Wednesday, May 19, 2010

To deport, or to be blown up: that is the question

What a dilemma.

Abid Naseer is a Pakistani national and al-Qaeda operative who is suspected of planning an atrocity in the UK. The evidence was presented in court and the presiding judge so determined. The Special Immigration and Appeals Commission said it was 'satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom and that…it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported'.

You might think this would be sufficient.

Yet he has said that he would be tortured if he were to return to Pakistan.

And so, under international treaty obligations and in accordance with the Human Rights Act, he cannot be deported, for that would render Her Majesty’s Government complicit in torture.

And we can’t be having that, can we?

So, here we have the British Government impotent in the forcible repatriation of a Pakistani national to a member state of the British Commonwealth.

If the Pakistani government is not able to give adequate assurances that they would not torture or ill treat Mr Naseer, on what basis do they continue to be a member of the Commonwealth?

It beggars belief that an Al Qaeda operative should be able to assert his ‘human rights’ and continue to reside in the UK when this is the very terrorist organisation which is threatening an Olympic spectacular in 2012, or a few special fireworks for Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee.

Home Secretary Theresa May is not appealing the decision. She has said she finds it ‘disappointing’.

Iain Dale prefers to call it ‘bloody terrifying’.

Dr Richard North is even more scathing.

Mr Dale said: “I helped elect a new government to pass laws to stop this sort of thing happening. I don't want to hear from ministers that it is ‘disappointing’. I want to hear what they intend to do about it.”

There was a time when the Conservative Party was intent on dispensing with the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. In fact, it was a manifesto pledge.

But this must have been an early victim of the Con-Lib Coalition.

And since Dominic Grieve is now the Attorney General, he would doubtless resign if the Act were repealed in any case. For it is not the Act which is at fault, he has averred, but the judiciary's consistent misinterpretation and application of it.

It ought to be the primary duty of a government to protect its citizens. It has a moral obligation to prioritise issues of national security, public safety and the economic well-being of a country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Human Rights Act upholds all of that.

MI5 has maintained that the men, all students from Pakistan, were 'members of a UK based network linked to al-Qaeda involved in attack planning'.

Yet we cannot deport them.

Mr Cameron, do we not still need a British Bill of Rights to clarify the matter?

151 Comments:

Blogger Sciamachy Moran said...

Isn't it better that we have such people here under our close guard? Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

19 May 2010 at 08:39  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

If you are too soft, you get taken advantage of. This is a sad fact of life that seems to elude our leaders.

19 May 2010 at 08:55  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I feel no satisfaction in saying I didn't vote for these gutless wonders, Your Grace. We swapped voracious bottom feeders for a bunch of con(e) jellies. This terrorist scumbag, who has successfully and outrageously petitioned for asylum, will be let loose at great expense to the taxpayer.

I'm not simply merely disappointed with what's happened I'm [censored] livid! But then, I didn't expect any better from Teresa May who doesn't want to be a member of a nasty party, silly cow. If she wants nice she can go join a village cake bakers club and leave the grown up nasty government stuff to people who have the Eds and the moral principles to make the necessary decisions. The likes of David Davis springs to mind.

The Con artists were a useless bunch of [cendored] in Opposition and now they are allied with an even more useless bunch of [censosred]. Looks like we're in for more absolute lunatic inadequacy only harder.

GRRRRRRR

19 May 2010 at 09:02  
Blogger kris said...

Your Grace

We HAVE a British Bill of Rights.

David Cameron's proposals for a new Bill of Rights won't deal with international obligations we have under the Universal Declaration and the European Convention. (I am happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood the position)

What concerns me is that risk of torture is based on "expert" evidence and has no regard to whether the applicant created the risk by his own criminal activities. i.e. the gang member who can't go back to his home country because he is a risk of being killed by his gangland rivals.

Why is this risk our problem?

Scimachy, the police are stretched to near breaking point keeping close tabs on terror threats to this nation.

He is not British, he is not European and I do wonder if we should just give up securing our supposedly sovereign borders so we can ensure we don't tread on anyone in the world's "rights".

They must get such a laugh when they are able to use our own laws against us to further their jihad.

19 May 2010 at 09:02  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 May 2010 at 09:12  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Human rights are an integral part of a civilised society. The problem here is not the Act but one of transparency; as the CPS was unable to mount a prosecution how do we know that these men pose a threat. Evidence gleaned by the secret intelligence service must be robust enough to stand up in court. We are told these men terrorists so do we really want them sent to an Islamic state where they may well be able to plan and launch further attacks? No we want them to stand trial here.

19 May 2010 at 09:14  
Blogger John R said...

To quote Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Why should an unspecified but possibly large number of our citizens have their rights put at risk to preserve the rights of a man who (even the judge says) is a terrorist?

Deport him and let him take his chances. No-one forced him to a) come here or b) to be a terrorist.

19 May 2010 at 09:16  
Blogger Sciamachy Moran said...

Kris,

Why should it fall to the police to monitor him? If he's guilty of a crime, he should be in prison & monitoring him up to the prison service. Deporting anyone to certain torture is wrong, as bad as if we did the torture ourselves. If the man's not guilty of anything, he's not guilty, plain & simple.

19 May 2010 at 09:18  
Anonymous Mikec said...

So the poison in the chalice starts to do its corrosive worst.

We all know that this miscarrage of government is the result of our subservience to the EU, and of the elected representatives of England being unevenly yolked to the lib-dems, whose power base is where?. Conservatives are thus emasculated by their own desire for 'power' at any cost.

I think we will soon find that this cost is sufficiently high that 'power' becomes ephemeral.

19 May 2010 at 09:32  
Blogger kris said...

ok, tell that to the 7/7 victims and families who criticise the Met for not doing enough.

The issue here was the risk of torture if he was sent home - not whether he "committed a crime".

He's on a student visa for crying out loud. School's over.

Please will someone now address my Convention right to security?

19 May 2010 at 09:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No-one forced him to a) come here or b) to be a terrorist."

Circumstances would have forced it. You would act as exactly as him if you lived the life he has.

19 May 2010 at 09:37  
Anonymous Mikec said...

That life was lived in a foreign country where this guy, of his own volition, joined an organisation hostile to my whole existance.

According to the principles of this organisation, I am to be killed wherever I am found.

He has taken my hospitality, he has exploited it and seems to want to use it against me.

He has outstayed his welcome.

Taquiyyah has no place in this country, here it is callied DECEIT and those who practise it are called LIARS.

19 May 2010 at 09:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

It has not escaped this regular reader's attention that although you use this blogpost to infer that the British Bill of Rights was an "early victim of the Con-Lib coalition" you have not delighted us with a direct analysis of the coalition government nor a consideration of their constitutional tinkering - usually a pet subject.

In silence is there satisfaction?

A critical reader might ponder that such constitutional reform emanating from a Labour administration may have received short shrift from the Archbishop.

Surely His Grace's erudite and impartial investigations are not yet more victims of the new Government.

Kind regards,

A.

19 May 2010 at 09:57  
Blogger Sciamachy Moran said...

Kris - tell that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. Abid Naseer has not been proven guilty of anything in a court of law, therefore he is, until proven guilty, an innocent man in the eyes of the law. We should not be in the business of sending people to be tortured and killed, guilty or not, but until a case against this man is made, charges brought and his guilt proven, we're talking about sending an innocent man to a grisly death on the hearsay of people who said Saddam had WMDs that could be launched at us in 15 minutes. Do you really trust their word so much?

