Re: Canberra Mosque: Violent Brawl from "Religion of Peace"....
Arthur Brain
Addinall wrote:
> "David Moss" <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20a82513f...@news.bigpond.com...
> > In article <1178432281.6...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
> >
> >> However plenty of other friends, acquaintances, and others I hold in
> >> high esteem are christians - *NONE* of them would get involved in a
> >> brawl on a Sunday morning outside the front of their Church.
> >
> > All your friends are gutless, are they?
noooo, they wouldn't get involved in a brawl ...... because there
never are brawls after Sunday Mass. (Not that I've ever heard of, at
any rate).
You see, unlike muslims, who believe in jihad, christians are taught
to be a bit calmer that that....and their priests don't goad them into
taking violent action.
See some cartoons you don't like?
- Christian: write a letter to the editor
- muslim: riot
Heard about a movie critical of your religion?
- Christian: write to your MP and/or Fred Nile.
- muslim: riot. Murder the film-maker
Heard about a novel critical of your religion?
- Christian: do nothing
- muslim: issue a fatwa calling for the novellist to be assassinated
Your favourite preacher gets the boot?
- Christian: do nothing, maybe attend a different church in future
- muslim: beat people up outside the mosque.
And *your* response to all this is to pretend none of it is happening,
that it will be all right, nobody's getting hurt, there's no problem.
You need to wake up - there *is* a major problem, and it is gradually
sapping our security and our freedom - all because we can't take the
simple step of recognising islam for the violent, imperialist
political movement it is and neutralising it.
David Moss
arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
> noooo, they wouldn't get involved in a brawl ...... because there
> never are brawls after Sunday Mass. (Not that I've ever heard of, at
> any rate).
Not that you've heard of?
Sounds like you need to get about a bit more.
Churches tend to keep this sort of thing quiet, and the police generally
co-operate. But assaults happen everywhere people congregate in numbers.
> You see, unlike muslims, who believe in jihad, christians are taught
> to be a bit calmer that that....and their priests don't goad them into
> taking violent action.
"Spot Satan's strongholds in the areas you are living (brothels,
gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples - Freemasons/
Buddhist/Hindu etc., witchcraft) ... If you are ready to pray against
it, do so. If not, bring it to your church and ask your intercessors,
through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down."
(Family First Party election leaflet written in 2004 by Nalliah, as
quoted in Misha Schubert 'PM's message to controversial sect', Age, 19
Jan. 2007)
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://sunnybar.dynip.com/politics
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> "Spot Satan's strongholds in the areas you are living (brothels,
> gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples - Freemasons/
> Buddhist/Hindu etc., witchcraft) ... If you are ready to pray against
> it, do so. If not, bring it to your church and ask your intercessors,
> through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down."
> (Family First Party election leaflet written in 2004 by Nalliah, as
> quoted in Misha Schubert 'PM's message to controversial sect', Age, 19
> Jan. 2007)
I am very satisfied that you equate Islam with a "controversial sect".
If only more people had as much commonsense as you do David, and
admitted that islam is a "controversial sect".
Clearly, you hold the Nalliah "controversial sect" in comtempt, as
should every right-thinking person.
It therefore follows, as you equate Islam with Nalliah's
"controversial sect" that you hold islam in contempt, as should every
right-thinking person.
veritas
> Nothing to do with can.politics but you might want to read the book,
> "Riot At The Harlem Mosque" about a homicide and riot that occurred
> there.
>
> I recall from reading the News Of The Weird and other things about
> fights in churches.
>
> A MURDER hunt has been launched after a 13-year-old boy was killed in
> a fight outside a church hall in Swansea.
>
> Emergency services were called after Ross Hooper was attacked and fell
> to the ground in the car park of the Gors Mission Gospel Hall in
> Cwmbwrla, unable to breathe.
>
> He was taken to hospital but doctors were unable to revive him. Police
> were yesterday awaiting the results of a post mortem examination on
> Ross but they confirmed they were treating his death as suspicious and
> an incident room was set up at Cockett Police Station.
How am I to know that the above was related to any Christian church's
teachings or urging.
It is all very nice to come up with half a story but it might be better
if the supporting facts of the matter were also explained.
veritas
Would you mind not tripping off into la-la land once again.
David Moss
ver...@coldmail.con writes...
Perhaps you can explain how posting the inflammatory words of a
Christian leader, along with a reference, is tripping off into la la
land.
