Monday, February 15, 2010

Ray Gosling must be arrested for murder

The BBC reports that veteran broadcaster Ray Gosling has confessed to the murder of another man in a hospital.

With no regret or remorse, the Nottingham-based film-maker said: "I killed someone once… He'd been my lover and he got Aids."

It was done, he said, after doctors told him that there was 'nothing further that could be done for him'.

He suggests that the doctors knew what he had done, but 'nothing more was said'.

Well, it's time to lift the lid. Either 'mercy killing' is legal or it isn't. Either 'mercy killing' is murder or it isn't.

It is time for a murder investigation...

223 Comments:

Blogger gillibrand1 said...

Yes. My Lord of Canterbury is correct, as Mr Gosling describes it, this is murder.

15 February 2010 at 20:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its alright to kill your partner in Britain, as long as he is a male.

15 February 2010 at 20:56  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It all depends what the unelected bureaucrat and 'liberal' lawyer, DPP, Keir Starmer, hatchet-faced interpreter of our laws, has to say about it.

Take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/yhnysdz

P.S. Will somebody please tell me how to make proper links in this system?

15 February 2010 at 21:03  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Link

15 February 2010 at 21:33  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ah yes, you need to use HTML Mr Anabaptist. All is explained here HTMLdog guide

15 February 2010 at 21:35  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Why do we accept the logic of mercy killing for animals, but not humans?

15 February 2010 at 21:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Because humans are not animals?

15 February 2010 at 21:43  
Anonymous len said...

This opens up the whole question of who has the right to take a life? "Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Rather, they involve one person facilitating the death of another. This is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us."

15 February 2010 at 21:51  
Anonymous Peter said...

"Because humans are not animals."

Your Grace, we are most definitely animals. We are not plants, fungi, protists or prokaryotes (the other four kingdoms of life).

You contend we have a special place waiting for us in another kind of kingdom, but we are most definitely in the Kingdom Animalia.

15 February 2010 at 21:59  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Thanks a lot Mr B. Let's see if this works:
Peter Hitchens on Keir Starmer on 'mercy killing'

15 February 2010 at 22:04  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace is very black and white with a deep question to follow .

Mr Gosling believes he has done a loving kindness in ending his lovers life by suffocation rather that let him endure the circulatory failiure that accompany most natural deaths.

He perhaps assumed he would shorten his lovers fears of dying.
Best get it over and done with.

It may also be that Mr Gosling was not strong enough to endure his lovers deterioration and sought to ease his own anguish.Either way Mr Gosling has took taking a life upon himself .

It is because there are numerous grey areas and motives that we both seek and value and untampered with death . To murder in the case of medical situations is perhaps the one that always leaves a troubling question , hence why we should be wary of other people motives in assuming that there is dignity in the quick , over the completion of love in the natural.

There is also murder in self defence and of course death during war , which often seem clearer.

Capital punishment is somthing I struggle with for if it is proven that the death penality reduces crime , and fullfills the wages of sin idea , what are we to make of our consience , saving many or beyond the law ??

15 February 2010 at 22:10  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Doesn't really address the question, Your Grace. If Mercy is good, why do we feel it wrong to be merciful to dying humans, when we feel it is right in the case of animals. There's a contradiction there I just don't understand.

15 February 2010 at 22:28  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace, your post is apposite.

Last week, Ann Winterton MP tabled an early day motion in the House of Commons complaining at the supposedly impartial BBC's blatant bias is attempting to have assisted suicide made legal.

The motion says:
That this House notes that over the years there have been numerous complaints by Hon. Members regarding the persistent bias of the BBC on matters relating to euthanasia and other life issues and on the manner in which the BBC have misused public funds to promote changes in the law; further notes the bias of the Corporation applies not only to news programmes but to drama, with thinly-disguised plays and soap operas being used to promote the use of euthanasia and misrepresentation of pro-life activists in the UK as people of violence; further notes that these presentations have culminated in the last weeks with a multi-million pound campaign featuring Mrs Kay Gilderdale in Panorama and the fantasy fiction writer, Sir Terry Pratchett given centre stage to present this year's BBC Richard Dimbleby lecture calling for euthanasia and supported by the BBC website; further notes that as usual the BBC have ignored the rights of the disabled, despite the fact that every disability rights group in the UK is opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia on the grounds that from experience they know it would undermine the right to life of the disabled; and calls on the Government to make it clear to the BBC that public funds will be withdrawn unless they abide by the Charter and ensure that all programmes on issues of public interest are treated impartially, and that in particular broadcasters must bear in mind the human rights of the disabled.

Those of your communicants who feel strongly about this might care to contact their MP and ask him or her to sign EDM 787 about the BBC and the disabled. The MPs address can be found through the Parliament website

15 February 2010 at 22:37  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tony B,

The question is complex, and certianly not to be addressed after a few glasss of red. But, in short, man is made in the image of God: a hamster is not.

15 February 2010 at 22:38  
Blogger Don't Call Me Dave said...

If I am made in the image of God, He must have been standing in front of a fairground wobbly mirror when He made me!

15 February 2010 at 23:18  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

I agree, Your Grace. As opposed as I am to assisted dying, this is far beyond what is understood by that phrase.

15 February 2010 at 23:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This man witnessed and was part of such terrible pain. Who knows how any of us would have reacted in such awful circumstances. Don't talk about a murder enquiry - talk about compassion and forgiveness and human love which endures to the end and beyond. Which of us has not loved and lost?

15 February 2010 at 23:42  
Anonymous Just a thought... said...

Your Grace,

The foundation of your argument, namely that man is made in the image of God, is ostensibly subjective. Or at least to many it fails to possess the infallibility which you ascribe to it.

The idea that we demonstrate compassion towards animals but not towards humans falls apart through a Christian perspective, but societal inclinations and their root causes are far more iridescent than that. If one is atheist, your rationality means as little to them as does theirs to you.

Therefore, your dismissal of this point, be it right or wrong, is at the very least parochial. Your conviction is valid, but it is one of many valid ethical arguments, not all of which arise from a requisite adherence to biblical doctrine.

15 February 2010 at 23:44  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Murder is a crime even is done for good motives, just as legal killing (eg of a terrorist about to blow a bus full of schoolchildren) is not a crime even if the terrorist is known to you as a blackguard who has previously raped your wife. It is the act that makes the crime, not the motive.

However, as The Lord Himself explains in the Sermon on the Mount, it is the motive that makes the sin.

15 February 2010 at 23:52  
Anonymous not a machine said...

just a thought : your determination of the root of christian belief and the athiest question puzzles me .

If there is no mercy then does the athiest even recognise killing let alone murder ?? If there is no concept of life then isnt murder more a matter of personal dislike and like .

Imagine the athiest concept and you arrive at judgement based on usefull do you not ?

15 February 2010 at 23:58  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Because humans are not animals?

The question is complex, and certainly not to be addressed after a few glasses of red. But, in short, man is made in the image of God, a hamster is not.

Yes but.

There is an important legal issue here, especially in the time of civil partnerships, where property is concerned.

How can we be sure that this so called mercy murder was carried out for the best of motives, and the best of motives only, save through a court of law?

For it is for this reason that all forms of murder used to be such, whether they were for the right sort of motives, or not.

Watching a loved one suffer can be more upsetting for the partner then the terminally ill. There may also be issues regarding 3rd parties, urgently needed inheritance, care costs, or indeed assurance payments.

Yes of course God does not resemble a Hamster, but he may not actually resemble a human being either. We only have the Bibles take on things to go by, which is many things, including very open to different forms of interpretation.

For example, my own personal one.

If I was designing mankind I would certainly wish to make every one look a bit like myself, but certainly not as wonderfully good looking, or good in bed.

IMO Therefore God must be very good looking indeed, and I would imagine very keen to keep down the competition. As we all would be in his position.

If you read Genesis based on the original Hebrew text, it actually says as much, in reasonably clear language.

It also strongly indicates that God, came down to Earth and physically impregnated an already existing humanoid, to create Adam and Eve. He may also have created the first humanoids, and most likely did, but how this was done is not fully explained in great detail.

I beg your graces indulgence.

Again IMPO, We are a hy-breed of what was here before us. A genetic experiment gone a bit wrong, but not hopelessly so. Maybe part of a cosmic joke, prison complex, or something far more interesting.

The truth I strongly suspect, is that the powers that be know far more about this particular subject then they have any intention of letting on.

Hence formalized, and established religion. Which has far more in common with dis-information services such as the BBC, and the rest of the MSM, then it will collectively ever be in a position to publicly admit.

For it is a TRUISM, that information is power.

Given that The RCC is without doubt the most rich and powerful, global organisation ever known to mankind by a country mile, and then some. It is therefore logical that the top dudes of the RCC knows far more information about the true nature of mankind, then they would ever care to tell their ignorantly impoverished congregation.

16 February 2010 at 00:01  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"man is made in the image of God: a hamster is not."

Tell that to Mr Sniffles the hamster god who carries the universe through time in his infinite cheeks.

16 February 2010 at 00:05  
Anonymous Just a thought... said...

Not a machine,

No mercy? Not at all; I am postulating that if we take the Christian route then we distinguish between compassionately ending human life and animal life on the grounds that the former is made in the image of God, whereas the latter is not.

To the atheist, this point is redundant. But that doesn't mean death becomes nothing more than a question of utility. It just means that an atheist's judgement will more readily consider such questions and weigh up the merits of killing compassionately based upon an introspective assessment of their own moral convictions. A Christian would dismiss the idea out of hand.

I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong. Indeed, I have sided with neither. I am just saying that the Christian notion of humans being made in the image of God does not mean 'checkmate'. It is merely one of many moral perspectives.

To tell an terminally ill atheist that their desire to end their life contravenes the tenets of Christianity, or more specifically the belief that man is made in the image of God, is not sufficient validation.

See my point?

16 February 2010 at 00:11  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Just a thought :er No , how can you use the words compassionate and moral , they both are rooted in Christianity .

Asumming you think God was some sort of error , and rational godless behaviours were just unlucky to not get going earlier .

how do you explain evil , i mean if christianity is based on a series of made up non rational , believing model , then what is evil in athiest terms ?? brain disorder ?

16 February 2010 at 01:10  
Anonymous Just a thought... said...

Not a machine:

Are you actually arguing that people without faith cannot be compassionate or moral? If so, I think the debate ends here. That's just a ridiculous assertion.

I never said God was some sort of error, either. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't taking sides, merely postulating a different approach. I think religion is a source of morality, but to say that it is the only source is idiocy of the highest order.

I explain evil the same way most Christians would. Again, how you arrive at the idea that I believe Christianity to be non-rational is absurd, but the fact is evil still exists to the atheist as morally corrupt and ethically deficient.

Yes, compassion and morality are both to be found in Christianity, but to say that this is the only way in which such sentiments can be arrived at is frankly embarrassing.

16 February 2010 at 01:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

He said they had a pact, I wonder was it a legal one drawn up with the solicitor which outlined the lovers' wishes? Probably not, in which case Mr Gosling should be charged with murder. People can't just go around bumping off their loved ones, friends and relatives willy nilly. I know he had Aids and was in agony which gives extenuating circumstances.

I think anyone who wants this should legally put in writing their wishes when they are of sound mind if they want to be helped to die. Otherwise it is murder. Euthanasia should be a legal choice.

16 February 2010 at 01:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a thought :er No , how can you use the words compassionate and moral , they both are rooted in Christianity .

No, I think you must have that arse about face.

It is compassion, morality, and above all empathy that are deeply rooted in humanity.

Therefore it is Religion that is rooted in humanity, not the other way around. Religion would indeed have been a busted flush, even before all of the cards were dealt, if it were not so.

Religion may, in fact does have a long history of substituting humanity for material greed and above all power. However that is not the power of God given human consciousness, just the wholly corrupting power of Evil and therefore power itself.

As human beings were clearly present way before organised religion, and certainly before the birth of Jesus Christ. Not even The RCC, never mind real Christians would seriously dispute this.

God is within and without us. We are he, and he is us. We are his children, in both a literal, metaphysical and metaphorical sense.

We are blessed and cursed by a conscious mind. It is our consciousness alone which parts us from the rest of Earth bound life. Without which we would still be living in caves, and earnestly shagging our close relatives.