19 May 2010 at 10:00  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Well said, Mikec. In the opinion of this communicant, the prospect that this youth would be tortured in Pakistan seems reason enough to send him there.

As for Anonymous @ 0937 saying "You would act as exactly as him if you lived the life he has.", perhaps you should spend a bit longer in Pakistan yourself. You seem to sympathise with Al-Queada.

19 May 2010 at 10:04  
Blogger kris said...

Which part of "student visa" don't people understand?

Immigration don't need a conviction to find a breach of the terms of the visa.

The one and only point is this jihadi's risk of "torture" on return to his home country.

19 May 2010 at 10:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it results in a cycle of fear and hatred if we always look to secure our immediate welfare. Bigger picture: no-one deserves to be tortured. No one. Someone has to fight forthis ideal. Looks like it's our chance.

19 May 2010 at 10:16  
Blogger kris said...

"No-one forced him to a) come here or b) to be a terrorist."

"Circumstances would have forced it. You would act as exactly as him if you lived the life he has".

Good Lord. We are all foreign policy automations now?

Are you frickin kidding me?

19 May 2010 at 10:19  
Anonymous Mikec said...

de Menezes was an unfortunate victim of the very people you are trying to defend.

Whilst he was shot by police, trying, maybe incompetantly, to protect me, his death was a direct consequence of the 7/7 terrorist bombings

I was at Edgeware that day, I was caught in the stampede, and as a cripple, it was not nice.

This guy is a member of a terrorist organisation which uses the openess and trust in my society against me. He then appeals for protection to that same society he wishes to destroy (and replace with one similar to that in his home country which wants to 'torture' him)

Anyone else see the stupidity here?

19 May 2010 at 10:23  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Anonymous

The 'fear and hatred' is embedded in the koran, I suggest you start reading here:-

http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam

Cycles of fear and hatred have to be broken by concerted action on both sides, I would humbly suggest that you need to challenge the Koran not the communicants.

Of course it is much safer to challenge the communicants and appease the Koranistas

19 May 2010 at 10:44  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Anonymous @ 10.19, you've got to be bright enough to remember that Abib Naseer and his Al-Quaeda cronies have declared war on the Christian West. We know that because of what they say and what they do. Wars are won when all of your opponents who wish to die for their country have had the opportunity to do so. Isn't it our Christian duty to give our enemies the chance?

If Naseer goes back to Pakistan and finds himself in the custody of the Pak military, why should we be concerned? They've got the death penalty, we haven't. They're one up on us.

If Naseer ends up in a British jail he would spend his term spreading his poisonous beliefs to his fellow inmates. The spread of jihadi Islam in western jails is becoming a major risk factor. Getting Naseer out of the UK is therefore an important step in ending the cycle of hatred and violence.

19 May 2010 at 10:53  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Can anyone tell me of a single positive outcome of having adopted the EU's Human Rights Act?

And why is this student afraid of being tortured when he returns to his home country? Do they routinely torture all their returning students?

19 May 2010 at 10:54  
Blogger kris said...

heh.

exactly Rebel Saint.

Exactly.

19 May 2010 at 10:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

For the Attorney General ‘it is not the Act which is at fault, he has averred, but the judiciary’s consistent misinterpretation and application of it.’

The truth is that the text of the provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998 remains the same, but the cultural values of the judiciary have moved in the direction of left-liberalism.

This proves that the provisions in the Act are mere conduits through which left-liberal values are imposed.

Take for example the human rights issue of abortion.

Article 2(1) (of the European Convention on Human Rights imported into domestic law by the Act) states:

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

In H v. Norway the Commission decided that the ‘pregnancy, birth or care for the child may place the woman in a difficult situation in life’ did not breach Article 2.

In other words, the decision was based upon social reasons: the fear of what tomorrow may bring for the woman. In the world of left-liberal values death is indeed the preferred solution to the unknown, to life’s risks and a fundamental concession to fear itself.

Ultimately, in my opinion, the values of left-liberalism, fundamentally opposed to the values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, will lead to the destruction of the West itself.

What is remarkable about the values of left-liberalism is that they are paraded as life-preserving; as life-affirming; as freedom giving. They are like reading the text above the gates to Auschwitz: Work Makes You Free.

Indeed, when all is said and done, the last man remaining in the room will be the left-liberal. And before that man, will be the instruments of euthanasia.

19 May 2010 at 11:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsale

Your Grace,
Al Qaeda are not averse to a spot of torture themselves. But let them be warned. As you sow, so also shall you reap.

The Human Rights act, which Cameron said he would abolish, is bound up with the European Convention on Human Rights. If we are to rid ourselves of the former we must also rid ourselves of the latter and to do that we must leave the EU.

The ECHR is one more reason for the British people to loath their involvement with the EU, a loathing which has cost the Conservatives their majority. As I have stated previously, as long as Britain remains in the EU they will never command a majority, which may be why ther are so enthusiastic about cosying up to Clegg. Without his party to bolster their parliamentary numbers they will never again win power.

In the 2005 parliamentary elections UKIP polled 500,000. In the recent elections they polled 900,000 with the BNP polling 500,000. In the space of 5 years the anti-EU vote has trebled. At the European elections UKIP came second with 2,500,000 votes knocking Labour into third and the Lib/Dims into fourth, whilst the BNP took 1,000,000 votes.

It is clear that on May 6th 2000,000 anti-EU voters returned to their traditional parties. I doubt that they will do the same in 5 years, if the Cleggerons retain power for that long.

Meanwhile the decline of our nation continues apace. Is it anymore than our Godless people deserve?

19 May 2010 at 12:05  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Singh, you're quite right again!

The judiciary has been populated by lefty-liberals since at least the election of the last Labour government, and probably a bit before that too.
The human rights carry-on gives them too much scope to impose their own views through the law on the rest of us. It becomes self-perpetuating and creeps ever leftwards as year succeeds year.

I share your pessimism about the march of left-liberalism and its ultimate triumph in the west, with two things that give some hope: they always run out of money in the end, and the Catholic Church (so long as that isn't infected after the current Pope dies).

The C of E is wall to wall lefty and is, in my view, now one of the greatest supporters of left-liberal values in this country. It can only be a matter of a decade or so before it collapses in on itself (presaging the moral collapse of the nation) particularly in country parishes, which are in dire straits. Only the expedient of locally ordained priests (who are all married or women with another job) who don't get paid is propping up something that would have collapsed before now.

19 May 2010 at 12:06  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
According to the report these ten men were never charged with an offence, therefore the case was never officially tried before a jury in a court of law & there lies the problem. It is quite clear that the creation of 'secret' courts coupled with the increased powers being given to Europol signifies a covert adenda at the heart of the EU superstate, perhaps we should all take a closer look at what's being done in our collective name & why. While one can understand the need for secrecy at the investigative stage, the trial should be held in open court, I can see no reason for it to be otherwise. Although still in its embryonic stage the very existence of these judicial systems seems rather sinister, this case has highlighted a loophole in this system which will undoubtedly be plugged with all expediency, but the question still remains, why the need for secret courts in the first place?.
With regard to the present case, what happened to the eight other 'conspirators' on their return to Pakistan? The words of the old song seem to do justice to the situation, "There are more questions than answers".

Regards: Preacher.

19 May 2010 at 12:48  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

I never cease to be amazed at some of the comments here, a mix of Sarah Palin and “angry from Tunbridge Wells”. GB has moved on, it is more secular, more liberal and more tolerant. It is not in the hands of degenerates just those have grown out of your backwoodsmen attitudes.