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
>
> David Moss wrote:
>
> > "Spot Satan's strongholds in the areas you are living (brothels,
> > gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples - Freemasons/
> > Buddhist/Hindu etc., witchcraft) ... If you are ready to pray against
> > it, do so. If not, bring it to your church and ask your intercessors,
> > through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down."
> > (Family First Party election leaflet written in 2004 by Nalliah, as
> > quoted in Misha Schubert 'PM's message to controversial sect', Age, 19
> > Jan. 2007)
>
> I am very satisfied that you equate Islam with a "controversial sect".
>
> If only more people had as much commonsense as you do David, and
> admitted that islam is a "controversial sect".
"In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or
political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example
from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination,
usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters." (wikipedia)
"1. (1) sect, religious sect, religious order -- (a subdivision of a
larger religious group)" (Wordnet)
In terms of percentage of the world's population, Islam (21%) is second
only to Christianity (33%). Next comes non-religious people (16%) and
Hinduism (14%). Unless you are going to claim there is only one religion
and every other belief is merely a sect, you will have to admit Islam is
a religion.
Arthur Brain
So, in essence, you are arguing against yourself here, when you now
seem to be *denying* that there could be an equivalence between
violence-inspiring christian preachers and violence-inspiring muslim
preachers?
Or is there some other point in your comparison of Nalliah (whose
followers don't to my knowledge indulge in any violence) and the
Canberra mosque-idiot (whose followers have done exactly that)?
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
I hope we can mow agree that Christianity and Islam are both religions
rather than sects.
With this as a basis we see that Nalliah has a personal following within
the broad banner of Christianity. His followers can be considered a
sect.
Likewise, Swaiti has a personal following within the broad banner of
Islam. His followers can be considered a sect.
I therefore compared the leader of a Christian sect with the leader of a
Muslim sect. A valid comparison in my opinion. The leaders of both these
sects may have incited their followers to violence. If so both stand
equally condemned in my sight.
If you condemn leaders within both Islam and Christianity who incite
violence you will find me in support. If you single out leaders who
incite violence in just one religion, be it Islam or Christianity, you
will find me pointing out your mistake.
If it is inciting violence that troubles you, targeting the individual
concerned is in order. Trying to smear an entire religion because an
individual within it does something wrong is contemptible.
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> In article <1178514955.9...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
> If you condemn leaders within both Islam and Christianity who incite
> violence you will find me in support. If you single out leaders who
> incite violence in just one religion, be it Islam or Christianity, you
> will find me pointing out your mistake.
OK, please start a seperate thread providing evidence of
- Christian (or any other religious leaders) preaching violence,
and
- the ensuing violence,
so I can join you in your condemnation of it.
Meanwhile, where is *your* condemnation - in this thread - for the
violence meted out by muslims, all over the globe, in Sydney, in
Canberra, etc...?
Cartoons they don't like? Violence.
Films they don't like? Murder.
Novels they don't like? Threats of assassination.
etc....
Apologism - that's all we get from you....
> If it is inciting violence that troubles you, targeting the individual
> concerned is in order. Trying to smear an entire religion because an
> individual within it does something wrong is contemptible.
The "entire religion" is built on a reverence for one psychopath
called mohamed who enjoins his followers to commit violence.
Violence is inherent in this particular religion at this particular
point in time - as explained in the recent US study on this point.
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
> Meanwhile, where is *your* condemnation - in this thread - for the
> violence meted out by muslims, all over the globe, in Sydney, in
> Canberra, etc...?
OK:
I condemn any use of violence by any organisation, as a means of
achieving a political, religious or financial goal. I believe the only
legitimate use of force against another person is to protect the
physical security of a person or property from an immediate, genuinely
perceived threat of theft or damage.
Happy with that?
Notice I didn't include the name of any person or organisation in my
statement. My statement was universal. Your statements are not like
that. Your statements single out categories of people you don't like.
Thats called stereotyping. Its not a good thing to do.
Sunny
"David Moss" <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message news:MPG.20a975406...@news.bigpond.com...
| In article <1178518087.6...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
| arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
|
| > Meanwhile, where is *your* condemnation - in this thread - for the
| > violence meted out by muslims, all over the globe, in Sydney, in
| > Canberra, etc...?
|
| OK:
| I condemn any use of violence by any organisation, as a means of
| achieving a political, religious or financial goal. I believe the only
| legitimate use of force against another person is to protect the
| physical security of a person or property from an immediate, genuinely
| perceived threat of theft or damage.
|
| Happy with that?
| Notice I didn't include the name of any person or organisation in my
| statement. My statement was universal. Your statements are not like
| that. Your statements single out categories of people you don't like.
| Thats called stereotyping. Its not a good thing to do.