We don't, not because a priest told us not to. We don't because we are 'designed' not to want to. We don't kill, not because we are told not to do so. We don't kill each other because we know in our conscience minds that we have no such right to destroy another conscience mind.

In other words we are born with the gift of common humanity. Some may lose it on the way, but that is what prisons, and justice systems are for.

You ask, what is evil.

Evil is a spiritually based dark force, that stems from way back in our primeval past. Therefore it is us, as well as constantly all around us. Thus life is a constant struggle between Good and Evil forces.

IMPO, all human beings are originally begotten of the father, not the mother. Which basically means we are partly primeval, and partly spiritual. Which explains much.

The salient thing to remember is that we all know the difference between good and evil, we have never needed anyone to tell us. Not even our parents.

Good is therefore a vastly more powerful force then Evil, however much it may sometimes seem otherwise. Which explains why in essence we are part of God, God is good, and on our side.

16 February 2010 at 02:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is legalising murder by the back door. Typically socialist.

16 February 2010 at 06:51  
Blogger greenalien said...

Well whether it is murder depends on whether the man wanted Ray Gosling to hasten his departure or not, isn't it?

16 February 2010 at 07:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon

'This is legalising murder by the back door. Typically socialist.'

I agree. The man is a suspect in a murder case; he should be investigated and if there is enough evidence: tried.

16 February 2010 at 07:38  
Blogger John.D said...

He really buggered him up!

16 February 2010 at 07:58  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Either 'mercy killing' is legal or it isn't. Either 'mercy killing' is murder or it isn't.

>It is time for a murder investigation...

Looks like you already made up your mind about the legal position. At least you do seem to concede in the comments that the issue is not simple.

Unless you are some kind of biblical literalist, I assume you believe that humanity evolved from ape-like precursors. If God made us in his image, he chose a funny way of going about it. But maybe he did choose that particular method. The basic question remains: why do we not extend the same kind of mercy to humans as we deem appropriate to animals? It's not like there's no emotional involvement with the animals; many people are as devastated by the loss of a devoted pet as they are by the loss of a relative. So it's not the case that we just say - "oh well, let's put Fido out of his misery and get another pooch"; we do not like to see Fido suffer, and we think putting an end to that suffering is good. But we think humans should go on suffering - (except perhaps our reaction is different in extreme battlefield conditions, which is interesting).

So perhaps there are things other than being made in God's image at play here?

16 February 2010 at 08:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Tony B

Deploys the same kind of logic as the Nazis did. First classify humans as rats. Then exterminate the rats.

16 February 2010 at 08:34  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Singh

Bullseye!

The only logical conclusion for an atheist is that life is meaningless.

16 February 2010 at 09:02  
Anonymous Stuart said...

This is a slippery slope indeed.

As an aside, I am often appalled at the BBC unashamedly pumping their love of the "death cult".

16 February 2010 at 09:49  
Blogger Ian said...

I thought the BBC have been pushing this euthanasia/assisted suicide angle rather strongly lately.

Impartial broadcaster...?

16 February 2010 at 10:23  
Anonymous P. Burgess said...

This thread is in danger of descending into a series of assertions that seem to frequently miss the mark and do little to advance our shared understanding of what is right and wrong in this area.

I would classify myself as a pragmatic atheist(in the sense that we can't say for sure that there is no higher power, but I can't find the evidence that he's a god that requires a personal relationship) but I don't recognise the characterisations by D.Singh, It's faith..., Stuart and Ian at all as being representative of atheist/humanist thinking and they smack more of long-held, unconsidered 'positions' based on religious dogma than perspectives that have been arrived at following great consideration, personal struggle and from first principles.

Can I ask the above mentioned to respond with carefully measured responses to what I thought was actually a rather valuable line of enquiry, i.e. if we are comfortable with the idea that it is a compassionate act to put down a suffering pet, why is that inappropriate for a human? In your responses please take it that all the issues of due process, consent etc have been addressed (we can deal with those in a separate thread later).

16 February 2010 at 11:38  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

And this is why we have a human judiciary and not computers.

Yes its murder, no it is in no way in the public interest to seek a prosecution.

16 February 2010 at 12:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

P. Burgess

Why are you comfortable with the idea of a rat being the moral equivalent of a human being?

For if the rat is the moral equivalent of a human being then would it not be a more profitable use of your intellect to calculate the cost of constructing large ovens rather bothering people here with your schoolboy philosophy?

Don't waste my time.

16 February 2010 at 12:14  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mr D Singh,

I have nowhere classified humans as rats, nor suggested we extinguish humans. Since I am a human myself, it wouldn't make a huge amount of sense. Can I take it from your failure to address the point I raised, and from the fact that you have started to compare me with the Nazis, that you do not in fact have an answer to the question?

It's faith, stupid: I am not an atheist. So no bullseye there, just another jerk of the knee.

16 February 2010 at 12:30  
Blogger Mick said...

So many people accepting that Mr Gossling is actually telling the truth!

What if the man didn't want to die?

He should be charged with murder until the courts decide otherwise, or not.

16 February 2010 at 12:35  
Anonymous P. Burgess said...

Hello D.Singh,

I don't think my request warranted you rudeness; I wasn't rude to you.

I don't set out to waste anyone's time, rather I'm keen to take this thread forward in a way that will unpack this difficult area, and I still feel that a thoughtful response to my post (which just restates an earlier post) would be helpful.

To paraphrase it slightly differently; if we are comfortable that an appropriate compassionate response to a suffering pet is to put it down, why do we deny that same option to humans.

I understand that you draw a distinction between humans and animals and that therefore different rules apply but that in itself is not an argument for denying ourselves this option. You need to establish why this particular rule does not apply to humans.

I, personally, am inclined towards thinking that we should have the option of mercy killing but I'd appreciate hearing a carefully constructed response as to why we shouldn't. It will help me (and others watching) make up their minds.

16 February 2010 at 12:35  
Blogger Mick said...

marie1797 says.. "I know he had Aids and was in agony which gives extenuating circumstances."

No, you don't know, you simply believe Mr Gosslings account!

16 February 2010 at 12:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh for f&*ks sake.

Do you really have to twist every argument until it doesn't even closely resemble the original points made and insist on being purposely obtuse?

You reply nothing but insults and a schoolboy level of wit never mind schoolboy philosophy.

And really, crying Nazi again? Everytime someone disagrees with you it isn't because they are wrong and you can show them to be in a measured thoughtful response. It's because they are a Nazi socialist scummy atheist and you scorn their views and their very existence.

You are a hypocrite and a closed minded fundamentalist. Your arguments and opinions aren't worth the keyboard you type them on for these reasons alone. When you can't see another persons point of view and go out of your way to ignore any data or facts given to you an continue to spout your lazy childish bile then it cease to be a worthwhile discussion/argument/debate. It becomes a preaching of your dogmatic ideals, which is just like every organised religion on this planet so I suppose for that reason it does suit your character well.

16 February 2010 at 12:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: I am trying to turn over a new leaf. I call it 'love'.

And whilst you're at it: shut yer gob.

16 February 2010 at 12:45  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I would also like to put an end to this ridiculous notion that atheists hold no value on life and do not have any morals.

We just don't the value of life in the same way as the relgiously minded because we do not do believe what we are told to believe, we rather come to our conclusions through a lifetime of experiance and because of this the value we place in life can continually change given things that happen to us.

On the subject of morals, someone earlier on pointed out that morals were around long before christianity was so I won't bother retreading that part of it. Also (feel free to mirepresent this next part as you always do Mr Singh) all peoples morals are subjective, the religious have an idea that they base theirs against an objective moral code given to them by god and this makes them better, but given that this cannot be proved I would assert that it is just another subjective moral code that was written at the time which they still follow now. Because they cannot change "the word of god" as they put it then their moral code cannot evolve, which is why we now have the disagreement going on here. Different people in different socities/environments all have different moral codes which the abide by, yet most of them do follow a similar ideal, this is becuase overall it benefits the social group.

And finally I will refer you towards the following paper done on Morality without Religion.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf

16 February 2010 at 12:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

My HTML ain't what it used to be, here is the link again for those that will bother to read it and accept the evidence presented rather than just dismissing it because it doesn't agree with them (I think we know who we are talking about):

Link

16 February 2010 at 12:51  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Mr Singh.

I'll ignore your rudness yet again. What a fine example of the reasons to avoid religion you are.

But how can you attempt to turn over a new leaf when you continually assert that everything the you disagree with is wrong. Surely the act of turning over a new leaf would suggest that you were perhaps wrong?

16 February 2010 at 12:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: you sound as though you are wounded. Here, let me apply a hot iron to your wounds and heal them.


P.S.: what are you having for lunch? (It is your lunch hour)

16 February 2010 at 13:00  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr B.

Apologies for indirectly accusing you of being an atheist. It was your cavalier attitude to humans that led me astray.

16 February 2010 at 13:01  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Obviously well reasoned responses are something to be sought elsewhere..

16 February 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Nothing today for lunch. I left it in the house.

As for applying a hot iron to my wounds that would have more effect than a million hands clasped in prayer.

It's faith, stupid said...
"Mr B.

Apologies for indirectly accusing you of being an atheist. It was your cavalier attitude to humans that led me astray."

This would of course be a cavalier attitude to christian humans though, all other people that don't follow the good word are clearly not to be treated in the same way.

All animals are equal after all aren't they?

16 February 2010 at 13:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'All animals are equal after all aren't they?'

No Glovy. The socialists have told us that some animals are more equal than others.

16 February 2010 at 13:14  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Tony B
"Obviously well reasoned responses are something to be sought elsewhere.."

It would always appear so. I'm sure it would make Mr Singh a very happy person if all people followed this thought. Then he could have this entire website in the way he thinks it should be, full of people agreeing with him and all patting each other on the back and congratulating each other about how right they must be, after all nobody is disagreeing with them.

Thankfully the rest of the world doesn't agree with his kind of thoughts.

16 February 2010 at 13:14  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"No Glovy. The socialists have told us that some animals are more equal than others."

It seems my sarcasm was lost on you, thanks for making my point more obvious though.

Kind of falls back to your hypocrisy though, since you agree with that thought when it suits you.

16 February 2010 at 13:16  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

A pity they didn't kill each other.

16 February 2010 at 14:10  
Anonymous He's Spartacus said...

Such a shame. I always enjoyed Gosling's whimsical, nostalgic presentation style. Had no idea he was a player of the pink oboe though.

As to the main question, it's a horrible dilemma, and one I hope I never have to face.

In the end, though, I have to come down, marginally, on the side of people's right to choose what to do with their bodies, while appreciating the "thin end of the wedge" argument.

But you and I have been here once or twice before, your Grace.

Where I am absolutely resolved, however, is that until the law is clarified one way or another, this has to be a matter to be decided in the courts.

16 February 2010 at 14:58  
Blogger Ian said...

P Burgess

I do not have control over what thoughts flood my mind. I can only be subject to those thoughts if I give into these thoughts and if those thoughts were in all ways benevolent, then I guess that wouldn't be a problem.

So where do thoughts come from. Have you ever tried to stop thinking about something? It only makes one think more of that which you try to deny. Therefore for someone given to negative or destructive thoughts, what would do suggest is at work here?

Have you ever stood on a ledge on a high building, or near a deep drop. Have you ever felt the urge to fall? Where do you think that thought comes from?

If all human thoughts were benevolent or in some way constructive, the human condition were unified with itself, then you must agree such negative behaviour would not exist. For the perfectly 'evolved' being this behaviour would be anathema. But this does not describe the conflict / condition of the human soul. Why do people commit suicide or go in for destructive patterns of behaviour.

It is because as an individual being, man is subject to the 2 sides of his nature. At best is an observer. However he must choose one side, ultimately. Therefore he must face up to the reality within. And that reality is, that he is subject to 2 forces. For the Christian soul who realises this he will seek redemption in the Great Redeemer. For the atheist, who denies this, he is in the world alone and has no protection from the darkest side of his nature. Therefore in truth is a living example of the contradiction of his beliefs.

For the person that gives into the dark side of his nature, he may gain power in this world but "what profiteth a man, that he gain the whole world and loseth his own soul" Matthew 16:26

16 February 2010 at 15:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

It looks like you’ve opened a can of worms. The BBC is now ‘fully cooperating with the police investigation.’ Which begs the question why did they not inform the police two months ago? Does it now mean that the BBC will not inform about deaths they know about unless they are revealed in the public domain?