Of course no sane person would say that the rights of a convicted terrorist out weigh those of the rest of us. The crucial word here is “convicted”. It is a failure of the prosecution process that is the problem. Prove that these guys are terrorists in a British court and then punish them, thus protecting the rest of us.

19 May 2010 at 12:49  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Mr Davis

You have rushed to an assumption that Sarah Palin and "angry of Tunbridge Wells" somehow hold to a view of life which is inferior to your own.

In a modern multicultural environment should you not have respect for their views as well? or does liberal tolerance not stretch that far....

I suspect that you are threatened by simple Judeo Christian values and thus exclude them from your own liberalism and tolerance....

19 May 2010 at 13:17  
Blogger Gnostic said...

You see, the trouble with backwoodsmen, living in the wilds of raw reality as they do, is their ability to recognise bullshit when they see it. They learn, at an early age, that it can't be polished no matter how hard you apply the moral superiority rag.

19 May 2010 at 13:32  
Blogger srizals said...

On 19 May 2010 10:23
Anonymous Mikec said...

The 'fear and hatred' is embedded in the koran..

Dear Mr. Mikec, Please refrain on using and referring to something that you are not able to understand. You don't want to hurt your pride now in coming with a statement you can't defend.

Why don't you end the fear and hatred that caused it all in the first place. Stop allying yourself with the one that is bombing the civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maybe then forgiveness will overwhelm the hatred that you have so wrongly sowed.

19 May 2010 at 13:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

“Progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

Prof. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

19 May 2010 at 13:45  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Mikec said...

You have rushed to an assumption that Sarah Palin and "angry of Tunbridge Wells" somehow hold to a view of life which is inferior to your own.
In a modern multicultural environment should you not have respect for their views as well? or does liberal tolerance not stretch that far....

No!

I entirely accept others right to hold views that are different to mine but that is different from respecting those views. Of course I think that Sarah Palin’s views are inferior to my own as I have heard her express them. Likewise I am sure that you think the views that I express here are inferior to your own.

I suspect that you are threatened by simple Judeo Christian values and thus exclude them from your own liberalism and tolerance....

I share many of your Judeo Christian values, my problem is that you claim that they are God given and as there is no evidence for the existence of God to me this is ridiculous. Far from being simple, depending on which variant of Christianity you favour, many are laced with the most intolerant beliefs that would have appalled your beloved Jesus Christ. The homophobia often displayed here is obnoxious to say the least as is the defence of the Catholic Church which has behaved in an abominable manner regarding the child sex abuse scandal.

And I am continually being told of the moral authority of your various beliefs but what I see is often rank prejudice and intolerance. As an atheist I try to live by the simplest of creeds; behave towards others as you wish them to behave toward you.

19 May 2010 at 13:55  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Put them on an ASBO - that will sort them out.

19 May 2010 at 14:01  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

srizals said..."MikeC ... Stop allying yourself with the one that is bombing the civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan"

I don't think MikeC was tying to ally himself with the Taliban, al-Qaeda or any of the other Islamofascists who regularly bomb the hell out of (or into) people in order to propagate the religion of peace.

19 May 2010 at 14:18  
Blogger srizals said...

Who said 'an eye for an eye' Rebel Saint?

Let the religion of peace in peace. Perhaps what is more logical, stop meddling in foreign affairs, err..for example, a simple one would you say, sending armed forces in such an invading manner. Everyone is being dragged in a mess that is not created out of ignorance, but instead, an irritating dominance. How different are they then you are, Mr. Rebel Saint?

19 May 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger srizals said...

Islamofascists? Absurdity beyond comprehension. How do you even believe such a thing? Were you caught in a remembrance of the crooked cross of the Nazi?

19 May 2010 at 14:33  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Srizals

Please define what I do not understand about the Koran, please please refrain from the usual hubris of mis-information indulged in when in the Dar el Harb. Where Salaam is meant to mean peace but actually means submission.

I suggest we stick to the Shakir translation as it has not been 'westernized'

19 May 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger srizals said...

What are you Mikec? If you want to try to act like a scholar of the Koran, at least point to a verse that you have said earlier, embedded in the Koran that instill fear and hatred to all mankind.

Or you are only limited of referring to links in delivering a point of argument?

19 May 2010 at 14:46  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Mr Davis,

Thank you for the explaination, I am glad that your secular liberal tolerance is, in your opinion, superior to that of Sarah Palin and, I presume Mr Angry as well.

In my opinion, your secular liberal tolerance is destroying this country.

It is not secular, it is deeply religious
It is not liberal it very narrow
and it is not at all tolerant of anything but its own unproven shibboleths.

19 May 2010 at 14:49  
Anonymous Backwoodsman said...

" GB has moved on, it is more secular, more liberal and more tolerant. It is not in the hands of degenerates just those have grown out of your backwoodsmen attitudes"

I guess that the left/liberals would one-day put terrorist rights ahead of the law abiding British subject.

19 May 2010 at 15:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Srizals ... if I could make sense of a word you are saying I'd probably respond.

19 May 2010 at 15:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

It is clear that the Special Immigration Appeals Panel accepted that the appellants should be deported because the Panel was satisfied as to what they are: but they are not to be deported because of the risk of torture; a conclusion based upon the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Would the new Home and Defence Secretaries please explain why our brave boys are dying fighting the appellants’ colleagues?

19 May 2010 at 15:36  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Hilarious reading the comments of a Muslim trying to defend the Koran. The Koran is a terror manual for simpleton dogs. Take your dog culture back to the desert where it belongs you simple pigs. Behaving like a Simpleton barbaric medieval moron is OK so long as you can keep within modern boundaries. But you lot can't can you? You are like dogs eating your own vomit.

Muhamed is a pig dog.

19 May 2010 at 15:42  
Blogger srizals said...

Stay dead Scrigg. Go back being dead.

19 May 2010 at 15:50  
Blogger srizals said...

Err..and stop cursing your pet n food?

19 May 2010 at 15:52  
Blogger srizals said...

Take your time rebel saint, all eyes are on you, I'm playing with an undead, never counter one before, maybe I'll get lucky and actually understand what made its brain cells dead.

19 May 2010 at 15:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please its been 24 hours and this subject is still making my bllod boil.

This country has two many liberal do-gooders either running it now or making comments that to most of the public are totally out of touch.

This man is a foriegn national on a students visa with serious allegations made against him, he should have no rights of stay in the UK. If he does not want to return to Pakistan then pick another 'friendly' Muslim state and deport him there.

Believe me within six months he will be on state benefits, preaching to outher young muslim men about his beliefs.

It begs the question that a bullet with his name on and a lime pit already dug, would have saved the state money.

19 May 2010 at 16:09  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Srizal, can I recommend you try putting your comments through Google translate to see if you can get them into English.

19 May 2010 at 16:11  
Blogger srizals said...

Scrigg, that's it? That is all that you can do? I promise not to treat you like a garbage you think are. Don't drop dead on me now.

"I bob along like a piece of mindless garbage pulled about by the tidal currents in an ocean of lost choices and empty gestures. I do the same things in the end regardless. "

19 May 2010 at 16:12  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Rebel Saint, start your intellect conversation and act like a rebel if you can. Which one are you actually, a rebel or a saint?

19 May 2010 at 16:15  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

srizals ... haven't I seen you somewhere before?