Or could it be called "probable identity" ?
I would dearly love to be as sure of winning Lotto, as I am that they were "Muslims of middle eastern appearance".
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> I condemn any use of violence by any organisation, as a means of
> achieving a political, religious or financial goal. I believe the only
> legitimate use of force against another person is to protect the
> physical security of a person or property from an immediate, genuinely
> perceived threat of theft or damage.
>
> Happy with that?
Yes. We are in perfect harmony.
> Notice I didn't include the name of any person or organisation in my
> statement. My statement was universal. Your statements are not like
> that. Your statements single out categories of people you don't like.
> Thats called stereotyping. Its not a good thing to do.
They aren't "stereotypes". They are the results of considered
analysis.
People who believe in creationism are idiots.
People who crapon about the WTC 9/11 being a "controlled explosion"
are idiots.
People who believe in a sky-fairy called god/yahweh/allah/whatever are
idiots.
People who believe in the JSF are idiots.
Is that stereotyping?
As far as I am concerned, I am being perfectly fair: if you hold
idiotic beliefs, you are an idiot.
The allah lot also seem abnormally prone to violence, to boot.
Incidentally, the guy who got beaten up has a website:
http://freedom.homemail.com.au/
rotfl! I think I understand now.....
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
> People who believe in creationism are idiots.
> People who crapon about the WTC 9/11 being a "controlled explosion"
> are idiots.
> People who believe in a sky-fairy called god/yahweh/allah/whatever are
> idiots.
> People who believe in the JSF are idiots.
>
> Is that stereotyping?
Yes.
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> In article <1178526720....@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
>
> > People who believe in creationism are idiots.
> > People who crapon about the WTC 9/11 being a "controlled explosion"
> > are idiots.
> > People who believe in a sky-fairy called god/yahweh/allah/whatever are
> > idiots.
> > People who believe in the JSF are idiots.
> > Is that stereotyping?
> Yes.
OK, well all idiots can consider themselves duly stereotyped then. As
idiots.
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
<quote>
A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the
encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19
January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they
pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:
I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is
my answer.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes
place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the
actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be
inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, I.e. by
a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is
only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the
existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of
faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the
success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the
pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the
laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one
in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this
way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special
sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone
more naive."
Albert was much smarter than me. I reckon he was smarter than you too
Arthur. You reckon he was an idiot. Stereotyping isn't smart.
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> ..... In this
> way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special
> sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone
> more naive."
>
> Albert was much smarter than me. I reckon he was smarter than you too
> Arthur. You reckon he was an idiot. Stereotyping isn't smart.
He's basically saying that he doesn't believe in any sky fairy -
"..quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive".
I'm completely with Einstein on that - from grains of sand to
galaxies, it's awe-inspiring.
Meanwhile, the god-botherers miss all this, they're all so busy
competing against each others' imaginary sky fairies, and trying so
hard to believe that which is patently obviously gibberish.
And the *muslim* god-botherers seem inordinately fascinated by
violence, which all makes sense if you just take the time to read
their poisonous religious texts, which should be banned in this
country as an affront to civilisation.
Kwyjibo
Neither is selective quoting, and then misunderstanding the quote you have
used.......
How about these? :
"It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it."
(Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1979. Page 38)
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or
goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza:
admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the
order and harmony of the universe which we can grasp humbly and only
imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect
knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a
purely human problem--the most important of all human problems."
(Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, New York, Viking Press, 1972. Page 95)
""Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the
conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be true."
(The Life and Times of Einstein, New York, World Publishing Co., 1971. Page
17)
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law
of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who
interferes in the course of events...He has no use for the religion of fear
and equally little of social or moral religion."
("Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, Nov. 9, 1930)
--
Kwyj.
sparky
wrote:
> In article <1178514955.937699.301...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
>
> > David Moss wrote:
> > > In article <1178504076.901679.19...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
Islam is more of a cult than a true religion.
Arthur Brain
> > Albert was much smarter than me. I reckon he was smarter than you too
> > Arthur. You reckon he was an idiot. Stereotyping isn't smart.
> "It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a
> lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
> God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. .."
Oops!
Got that one wrong, eh, David?
Looks like smart people *do* stay away from the Sky-fairy nonsense
after all.
Even people with only *HALF* A *BRAIN* manage to recognise that.
