmmann Gill.
I´ll make it easier for you.
simple question.
The attacks on 911.Inside job or Bin Laden teworr and Co?your sincerity and truth fullness hangs on this simple question.
My honest opinion? It's not a black and white answer I'm afraid.
It was an al-Queda attack, in no doubt of that, part of their religious and economic war; of course they learnt most of their trick and got funding from the US but it was a terror attack so to speak.
However, I think that some people in power knew about and let it happen, or at the very least made it easier for it to happen; so as to enable the 'not one domino shall fall' logic to kick in and do another Pearl Harbour; ie: excuse for war.
Surely you'd prefer it if many of the fringe elements that make up those that want a more rigouress and transparent investigation into the political and military workings of the world, were not so liable to drag the whole bloody thing down by saying daft things?
Yup
But in case you haven't noticed virtually anyone who disagrees with the official narrative of how the world works is now labeled a CT'er I haven't
And, as it happens, I don't believe that being open to the possibility that parapolitical conspiracies take place is daft
Are you now trying to suggest that al-Qaeda doesn't exist at all?
what definition of AQ would that be?
Tony Blair's?
"Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working"
or maybe Robin Cook's?
"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
good answer.you passed the sincerity test.
thumbs up from me on that one.
I agree that the branding of anyone 'not towing the line' as a loon is not acceptable and a way to silence voices of descent; certainly many of my blog posts push an alternative interpretation of events but things do go too far.
You can't argue on quicksand, there needs to be some basis, some key criteria to work from.
To my knowledge and reading, AQ is an organisation, I think the way of working thing is mis-leading, it is a movement in the same sense that the IRA and ETA are movements; ie: political and religious motives and objectives that offer a guiding principle to their activities of war.
If you pretend a movement exists and publicise it for long enough, sooner or later it will be become a self-fulfilling prophecy and start to attract followers - particularly if someone is bombing the crap out their countries as part of a New Crusade
So, I would be foolish to deny that there are people out there who honestly think they are part of 'Al Qaeda'
but not the kind of Al Qaeda, taken straight out of James Bond film, our establishment wanks on about
...the same establishment which got 'Al Qaeda' started in the first place
The Blair quote also illustrates that our establishment is somewhat confused about what Al Qaeda is supposed to be - or rather they want to keep Us confused about what Al Qaeda is supposed to be
With the first bit, it existed before certain folk made a fuss, it was a natural organisation to come up out of Afghanistan but then of course it becomes a wonderful hobby horse.
I think that the vision of Al Qaeda as a James Bond style villain is one used only by idiots, hig powered idiots but idiots non the less but to swing the other way and think it harmless or without an agenda to destroy and re-make in its own image is also idiotic.
I'm also not too sure about THE keeping US in the dark about what we are facing, after all, if so many of us weren't so damn lazy we could find out for oursevles rather than being spoon fed, it's not hard.
And this is where religion comes in, we are pretty well trained to listen and follow without question, certain politics only plays on this door first opened by religion.
I think that the vision of Al Qaeda as a James Bond style villain is one used only by idiots, hig powered idiots but idiots non the less
If I promote a lie to get what I want and am successful how would that make me an idiot?
Because promoting lies is the work of an idiot.
Swallowing the lies though is a comparable crime but in the fear not to fall hook line and sinker for all the information trotted out, it can lead to hasty rejection of just about everything.
The reason why I quoted Blair's definition of Al Qaeda is because it has the dual effect of presenting AQ as being something intangible and of widening the scope of who can be considered to be AQ - laying the way open for endless, unwinnable warfare
Now I think Blair et al play stunts like this because they, or the people pulling their strings, are very clever and pursuing a wider agenda
You, presumably would say, no, it's because they are idiots
But the funny thing about these idiots is that their cock-ups always fall in favour of a particular agenda. So a special kind of random, thoughtless stupidity must be at play here
As for religion being the unique prerequisite for blind obedience, it depends on your definition of religion
The capacity for blind obedience and absolutism is inherent in human nature and just as manifest in science as other fields
And before we go round the houses again, yes, science is supposed to include self-correcting mechanisms which prevent this happening but, by and large, they just don't fucking work
I've worked in accountancy as well as science and that's another field that's supposed to be full of self-correcting mechanisms put in place to ensure objectivity
Take my word for it, every set of accounts published for every company on the stock exchange is bent as fuck
This should stop really shouldn't it as we could just as well email each other to discuss this, so far off topic it has gone and basically, I think, we agree or at least not disagree so much we get to 200 comments.
Idiots do things like take lives and use falsehoods to push an agenda, that's how I meant idiots.
And I'd keep accountency and science very seperate if I were you.
Think it best we end it here for brevity's sake before another discussion takes control.
Be seeing you!