19 May 2010 at 16:30  
Blogger srizals said...

No, sorry perfect man, I'm not like a crazy ostrich like you are.

19 May 2010 at 16:33  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

The one thing I really enjoy is sitting back and watching one Abrahamic religion castigate another. Without doubt Islam is the most morally bankrupt but the Church of Rome comes in a close second. All are based on ancient desert myths that no sensible person can still believe.

19 May 2010 at 16:35  
Blogger srizals said...

How did you do that in the first place? Or should I ask why did you do that in the first place? Cat got your tongue?

19 May 2010 at 16:37  
Blogger srizals said...

Can't I have some fun once in a while Mr. Graham Davis? Cut me some slack. By the way you, didn't finish our conversation since we last met. Care to continue and present your proof that there is no God? Morally bankrupt? In what sense? Define it clearly so that we all may lay humbly at your wise atheist's feet.

19 May 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Rebel Saint, have you gotten your head out yet?

19 May 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There is another aspect to all this; every time a nation-state signs an international treaty such as UN, EU, European Convention on Human Rights etc: another piece of precious sovereignty is lost.

A further aspect is that we have two ‘supreme’ courts: the European Court of Human Rights (non-EU) based in Strasbourg and the EU’s European Court of Justice based in Luxembourg.

Given that a sovereign state, in this case the EU, cannot have two ‘supreme’ courts in a collision between the two men wonder which would trump the other.

In my opinion, there is unlikely to be a clash between the two courts’ judgments: it seems to me that the European Court of Human Rights is careful to issue judgments that are in accord with the European Court of Justice’s jurisprudence.

This means, ultimately, we cannot have liberty, security and freedom.

Tyranny: is assured.

19 May 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

srizals

I am sitting on a chair. Next to me there is another chair, it is empty. A man enters and tells me that he can see someone sitting on the chair next to me. I look again and it is still empty. Do I need to prove that the seat is empty, I think not?

19 May 2010 at 17:07  
Blogger srizals said...

Yes, metaphor.

But the chair is there, then who made it in the first place?

19 May 2010 at 17:12  
Anonymous not a machine said...

mmm bit of crack appearing in eutopia !

19 May 2010 at 17:17  
Blogger William said...

Mr Davis

Can you show that you have enough intellect to determine if there is a God or not?

It may be that you are looking at the wrong chair.

Try agnosticism. It is intellectually more honest!

19 May 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Srizals

Who made god?

19 May 2010 at 17:34  
Anonymous Oswin said...

This is a basic plumbing problem : a double-tap, hot or cold.

19 May 2010 at 17:50  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

We should bring this suspected terrorists family over, goodness its a disgrace allowing them to live in such an awfull country.

If we gave Pakistan more foreign aid such problems would not arrise.

Have you people no heart!

Signed: Jenny Ross

19 May 2010 at 18:02  
Blogger srizals said...

Idolaters? But in an Islamic point of view, everything that exist is the created one. For God is the Creator, not the created, therefore has no creator, that is why it is unacceptable for Muslims to point to anything in this world, seen by his eyes, felt by his hands, as a god. God can only be felt by the heart and mind.

You asked me this old atheist question, now I want to know your answer to your own question.

But before that, here's a question for you.
Can a rule exist without a ruler?

19 May 2010 at 18:04  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizal..... 'Muhamstead' - 'Chattering-class' Islamic flower arranging and 'bring & buy' prayer-mats is it?

At least you have performed a sort of miracle here; I'm now warming to Mr. Graham Davis!

19 May 2010 at 18:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis asks:

'Who made god?'

From the stand-point of astro-phyiscists: that is a non-sense question.

Mr Davis why can't you be scientific?

19 May 2010 at 18:09  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Pig dog, pig dog, you're nothing but a pig dog!

There's nothing like inteligent debate.

19 May 2010 at 18:13  
Blogger srizals said...

Pardon me Oswin, I fell asleep just now, not that I'm sleeping on the job though. You see, it is now 1:14 AM in where I reside. I am after all, only human. If I stop responding, you know what it means. But don't worry, I'll be back.

19 May 2010 at 18:14  
Blogger Scrigg said...

srizals

Don't worry about your pig dog English, in another 50 years we will all be talking pig dog English here in the UK.

Cranmer, you know that book, The Principality and Power of Europe, well, surely you can see the merits of having the Roman church take over the Euro empire? It has to be better than being over run by pig dogs, at least it would be semi Christian?? No?

19 May 2010 at 18:21  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Scrigg....although I tend to agree with your general outlook on life, I nevertheless recommend the use of a spell-check. We can't have the natives feeling smug, can we?

May the force be with you Scriggs!

19 May 2010 at 18:22  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Nicely said, William. Agnosticism is the natural state of a healthy, open mind when it comes to religion. It's the platform I prefer to stand on.

19 May 2010 at 18:24  
Blogger srizals said...

Scrigg.

It is because you don't have any brain cells in your brain Scrigg the dullard. You're a floating garbage remember? Go play with your food n pet somewhere else if it annoys you much to read me. Err..drifting with the garbage in a meaningless ocean if I read your blog correctly. Go add some fun to it. It's dead boring!

Try to converse like a person with some brain cells left in his brain and show some manners, otherwise, play dead as you always have. And cut down those pills n booze too. It is so unbecoming of you.

19 May 2010 at 18:26  
Blogger srizals said...

Bred in the bone, Scrigg isn't debating, he's cursing. If that is debating than I don't know what is cursing to you.

19 May 2010 at 18:35  
Blogger William said...

Gnostic

Yes indeed. The problem is that spiritually it's very unsatisfactory. And so we have to seek further.

19 May 2010 at 18:52  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

srizals said...

"Can a rule exist without a ruler?"

The exception to the rule, is evidence enough the rule exists.

Exeptions can exist with or without rulers.

By rule of thumb, thats debating.

19 May 2010 at 18:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scrigg isn't representing anything that is British. He's a misfit, just like the misfits in all culture and religion. Scrigg, use your wits man, if you have any. Stop embarrassing yourself bloke.

19 May 2010 at 18:53  
Blogger Dr.D said...

There is a really simple solution at hand. Just execute him quickly. That way he is most assuredly not tortured, and the UK is not endangered. Problem solved, and at minimal expense to boot, along with the restoration of some degree of sanity.

19 May 2010 at 18:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Srizals said:

Well, I don't know really. I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of his incoherent ramblings.

19 May 2010 at 19:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dr. D

The Panel applied the civil law, on the balance of probabilities, test to determine their status as terrorists.

The Panel was satisfied that they are terrorists.

Therefore, why are they not apprehended as 'enemy combatants' transferred to Afghanistan and detained in a prisoner of war camp?

The justification for this is that our country is at war.



[Mr Davis

Don't keep me waiting, boy.]

19 May 2010 at 19:05  
Blogger srizals said...

Bred in the bone said,

The exception to the rule, is evidence enough that the rule exists.

Can you give some examples?

19 May 2010 at 19:05  
Blogger Scrigg said...

"God of course will speak through whom He wills, whatever the person's faith or belief (or spelling capabilities). The story of Balaam proves that the Lord is prepared to speak truth through a numb-skulled, money-grabbing seer, or even through his ass."

Oswin,
I always spell-check so obviously something has slipped through the net of smugness.

May the Force be with everyone except pig dogs.

19 May 2010 at 19:08  
Blogger srizals said...

That is why you're an English Viking mate. You're not design to think. You only kill n plunder, remember?