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
Albert said he didn't believe in a personal God. He didn't believe in an
anthropomorphic God who made man in 'his' own image.
To repeat the relevant part of the quote I used:
"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the
pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the
laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one
in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this
way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special
sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone
more naive."
In other words Albert Einstein was a religious man, but his personal
religion had a concept of God that was quite different to that of most
people, then or now.
David Moss
spar...@yahoo.com writes...
Since you have ignored the preceding arguments and introduced none of
your own, I take it that was a religious statement.
Petzl
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>> > I hope we can mow agree that Christianity and Islam are both religions
>> > rather than sects.
>>
>> Islam is more of a cult than a true religion.
>
>Since you have ignored the preceding arguments and introduced none of
>your own, I take it that was a religious statement.
The reality is Australia only has one true God being the
"Lord Jesus Christ"
If you are not Christian you have revoked your Citizenship and your
rights
And I have pointed this out over and over.
You pretend you don't understand, but are just in denial of
Australia's constitutional truth!
petzl
--
NO MORE MOSLEMS
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
Vote
Christian Democrat first,
The Opposition Member second
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"
Arthur Brain
> To repeat the relevant part of the quote I used:
> "But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the
> pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the
> laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one
> in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this
> way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special
> sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone
> more naive."
>
> In other words Albert Einstein was a religious man, but his personal
> religion had a concept of God that was quite different to that of most
> people, then or now.
I'm inclined to think the above quote demonstrates an act of kindness
towards a young correspondent in a country (the US) which was/is still
struggling into secularity, not a statement of personal belief.
Other writings of Einstein clearly demonstrate he had no truck
whatsoever with the sky-fairy nonsense.
David Moss
arthur...@yahoo.co.uk writes...
I always think it is funny when people use the term "sky-fairy" when we
have a perfectly useful word to describe God already. God. It is clear
such people are insecure in their own belief and need to reinforce it
continually by belittling the beliefs of others.
Einstein clearly had his own views on religion. He did not accept the
fundamentalist Judeo-Christian concept of the universe, but that does
not preclude religion altogether.
One of Einstein's most famous quotes "God does not play dice with the
universe" is sometimes taken literally by fundamentalists to mean
Einstein believed in an anthropomorphic God such as we see described in
the Bible.
What it really tells us however is that Einstein strongly believed in
deterministic causality. Every event is caused by a prior event. This
implies that the universe was created in an event that was itself caused
by something that existed before the universe. A supernatural event.
Einstein was upset by quantum theory, which implies that sometimes
things just happen, or don't happen, with random probability.
The fact he was upset indicates that one of his beliefs was challenged.
A religious belief.
Now, unlike some people I have no problem with people having religious
beliefs. As a Liberal I feel it is up to them. I don't feel the need to
belittle their beliefs with terms like "sky fairy", although I confess I
do enjoy testing the boundaries of personal belief systems if anyone
puts them forward for comment.
Do God/s exist? I don't know. You don't know either.
I prefer to leave the question open and respect the beliefs of others.
But then perhaps I am more secure in my personal religious philosophy
than some, and do not feel the need to continually reassure myself by
belittling the beliefs of others.
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> Einstein was upset by quantum theory, which implies that sometimes
> things just happen, or don't happen, with random probability.
>
> The fact he was upset indicates that one of his beliefs was challenged.
>
> A religious belief.
This is not a logical argument.
You are sounding just like Descartes: commence a logical argument and
then inject an elephant-like assumption to get you to the conclusion
you desire.
Maybe it wasn't even "belief" - perhaps Einstein was slightly
obsessive-compulsive about causality and couldn't handle the idea of
intrinsic randomness?
> Now, unlike some people I have no problem with people having religious
> beliefs. As a Liberal I feel it is up to them. I don't feel the need to
> belittle their beliefs with terms like "sky fairy", although I confess I
> do enjoy testing the boundaries of personal belief systems if anyone
> puts them forward for comment.
I'm the same, but when you get a bunch of nutcases declaring war on
our society and threatening us with sharia law, I'm not going to be
shy about pointing this out.
*That's* why I'm not having a go at the catholics with their virgin
birth, holy trinity, and all the other nonsense - they do not threaten
the fabric of our society the way muslims currently do.
> Do God/s exist? I don't know. You don't know either.
Crap. There is no such existing thing as "god". (Even mediaeval
theologians were able to arrive at this conclusion, although it just
ended in quibbling over the meaning of "exist", the other option
presumably being burned at the stake for heresy).