/ starts putting chair on tables
/ closes thread
/ not really
/ cracks open a little light reading
the comment from DHG that no atrocities were ever committed in the name of 'atheism' is humorous when you consider the religious persecution in countries like china & russia, which was done under the banner of secularism and by extension atheism.
Also, for instance, what enabled america to become the military imperial behemoth it is today? Was it religion? Dont think so. It was the creation of a central bank leveraged with national debt, under the control of private hands. The US could not of mobilized for WW1 w.o. the debt raising capacity of it. Mobilizing the american people to get into WW1 had nothing to do with religion. The current occupiers in the middle east come from mostly secular nations. Believe it or not, the majority of americans are not fundamentalists. They are, like the british, mostly uninformed, regardless if religious or not.
Look DHG, I think pretty much all the other posters here get your point. That religious dogmatism can be dangerous. ...but IMO that's only a part of the picture.
You should check out Smedley Butler's 'War is a Racket' online. Warfare nowadays is all about money(was it ever not).
You come across with a disdainful attitude to anyone with faith, which is in itself dogmatic, which makes you come across as arrogant and pugnacious.
my apologies stef for the last post.
Was replying to messages from yesterday and I didn't notice that the party has moved on.
I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
When it comes to evolution/creationism I like to take the third road.
Extra-terrestrial intervention.
Gald to see you're talking to yourself Stef...
Anon:
Fuck me this is getting tedious having to make this point AGAIN and AGAIN but as I'm waiting to go out with me lady I will.
People were not killed FOR atheism. NEVER. EVER.
You're doing bad math, Communist were atheists, they killed people, hence commies are bad.
Fucking hell fire! Communism was the problem, not atheism because atheism is not a belief.
And then you drop a question that 4000 comments couldn't answer about the development of the US powerhouse. What the flying fuck has that got to do with owt?
Religion is a key part of the American collective mind, always has been and will be until they grow the fuck up. Understate it all you want but god is very, very important.
And my point is not 'religious dogmatism can be dangerous' you cretin but that religion FULL FUCKING STOP is a dangerous manmade concept that is regressive, repressive and holding humanity back a great deal.
War is just for money? Right, great, war is for control, war is for power, war is for land, war is because someone said they hate you a while back in some book.
Shrink the behaviours down to a human level and money, although playing a part, is not the be all and end all, neither is religion but it's a bigger factor than you loons give it credit for.
And it's not so much disdainful, I have plenty of friends and family who believe in all kinds of odd shit, it's more that I want a environment where we examine it without calling each other racists. I love how you think my attitude is bad, go back and read the comments others have used to lay into me and then fucking call me back.
Until people stop calling me names and slagging me off I'm not going anywhere.
Is that it now?
(Apart from Stef typing summat?)
I never said that you are arrogant etc.., just that you come across that way in your posts.
Now with sweeping statements like this:
"Religion is a key part of the American collective mind, always has been and will be until they grow the fuck up. "
Can you blame me from letting you know that you are coming off as arrogant?
btw, I didnt say your attitude was 'bad', that's putting words in my mouth. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think your P.O.V. is a little naive.
anyways that's all from me, I promise :-)
It may be goodnight from him but it's not goodnight from me. I'm in a different time zone remember...
I think I've done pretty well"
- then your far more delusional than I thought.
And stop flagellating yourself; angry replies came your way becasue you spouted lies as truth, repeated the same erronious arguements ad nauseum and failed every single time to recognise the chorous of points which showed your preconceptions were more shaky than the religion you challenge.
One example - "You do know that free speech and freedom of expression is a value not highly rated in religion?" - Utter nonsense! Unless you mean the freedom to insult and inflame, in which case people shouldn't openly provoke save for counter measures. I can't speak for any religion let alone all religions, but personally, I love discussion on these matters. However I expect a reasonable standard of knowledge from an opponent and yours seems at times pretty short of even basic expectations.
"I can see the chests swollen with grotesque pride and it is a repulsive visio" - KEEP AWAY FROM MIRRORS.
"your narrow ideology." - My ideology is simple, but it's not 'narrow' in the negative sense you mean it simply because you percieve it as narrow.
"Finally, the section of my blog post you quote was not actually in relation to this blog" I thought you'd say that. funny however that after you talked about this blog then 'left-wing' blogs followed in a derisory fashion.
"but you'd know that if you read it." - your right I didn't read it. I jut copied and pasted one of the results from one of the millions of monkeys tapping away on these keyobards.
"Not everything is about you..." I wish I could remember the psychological term for what you've just done. Is it projection? Damn!
And if you look around you in the world today the majority of countries implement secularism - even countries that call themselves religious countries. Judging by much of the crap in these secular countries throw up, I think its pretty easy to agree man for whatever reasons is rubbish at trying to create the rules and norms for a succesful society. [Even countried like Arabia and Iran use secular economics]. But you once again wont distinguish between what religion informs us of what to do with the trash that is wrongly ascribes as being religion.