19 May 2010 at 19:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

I'm not your mate.

I guess you see a lot of killing and plundering around your way?

19 May 2010 at 19:15  
Blogger srizals said...

Oh no wonder, it's your ass that is doing the talking Scrigg. I can see now, why you are able to use such limited vocabulary. But I bet English Viking is still keeping track on you. He has completely lost mine.

19 May 2010 at 19:16  
Blogger srizals said...

Inmate then? I'm sure I've seen you somewhere before..Was it in the crusade to crush the pagan Norseman?

Yes, the path of destruction that has been inflicted on the likes of me by the likes of you. All is justified according to your law. The right to kill and destroy anyone is exclusively reserved for the likes of you. If anyone tries to be like you, they are all heartless terrorists! When you do it, it is for liberty and justice! How rude your arrogance are.

19 May 2010 at 19:25  
Blogger srizals said...

Err..I forgot to tell you Scrigg, there are actually two side of the force, one is the good one, the other is the dark side of the force. Judging from your behaviours, I think you're the Darth Vader type. The dark side of the force is strong with you, Scrigg, the Sith lord.

19 May 2010 at 19:33  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Srizals

We just don't want Islam shoved down our throats here. I am not even much of a Christian, in fact I am no recommendation at all, but I would rather have the Christian faith rammed down my throat any day.

We have a culture here that has been going for thousands of years and now we are being blown apart because of Islam, and all we hear is Islam, Islam, Islam.

It is really depressing for me to have to hear Islam every day on the TV, and read about Islam everyday in the papers.

To hell with it in a raincoat. I admire your tenacity but even this is like a wasp stuck under my collar and jabbing its arse needle poison into my neck.

These students should be gassed and sent home in a vase, never mind torture.

19 May 2010 at 19:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

No, I'm sorry, you've lost me again.

Speeky da Engleesh?

19 May 2010 at 19:40  
Anonymous len said...

A governments duty to protect its citizens comes a poor second to the 'human rights'of terrorists,what a farce our society has become.
Our legal system has become a joke .
..........
Our days are become more and more like the days of Habakkuk.And the outcome may become similar.

19 May 2010 at 19:50  
Anonymous Pig Dog said...

Muslims are far too techy. Who the heck do they think they are?

19 May 2010 at 19:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals.....you are a worm; but worse yet, an Islamic one!

Let's cut to the chase here, you are 'Untermensch' and it is only British politeness that has allowed you to think otherwise.

You worship one of the foulest beings imaginable; and yet you expect to be regarded as intelligent/rational...it beggars belief!

19 May 2010 at 19:51  
Blogger srizals said...

English Viking, you are as stupid as you look. Sorry.

Scrigg,
For some Muslims, the feeling is mutual. They are being killed at this very moment by British troops and American GI and lived in constant fear of being blown off, on daily basis. Not to mention the history behind it. Why not stop the war and call back your troops. Maybe when the killing stop, forgiveness can set in.

19 May 2010 at 19:51  
Anonymous Sam Buckett said...

Sorry, haven't read most of the comments, but I expect I agree with them. Trouble is, getting rid of the HRA wouldn't have much effect because we wd still be subject to the ECHR. And derogating from that would make no difference in this case because the UN Refugees Convention wd stop us from deprting this individual. Then let's leave that, I hear you say. I'm with you, but being party to that is regarded as one of the main badges of a civilized country. We are talking revolution folks, but maybe you know that already.

19 May 2010 at 19:54  
Blogger Gnostic said...

William, the eyes are the windows to the soul. There is much to feast them on. :0)

19 May 2010 at 19:59  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mr. Buckett, the revolution of common sense politics can't come soon enough.

19 May 2010 at 20:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

Srizals,

Now, now, you're becoming abusive, what happened to the ROP thing?

Anyway, I'm not stupid. I have managed to learn your language from the inane witterings you have posted above, and send you this message in your own tongue:

When passenger of foot heave in sight, tootle the horn. Trumpet him melodiously at first, but if he still obstacles your passage then tootle him with vigor.

No smoothen the hairy.

19 May 2010 at 20:04  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin,

the ones that gassed and massacred the Untermensch is the likes of you. Let the whole wide world read us and judge for themselves. You are so oppressive and destructive that it beggars belief how you carry yourself here and outside, so dandy, without feeling any shame whatsoever.

I'm well aware with British politeness. They hang my great grandfather upside down and let him rot for standing for his right in his homeland that was invaded by a tyranny, so sinister, that almost everything that it touched, end up in misery. Palestine is a living proof of that. And now you're so pissed off with Muslims being there with you? You have no idea what annoyance is.

19 May 2010 at 20:05  
Anonymous len said...

If you would truly understand Islam look at the life of Mohammed, compare his life to the life of Jesus Christ,you will see that they are total opposites, they are light and dark, life and death, truth and error.That is assuming of course that you want to know the truth.

19 May 2010 at 20:08  
Blogger srizals said...

I did say sorry, didn't I? Abusive? Again? Sorry for not being able to adhere to the rules of politeness that is so well expressed and which is an acceptable norm in here.

Pardon me your grace.

19 May 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger srizals said...

The problem is not with Jesus. It's Paul. But do continue len, I'll read them tomorrow.

19 May 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

That's OK, I forgive you, that's what Christians do.

BTW 'Palestine' (do you mean Israel?) belongs solely and completely to God himself, who gave it in perpetuity to the Jews.

Hooray for the Jews, eh?

19 May 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Reading the 'arguments' between a malevolent Mohammedan and radical Xtians is like watching two one-legged men in an arse kicking contest. Hilarious in the extreme.

19 May 2010 at 21:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Thank you for being here.

Bravo, gladiator.

19 May 2010 at 21:26  
Blogger William said...

Dreadnaught

Perhaps you should extol the virtues of your "spiritual atheism"? I am sure that will lay the 'arguments' to rest.

19 May 2010 at 21:28  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

[ srizals said...
Bred in the bone said,

The exception to the rule, is evidence enough that the rule exists.

Can you give some examples?]

Example is Thatchers care in the community, now we know that misfits are folk society used to lock away, in fear of them shaming the family name.

Now misfits are allowed out and about, by further equality measures they even take jobs, yet these so called misfits are just shapes in the wrong hole.

There is room for all, according to ability, but Governmment behaving like a baby with an early learning toy, runs the country by hammering shapes into wrong holes, making folk seem like misfits, when really they are misplaced and misrepresented.

Care in the community has no need for a ruler, but the rules as regard how we go about it have obvious exceptions.

More to come, in Crannies long overdue open pulpit.

Signed: A. Plomb

19 May 2010 at 22:28  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

srizals,

'The problem is not with Jesus. It's Paul.'

Jesus said he was God; You don't believe he was God: Ergo, you think Jesus was a liar or a madman. Muhammed only adopted Christ into his religion because he thought it'd make him more popular. Where was St. Paul so very wrong anyway?

Perhaps the West will leave Islam in peace, when Islam leaves the rest of the world in peace. Since the dark ages, the Religion of Peace has spread itself through war and domination; Christianity spread via peaceful methods because it gave the people what they needed.

Tell me, which is the true religion of peace? Is it the one which encourages its members to kill or enslave non-believers? or is it the one which encourages it's members to go and make disciples of all nations?

19 May 2010 at 22:37  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I think what we forget about the EU, is that it needs us more than we need it. If we were to simply disregard any and all of the most obscene of European legislation, then what recourse do they have?