Does the BBC know about any more deaths which they are keeping quiet about? We the public have a right to know as we pay their wages.

16 February 2010 at 15:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why did they conceal knowledge of this alleged murder? What kind of moral and ethical ethos prevails in our national broadcaster?

was it the BBC's 'equality and diversity' regime that has prevented justice?

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Where are the calls for a public inquiry?

16 February 2010 at 15:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Where is Her Majesty's Opposition? Why aren't questions being asked in the House?

16 February 2010 at 15:44  
Anonymous Tony B said...

How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?

16 February 2010 at 15:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony B

If you are unable to say wise things then even a fool looks good when he keeps his mouth shut.

16 February 2010 at 16:34  
Anonymous Tony B said...

ok, Anon. If I ever find myself in that situation, I'll remember what you've said.

16 February 2010 at 18:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good man. We need more like you.

16 February 2010 at 18:02  
Anonymous Tony B said...

:o)

16 February 2010 at 18:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assisted dying already exists within the NHS. When my Father died two years ago I was asked if I'd sign a form stating that all life preserving medication would be removed. He was riddled with cancer, no hope and sedated into unconciousness. I signed.


This is of a completely different order and is without doubt murder. Not manslaughter as the intent to kill was the motivating factor.


A jury should decide.

16 February 2010 at 19:48  
Anonymous Geoff said...

I guess that the Establishment and the BBQ (yes, Q - you know what I mean) will ensure that this guy gets off scot free.

Is there anyone at the BBQ who is NOT queer, marxist or ethnic?

17 February 2010 at 08:06  
Blogger Ces said...

(Apologies if this has been posted twice, my browser malfunctioned)

Completely agree with TheGlovner.

As for being made in man's image: We certainly are not.
That is an ultimate joke.
Have you not looked outside your window?

Would God destroy the earth he apparently lovingly created? Would he drive other animals to extinction? Would he damage the environment so badly that even other humans can't live there anymore? Would he overpopulate the world so much, that a large majority of us now face starvation?

I beg to differ.
We *are* animals, and we are *no* different at all to any other animal on this planet. We try to survive with what he have.
Whether we have no legs, no thumbs, or incisor teeth - whatever, we still try to survive.
And we have proven to ourselves that we are no smarter or better in any way either! You only need to look at the earth to realise that.

In response to the blog post; I completely disagree also. I believe that if Mr Ray Gosling made a personal and spiritual pact between him and his partner, then it would've been far more sinful if he had not then carried out his duty. Mr Gosling's partner may have also made a spiritual pact with God - and God allowed it, for no miracle occurred that Mr Gosling's partner returned to life.

17 February 2010 at 08:50  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Ces

At last, someone who has taken atheism to its logical conclusion.

Thank you for your candour.

17 February 2010 at 09:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr It's faith, stupid - you are right. He has classified himself as the moral equivalent of the rat.

17 February 2010 at 09:32  
Blogger Findo said...

How can a society on the one hand say to one group of people that taking their own life is a tragedy, and then legislate for another group to do just that?

17 February 2010 at 09:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

daz right der no law in exterminating vermin

17 February 2010 at 10:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

daz right der no law in exterminating vermin

17 February 2010 at 10:01  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Atheism has no "logical conclusion". Your poor reasoning is the problem here.

17 February 2010 at 10:10  
Blogger Ces said...

Miss Ces* actually.

I'm sorry, what are you actually attacking here? You're attacking me because you cannot come up with a reasonable response to what I've said?

Bravo.
As a misanthropist, I really don't think we're worth saving. We've done enough in this world and there isn't enough good to justify us staying here much longer.
From a Christian point of view (Which I am not, btw), historically, do you think any of us have really carried out God's prophecy?

We have completely mocked him and every other precious creation he has made.

Go ahead, attack me some more, but you're only just further proving more reasons why we shouldn't be saved.

17 February 2010 at 10:40  
Anonymous Greg said...

I fully agree with Ces.

It seems the "Atheists are immoral" argument has fallen a little stagnant.

From what I understand, Mr Gosling's active euthanasia of his lover - for reasons of ending terminal suffering - were only a court case away from being COMPLETELY LEGAL (I think some of us have fogotten that). Alas, there was little time for such a court case, hence his actions and in all probability said pact with his lover.

I can only see Mr Gosling's actions as those of absolute mercy; actions which his lover had agreed to beforehand.

Doctors themselves had stated he had AIDS; they themselves had stated it was terminal. He was in terrible pain and his quality of life was quite obviously below what he felt worth living.

Yes, euthanasia is a grey area open to exploitation of the greedy, but I strongly feel his actions were justified and for the best outcome.

17 February 2010 at 11:11  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Well, you've had your wish, Your grace.

17 February 2010 at 11:43  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"daz right der no law in exterminating vermin"

Really? Playing the Nazi card again? Can't you do any better?

"Mr It's faith, stupid - you are right. He has classified himself as the moral equivalent of the rat."

Did they or are you just twisting the facts to suit your aims yet again?

Is it not ironic that Pride is considered to be one of the most serious of the seven deadly sins yet you fall prey to it with almost every post.

If I can quote from Wiki:

"In almost every list Pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris, is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor.""

I think this covers your attitude in full.

I really dispair for you Mr Singh. Clearly not a dispair you think I should be allowed to show being that I have no sense of morals or humanity, but somehow I still manage to do just that.

What a lonely hate filled existence you must lead.

@It's Faith....

"At last, someone who has taken atheism to its logical conclusion."

A little bit of a misfire there. There is no logical conclusion to athiesm. To be an atheist is the natural state that everyone is born into and only requires a lack of belief in god. The belief in god is something that you are taught/brainwashed/indocrtinated (take your pick) into believing at a time when your mind is capable of being manipulated. If someone is left from the position of being born naturally as an aethist up to middle age or even death there is no reason to suggest that he would come to believe in the same god as you do without your teaching.

There are however many logical conclusions to the dogma of religious thought.

17 February 2010 at 13:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Madam Ces says:

‘We've done enough in this world and there isn't enough good to justify us staying here much longer.’

Because some people have made some mistakes she advocates mass murder upon an industrial scale.

Nah! You’re the sort that would go for mass sterilization programmes.

17 February 2010 at 13:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Twisting the facts to suit your aims again and make youself seem better.

Pride on show again.

At no point is mass murder on an industrial scale advocated anywhere in that paragraph. You just choose to see what you want when you want.

17 February 2010 at 13:45  
Anonymous Ces said...

D. Singh;

Hahaha, if you can quote where I've said I advocate such a thing, then please, be my guest.

I do not talk about things such as the holocaust, as they are enough to prove my point anyway, but of the little things that occur every day.
Such as stealing.
Or lying perhaps.

Or the recent case of a 19 year old getting 5 years for raping an 86 year old woman.

Or the nurse who "hates old people".

Or the 2 boys, 10 and 11, who received 5 year sentences for grievous bodily harm.

Or the bank's for dishing out ridiculously large bonuses.

Or the respected religious leaders recently being caught for child abuse.
I could honestly go on and on and on.
Because Mother Teresa's actions don't balance any of it out any more.

Are we really as splendid as the bible makes out? I see a lack of evidence showing so.
I'm sorry that you are misguided D. Singh, and I hope that I have opened your eyes to reality.

I feel these points are enough to show that we are not "made in the image of God" (not any more at least), and that we are equal to animals, and that because we mercy kill animals, it only fits that we mercy kill people we love, if they ask.
As Terry Pratchett says, there should be a system that people should go through to fight for the right to be assisted with suicide, in order to prevent atrocities such as forged notes and relatives gaining fortunes from relatives who die.

17 February 2010 at 14:35  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner, Miss Ces

You know it doesn't have to be this way. You sitting in the dark, all on your own, no one to help.

Come step into the light. You'll find the views of eternity breathtaking.

17 February 2010 at 15:19  
Blogger Dave H said...

Bizarrely, the Beeb kept referring to 'assisted suicide' in the context of this case.

From the facts as I heard them, it's potentially rather more than that.

17 February 2010 at 15:24  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Yes Mick I did and do believe what Mr Gosling said, why would he lie about a thing like that. For attention and the shock factor maybe?

No, I think Mr Gosling himself hasn't got that long in this world and was unburdening himself.
Picking up that pillow and smothering his lover even though they had made some sort of pact pact was not for him to do.

The difference between humans and animals is that we can speak and write out our wishes. The dog can't tell us if he wants to die when his pain is too severe for him to bear or his mind goes.

17 February 2010 at 15:53  
Anonymous Tony B said...

we can speak and write out our wishes, and if they are wishes of a certain sort, they can be ignored, overridden, or they can leave our loved ones open to the abuse of people like D. Singh.

Ces - Terry Pratchett has a good point - which means it will doubtless go undiscussed here.

17 February 2010 at 16:03  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@It's faith...

"You know it doesn't have to be this way. You sitting in the dark, all on your own, no one to help.

Come step into the light. You'll find the views of eternity breathtaking."

Well that add absolutely nothing to the debate and certainly proves none of the misguided points you have made so far. It does fall into the realms of the definition of the sin of pride again though.

Thanks for turning up.

17 February 2010 at 16:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Tony B

The difference is that if your throat was slit by Mrs Ces you could not try her for murder based upon your view.

For in your scheme of things there is no difference between you and the chimp.

We do not try chimps for murder.

17 February 2010 at 17:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

With every post you are more purposely imperceptive than the last. When will it end?

You do yourself no favours.

17 February 2010 at 17:23  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"Well that adds absolutely nothing to the debate and certainly proves none of the misguided points you have made so far"

Think of it more as an invitation than a proof.

"Thanks for turning up."

Pleasure.

17 February 2010 at 17:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: why don't you desist posting for 50 years; so that spud in your skull has a chance to evolve to match the skills of a trousered ape?

17 February 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger Tarquin said...

Would Cranmer care to elaborate on the legal basis for his reasoning?

He's said he killed someone, many years ago, who's cause of death was recorded as AIDs related - there are no witnesses and no medical evidence

Real murderers have got let off with more

17 February 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Tarquin - has a Coroner's court established all that?

17 February 2010 at 17:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh
"Glovy: why don't you desist posting for 50 years; so that spud in your skull has a chance to evolve to match the skills of a trousered ape?"

You do more to prove my points than I ever could.

17 February 2010 at 18:14  
Anonymous Ces said...

"You know it doesn't have to be this way. You sitting in the dark, all on your own, no one to help.

Come step into the light. You'll find the views of eternity breathtaking."

I have my own light, thank you. I am actually pagan and I believe in unbiased mother nature and father time who take sides with no one.

The purity of life and beauty, without arguments and beings who "rule" over others, are what my beliefs are based on.

D Singh: "The difference is that if your throat was slit by Mrs Ces you could not try her for murder based upon your view."

No, because pain during death would be taken into account how one goes about assisted suicide. Did you not know? It must be a humane method, unless the person asking to die has asked for it that way.

D. Singh said...
Glovy: why don't you desist posting for 50 years; so that spud in your skull has a chance to evolve to match the skills of a trousered ape?

At least you accept that we are then not made in the image of God, but have descended from apes.

And sorry, but I'm Miss. I've only recently turned 18, but I am engaged. So, Ms, maybe?

17 February 2010 at 18:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tarquin,

It beggars belief, unless Mr Gosling has gone senile, that he did not entertain that a confession to murder on national television would not result in an arrest. Whatever one's view on 'assisted suicide', smothering someone with a pillow held over their face hardly amounts to a 'good death', whatever 'pact' may have been entered into.

If, as some aver, Mr Gosling never did as he said, then he should be arrested for wasting police time.

Either way, the first five words of this post stand.

17 February 2010 at 18:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Miss Ces

'D Singh: "The difference is that if your throat was slit by Mrs Ces you could not try her for murder based upon your view."

'No, because pain during death would be taken into account how one goes about assisted suicide. Did you not know? It must be a humane method, unless the person asking to die has asked for it that way.'


No. No. No!

Mr Tony B has classified, by implication, you as a chimp.

We do not try chimps for murder.

17 February 2010 at 18:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Miss Ces

In such a case, after killing, but not murdering a fellow chimp (Mr Tony B - you would not even come to the attention of he police.