You also annoyingly dismiss those who hold degrees in science (I presume you don't) yet somehow YOU know what science says, YOU think it speaks with one voice, and YOU think it supports spun-Darwinism and against religion.
Hah!
"atheism is not a belief" It is. Its a belief religion is wrong / that there isn't a God.
"Religion is a key part of the American collective mind" - Once again you fail miserably to undersand in a way that can only be construde of as deliberate, becasue it's DISTORTED/MANIPULATION of religion is what drives the mind of many USans.
All throughout this thread, You've done virtually everything you falsely accused others of doing.
"Because promoting lies is the work of an idiot.
Swallowing the lies though is a comparable crime" -
Do carry on... Your doing great!
@ StefZ. You said "But the funny thing about these idiots is that their cock-ups always fall in favour of a particular agenda." - I see that in arguements for GM food and pharmaseuticals, EU etc ...
People were not killed FOR atheism. NEVER. EVER.
(correct Danny Boy.People are killed because some people are evil,,they´ll kill for a woman, money, Oil, water food you fuckin name it)
-----------------------------------
Fucking hell fire! Communism was the problem, not atheism because atheism is not a belief.
some people would say that Capitalism is the problem.
---------------------------------
Atheism is of course a belief.
religion FULL FUCKING STOP is a dangerous manmade concept that is regressive
manmade???so you DO believe in the Gods!!!
Religion is here to stay for the foreseeable future like it or not.
Oh fuck, I wrote a long answer dealing with anon, itwat and anon number two and then blogger went wrong and lost it.
I can't be arsed to type all that out again, I've got a life to lead.
Take care all!
<weeps>Not since the library of Alexandria's demise has rational humankind been so diminished by a single event<weeps/>
Bloody pagans...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZ0Me-QgEQ
Thanks for the link.
Don't know what the bloody pagans thing is al about but glad you like the commercial.
All the best.
Daniel - I enjoyed the debate, despite not really agreeing with all your points.
Lol, sorry wrong link, right one below. Good commercial btw, well acted. My old mate Phil Barley is an actor and he's done a few ads - good for the CV. Good luck with your film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0b0vLvjb1A
New Bretton Woods?
Banking shares across the G7 nations could be suspended tomorrow as governments mount a desperate effort to implement rescue packages designed to repair the battered global financial system.
Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Italy may push for the abolition of hedge funds, a $2 trillion industry, when it takes over the Group of Seven presidency from Japan next year, Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti said.
``They are dark and opaque,'' Tremonti told reporters in Washington. ``They are demented'' and do not ``conform to the laws of capitalism.'' Asked if that means Italy would go so far as to propose abolishing them, he said it's ``something we will talk about.''
Thom Hartmann talks to the Ruskies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnloOG8kr8
This thread is done with surely...
It's hard not to detect a distinct whiff of eau de coloon of oborne's latest piece
@dhg: You spout polemics. You are just as bad as any religious fundamentalist, since your beliefs are also based on faith.
You cant logically prove something doesnt exist. Pascal encountered this dilemma with the God question.
Furthermore, its been proven (by Gregory Chaitin) that the mathematical platonic world contains infinitely complex entities, that cannot be realized. Mathematics harbors infinite complexity.
By extension, it is very much likely the universe/reality is infinitely complex, and not fully realizable. As Einstein said, the universe is stranger than we can know. Ben Stein's interview with Dawkins was hilarious. He got Dawkins to admit that there is serious problems with current evolutionary theory and the kick-off of life (which there is with simple stochastic processes creating such insane complexity). Dawkins, the Empiricist Par excellence, suggested that alien life could of impregnated earth!
I'm not saying that evolution is false, just as Stef has inferred throughout this blog, its good to have critical inquiry and keep and open mind.
As far as religion causing wars, take Afghanistan as an example. The war was sold as a war on terrorism, a 'religious' clash of the civilizations, when in reality, its mostly a ruse, for ulterior motives. Sure some fools buy into the rhetoric, but its not just limited to religious fundies, as your posts show. It seems to me that any know-it-all spouting simplified world views are easy to sucker. The people running the show, starting the wars are not doing it for religion, they are doing it for business.
At last, I've found beauty...
"the mathematical platonic world contains infinitely complex entities, that cannot be realized. Mathematics harbors infinite complexity.
By extension, it is very much likely the universe/reality is infinitely complex, and not fully realizable."
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I believe Kurt Godel glimpsed this infinite complexity and it drove him mad.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5122859998068380459
worringly the ver word is dynco !!! :s
Much as I've enjoyed past exchanges with DHG and would love them to run into another couple of thousand comments, that last DHG comment was not from the original DHG but from from a DHG Knock Off
Hello to all stil cruising by here occasionally
Still to knackered to post these days. Still hoping not to be one day
S.
Post a Comment