Send these buggers back to Pakistan. They are not asylum seekers as they deserve their punishment. It is not up to us to judge the legal system of another sovereign nation and how it deals with its criminals. We can disagree with it, but we shouldn't undermine it.

19 May 2010 at 22:49  
Blogger srizals said...

Lakester91,

When did Jesus said he was god in the bible? Could you provide the verses? What about the rest of the prophets in the old and in the new testament? Did they testify so? Who wrote the bible? How did Paul come to Jesus?

If I remember correctly, Jesus was said to be crucified. So how did he meet Paul?

When someone is about to hammer you flat, what would you do?

Leave them be?

The Muslims at that time were considered heretic and rebellious towards their master, the mighty Persian and Roman empire.

Compare that to the modern day of today. The USA is said to be threaten by a small entity of so called terrorists, not even by a small government, and already they are destroying the whole puny countries. The Persian and the Roman were empires. They were world super powers at that time. Subduing other nations at their will. Who is being subdued by Muslim nations nowadays?

The only way at that time was to face the threat at its source and eliminate it before the mighty enemies decided to make a pincer movement and crushed the Muslims at the centre.

Strangely, the Persians and Romans didn't perished among contact with the Muslims, unlike the natives of America when the conquistadors came to their shores.

I don't think Muhammad adopted Christ nor Moses to make him more popular. The Arabs believed in him anyway, so what for? Paul on the other hand was not that popular.

Reality check. Check out the bloodiest wars, imperialism and domination throughout history. Who was the dominating force conquering the rest of the world?

Do you know about Vlad the Impaler? Was he a Saint to be admired?

The West could not leave Islam in peace. They are too oil-centred. The USA and UK had started a war that till this very day, still destroy a once proud peaceful country that has never threaten nor invade the West. Worst, it was all based on a lie. What say you?

19 May 2010 at 23:30  
Anonymous Noorul said...

He should be deported to Pakistan.

I couldn't care less about what might happen to an al-Qaeda operative.

19 May 2010 at 23:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hilarious it is. One Muslim, against so many. When will you guys beat him at his own game?

20 May 2010 at 01:27  
Blogger Preacher said...

Srizals.
O.T: "A virgin shall be with child & you shall call his name Emanuel, which means- God with us".- Isaiah
N.T
"I and the Father are One" And they picked uo stones to stone him And he asked them, "I have shown you many good works,for which of these do you stone me?" and they answered him "For a good work we do not stone you,but for blasphemy, because you being a man, make yourself God".
John 10;30-33.
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5: verse 18.
Philip said to him "Lord show us the Father and it is sufficient for us."
Jesus said to him "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father, so how can you say 'show us the father?." John 14: verses 8-9

If you want more, then pick up a copy of the New Testament (Injil) & read it yourself if you dare my friend, lives have been changed by it & still are being changed.
Jesus was crucified & died, but he rose from death & is alive today.
It's up to you, your destiny is yours to choose.
Regards. Preacher.

20 May 2010 at 02:56  
Anonymous len said...

The origins of the 'religion of peace' www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

If you would understand Islam study its founder Mohammed.

20 May 2010 at 07:35  
Anonymous Bevan said...

No such thing as the British Commonwealth. Stop living in the past.

20 May 2010 at 07:44  
Anonymous len said...

The last great battle,I believe will be between Jesus Christ and religion.
By religion I mean the attempts of man to replace the simple message of Jesus and corrupt and twist it for their own gain to obtain power,wealth and control of others.
This includes all the ism`s ( the religion of man)
The Truth about Jesus Christ is buried under piles of rubbish deposited by greedy, unscrupulous men intent on only satisfying their own lust.

Jesus stands waiting for all who would seek Him in honesty and desiring the Truth.

20 May 2010 at 07:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

19 May 2010 17:12 srizals said...

But the chair is there, then who made it in the first place?

The chair has always been there.

20 May 2010 at 09:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

William

http://www.spiritualatheism.com/

20 May 2010 at 09:57  
Blogger writermannkl said...

A telling fact is that ten of the twelve suspects went back home voluntarily and obviously are still happily eating their curries and cracking their poppadoms - I mean, they had no fear of being tortured. Why don't we just ignore this terrifying Human Rights Act and state that in the interests of National Security they should be deported.

So... the coalition has not taken long to show its true colours - in fact the Coalition seems to be run by Clegg. So vote out Labour (jelly babies, slimy when chewed) and replace it with a coalition of soft and floppy marshmallows! Ta very much, Mrs Marshmallow May.

20 May 2010 at 11:25  
Blogger William said...

Dreadnaught

Thanks for the link. Here's what I have discovered:

"The goal of the Spiritual Atheism project is not to provide a specific spiritual philosophy (that is your own responsibility); but, rather, to unify all Spiritual Atheists, regardless of their particular philosophies and points of view."

A kind of coalition of the godless. And why not? In a godless universe all beliefs are valid. Except that apparently there is a God. He/She/It is:

"The personal name given to the infinite and eternal universe"

because

"Spiritual Atheists believe that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by the mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale"

A kind of Gaia theory (personification) of the universe.

It is clear that everybody needs to believe in something (especially atheists). This is just another religion of man (see Len's post above) which has the main purpose of denying the existence of God. Dreadnaught, either there is no God and you are just a random fluctuation in the space-time continuum, or there is a God and you are a (precious,) created being. There is no in-between!

Your Grace, I crave your indulgence for having taken liberties with the topic of this thread.

20 May 2010 at 11:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'In a godless universe all beliefs are valid.'

My valid belief is that your belief is invalid.

20 May 2010 at 12:06  
Blogger William said...

Mr. Singh

You appear to have found a crack in this "coalition of the godless".

20 May 2010 at 12:25  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

This is perhaps the most bizzare thread of comments I have read on here to date.

And will the believers please stop trying to make out that every athiest is the same and as such every atheist requires a spirtual belief. Codswallop.

20 May 2010 at 13:22  
Anonymous len said...

Atheists have a religious system,they have a 'bible' Darwin`s theory, they have their prophets( too numerous to mention ) the high priest Dawkins is the most prominent at the moment.
What they don`t have is any hope for the future.

20 May 2010 at 13:37  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh stop yourself will you.

The Bible : A group of stories written by different people and used by different groups to claim moral superiority and incflict control through fear on the people.

The Theory of Evolution : A scentific theory to explain the changes that occur within nature.

Dawkins : An evolutionary biologist. Also an atheist. But a man.

Jesus : His existence is questionable not to mention the even more questionable position laid on him by his followers that he is the son of an unproven god. Born by immaculate conception (again unproven and never reapeated). Performer of miracles (unproven and unrepeated). I could go on but basically it's all unproven and unrepeated.

I do not look to the theory of evolution to tell me how to behave or what to think on all subjects. I do not worship the evolutionary teachings of Dawkins. I have no relgious system. I have no prophets. Your statements are just stupid and false.

Please try and get a grip and speak some sense in future.

20 May 2010 at 13:47  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Glovner,

'The Bible : A group of stories written by different people and used by different groups to claim moral superiority and incflict [sic] control through fear on [sic] the people.'

A set of historical records that were written specifically for the purpose of control? Even though the people who wrote them couldn't use them to control people themselves? That's stretching plausibility too far, surely.

'The Theory of Evolution : A scentific theory to explain the changes that occur within nature.'