Chimps, under English and Welsh law, cannot murder chimps.

17 February 2010 at 18:47  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Singh, you're an idiot.

17 February 2010 at 19:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

If there is no major, fundamental and ultimate difference between the species, homo sapien using the screw-driver and the chimp using an implement to crack a nut then one chimp (Miss Ces) killing another chimp (Mr Tony B) cannot merit police attention. After all it would be absurd to place an animal in the defendant’s dock and cross examine it.

17 February 2010 at 19:36  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mr Singh, I'm quite happy for you to carry on making a complete berk of yourself.

17 February 2010 at 20:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

This weblog has an international readership. Ad hominem attacks will not do.

Either state your case in defence of the 'universal chimp' or withdraw; as a wise man would do.

If you do neither, then serious thinkers on this site will take you at your word; and classify you as a chimp.

17 February 2010 at 20:19  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mr Singh, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I haven't mentioned any chimps, although you seem to be obsessed by them. I can't see the relevance of your remarks. I suspect you've had too many gin and tonics.

17 February 2010 at 20:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

Then the reader shall form his judgment.

17 February 2010 at 20:27  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Oh dear, how very worrying. Now I won't sleep tonight. Woe is me.

17 February 2010 at 20:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

Christ! Fancy being topped by Ray Gosling....he always was a sanctimonious bloody woffler.....'chimps'? Who mentioned chimps? Was Gosling that high on the evolutionary scale? Well I'll be damned!

17 February 2010 at 20:38  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Miss Ces

"I have my own light, thank you. I am actually pagan and I believe in unbiased mother nature and father time who take sides with no one."

I am very sorry to hear that. Your goddess "gaia" cares nothing for you and father time kills all his children. You will not find any light there.

17 February 2010 at 21:46  
Anonymous Ces said...

D Singh;

You try to use the "
Chimps, under English and Welsh law, cannot murder chimps." logic on us, in order to try and make us retract on what we have said, but we shall not. For there is the law definition between human and animals, and the scientific definition.

In case you were not aware, the law suggests that we are different from chimps in order to control society and limit autonomy.
Science however, has no such thing and has evidence proving we are all animals. Whilst we are not the *exact* same as chimps, we are not the exact same as caterpillars or dogs either, and neither are dogs or caterpillars the same. There is also the scientific difference between chimps and apes, however, our DNA very similar to that of chimps and even pigs - we can use their organs to help save lives.
However, the law disregards this, and sees the difference.

It most likely sees this difference because the divine law states so; However if the divine law is flawed, then such is society's law.

Also, have you not heard that by law, any dog who attacks a human being should be sentenced to death?
So why do dogs come under our laws, but not chimps? Does that mean dogs are on the same level as us?


"I am very sorry to hear that. Your goddess "gaia" cares nothing for you and father time kills all his children. You will not find any light there."
I do not need "care", I do not need sheltering. Yes, I do not matter. I was born here because of my parents, and they were born here because of their parents.
I have no "purpose" in this world, which I am happy to accept, however I take great pride in worshipping our spectacular earth and it's animals and the wonders of every single different creature.
I am sorry that you need to feel important in your religion in order to be happy, but I am happy just being alive and smelling in the fresh air and walking amongst the fresh grass.
If I died tomorrow; I would not expect a heavenly hand to come and take me, I would expect to become the free wind that roams our earth. Not a reward.

17 February 2010 at 22:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Miss Cess says:

‘Whilst we are not the *exact* same as chimps,…’ implying more in common with the chimp – as she is not the ‘exact’ same as a chimp (but, presumably close enough).

If there is no major, fundamental and ultimate difference between the species, homo sapien using the screw-driver and the chimp using an implement to crack a nut then one chimp (Miss Ces) killing another chimp (Mr Tony B) cannot merit police attention. After all it would be absurd to place an animal in the defendant’s dock and cross examine it.

Why don’t you tell us the differences then?


You want to be defined as chimps (animals)? Then let's treat them as such?

18 February 2010 at 07:31  
Anonymous len said...

Might seem a bit off thread but the 'moral theories'put forward by Atheists are partly responsible for the moral chaos and disorder we and Mr Gosling find himself in.
With no moral absolutes society descends into chaos. Atheism is usually a form of idolatry.

Man is a spiritual creature. Seeks something on which to focus in order to have meaning,
purpose and identity. Samuel Butler (1912) - "the fight between the theist and the atheist is as
to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name."
If man denies God, he inevitably constructs physical or mental "gods."
1. Jere. 2:28 - "gods which you made for yourself"
2. Gal. 4:8 - "those which by nature are not gods"
The false gods of atheism.
1. Humanism - Man is the measure of things, the highest being; his own god. Gen. 3:5 - "you
shall be like God." Man is god.
2. Secularism - from Latin saeculum = world. This world is all there is. Self-limiting. The world
is god.
3. Naturalism - The natural order is the only order. Nature is god.
4. Scientism - Physical science will discover and give us all the answers we need. Science is god.
5. Positivism - "seeing is believing;" empiricism. Sensory perception is god.
6. Materialism - acquisition of material goods is the ultimate goal. William James: "Truth is the
cash value of an idea." Money or things is god.
7. Intellectualism - By logic and rational thought, man can figure everything out. Epistemological
belief-system. Reason is god.
8. Existentialism - Everything is tested by human feelings. All is subjective. Emotions are god.
9. Relativism - There is no absolute. Everything is relative to your perspective. Personal
viewpoint is god.
10. Pragmatism - Have to go with what "works." Must be practical. Expedience is god.
11. Socialism - The good of the whole is the highest good. Society is god.
12. Statism - Government will solve all the problems, and take care of man. Government is god.
13. Pluralism - It doesn't matter what you believe or do. Tolerate everything. Diversity is god.
14. Hedonism - Sensual pleasure is the highest good. If it feels good, it is good. "Eat, drink and
be merry." Pleasure is god............................
D. Arguments used by atheists against belief in God.
1. Talking about God is meaningless because it is unverifiable.
2. God cannot be known by empirical sensory observation.
3. "You can't be sure about anything?" Are you sure?
4. God is a result of man's superstition or wishful thinking?
5. God's alleged attributes are contradictory.
6. God would not allow evil.

III. Atheism and agnosticism.

A. Atheists do not usually claim to be atheists. They might be called upon to prove their point.
B. Agnostic is derived from two Greek words: a = no; gnosis = knowledge.
C. The agnostic cops out and throws the monkey on the back of those who assert there is a God,
saying "You prove it."
D. Variations of agnosticism.
1. "I do not know if there is a God."
2. "Man cannot know if there is a God."
3. "I do not want to know if there is a God."
E. Agnosticism is equivalent to ignorance. Acts 17:23 - "unknown god" - agnoeto theo.

18 February 2010 at 08:17  
Anonymous Ces said...

D Singh,

Sir, there is a difference being called an animal and being called a chimp.
We are closely related to chimps, but are not chimps. But humans and chimps are animals.

Both chimp and animal mean different things;
The definition of animal: "a living organism characterized by voluntary movement"
Definition of chimp: "chimpanzee: intelligent somewhat arboreal ape of equatorial African forest"

So while we are not actual (I'm sorry to feel the need to break this to you into simple terms) chimps, we are still animals.

Ien, I think that quoting the bible in an argument against Atheists defeats itself.

People may have non-religious revelations which ignites in them their own personal knowledge of whether or not a God exists.

"Atheists are partly responsible for the moral chaos and disorder"
Theists are truly no better - we've seen the bloodshed religion can cause.

Religion should be used to test one's perceptions of morality, but to believe in an organised religion is surely putting a blindfold on and leaping over a cliff without any safety harness and just believing that "Everything will be okay because there is a being who will look after me".

And I'm fairly certain people have already discussed that Atheists who are moral, are far more superior in the fact that they have no reason to be moral - but are.
A theist is moral for only themselves, their God and those they feel spiritual connections with. And that is wrong. There should not be a reason for being moral.

You just do, from previous experience knowing it creates happiness and peace (In theory).

It's faith; "Your goddess "gaia" cares nothing for you and father time kills all his children. You will not find any light there."

I'm sorry, but I'm confused as to why your God is so different for he allows newborn children in Africa to die of aids?
Or is he racist?
What have those newborn children done in the womb in order to deserve such a terrible disease?
If they contracted something which could be cured, then I might be more understanding.. But they don't even have a chance to try and live a good life.

18 February 2010 at 08:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘We are closely related to chimps, but are not chimps. But humans and chimps are animals.’

And there we have it: they define themselves as animals.

Possessing a status, that is equivalent to the rat.

Their strategy is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous: strip humans of their unique status; reclassify them as rats and call in Rentokil.

That is why they can approve of killing the child that leaps in the womb. Not satified with that and wishing to remain consistent they race to the other end of the spectrum of human life and clamour for euthanasia so that they may kill the old, the sick, the frail and the vulnerable.

Their favourite movie must be Logan’s Run:

‘Renew!

‘Renew!

‘Renew!’

18 February 2010 at 09:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Note: to our international readers.

Rentokil is a large (British) private company that exterminates vermi (rats, mice etc.)

18 February 2010 at 09:18  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Miss Ces

"I'm sorry, but I'm confused as to why your God is so different for he allows newborn children in Africa to die of aids?
Or is he racist?
What have those newborn children done in the womb in order to deserve such a terrible disease?
If they contracted something which could be cured, then I might be more understanding.. But they don't even have a chance to try and live a good life."


God has given us freedom to choose between good and evil, love and hate.

We are free to send condoms to Africa and promote promiscuity and increase the death toll.
We are free to withold research into a cure for Aids because Aids prevention is more profitable.
We are free to choose death over life.

Because without freedom there is no love and without love we are lost.

But He has also provided a solution to the problem of evil; in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although, this has not come to fuition yet, the defeat of evil is inevitable.

In the meantime we have some important decisions to make.

18 February 2010 at 09:40  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Note: to any intellgent readers.

D.Singh is a pointless individual that purposely picks up the message of any posting he doesn't like incorrectly.

He will then twist this to make it seem like he was right all along since his pride just can't stand to be wrong.

He will probably insult and abuse you in an unflattering patronising manner as well.

18 February 2010 at 09:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"We are free to send condoms to Africa and promote promiscuity and increase the death toll."

Not if you have your way we are not.

"We are free to withold research into a cure for Aids because Aids prevention is more profitable."

Erm..okay then. I think this speaks for itself.

"We are free to choose death over life."

Again, clearly we are not as far as the religious are concerned.

So is it not a contridiction then that "god" gave us freedom but the religious groups seek to control your choice and freedom?

18 February 2010 at 09:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: ‘So is it not a contridiction then that "god" gave us freedom but the religious groups seek to control your choice and freedom?’

I do wish you would make a constructive contribution: instead of typing with a bacon sarnie in your gob.

Why don’t you think about the left-liberal idea ‘license’ and the conservative idea ‘liberty’?

18 February 2010 at 09:59  
Anonymous Ces said...

I'm sorry, but there is no "evil" nor "good".

Evil and good only came about when humans arrived and decided to take over the planet, It's faith.
Evil and good do not exist in the natural world - what happens, happens.

Why are you so afraid of not being able to control the weather?
It's a fact of life - a random meteor could come and strike you at any given moment in time, and you would not have any control over it.

It's a fact of life people; We do not have control in our lives at all.
The dinosaurs proved that.
No matter what choices they made in life - it was all inevitable. They all died. They were all wiped out.
They had no control.

You should not be afraid of that, It's faith, because that is the circle of life - you have a body, then you return it to replenish the earth.

"Possessing a status, that is equivalent to the rat."

I actually own 7 as a matter of fact, and they have demonstrated time and time again that they have a lot more moral fibre than my mother who is a strong Christian.
They are fabulous creatures, who are as eager to learn as we are, who also cry and mourn over the loss of a loved one, who also look up to strong characters for guidance.

I think you'll find we have a lot in common with rats, dogs, horses, elephants, ants - the works.

I'm starting to lose formality, as I am finding this discussion more and more of a joke as you really misinterpret things and I always need to explain it to you as if I am explaining how cheese is made to my 10 year old sister.