That puts the onus on sky-fairy-believers to prove such existence.
Which they can't.
So "god" is clearly a belief, not a fact, and has no place in
argument.
> I prefer to leave the question open and respect the beliefs of others.
Fine - so long as you recognise they are *beliefs* only, although why
you would want to "respect" beliefs which are patently silly is
questionable.
> But then perhaps I am more secure in my personal religious philosophy
> than some, and do not feel the need to continually reassure myself by
> belittling the beliefs of others.
Islam is clearly very insecure: hence their need to murder (or
threaten to) novelists, film-makers, documentary-makers and
cartoonists who challenge the more anti-social elements of their
belief.
Australians have a right to see the cartoons which muslims all over
the world rioted over - but we never saw them due to muslim denial of
free speech.
This sort of denial of our freedoms based on the idiotic beliefs of
muslims is a cancer creeping across our democratic rights and people
like you are apologising for it, appeasing it, and therefore
encouraging it and further eroding our country's freedoms.
David Moss
arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
>
> David Moss wrote:
>
> > Einstein was upset by quantum theory, which implies that sometimes
> > things just happen, or don't happen, with random probability.
> >
> > The fact he was upset indicates that one of his beliefs was challenged.
> >
> > A religious belief.
>
> This is not a logical argument.
> You are sounding just like Descartes: commence a logical argument and
> then inject an elephant-like assumption to get you to the conclusion
> you desire.
>
> Maybe it wasn't even "belief" - perhaps Einstein was slightly
> obsessive-compulsive about causality and couldn't handle the idea of
> intrinsic randomness?
Obsessive compulsives have beliefs too. Often they acknowledge these
beliefs are irrational, but they hold them anyway. That is why we
consider obsessive compulsive disorder to be a disorder.
People become upset when a strongly held belief is challenged. As a
scientist Einstein would not strongly believe anything that was not just
as strongly supported by experimental evidence. As a human being however
it is clear he strongly believed in deterministic causality, and all
that implies.
> > Now, unlike some people I have no problem with people having religious
> > beliefs. As a Liberal I feel it is up to them. I don't feel the need to
> > belittle their beliefs with terms like "sky fairy", although I confess I
> > do enjoy testing the boundaries of personal belief systems if anyone
> > puts them forward for comment.
>
> I'm the same, but when you get a bunch of nutcases declaring war on
> our society and threatening us with sharia law, I'm not going to be
> shy about pointing this out.
I differ in that I specifically seek out the violent nutcases rather
than condemning the entire religious group as a unit.
> *That's* why I'm not having a go at the catholics with their virgin
> birth, holy trinity, and all the other nonsense - they do not threaten
> the fabric of our society the way muslims currently do.
Whats so problematic about a virgin birth?
Have you never heard of IVF and surrogacy?
> > Do God/s exist? I don't know. You don't know either.
>
> Crap. There is no such existing thing as "god". (Even mediaeval
> theologians were able to arrive at this conclusion, although it just
> ended in quibbling over the meaning of "exist", the other option
> presumably being burned at the stake for heresy).
You can say it as many times as you like. Repetition will make it appear
so to you, but has no effect whatsoever on the universe outside your own
mind. The fact is, no-one has been able to prove God/s do not exist,
just as no-one has been able to repeatably demonstrate that God/s exist.
Until one or the other happens we simply don't know.
Some of us believe however, but that is a religious rather than a
scientific position.
> That puts the onus on sky-fairy-believers to prove such existence.
> Which they can't.
> So "god" is clearly a belief, not a fact, and has no place in
> argument.
I have met hundreds of scientists who believed passionately in one
theory or another. Some of them were lucky enough to prove their belief
to be well founded. Others were forced by the evidence to abandon their
belief. Until the final proof all of them were perfectly justified in
basing argument on their belief, using facts gathered during research as
evidence to support their case.
> > I prefer to leave the question open and respect the beliefs of others.
>
> Fine - so long as you recognise they are *beliefs* only, although why
> you would want to "respect" beliefs which are patently silly is
> questionable.
Its part of my liberal philosophy. I believe strongly in a right to
freedom of thought. If I want people to respect my freedom of thought I
must respect theirs. If either of us fails to respect freedom of
thought, neither of us has this right.
> > But then perhaps I am more secure in my personal religious philosophy
> > than some, and do not feel the need to continually reassure myself by
> > belittling the beliefs of others.