Indeed, but considering the ascientific nature of many/most atheists, it has become a belief rather than a theory. It is one of the least comprehensive theories in the natural sciences, yet it's thought of as fact. I consider that it is on the right track, but there are massive holes in it. Atheists simply don't accept that though. Their problem is that the theory serves their purposes, so to discredit even a small part of the theory is to discredit the modern atheist philosophy.

'Jesus : His existence is questionable...'

Oh dear. Has your argument become so desperate that you have to deny historical fact?

'...not to mention the even more questionable position laid on him by his followers that he is the son of an unproven god.'

His claim actually. His followers didn't understand that he was God until after the resurrection. I didn't realise that God being unproven is proof that Jesus could not be God. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

'Born by immaculate conception (again unproven and never reapeated).'

Evidently you don't actually know what the immaculate conception was, because that has nothing to do with Jesus' birth. Even so, I'd be quite shocked if Jesus was born again. You were only born once, does that mean that your birth is unproven?

'Performer of miracles (unproven and unrepeated). I could go on but basically it's all unproven and unrepeated.'

Unproven and unrepeated eh? Well you're quick to deny that historical evidence is evidence at all. So the logical conclusion of your argument is to question whether the Second World War happened. It has never been repeated, and the only proof is historical evidence (which you deny as a form of proof).

Your problem is that you rely so heavily on Scientific truth, that you deny Historical, Spiritual and Moral truth.

If the Universe is a car, then science is how the car operates, history is where it has been driven, morality is how one uses it and spirituality is who built it. Four independent forms of truth and you deny 75% of it.

20 May 2010 at 14:30  
Blogger Ginro said...

Glovner, do you believe that Julius Caesar invaded Britain in the 1st century BC? If you do then could you please tell me why you do, and show me the mountains of evidence to support that claim?

20 May 2010 at 14:34  
Blogger srizals said...

On 20 May 2010 09:41
Blogger Graham Davis said...

"The chair has always been there."

You use logic to define such existence that already exist all this while. God has always been there. What's wrong with this logic?

Quid pro quo Mr. Graham, you didn't answer my question.

20 May 2010 at 15:55  
Blogger William said...

TheGlovner said "please stop trying to make out that every athiest is the same and as such every atheist requires a spirtual belief"

Of course you have beliefs. Whether you define them as spiritual or evolved mental processes, they are still beliefs and you put your faith in them.

20 May 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr William

Good observation and conclusion.




Glovy: you're out of your league.

20 May 2010 at 17:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis at 9.41 20 May said:

'The chair has always been there.'

I am unsure why Mr Davis is becoming increasingly anti-scientific:

Mass and Energy + Time = Degradation

The chair could not have always been there.

20 May 2010 at 17:48  
Anonymous len said...

The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might. The Christian appeals to a standard outside himself/herself in which truth and qualitative values can be made sense of.

Peter Huff

20 May 2010 at 23:52  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Okay one at a time here we go.

Lakestar91:

I didn't say they were written specifically for control by the authors themselves, what I said is that is what they have been used for. They were commissioned by Contantine Circa 300AD for the purposes of averting civil war over the religious difference emerging at the time in the civilised world.

Following that they were used by the Roman Catholic Church to control the masses then following schism after schism many more churches evolved which based their beliefs on the same base group but interpreted them differently, regardless, they all seek to control based on their set of beliefs and interpretation.

With regard to your points on the Theory of Evolution, I fully accept there are gaps in the overal theory but right now it is the best sceintific theory there is to explain the points it concerns. Filling the gaps with god doesn't make scientific sense. But as with all scientific theory it is always open to debate an the introduction of new evidence, saying god did it however is not evidence no matter how hard the people believe and pray.

But you make the common mistake of charging a person who happens to be an atheist with a manner of behaviour and then submitting that charge to all other atheists by proxy when our only common thread is a lack of belief in the supernatural.

"Evidently you don't actually know what the immaculate conception was, because that has nothing to do with Jesus' birth. Even so, I'd be quite shocked if Jesus was born again. You were only born once, does that mean that your birth is unproven?"

I assumed that the immaculate conception was that of Mary being impregnated with the body of christ without engaging in the sexual act? If I am wrong then I apologise, I can only comment based on my understanding, as my understanding evolves it can be altered to take account of the new facts, unlike faith and belief. If I am right however it has everything to do with Jesus' birth, after all how could he be born unless he was conceived.

21 May 2010 at 12:30  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Ginro

There is a good bit more evidence to support the fact that Julius Caesar invaded Britain in the 1st century BC. There is also the fact that Julius Caesar has never been heralded as the son of a supernatural god. Bit of a difference in the level of your claims.

Should we accept that a man called Jesus once lived. I can accept that. Should we accept that man called Jesus once lived that claimed he was the son of a god. I can accept that. Should we accept that a man called Jesus once lived and was the son of God. Nope, there is no evidence to support that just as there is no evidence to support god.

21 May 2010 at 12:33  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

William

I fail to see the point of your post and what it aims to prove.

Of course I have beliefs. I don't define them as spiritual though and that is the big difference. The are beliefs that I hold but I don't think that others should be forced to hold the same beliefs. I don't claim by beliefs are absolute truths. I don't seek to control people to adhere to my beliefs. I put faith in myself that my beliefs hold true for me, but someone else can disagree that holds different beliefs.

Because morals and beliefs are subjective.

The difference is that your spiritual beliefs are held with the belief that you are objectively correct, but your objective beliefs in actual fact are subjective in the wider world, otherwise why would there be so many different sects of christianity with differing beliefs and morals?

21 May 2010 at 12:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh.

Grow up.

21 May 2010 at 12:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Len.

And those may well be the beliefs held by you and Peter Huff, but your beliefs are not others beliefs and cannot be proven to be fact. Therefore it is your subjective beliefs.

21 May 2010 at 12:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy said: '...but your objective beliefs in actual fact are subjective in the wider world...'

In order to have such a statemnet accepted as true: objectivity must exist. Clearly, you do not believe in objectivity, ergo your statement is invalid.

So shut it!

21 May 2010 at 13:02  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

There are objective truths and subjective beliefs, you repeatedly confuse the two.

Such a christian attitude from you like always though, at least you are consistently a nasty piece of work.

21 May 2010 at 13:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: where are these objective truths?

21 May 2010 at 13:25  
Anonymous no nonny said...

There is also the fact that Julius Caesar has never been heralded as the son of a supernatural god.
Not a fact, Glovner. Balme and Morwood indicate that Julius Caesar (of the gens Iulia) traced his “descent from Iulus, son of Aeneas, and ultimately from Venus, Aeneas’ mother.”** The Romans claimed that Venus deified Augustus. Octavian considered himself the son of the deified (Julius) Caesar; and Claudius was deified. Caligula had himself deified, and had his horse, Incitatus, declared a priest. By the time they got to Nero, the Christians were talking in terms of Anti-Christ.

But then... no modern atheist would be able to see why or what the difference is, would they? Not one of you is willing to open your eyes or your ears to anything a Christian says, does, or writes. You all think 'Anti-Christ' is the way to go.