18 February 2010 at 10:07  
Anonymous Ces said...

"
That is why they can approve of killing the child that leaps in the womb. Not satified with that and wishing to remain consistent they race to the other end of the spectrum of human life and clamour for euthanasia so that they may kill the old, the sick, the frail and the vulnerable. "

Actually, I have a two-strike policy on abortion, unless the mother has sufficient proof she has been raped.

It is up to the mother; Yes she can give the child away for adoption, but the child will still hate and blame her for giving the child up.
If she does choose to abort, the child will still hate her for choosing to end their life - the mother cannot win, and it is up to the mother in which situation they want to be in.
It's fine for you because your penis will not need stitching after it has been ripped apart after birth.
I do believe that men has no say in abortion at all - it is only for women to decide - women create a bond with their child, either during pregnancy, or after. Or sometimes not at all. It is only the female who would be able to make sense of pregnancy - I'm sorry men, but it's a fact of life. You can't get pregnant.

As for killing the old - I'm passive about it, if you need to know.
But I'd rather die at 40 after having done my conservation work and abroad volunteering work, from a car crash, rather than live to 120 not even knowing my own name or family.

18 February 2010 at 10:17  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I have to disagree on the man having no rights/say in the pregnancy, I would agree that they don't have the same level of rights/say but I still think they have some.

However all your other points I can't disagree with and they are put very well.

I now await D.Singh's input as he makes his own post up in his mind, then again he can make up an imaginary friend on faith, why can't he read something that isn't there based on the same blind faith that he is right.

18 February 2010 at 10:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"I do wish you would make a constructive contribution: instead of typing with a bacon sarnie in your gob."

Why? Whenever any of these points are made you just ignore them or read something that doesn't exist.

Why don't you try replying for once without abuse?

"Why don’t you think about the left-liberal idea ‘license’ and the conservative idea ‘liberty’?"

Why don't you answer the actual question?

18 February 2010 at 10:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Miss Ces

‘I do believe that men has no say in abortion at all - it is only for women to decide - women create a bond with their child, either during pregnancy, or after. Or sometimes not at all. It is only the female who would be able to make sense of pregnancy - I'm sorry men, but it's a fact of life. You can't get pregnant.’

Wowee! Am sure every man will want to thank you left-liberal women for letting them of the hook of responsibility.

And the next time you experience anti-social behaviour from feral youth with no father figure – just thank the feminist sisterhood.

18 February 2010 at 10:34  
Anonymous Ces said...

Glovner; yes that's true, I apologise. If I had my fiancée's child inside me, I would most definitely allow him to help me with the choice.

But that would be a personal relation.
I dislike men insisting general advice to all women everywhere.

"And the next time you experience anti-social behaviour from feral youth with no father figure – just thank the feminist sisterhood."

I don't need to, there are enough as it is for you choose to preach the notion that you should only have a child within marriage - which gives couples the wrong idea about why to get married meaning they are more likely to split.
Then people decide "I'm not going to marry again, I'm going to be a free-spirit, drink in clubs, and have sex with whomever I want, because I don't want to go down the marriage route again"

If sex and living together for a reasonable amount of time was justified properly by your organisation, couples would be more likely to stay together after experiencing a "semi-married" life together.

18 February 2010 at 10:40  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Miss Ces

"As for killing the old - I'm passive about it, if you need to know."

Clearly. Why wouldn't you be? It comes logically from your stance that life has no purpose. You are the most authentic atheist I have ever come across.

Apart from your worship of the godess gaia that is.

18 February 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Miss Ces

Why should we justify or approve of the fornicator and fornication?

We stigmatize them.

We do not want a nation of bastards.

18 February 2010 at 10:45  
Anonymous Ces said...

"You are the most authentic atheist I have ever come across.

Apart from your worship of the godess gaia that is."

That is because your definition of an Atheist, is not me.

My view of Atheism is not choosing any religion at all - I am not Atheist in my view, like I said, I do have my own "religion".

"Why should we justify or approve of the fornicator and fornication?"
Because then children can come into this earth knowing they were 100% wanted, into a loving family, born from two parents who have spiritually connected with each other.

I'm very close to a married couple who, like you, strongly believe sex is for marriage. So they waited until they got married.
And now they deeply regret it for they have realised they are incompatible in every sense - friendship, beliefs, sex; everything.
All because they believe living together before marriage was wrong.

And I am sure they are not the only married couple to experience this.

18 February 2010 at 10:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Miss Ces

According to CIVITAS:

Living together leads to living alone

In the mid-1960s, only five per cent of single women lived with a man before getting married. By the 1990s, about 70 per cent did so. Some people think that living together will lead automatically to marriage, but that often is not the case. Many cohabitations break up. For many other couples, cohabitation is viewed as an alternative to marriage rather than a preparation for it. However, this alternative is less likely than marriage to lead to a long-term stable commitment.

Stability

Cohabiting relationships are fragile. They are always more likely to break up than marriages entered into at the same time, regardless of age or income. On average, cohabitations last less than two years before breaking up or converting to marriage. Less than four per cent of cohabitations last for ten years or more. Cohabiting also influences later marriages. The more often and the longer that men and women cohabit, the more likely they are to divorce later.

Cheating

Both men and women in cohabiting relationships are more likely to be unfaithful to their partners than married people.

Economics

At all socio-economic levels, cohabiting couples accumulate less wealth than married couples. Married men earn 10 to 40 percent more than single or cohabiting men, and they are more successful in their careers, particularly when they become fathers. Married women without children earn about the same as childless single or cohabiting women. All women who take time out of employment to have children lose some earning power-whether they are married or not. However, cohabiting and lone mothers often lack access to the father's income, making it more difficult to balance their caring responsibilities with their careers.

Health

Cohabitants have more health problems than married people, probably because cohabitants put up with behaviour in their partners which husbands and wives would discourage, particularly regarding smoking, alcohol and substance abuse. Cohabitants are also much more likely to suffer from depression than married people.

Domestic violence

Women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than wives to be abused. In one study, marital status was the strongest predictor of abuse-ahead of race, age, education or housing conditions.

18 February 2010 at 11:00  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Miss Ces

"My view of Atheism is not choosing any religion at all - I am not Atheist in my view, like I said, I do have my own "religion".
"


Everyone chooses a religion. Take your pick from Len's post above.

18 February 2010 at 11:04  
Anonymous Ces said...

Singh, thank you for the post - I did find it a very interesting read.
However I still think that cohabiting prepares the couple for how each other lives.
It is far more dramatic for a married couple to split because one does not put their socks in the laundry basket, than for a cohabiting couple to separate.

"Everyone chooses a religion. Take your pick from Len's post above."
Why only from Len's post? What if there are some who believe in Glovner's example of Mr. Sniffles?

It's very closed minded to believe that if you don't believe in God, then you believe in Intellectuality instead.

I've told you my "religion", it's Paganism.

18 February 2010 at 11:11  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Everyone chooses a religion. Take your pick from Len's post above."

No they don't and to suggest so is disingenious. Then again this is no different from anything else you have ever said.

18 February 2010 at 11:22  
Anonymous Ces said...

TheGlovner - any way we can keep in contact to discuss ideas? I'm very keen to hear more from you.

18 February 2010 at 11:34  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Glovy

Don't do it. You have enough ideas of your own.

18 February 2010 at 11:46  
Anonymous Ces said...

Hahah.

18 February 2010 at 11:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

At least that way it makes up for you having none of your own and only the ones you have been told to have.

18 February 2010 at 11:50  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

I'm serious glovy. This girl is hardcore. She'll kill you if she finds out you are a day over 40 and you happen to forget your name or family.

18 February 2010 at 12:14  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I'm very serious too. The world would be a far better place if all people where capable of critical thought rather than just believing what they are told and thinking that was an idea.

You are nearly as bad as Singhy for just ignoring what is being said and reading your own version of the posts in your head.

18 February 2010 at 12:26  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Ces, I wouldn't know how to go about it since I certainly won't be giving personal details out on this site given the evidence of the level of crazed individuals that inhabit these pages.

18 February 2010 at 12:55  
Blogger Ces said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 February 2010 at 13:17  
Blogger Ces said...

"She'll kill you if she finds out you are a day over 40 and you happen to forget your name or family. "

Lol! This blog MUST be a hoax to get rational free-thinkers to post messages..
I said I was PASSIVE, not ACTIVE.

*Sigh*, here I was keeping my posts formal as I respect those who reply.

Because at the end of the day, none of us know the right answer, and all we can do is discuss - but when some of us become childish and instead turn and make personal attacks or judgements, then it's just very petty, and your God must be very proud of you.
Remember who/what you are representing here.

18 February 2010 at 14:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If you enjoy this blog: please donate £5 - to keep it going.

18 February 2010 at 16:40  
Anonymous Tony B said...

I'm not sure enjoy is quite the word :o)

18 February 2010 at 18:31  
Anonymous len said...

Ces,
Whats a pagan?
I imagine someone like boudicca in her war chariot,
Perhaps Glovy has met his match.

18 February 2010 at 19:24  
Blogger Ces said...

Len;

There are many different forms of pagans, just as there are variations of Christians and Catholics;

But I am a Pagan who believes in only the unbiased mother nature and father time.

People immediately associate it with voodoo or witchcraft or even tree hugging, but none of those paint an accurate picture of what it is.

It is also what Christianity stemmed from, an information site here; http://www.pocm.info/
However, Paganism has only one rule really; And that is the threefold law - whatever energy you send into the world, comes back to you thrice (you do evil, evil hits you x3, you do good, you get goodx3).

However, I differ from the usual paganism, because I feel we are all at mercy of this planet - I do not believe we are superior to any other animal or being, because we are born like everything else, and we die like everything else, and our body decomposes into the earth just like everything else.

18 February 2010 at 19:52  
Anonymous len said...

Ces,
Interesting, but Christianity is as old as the world ,as old as Creation.
When God created man( from the Earth)he filled man with His Spirit. God Created man in His likeness ,ie Gods attributes were inside man, part of his nature, man was a container for the Spirit of God.
When man succombed to the satanic suggestion that he didn`t need God indeed he could be God the rejected Spirit was withdrawn and man became 'flesh'devoid of the attributes of God,and prey to fallen spiritual forces.
The only man to walk this planet created as God intended was the lord Jesus Christ.
It is through the atonement,and the resurrection of Jesus Christ that this divine order is restored( to those who accept the free gift of salvation)

I cannot see any hope of the restoration of fallen man through any other means, however well intentioned,mans remedy( so it seems) is to deny Gods original plan for man and to see his fallen condition as'natural' which deludes him into acceptance of it.

18 February 2010 at 21:06  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Perhaps Glovy has met his match."

What are you slavering about now?

"but Christianity is as old as the world ,as old as Creation."

No, no sorry, it's just not and to say so is a lie. You can believe it as much as you want and that is your right, but it doesn't make it a fact.

The next part of waffle you go into just cannot be proved in any way whatsoever. It is what you believe, and you believe it without any proof to allow you to logically accept it. You believe it because you have faith, faith by it's very definition allows you to believe something that you have been told for no other reason that you want to believe it. Again, this does not in any way make it true.

So you cannot prove the existence of god, any god. It therefore goes without saying that you cannot know what he wants, and even if you could you couldn't prove it, so all your words are hollow.

You may as well type the word "Blah" 500 times and it would have just as much meaning as what you bring to the table.

18 February 2010 at 21:24  
Blogger Ces said...

Len,

Yes, from a Christian point of view.
Theologists have studied and done research and found that Christian symbols are derived from Egyptian Gods and Goddesses.
Scholars are no longer debating about it any more - but studies have been done to show reports older than the Bible. This is where the Bible was then created.

There are plenty of websites to help you further research if you need any more information :)

18 February 2010 at 23:16  
Blogger Ces said...

Lens,
Again however, bringing to light evidence based on the bible is just as good as me saying, "I saw a UFO and it was green" and you then claim that I did not, and then I would quote myself to then state it as a fact.
It does not work, I'm sorry.

18 February 2010 at 23:18  
Blogger Theresa said...

Re our attitude to putting animals down, can I point out that as well as putting them down when they are in pain, we also put them down when they are old, not wanted or when the vet's bill is too expensive? I think it is an analogy that shouldn't be carried too far..

19 February 2010 at 00:07  
Blogger Theresa said...

On the difference between ourselves and other animals; we know that we're animals. They don't. Cogito ergo sum..