>
> Islam is clearly very insecure: hence their need to murder (or
> threaten to) novelists, film-makers, documentary-makers and
> cartoonists who challenge the more anti-social elements of their
> belief.
I agree some individuals within Islam are insecure in their belief,
leading them to try to reinforce it through coercive means. Such
individuals make the mistake of assuming large numbers of people
believing something make it true. Many Christians believe this too. I
dare say many Atheists also fall into this trap.
> Australians have a right to see the cartoons which muslims all over
> the world rioted over - but we never saw them due to muslim denial of
> free speech.
I saw them. They were mildly amusing.
> This sort of denial of our freedoms based on the idiotic beliefs of
> muslims is a cancer creeping across our democratic rights and people
> like you are apologising for it, appeasing it, and therefore
> encouraging it and further eroding our country's freedoms.
Telling people what they should think is the biggest threat to freedom I
can imagine.
I find the idiots who call for banning Islam and deporting Muslims to be
much more of a threat to freedom than anything mainstream Australian
Muslims have in mind.
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> You can say it as many times as you like. Repetition will make it appear
> so to you, but has no effect whatsoever on the universe outside your own
> mind. The fact is, no-one has been able to prove God/s do not exist,
> just as no-one has been able to repeatably demonstrate that God/s exist.
This is ridiculous. Nothing "exists" unless it is observable,
demonstrable, or otherwise provable.
"god" is not something that exists as nobody can show evidence to the
contrary.
Asking others to "prove" the non-existence of a non-existent thing
flies in the face of scientific method in a way that only the
unscientific and superstitious could ever do.
David Moss
arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
>
> David Moss wrote:
>
> > You can say it as many times as you like. Repetition will make it appear
> > so to you, but has no effect whatsoever on the universe outside your own
> > mind. The fact is, no-one has been able to prove God/s do not exist,
> > just as no-one has been able to repeatably demonstrate that God/s exist.
>
> This is ridiculous. Nothing "exists" unless it is observable,
> demonstrable, or otherwise provable.
Of course it does. Everything that exists does so regardless of whether
or not an arrogant homo sapien takes the trouble to observe it.
> "god" is not something that exists as nobody can show evidence to the
> contrary.
Try that again. Any number of things exist even though nobody can show
evidence to the contrary.
> Asking others to "prove" the non-existence of a non-existent thing
> flies in the face of scientific method in a way that only the
> unscientific and superstitious could ever do.
I don't ask anyone to prove the non-existence of God/s. Nor do I ask
anyone to prove God/s exist. Until someone does one or the other I will
keep an open mind on the subject however.
I think it is quite amusing when someone who claims to argue from a
scientific perspective cannot do likewise.
Its not quite so funny when someone like this demands Muslims, or anyone
else who holds a belief, be persecuted however.
Petzl
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>Its not quite so funny when someone like this demands Muslims, or anyone
>else who holds a belief, be persecuted however.
Moslems in Australia (a Christian Nation only) demand this from
"Skips". With their Zombies for Allah attacking Australian's on a
regular basis
Having done for years and still today, even though this murderous Cult
is illegal and unconstitutional in Australia
David Moss
pet...@gmail.com writes...
> Moslems in Australia (a Christian Nation only) demand this from
> "Skips". With their Zombies for Allah attacking Australian's on a
> regular basis
>
> Having done for years and still today, even though this murderous Cult
> is illegal and unconstitutional in Australia
Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> In article <1179099881.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
>
> >
> > David Moss wrote:
> >
> > > You can say it as many times as you like. Repetition will make it appear
> > > so to you, but has no effect whatsoever on the universe outside your own
> > > mind. The fact is, no-one has been able to prove God/s do not exist,
> > > just as no-one has been able to repeatably demonstrate that God/s exist.
> >
> > This is ridiculous. Nothing "exists" unless it is observable,
> > demonstrable, or otherwise provable.
>
> Of course it does. Everything that exists does so regardless of whether
> or not an arrogant homo sapien takes the trouble to observe it.
You're flying in the face of empiricism.
> > "god" is not something that exists as nobody can show evidence to the
> > contrary.
>
> Try that again. Any number of things exist even though nobody can show
> evidence to the contrary.
You've fudged the argument - you weren't asking for "evidence to the
contrary", the very opposite you were expecting somebody to prove a
negative: unscientific claptrap.
> > Asking others to "prove" the non-existence of a non-existent thing
> > flies in the face of scientific method in a way that only the
> > unscientific and superstitious could ever do.