If you want to read up about Greek and Roman beliefs (and what the world was like without Judaeo-Christianity), Ovid is a start and might even help you to understand something about mythology. Robert Graves is interesting on the Caesars; you might even be able to get hold of the old BBC video/dramas of his Claudius books. For more on the Romans and the pagan world Julius himself is worthwhile; and, of course, Tacitus. Barry Cunliffe, a Celticist from Oxford also offers reliable insights.
******
The are beliefs that I hold but I don't think that others should be forced to hold the same beliefs. I don't claim by beliefs are absolute truths. I don't seek to control people to adhere to my beliefs. I put faith in myself that my beliefs hold true for me, but someone else can disagree that holds different beliefs.
Sooo --- once again --- why are you here and bothering all of us with what you believe? You know before you log in here that this is a Christian website. Nobody forces you to come here and tell us how wrong you think we are, and why you consider your approach to subjectivity/objectivity so superior. Can you not see, in fact, that several highly qualified scientists on here have produced very strongly reasoned and knowlegeable arguments against you? Or are you simply incapable of following those arguments?

************
Len.

And those may well be the beliefs held by you and Peter Huff, but your beliefs are not others beliefs and cannot be proven to be fact
. Here is a typical example of your aggression. Furthermore, your statement is untrue. Very few Christians would argue with the essentials that Len presents, because all of us quote from the same Scriptures; and we all believe that Creation and life reveal the presence of the Creator, who is the "I Am." Yes, we may interpret some points differently, but we have been free to do so for hundreds of years.

But there's no point in trying to explain, to someone who's mind is closed, the complexities of theology and how they developed or contributed to things you take for granted. It's a journey you need to take for yourself - as we have - and it takes time and work. So why you bother with us, I really cannot see; except possibly that you enjoy insulting people for the sake of it. In that case, you would be the one who needs to grow up.


** Balme, Maurice and James Morwood, eds. Oxford Latin Reader. Oxford: OUP, 1997; 56.

21 May 2010 at 14:31  
Anonymous no nonny said...

... ummm - that should read: 'by the time the Romans got to Nero, the Christians were talking in terms of Anti-Christ.'

21 May 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh

The moon goes round the earth, the earth goes round the sun. Fire burns, extreme cold freezes need I go on?

21 May 2010 at 17:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: how do you prove that objectively? Because all you are seeing is light from the moon, sun etc.

What you see sometimes is not reality. So you can't be sure all the time.

That's not being scientific is it?

21 May 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Glovner,

'I didn't say they were written specifically for control by the authors themselves, what I said is that is what they have been used for. They were commissioned by Contantine Circa 300AD for the purposes of averting civil war over the religious difference emerging at the time in the civilised world.'

You cannot discredit information based on how it is used. It's as easy to manipulate scripture for one's own purposes as it is to manipulate statistics. Even if they were used for man's own purposes, that doesn't discredit the message of scripture more than a drunk driver makes cars evil.

'With regard to your points on the Theory of Evolution, I fully accept there are gaps in the overal theory but right now it is the best sceintific theory there is to explain the points it concerns. Filling the gaps with god doesn't make scientific sense. But as with all scientific theory it is always open to debate an the introduction of new evidence, saying god did it however is not evidence no matter how hard the people believe and pray.'

I never 'filled the gaps with God', either explicitly or implicitly. My belief is that God created the scientific universe whilst knowing everything it would require to function: therefore all processes within it can be explained scientifically. If God needed to use magic, then it would show that he wasn't omniscient. He may wish to interfere by stretching the bounds of probability, of course (walking on water, virgin births etc. are all possible, just incredibly unlikely).

My point was not to discredit evolution, but to explain that many see it as a dogma, rather than a theory; especially as they can fallaciously argue that it disproves or discredits the notion of a creator God.

'But you make the common mistake of charging a person who happens to be an atheist with a manner of behaviour and then submitting that charge to all other atheists by proxy when our only common thread is a lack of belief in the supernatural.'

Yet you view all Christians as unintelligent or unscientific because they believe in a God who lives outside of the scientific universe?

21 May 2010 at 17:29  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Glovner,

'The moon goes round the earth, the earth goes round the sun. Fire burns, extreme cold freezes need I go on?'

F=GMm/r^2 applies to both masses (M and m). The Moon does not go around the Earth and the Earth does not go around the Sun and the Sun does not go around the centre of the galaxy. Each pair orbits a common centre of gravity.

Fire does not always burn and may inhibit some of the more exothermic reactions (depending on the activation energy of course). Cold cannot freeze solids, as they are already solid. Helium cannot freeze at all, even at 0K

I am not being pedantic; I just think it's important to understand that what you think is an objective truth may not be true, and what you think is not, may well be so.

21 May 2010 at 17:44  
Anonymous len said...

I think the argument pro- God or ante- God is an endless argument going round and round in circles.
The ironic think is that Christians and Atheists are both right!
The Christian( born again variety) is able to perceive God through his born-again spirit which is in tune, harmonised ,with the Spirit of God, communication is possible through this vital link.
The Atheist ante-God is unable to perceive God.Why?.Because the spirit of the Atheist is fallen corrupted,unable to communicate, it is actually in this fallen state, in tune with the Prince of the Power of the Air.The mind of the Atheist has been programmed by this fallen spirit and is directly opposed to God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (New International Version)

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
...........
It takes a miracle from God to renew the fallen spirit in the unredeemed man.

Romans 8:16 tells us: "The Spirit Himself [thus] testifies together with our own spirit, [assuring us] that we are children of God." First and foremost, we have the unshakable testimony from within us! The indwelling Holy Spirit of God constantly reassures us that we belong to Jesus Christ.

Gods answer to fallen man is to receive a new Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God.

21 May 2010 at 18:12  
Blogger Ginro said...

Glovner:

You stated as regards Jesus, "Jesus : His existence is questionable,"

Now you state: "Should we accept that a man called Jesus once lived? I can accept that."

So in that respect it appears you accept your first statement was false. However, you also claim: "There is a good bit more evidence to support the fact that Julius Caesar invaded Britain in the 1st century BC." Sorry Glovner, but you are wrong. There is virtually no archaeological evidence for Julius Caesars invasion of Britain, and our knowledge for his invasion therefore largely rests upon documentary accounts with, for example, the oldest copy of Caesars 'De Bello Gallico' dating from about one thousand years after the events he described. I am therefore of the opinion that you are not a trained/qualified historian and are throwing doubt upon a subject of which you know little.

Because historical events are unprovable scientifically, whether we believe that an event or events occurred/person or persons existed must be based upon a balance of probabilities. It is a fact that many historians regard the early Christian documents as some of the most reliable from antiquity, and are happily used as source material. The problem you have is actually with the statements of faith and trust made within those documents rather than the documents themselves. It stands to reason that if a writer has shown himself to be reliable in every way that it is possible to verify then even those statements he makes which you find uncomfortable must have a degree of reliability about them. However that is a matter for you and you alone to decide.

21 May 2010 at 19:10  
Anonymous len said...

The History of Jesus is fairly well documented.

www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

21 May 2010 at 19:34  
Blogger William said...

TheGLover says:

"Of course I have beliefs. I don't define them as spiritual though and that is the big difference."

Why? What are your kinds of beliefs?

"The are beliefs that I hold but I don't think that others should be forced to hold the same beliefs"

Great!

"Because morals and beliefs are subjective."

Is that an absolute truth or a subjective belief?

"your spiritual beliefs are held with the belief that you are objectively correct"

I have never said this! Nor do I believe it!

My subjective assessment TheGlover is that you have two problems:

1) You have no basis on which to assert that there are objective truths.

2) You seem to think that science is the sole arbiter of objective truth and subjective beliefs.

21 May 2010 at 20:07  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Was Schrodinger's Cat agnostic, atheist or a follower of Bast? Or, had it any sense worth the bothering, a Wycliffian?

23 May 2010 at 18:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older