19 February 2010 at 00:10  
Blogger Tarquin said...

Sorry I'm late in my reply, your graciness, I'll pick up a few points

You said he needed to be arrested for murder, if you walk into a police station and confess to a completely unknown murder, you would certainly be questioned, but not necessarily arrested unless a crime has been known to have been committed

and it's only wasting police time if it's false, of course, so he didn't 'need' to be arrested - and you won't find out the position on mercy killing from this I'm afraid

it also wasn't national television - it was local television watched by a few hundred thousand

19 February 2010 at 00:55  
Anonymous len said...

Ces,

You seem to have totally ignored what I said.
If you don`t think you can be deceived you already are!
What pagans worship are merely deceiving spirits.



Glovner,

You are unable to give one shred of evidence to back up any of your ramblings, you accuse everyone of doing what you are doing 'ranting on about nothing'I think talking to you is an utter waste of time!
If you can contribute nothing worthwhile to intelligent debates other than bleating it' aint true'I suggest you merely listen and give others the chance.

19 February 2010 at 07:59  
Anonymous len said...

The natural man cannot receive the things of God nor know them. 1Cor. 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers. 2Cor. 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded,
The understanding is 'darkened.' Eph. 4:18 having their understanding darkened...because of the blindness of their heart;
The carnal mind is unable to submit to the law of God. Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
The sinner's will is bound by the devil so they cannot come to their senses without God granting the gift of repentance. 2Tim. 2:25 -26 In humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

According to these verses, the mind of the sinner has a perception problem which the Bible expresses as 'darkness' or 'blinded.' The devil controls the sinner's will by controlling his perceptions. The sinner perceives the things of God as foolishness because he is blind to his moral condition.

19 February 2010 at 08:22  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ien, Somewhat ironic to talk about others having nothing to contribute to intelligent debates, prior to posting that load of nonsense.

19 February 2010 at 09:21  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I continue to "bleat" on about it because it undermines your entire argument.

When I make a factual statement I will attempt to provide proof and logical reasoning.

Also worth noting that when these factual statments are made and you cannot argue your point in any sane way the likes of you, D.Singh and It's faith stupid usually descend into abuse or just completely ignoring the points that were made and go off on a tangent making some other completely unrelated point out of some mixed up idea of logic that you have.

When you make a statment that you deem to be factual you expect others to believe it without any evidence to prove it's worth. In other words you expect people to suddenly show the same faith in this nonsense that you show.

Unfortuntely for people like you the world is generally growing up and becoming a bit more mature (I admit large parts are still holding on to all this hocus pocus nonsense but it will die one day, unfortunately just not in my lifetime) and that means that ideas like yours are, thankfully, fading more and more in to obscurity.

19 February 2010 at 09:51  
Blogger Ces said...

Len,

I actually have a piece of tissue next to me stating; "The tissue religion exists, because it says so on this napkin" NPKN; 0.1.0

It also says; "The Napkin Heavens consist of a majority of little napkin people, have lived in Napkin World before time ever existed" NPKN; 4.3.7

"The Napkin people will help save your soul and food, by preserving it within it's Napkinnery warmth. Those who disbelieve are pure heretics and must be stoned immediately" NPKN; 7.3.8

So, I have sufficient proof that the Napkin religion came before yours, because it is written so, and it claims to be older than time itself.
Oh dear, looks like a lot of people are going to be stoned..

Whilst I fully respect your views Len, I still hold my ground that quoting something because of its claims, are without a doubt, nonsensical.

Ro 10:17 "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ"
Reminds me a lot of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

Just because people heard that the sun revolved around our earth and that our earth does not move, didn't prove that it did, did it? It was only upon scientific examination that we found, actually, the earth revolves around the sun instead.
Another example of why not to believe everything you hear.

19 February 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Ces said...

Theresa;


"Re our attitude to putting animals down, can I point out that as well as putting them down when they are in pain, we also put them down when they are old, not wanted or when the vet's bill is too expensive"
Whilst I do not condone it to be done on humans, I do believe that is why animals are at a controllable population.

See my evidence that overpopulation is not favourable;

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273918

http://www.overpopulation.net/

"On the difference between ourselves and other animals; we know that we're animals. They don't. Cogito ergo sum"
There is also an abundance of things we do not know;

A few of what we dont know:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/
15.02/bigquestions.html?pg=3

Tarquin;
He has now been released :)

19 February 2010 at 10:51  
Blogger Theresa said...

Hmm,

Interesting reply Ces. You say that you do not condone humans being culled and then provide me with two links to articles about overpopulation. I think if you are in favour of assisted suicide for this reason, then you should say so and we could all stop pretending that this debate is about compassion for the terminally ill and have the real debate, which is about the growing elderly population.

Re what we know and what we don't know, we humans also know what we don't know. This is another difference between ourselves and other animals. To sum it up; we are self aware. Other animals ain't.

19 February 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger Ces said...

Theresa;
"I think if you are in favour of assisted suicide for this reason, then you should say so"

Oh dear, you have obviously randomly jumped into this debate without first reading previous posts.

"Re what we know and what we don't know, we humans also know what we don't know. This is another difference between ourselves and other animals. To sum it up; we are self aware. Other animals ain't"

To be honest, I'm not sure there's actually any evidence proving animals aren't trying to?
Because I know quite a number of animals who love to learn (They are always eager to explore, test, analyse in their own way), given the chance, but just do not have the means to.

19 February 2010 at 12:35  
Blogger Ces said...

Theresa;
Misread your post, my apologies.

I do believe that suffering should be ended, but not because human lives are greater than everything else.

Suffering is natural, I do admit, but there are animals who kill to prevent suffering (E.g., a hamster eats it young if it cannot feed them/they are disabled and won't survive). Not a good example, but still an example.

Overpopulation is not a justification for assisted suicide - but it is certainly a pro towards the argument.

19 February 2010 at 12:39  
Blogger Theresa said...

Ces,

I think you have illustrated perfectly why people like myself are so uneasy about this debate. It always starts off with the terminally ill; sooner or later, the growing elderly population, the disabled, the pensions timebomb is mentioned and you don't know if you are having a debate about compassion or economics.If they don't have a place in the debate, then why mention them at all? If they do have a place in the debate, then why be so coy about it? Is it that you don't really want to say it out loud?

19 February 2010 at 14:54  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Theresa, is it not our very self-awareness that can allow us to choose when to die with dignity? You are talking about others deciding when people will die, but it's normally about the individual deciding when they want to die.

19 February 2010 at 15:45  
Blogger Theresa said...

You've made my point for me, Tony. Personally speaking, I believe suicide is wrong, but it is legal in this country and if an individual chooses it, there's not much anyone can do about it. But if you bring in assisted suicide, it is no longer an individual choice. A doctor or health professional is required to assist, so you involve the medical profession. The law has to be changed to allow this assistance, so all of us are involved with that decision. And there is this dark underbelly to the debate of 'growing elderly population', 'pensions timebomb' etc etc. I don't want the state to be in charge of this.It would be far too tempting for them to extend the parameters of it to include anyone who was 'surplus to requirements' as they see it. I am against suicide, but if I changed my mind, I would have the good manners to do it myself or get a trusted friend to do it. I do not want to be required by the state to lay down my life for my country twenty years from now, because we squandered our pension funds on a bunch of useless bankers and I don't see why the elderly should either.

19 February 2010 at 16:53  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Theresa, I don't really think state extermination based on economic criteria is what anyone here has been discussing - Mr Gosling topped his mate - exactly what you say you'd want if you changed your mind.

19 February 2010 at 17:14  
Anonymous Tony B said...

p.s. I completely agree with you.

19 February 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger Theresa said...

'I don't think state extermination based on economic criteria is what anyone here has been discussing.'

That's the problem. The number of elderly care beds in hospitals has reduced from 27 000 - 21 000 over the past six years, and nobody discusses how these cuts can be sustained when we have a growing elderly population. If the government is serious about looking after the elderly, provision would be getting increased, would it not? So where are we going?

19 February 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous len said...

Glovner,
Where is your proof God doesn`t exist?

Ces,
I haven`t a clue what you are talking about.

19 February 2010 at 18:26  
Blogger Ces said...

Len,

Apologies for my absence, I've been ill.

"Where is your proof God doesn`t exist?"

Er, you're incredibly hypocritical here by asking for "empirical sensory proof", only to then quote the bible which somehow then rectifies everything?

I do believe I have strayed very far off the true subject of this debate; I blame D Singh for asking totally inappropriate questions ensuing me to spur on, hahaha.

Len, It's faith, stupid claimed I had not seen the light; Which is really funny, because you claim he cannot be observed by empirical observation so how on earth would I ever be able to "feel" God and experience him? He cannot be observed by - yes you get my point by now, I hope!
However, people claim miracles can occur; but him or his actions cannot be observed by empirical observation.

And yes, whilst I completely agree that the state should absolutely not have control over who is allowed to live or die (With the exception of those wishing to), I still do not believe we are "made in the image of man" because of the evidence of what we have done to ourselves here on earth and to our other fellow humans (so not even including what we have done to our environment and our animals, is purely enough evidence).

I would also like to say that, I find it stomach-achingly funny, how you believe you know the answers to God and the whole world merely by reading/listening to "disciples" who did not have scientific means to prove, test or analyse any of their findings but instead had to live with the domino effect that once a rumour has been spread, every body believes it and falls down to you.
I think a money making scam has occurred here :)

God created atheists, if you would like to put it that way;

God is seen to be benevolent; Er, how, if he cannot be active within our time or space, or, at all?
Seems like somebody's trying to create another imaginary umbrella.

Len,
I believe 100% it is fully wrong that you and other Christian alike, preach about the word of God without having first lived for a year in the regions of third world countries;
It is utterly disgusting of you to claim that God will look after us in the afterlife with your swishy central heating, your comfortable car, your 24/7 corner shop, your NHS service, your clean clothes, your taps with clean running water, your hot showers, your cheap over the counter medicines etc.
You only see God from YOUR point of view - you are not constantly praying not to get raped again and to give birth to your 8th stillborn child in ten years after being diagnosed with AIDS.
Pity on you, you people disgust me.

20 February 2010 at 07:45  
Blogger robbie said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

20 February 2010 at 11:08  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Ces

Your compassion for humanity and the plight of the impoverished and suffering is clear for all to see.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute you and all your fellow pagans for all the work you do here and around the world. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, treating the sick, bringing hope to the desperate. If only those silly atheists could see the work that you do, they would realise that paganism is a force for good. I am suitably chastened.

20 February 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger Ces said...

It's faith, stupid;

I have no issue with Atheists anyway - only hedonistic Atheists.

20 February 2010 at 16:44  
Anonymous len said...

Ces,
God didn`t create atheists, satan did!!
Satan encourages everyone to doubt God and if he cannot do that he will get you to doubt Gods word, to doubt Gods integrity. "Did God really say that "( Genesis 3 :1)

Can God be limited? Many Bible passages proclaim that God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing. While God is unlimited by time, space, or force, His very character has determined that He will never do some things, because to do them would be inconsistent with His principles—viz., God’s nature prevents Him from such things. For example, God cannot lie. Observe what the Bible has to say about God’s honesty and, therefore, His reliability.

Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

1 Samuel 15:29: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

Psalm 92:15: “To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I do not change.”

Romans 3:4: “Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.”

Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

Hebrews 6:18: “It is impossible for God to lie.”

James 1:17-18: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”

God is the only being Who is incapable of lying. Everything that God said would happen before now, has happened—just as He said it would. Since God knows all things past, present, and future (and since He is completely honest), it is impossible for Him to speak untruths (see Colley, 2004). One striking characteristic of the Bible is that it contains a large collection of statements attributed to God. Some of these statements are predictions of future occurrences, some are warnings, some are instructions, some are revelations concerning the Divine character, and some are statements of simple fact. One common thread runs through all of God’s recorded statements: they are all true. God has never “gone back” on a promise. God has never lied—He has never even made an “honest mistake.” God, in revealing His message to humans, has not held back truths that we need (2 Peter 1:3). Likewise, Jesus was completely honest, even when telling a hard truth meant putting Himself in danger (Matthew 23:28-33; 1 John 3:5).
.........
Ces, I find some of your remarks to show you totally unaware of what Christianity is all about
Jesus said,
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,

3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the LORD
for the display of his splendor.