> I don't ask anyone to prove the non-existence of God/s. Nor do I ask
> anyone to prove God/s exist. Until someone does one or the other I will
> keep an open mind on the subject however.
So you're asking for a negative to be proven....
The fact is that modern empirical thought is governed by certain
methods, and one of those is that we demonstrate positives,
hypothesise and test.
We *don't* expect anybody to prove a negative.
"Prove god doesn't exist" is completely ridiculous.
> I think it is quite amusing when someone who claims to argue from a
> scientific perspective cannot do likewise.
You've shown quite clearly you can't tell the difference.
Petzl
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <206g43phq5g4i0aan...@4ax.com>,
>pet...@gmail.com writes...
>
>> Moslems in Australia (a Christian Nation only) demand this from
>> "Skips". With their Zombies for Allah attacking Australian's on a
>> regular basis
>>
>> Having done for years and still today, even though this murderous Cult
>> is illegal and unconstitutional in Australia
>
>Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
>Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
Moslems in Australia have never been persecuted.
It is, as you know, the other way around were Australia is under
attack by this horror cult
<http://news.mcmedia.com.au/story.asp?TakeNo=20070514002>
Hence while Moslems are tolling the bell our Christian Nation has
heard enough and is well aware that they (Moslems) can lawfully,
constitutionally and effectively be eradicated
David Moss
arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
>
> David Moss wrote:
> > In article <1179099881.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
> >
> > >
> > > David Moss wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can say it as many times as you like. Repetition will make it appear
> > > > so to you, but has no effect whatsoever on the universe outside your own
> > > > mind. The fact is, no-one has been able to prove God/s do not exist,
> > > > just as no-one has been able to repeatably demonstrate that God/s exist.
> > >
> > > This is ridiculous. Nothing "exists" unless it is observable,
> > > demonstrable, or otherwise provable.
> >
> > Of course it does. Everything that exists does so regardless of whether
> > or not an arrogant homo sapien takes the trouble to observe it.
>
> You're flying in the face of empiricism.
I will assume you are confused and in need of guidance.
Lets start with a simple example.
Do you believe a human being named David Moss exists?
Even though you have not personally observed me, you clearly believe I
exist. You also hold a number of beliefs concerning my nature, some of
which may be true, some of which are probably quite inaccurate.
Regardless of what you believe, and irrespective of whether you have
observed my existence empirically or not, I exist.
Until you actually observe me, you cannot be sure I exist however.
Until then there is always the possibility that I do not exist.
> > > "god" is not something that exists as nobody can show evidence to the
> > > contrary.
> >
> > Try that again. Any number of things exist even though nobody can show
> > evidence to the contrary.
>
> You've fudged the argument - you weren't asking for "evidence to the
> contrary", the very opposite you were expecting somebody to prove a
> negative: unscientific claptrap.
Try to keep your eye on the ball and you will do better in the game.
My assertion was that a great many things exist even though nobody can
show that they do not exist. The majority of observable things in the
universe fall into this category.
> > > Asking others to "prove" the non-existence of a non-existent thing
> > > flies in the face of scientific method in a way that only the
> > > unscientific and superstitious could ever do.
>
> > I don't ask anyone to prove the non-existence of God/s. Nor do I ask
> > anyone to prove God/s exist. Until someone does one or the other I will
> > keep an open mind on the subject however.
>
> So you're asking for a negative to be proven....
I think I made myself quite clear when I said I am not asking anyone to
prove anything. I try to keep an open mind until someone does however.
> The fact is that modern empirical thought is governed by certain
> methods, and one of those is that we demonstrate positives,
> hypothesise and test.
We also demonstrate negatives. For instance, if I took skin scrapings
from under the fingernails of a rape victim who claimed to have
scratched his assailant, and compared the DNA with a sample taken from a
swab taken from the lining of your mouth, the absence of alleles common
to both samples would be regarded as evidence you were not the
assailant.
> We *don't* expect anybody to prove a negative.
Remember that if the police arrest you as a suspected rapist Arthur ;-)
> "Prove god doesn't exist" is completely ridiculous.
Why? If you assert God does not exist without any actual evidence to
back the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.
Thats why I stick with what I know for sure. God/s may exist.
> > I think it is quite amusing when someone who claims to argue from a
> > scientific perspective cannot do likewise.
>
> You've shown quite clearly you can't tell the difference.
Can't tell the difference between what?
many things probably, but I can sometimes tell the difference between a
genuine scientific mind and a bigot pretending to be a scientist.