(What do you disagree with )

20 February 2010 at 17:42  
Blogger Ces said...

Len,

Haha, yes now you're confusing me, you'll have to clear some things up for me;
Satan is actually a fallen angel - yes?
However, God was the only one to exist during the seven days of when he was creating the world (?).
If he wasn't: Then Satan is also a God (Which contradicts your theory of the existence of "false Gods and Idols".
If he was; God would have created Satan, and because God is all-knowing, God would've known about Satan's downfall and his work on earth trying to corrupt people. (?)

Is this what you're trying to say, otherwise, I have even less faith in your coherence.

Are you saying that God actually set all of us humans up, with a conspiracy-like plan, and then decides to punish us in hell if we don't conform?

Sounds rather manipulative.. I think I'd prefer the hell over being brainwashed by him :| (If ofc, he is as you describe).

20 February 2010 at 19:11  
Anonymous len said...

Ces, this is a very extensive subject, people have written whole books about it explaining things a lot better than I can, but I will have a go. Satan was created as a holy angel. Isaiah 14:12 possibly gives Satan’s pre-fall name as Lucifer. Ezekiel 28:12-14 describes Satan as having been created a cherubim, apparently the highest created angel. He became arrogant in his beauty and status and decided he wanted to sit on a throne above that of God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:15; 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan’s pride led to his fall. Notice the many “I will” statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Because of his sin, God barred Satan from heaven.

Satan became the ruler of this world and the prince of the power of the air (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2). He is an accuser (Revelation 12:10), a tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5), and a deceiver (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3). His very name means “adversary” or “one who opposes.” Another of his titles, the devil, means “slanderer.”

As a dependent(on God) and derivative angelic creature, Lucifer was a choosing creature. Apparently God ordained that in Lucifer's choice, he could become the opposite character of God, the fixed source of evil and sin by contorting, distorting, and aborting God's goodness. By his own choice Lucifer became Satan, the adversarial devil, the negative of God's positive, the "god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4), the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2), the tempter of mankind, and the source of all self-for-self(selfish) character.

Humans were also created as choosing dependent creatures. Since "what God is, only God is," the corollary is "what God is, man is not." God is the only Independent Self - unconditioned, uncontingent, and unconstrained - with the absolute and intrinsic character of Love. Man, on the other hand, is not independent, autonomous and auto-generative. The creature, man, is dependent, contingent, derivative and receptive. It is imperative that we understand these essential functional differences between God and man. Legitimate Christian teaching always maintains the distinction of being and function between the Creator and the creature, between God and man, and never allows the human creature to become or be identified as the Creator, or to claim to function as God. The relationship between God and man is always relational, and never that of equivalence. Man is not God, or a god, or a co-god, and never becomes such. The Creator God functions as the autonomous Independent Self, doing what He does out of Himself (ek eautos), autogeneratively. Man was created by God as a derivative creature, a dependent self, and a receptive person.

Man cannot autogenerate character as an "independent self." He can only derive and receive character from one spirit-source or the other, from God or Satan. The dependent human self can receive either the character of "Self-for-others" love from God, or he can receive the character of "self-for-self" selfishness from Satan. The result will be either godliness or sinfulness. These are the only character options for man.
................
For an in depth study the Christinyou Ministries website is an excellent source of information.information.

20 February 2010 at 22:35  
Anonymous len said...

Ces, Sorry for repeating myself.its late,
Hope your`e feeling better,

20 February 2010 at 22:40  
Blogger Ces said...

Len,

Thank you for the warm wishes.

You say he was created; But I'm still confused as to why if God is omniscient (Fate exists?). He cannot then blame Satan/Lucifer for having carried out what he was originally created to do (otherwise he would not have been created)?.

"Humans were also created as choosing dependent creatures".
So why are we free to choose then punished for choosing not to believe in him? That contradicts us for being allowed to choose?

I'm still not fully certain on why God would punish whilst giving us freewill with his omniscience.

21 February 2010 at 22:05  
Anonymous Theresa said...

Hi Ces,

Am coming a bit late into the conversation between you and Len. I think the best thing you could do is get a copy of CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, which explains all these points far better than we could, but let me have a go at a couple of them.

1.)You have to be careful using the term 'god'. A god can be an object or obsession; ie money is a god for a lot of people; it can refer to a supernatural being either good or bad, like say, Bacchus or Satan; or it can refer to - God, the one that Christians recognise. Satan is a god in that he is a powerful supernatural being, but he is evil and so he is not someone that should be respected or worshipped, anymore than you would respect anyone who demanded aquiescence through sheer bullying.

2)The problem of freewill. The god we worship, is the god of love. As such, he cannot force Himself on us. He has to give us freedom to sin. There has to be a place for us to go, if we want to live without him permanently. We call that place Hell; that is its simplest definition. And this is the vital point; people are punished by their sins, not for them. It's the same kind of punishment you inflict upon yourself when you quarrel with a friend. Until you go back and say 'Sorry', there is a gulf between you. It's like that with God.

Christianity is different from other religions in that it has a concept of forgiveness; compare it with karma where what goes around, always comes around. It doesn't work like that with us. But we all have to keep the great rule; forgive others as God has forgiven us. If we don't forgive others, we are not forgiven. That's the deal. All debts are debts to God. We do not call in debts on each other.

3.)The most important attribute of God is love; not his omniscience. That was the whole point of Jesus' coming; it was not that he could do miracles, or preach or be a king. It was rather that he could lay down all these things, live and die amongst us that makes him worthy of respect and worship. That is why I am a Christian; there is no other religion where the god gave up all his power and came down to our level. And that's who I'm staying with. Hope this is of some use.

22 February 2010 at 01:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Of course all of this is complete speculation and cannot be proved in anyway whatsoever.

As such we may as well discuss what colour the Loch Ness Monster's flippers are, as this is just as important as what is presented here.

22 February 2010 at 13:31  
Blogger Theresa said...

'We may as well discuss what colour the Loch Ness Monster's flippers are'

Well, in a sense you're right Glovner. You guys keep asking why we believe what we believe. I keep directing you to the historical Jesus, the documents apart from the Bible that he is mentioned in, and the fact that Jesus was a freak in his own society. You won't do it and come back with 'Sky Fairy' or 'Loch Ness Monster' or 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. It's depressing and I don't understand what you want from us or why you ask these questions if you're not motivated enough to look up the answers.

Let's take the Nessie example. Now some believe in Nessie and some don't and for all intents and purposes it's just become a big tourist hype. But if someone wanted to know why folk believe there is a monster in there, then you might consider that Loch Ness is the deepest freshwater lake in Europe, deep enough perhaps for some plesiosaurs to escape the meteor that made the dinosaurs extinct as a species. You could speak to eye witnesses in the area in Fort Augustus, who said that they had seen it. You could examine the film footage and you could maybe also consider that there are a network of caves deep in Loch Ness which it is speculated, connect to the sea. And after you had considered all that, you might think that there could be something in the loch. But if you refused to look at any of this on the basis that it was all nonsense anyway, then you could be accused, quite rightly of being lazy in your arguments. I think you guys are lazy debaters. I don't like Dawkins, but at least I sat down and took the trouble to read his God Delusion. None of you will return the favour. And this debate is going to get no further forward until you do pick up 'Mere Christianity' or Aquinas or a history of Christianity and New Testament times. You know nothing about us and it's not a good position to be arguing from. It also makes for boring and depressing debate. Go on. Cheer me up. Read one of them and come back and challenge us. Isn't that what you're here on this website for, after all?

22 February 2010 at 18:00  
Anonymous len said...

Ces,
Theresa has answered some of your questions,

When God created man he was created to be filled with a spirit.When God talks of man he says man is a spirit, he has a soul, and lives in a body.
Man has a choice to live filled with the Spirit of God, or, he can reject this idea and refuse Gods Spirit.
But man( who likes to think he is independent)is not!. Man still has his human spirit devoid of God.
Having separated man from God satan is now able to influence and control man.By rejecting God we become aligned with satan.
.................................Lucifer , the light bringer, was created perfect until iniquity was found in him.. Story of Lucifer – His Status
What kind of iniquity was found of him? In the book of Ezekiel, God has let us stand with Him at the very beginning, to see the origin and the creation of Satan. But, why does God say this? What is this iniquity? We must look back to Isaiah 14:12, which tells us of Lucifer/Satan's choice. "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High." Did you notice in this passage all of the "I wills. " He said he would exalt his throne above the stars of God. The word "stars" here does not refer to what we see in the night sky. It refers to the angels of God. In other words, "I will take over heaven, I will be God." That is Lucifer/Satan's sin and that is the iniquity that was found in him. He does not want to be God's servant. He does not want to do what he was created to do. He wants to be served and there are millions who have chosen to do just that; serve him. They have listened to his lies and chosen to follow him. Eve believed the lie that she would be like God. The reason Lucifer/Satan tempted her with that was because it is the very thing that he wants -- to be God.

The whole problem with the world today is man wants to be God, he believes he can be as God deciding what is right and what is wrong. This is a satanic lie as old as time, there is only one God and we are not Him.

22 February 2010 at 19:41  
Blogger Theresa said...

'The whole problem with the world today is man wants to be God, he believes he can be as God deciding what is right and what is wrong. This is a satanic lie as old as time, there is only one God and we are not Him.'


Absolutely right, Len.

22 February 2010 at 23:05  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Hi Ces

"I have no issue with Atheists anyway - only hedonistic Atheists"

I think that if I was an atheist then hedonism would be pretty close to the top of my list of religions to investigate!

I probably wouldn't be very good at it though, as I tend to fall asleep after half a shandy.

23 February 2010 at 08:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"I think that if I was an atheist then hedonism would be pretty close to the top of my list of religions to investigate!"

What a stupid statement to make.

If I was religious I would think raping children and getting my friends to cover it up would be high on my list of things to do, of course after torturing other people until they believe what I do and running rampage over other countries for believing in a different imaginary friend than me.

Now do you see how silly your statment makes you look?

@Theresa

I don't keep asking what you believe. I completely accept what you believe is what you believe.

By "You guys" I can only assume you mean atheists. But the only thing I do is point out the hypocritical nature of the points being made time and time again. Along with stating my distaste at the intrusion of your beliefs on my life.

I have no problem with you believing whatever you want, the problems arise when it encroaches on people that lack the same belief as you.

It is at this point that if you believe your set of beliefs should lay specific controls on my life and the choices afforded to me that it must be able to prove itself, if it cannot then it has no right to intrude on the choices in my life. Now I appreciate that people such as Len and D.Singh will take that to mean that I think that I should be able to go out raping and killing and stealing whatever I want but that is completely different argument that I won't get into here, I will assume you are adult and learned enough to not share their views on atheistic morality or lack thereof.

Now I accept that not all religiously minded people set out to control the lives of others but a large portion do. They also make judgements on people for the sole reason of not believing in their particular twist of belief.

I spent the early years of my life in a catholic upbringing, began (thankfully) questioning the illogical stories that were being taught as fact, getting no satisfactory answers for my questions and concluding that the whole lot of it is mumbo jumbo since nobody can even give a straight answer to the whole thing. Any questions that are raised are quickly dealt with by using even more convulted smoke and mirros than before (Carl Sagan's Invisble Dragon in the Garage is a good metephor for the situation). I spent a number of years reading about other religions, dead religions and gods (Norse, Greek & Roman) and live ones, pagan ones. You name it and I have probably read something about it however small and they all share one thing in common, they rely completely on their followers never asking for proof and to accept what they are told without question. For the simple fact that when honest simple questions are asked none of these religions can answer them.

So with no disrespect intended I won't read the books you have suggested because I have read such types of books before. They are written by believers using logic and evidence to prove something that they have already decided to be true and that is not how it works. You do not have your conclusion and then use the evidence you choose to prove it, you use the evidence with no presuppostion to develop a theory which accepts all the evidence, not what you pick and choose that works for you.

No example of these types of books work in this way so there is really no point in me wasting my time with them. Because at the end of the day, like the relgion they try to prove, they rely on me believing what it tells me without questioning it.

23 February 2010 at 23:21  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

Why is it stupid for an Atheist to persue a lifetime of pleasure? After all, you are a long time dead! OK you may have a shortened life and it will probably have a sticky ending, but so what? You end up in the same place anyway. Why not have some fun along the way?

Why are you being so puritanical about it? You need to let your hair down a bit.

24 February 2010 at 08:23  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

s/persue/pursue/

24 February 2010 at 08:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy's answer: 'I am a Determinist so I have no free choices.'

24 February 2010 at 08:44  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh's answer to something he wasn't even asked or invited to be involved in:

A rude reply consisting of an infactual statement to make himself feel better so showing of his sinful pride and his bullying nature.

24 February 2010 at 09:35  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

Why is Mr. Singh's reply rude? He is merely saying that you, as a determinst, have no free will. You Atheists are so touchy!

If you are not a determinist then say so and tell me why it is stupid for an Atheist to pursue a life of pleasure.

24 February 2010 at 09:56  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Because you know fine well you are being purposely obtuse with your statements.

Yes there is nothing wrong with seeking a life of pleasure, within reason.

Only you clearly (by using words like hedonistic) imply that it should be pleasure sought above all else. Which isn't the belief of an atheist.

Once again it seems I need to point out that to be an atheist the only requirement is a lack of belief in god. Therefore seeking a hedonistic lifestyle does not go hand in hand with being an atheist. Although it seems that is what you may believe, then again it wouldn't be the first time you present your beliefs as fact without any evidence now would it.

So I do seek a life of pleasure provided it does not negatively affect the lives of others, as it is their right of existence not to have the consequences of my existence negatively affect them, just as it is my right not to have my life adversely affect by their choices.

I would like to define pleasure as well before you go off a purposely misinterpret what I have said (which is why I continually find D.Singh's replies abusive to answer your other question. Time and time again he has purposely misinterpreted, misrepresented, incorrectly quoted out of context or just resorted to childish abusive and dismissive patronising remarks to almost anything that I have ever said).

Pleasure does not mean, murdering babies, raping anyone I feel like having sex with, impregnating thousands of women and taking care of none of the children I produce. It does not mean spending a life drinking alcohol and taking drugs. It does not mean mindless violence against anyone I choose in order to take whatever I want.

The definition of pleasure in the way I am using it is what I have achieved so far in my life. I have not been hugely promiscuous in my life. I have had sex outside marriage which you may not agree with but always within a relationship. I have a wife which I love dearly and we are expecting our first child together and I look forward to the pleasure of fatherhood in the family which I love and am a part of. I take pleasure in spending good natured times with friends, partaking in a tipple now and again on special occasions. I take pleasure in seeing happiness in my friends and family. I take pleasure learning and debating and challenging different views. I take pleasure in doing better in my work life, solving problems and developing my character in order to progress to a higher level within the organisation I work for.

If you would say that these are hedonistic pleasures then fair enough, I am more than happy to live a hedonistic lifestyle and make the most of the one that I have.

24 February 2010 at 10:43  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"Yes there is nothing wrong with seeking a life of pleasure, within reason.

Well it seems perfectly resonable to me to devote my life to pleasure. It appears that you have other interests. That's fine. I'm not saying all Atheists think the same way. I'm just saying that for me pleasure would be the thing.

Congratulations on your imminent arrival by the way. Your life will change forever.

24 February 2010 at 11:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy states:

‘I would like to define pleasure as well before you go off a purposely misinterpret what I have said (which is why I continually find D.Singh's replies abusive to answer your other question. Time and time again he has purposely misinterpreted, misrepresented, incorrectly quoted out of context or just resorted to childish abusive and dismissive patronising remarks to almost anything that I have ever said).’

Glovy – it is one thing to state that you disbelieve in the existence of God. It is entirely another matter for you to abuse our Creator whom we love.

Your disbelief in God is quite simple: science can’t prove God; ergo God doesn’t exist. From that all effluent flows from your keyboard.

You claim to rely on science to either prove or disprove. Can you at least accept (which every scientist does) that the tools of science measure that which is located in space and time?

Once that scientific observation is accepted then it becomes possible to accept that the tools and methods of science are inadequate…

You seem to believe that the scientific endeavour is incompatible with religious belief. Does it not cross your mind that scientists of a religious persuasion (throughout the centuries) conduct their science because they are in awe of God’s work in nature and that they want to think God’s thoughts after Him? The presumption is that the universe is ordered (it has a Legislator); it obeys laws; we can therefore calculate the distances and orbits of the sapphires that twinkle in the night sky and whisper in our children’s ears: ’Twinkle, twinkle little star how I wonder…’

Do you understand that because I don’t believe my secretary descended from the apes and is not a mere collection of molecules and that she was made in the Image of God – that I can talk to her in a courteous manner?

And if men were not made in the Image of God what principle should restrain me and other men of murdering each other on the industrial scale? And if we do – we do not expect to be accused of murder.

24 February 2010 at 12:29  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh

"Glovy"

Okay, do I refer to you as Singhy or some patronising form of your name giving the impression of immaturity or that of a pet? No I don't believe I do. If I have (which I don't ever remember doing it is done out frustration and I would apologise for it.

"it is one thing to state that you disbelieve in the existence of God. It is entirely another matter for you to abuse our Creator whom we love."

I do not disbelieve in the existence of god and never have I said that I do. As to disbelieve something would mean I actively choose not to believe. I don't actively choose anything, I lack a belief in god (any god, not just your particular take on it).

Saying that I have abused your creator and using that as an excuse for the continual distasteful attitude you display is a childish defence and you know it.

I have had many a polite discussion/debate with people on here. But your attitude time and time again has shown you up to be no support to the religious beliefs you preach.

"Your disbelief in God is quite simple: science can’t prove God; ergo God doesn’t exist. From that all effluent flows from your keyboard."

You assume (and like most times you assumption is very wide of the mark and shows your arrogance yet again) that my lack of belief in god is quite simple. And you are wrong. My lack of belief in god (again I should point out that means any god) stems from years of searching and asking questions from a young age until now.

The beliefs that men have that have been passed down for centuries are not required for anything. They have never done anything good that could not be achieved without them and they have done many bad things in their own name. I admit bad things have been done with a lack of religion (I do refuse to agree with your skewed view that these are done in the name of atheism however) but this just further proves the point.

24 February 2010 at 13:38  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I am paraphrasing I believe but:

"Bad people to bad things, good people do good things but it takes religion for good people to do bad things."

Also worth noting that you end this paragraph by describing my thoughts as effluent. Or in other words my opinions/views are nothing to you. Why is this? Why are my views worth less than yours?

Moving on;

"You claim to rely on science to either prove or disprove. Can you at least accept (which every scientist does) that the tools of science measure that which is located in space and time?"

Yes, completely agree.

"Once that scientific observation is accepted then it becomes possible to accept that the tools and methods of science are inadequate… "

By inadequate I will assume (and you can correct me if I am wrong) that you mean inadequate to prove something that doesn't exist in time and space.

If that is what you mean then yes science is inadequate to prove it. Just as anyone is unsuited to know anything about it. So how can you say that your belief in something that doesn't exist in time or space can be true and everyone’s else belief in the supernatural is the wrong belief.

The answer is you can't, but for some reason you feel you have the right to.

My position as an atheist is a natural position. I and everyone else on this planet is born an atheist. It is not until they grow old enough to process information that they become religious. Generally they become religious at an age where they can process information but lack the understanding and evidence for critical thinking. Because any critical thinker given the stories that are presented by religion and told to accept them as fact without any evidence to support them will 99.9 time out of 100 say:

"Nope. Sorry. Nice story but it just doesn't wash as fact unless you can fill in some of those gaping obvious holes".

Once again, moving on:

"You seem to believe that the scientific endeavour is incompatible with religious belief."

24 February 2010 at 13:38  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Your assumption is incorrect.

"Does it not cross your mind that scientists of a religious persuasion (throughout the centuries) conduct their science because they are in awe of God’s work in nature and that they want to think God’s thoughts after Him?"

No, I think they have been indoctrinated into their belief (probably their belief was handed down to them by people they trusted at an age where they would believe anything these people told them) and for some reason they do not test their beliefs in the same way they test every single other part of their life.

Why should spirituality be the only thing that is not tested and proved. Why must spirituality be the only thing that is blindly accepted. I will tell you why, because if spirituality is tested in the same way as everything else we come to accept as fact it would fail.

"The presumption is that the universe is ordered (it has a Legislator); it obeys laws; we can therefore calculate the distances and orbits of the sapphires that twinkle in the night sky and whisper in our children’s ears: ’Twinkle, twinkle little star how I wonder…’"

But the problem is that the presumption is made and accepted without the evidence to support it.

The evidence of the universe existing along with the laws that govern it only proves that a universe exists and laws govern it. If there was not the laws to govern the existence of the universe then this universe would not exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The existence of the universe and the laws governing it do not (no matter how hard you believe otherwise) automatically prove that it was created by a god. This would be what you would term a leap of faith, because there is no evidence to support what you are saying.

"Do you understand that because I don’t believe my secretary descended from the apes and is not a mere collection of molecules and that she was made in the Image of God – that I can talk to her in a courteous manner? "

Yes, but that does not mean that your belief is correct. In fact there is a great amount of evidence to suggest that your belief is incorrect. However if the end result is that you are courteous towards another person then it maybe isn't a bad thing.

24 February 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

But if you found out that your secretary lacked belief in your version of your god would you still treat her in a courteous manner? Your actions on many occasions suggest that you wouldn't.

You seem unable to accept the fact that I can have morals and treat people in a courteous manner, experience love and many other things for the sole reason that I lack a belief in any god.

Can you accept that this is not true and I can feel all the things you seem to think I cannot? (apart, obviously, from any belief in supernatural entities or course).

"And if men were not made in the Image of God what principle should restrain me and other men of murdering each other on the industrial scale? And if we do – we do not expect to be accused of murder."

There has been many times in history where men have happily taken to "murdering each other on the industrial scale". But this in not generally the ideal held by most.

However the reasons for it again go back to nature/natural selection and the desire to further your societies existence.

Almost every time these things are done by one society to another because of their difference in beliefs (this doesn't need to be religious beliefs although that has been the reason on a number of occasions too).

Because we are all afforded fundamental rights by our very existence. We as animals and like all other animals have an in built desire to protect our species and further it's growth.

However in the overall species there are smaller societies which would seek to have their beliefs within the species survive over other beliefs and so the way to ensure this is to end the other belief and the way to achieve this is through extermination of the people that hold the differing belief.

Thankfully as a species we are slowly growing up and realising that these other beliefs don't really matter that much in the big picture.

Some of us even accept that others can have their beliefs and it doesn't impact us (or it shouldn't anyway). The problems occur when someone’s differing belief impacts others lack of it and this is why I have a problem with your beliefs, your god, your religion and your desire to control the choice available to people in this world by judging them on your beliefs that are not shared by all.

24 February 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

The only way to mitigate the situation of all these different beliefs and lack of beliefs is to provide a social structure governed by law which speaks to all people morals.

Atheists do possess morals (no matter what you may believe and whatever convoluted (il)logic you try to use to prove otherwise), however the morals come from a different place, the are learned through life funnily enough though they do stick quite close to a number of the 10 commandments. However the 10 commandments (the non-religious ones anyway) were also in existence long before the creation of christianity simply because they create a world that is fair for all members of the species. If people refuse to follow these simple rules about encroaching on others lives then they are punished by the overall social group because their actions do not benefit the species.

And I am spent.

24 February 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You said: 'And I am spent.'

Does that mean, mercifully, that you are not going to post anymore on this site and leave us in peace?

And go over to your socialist friends at the Guardian?

24 February 2010 at 13:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Because we are all afforded fundamental rights by our very existence. We as animals and like all other animals have an in built desire to protect our species and further it's growth.'

From whom? From where? There are two species that kill each other wholesale: humans and rats.

'Built in desire' - my foot!

24 February 2010 at 13:55  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And the quality of your reply speaks volumes.

24 February 2010 at 13:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Because we are all afforded fundamental rights by our very existence. We as animals and like all other animals have an in built desire to protect our species and further it's growth.'

Glovy - you've got your chance - show me by the scientific method the validity of that statement and you'll be able to show the whole world that you don't live by faith!

24 February 2010 at 14:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Once again:

And the quality of your reply speaks volumes.

24 February 2010 at 14:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older