The bigot starts from an entrenched position, the true scientist starts
from the position that anything is possible.
One view leads to people being burned at the stake for heresy, the other
leads to a continual development and enrichment of knowledge.
David Moss
pet...@gmail.com writes...
> >Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
> >Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
>
> Moslems in Australia have never been persecuted.
Not for want of trying. You seem to want to persecute them.
Why?
Petzl
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <ppbg435tc4s1crqq8...@4ax.com>,
>pet...@gmail.com writes...
>
>> >Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
>> >Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
>>
>> Moslems in Australia have never been persecuted.
>
>Not for want of trying. You seem to want to persecute them.
>Why?
I just want to elminate them before they murder or harm even more
Australians
David Moss
pet...@gmail.com writes...
> Subject: Re: Canberra Mosque: Violent Brawl from "Religion of Peace"....
> From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: aus.politics, nz.politics, can.politics, uk.politics.misc, aus.legal
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:44:30 GMT, David Moss
> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <ppbg435tc4s1crqq8...@4ax.com>,
> >pet...@gmail.com writes...
> >
> >> >Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
> >> >Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
> >>
> >> Moslems in Australia have never been persecuted.
> >
> >Not for want of trying. You seem to want to persecute them.
> >Why?
>
> I just want to elminate them before they murder or harm even more
> Australians
I see. So you want to 'eliminate' thousands of innocent people because
you are afraid of them? Much better you just take your pills when the
nurse tells you to.
Petzl
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <pmfg43t3tn79mhep4...@4ax.com>,
>pet...@gmail.com writes...
>
>> Subject: Re: Canberra Mosque: Violent Brawl from "Religion of Peace"....
>> From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: aus.politics, nz.politics, can.politics, uk.politics.misc, aus.legal
>>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:44:30 GMT, David Moss
>> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ppbg435tc4s1crqq8...@4ax.com>,
>> >pet...@gmail.com writes...
>> >
>> >> >Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
>> >> >Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
>> >>
>> >> Moslems in Australia have never been persecuted.
>> >
>> >Not for want of trying. You seem to want to persecute them.
>> >Why?
>>
>> I just want to elminate them before they murder or harm even more
>> Australians
>
>I see. So you want to 'eliminate' thousands of innocent people because
>you are afraid of them? Much better you just take your pills when the
>nurse tells you to.
I want to eliminate Islam yes. Who in Australia doesn't?
David Moss
pet...@gmail.com writes...
> I want to eliminate Islam yes. Who in Australia doesn't?
Me.
Addinall
"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5okg43h5sd211fsp0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:09:30 GMT, David Moss
> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <pmfg43t3tn79mhep4...@4ax.com>,
>>pet...@gmail.com writes...
>>
>>> Subject: Re: Canberra Mosque: Violent Brawl from "Religion of Peace"....
>>> From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
>>> Newsgroups: aus.politics, nz.politics, can.politics, uk.politics.misc,
>>> aus.legal
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:44:30 GMT, David Moss
>>> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <ppbg435tc4s1crqq8...@4ax.com>,
>>> >pet...@gmail.com writes...
>>> >
>>> >> >Speaking of mindless zombies... Hi Petzl.
>>> >> >Why do you think it is OK for Christians to persecute Muslims?
>>> >>
>>> >> Moslems in Australia have never been persecuted.
>>> >
>>> >Not for want of trying. You seem to want to persecute them.
>>> >Why?
>>>
>>> I just want to elminate them before they murder or harm even more
>>> Australians
>>
>>I see. So you want to 'eliminate' thousands of innocent people because
>>you are afraid of them? Much better you just take your pills when the
>>nurse tells you to.
>
> I want to eliminate Islam yes. Who in Australia doesn't?
Well, me.
Mark Addinall.
Addinall
"Arthur Brain" <arthur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179134685....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Moss wrote:
>> In article <1179099881.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> arthur...@hotmail.com writes...
>>
>> >
>> > David Moss wrote:
>> >
>> > > You can say it as many times as you like. Repetition will make it
>> > > appear
>> > > so to you, but has no effect whatsoever on the universe outside your
>> > > own
>> > > mind. The fact is, no-one has been able to prove God/s do not exist,
>> > > just as no-one has been able to repeatably demonstrate that God/s
>> > > exist.
>> >
>> > This is ridiculous. Nothing "exists" unless it is observable,
>> > demonstrable, or otherwise provable.
>>
>> Of course it does. Everything that exists does so regardless of whether
>> or not an arrogant homo sapien takes the trouble to observe it.
>
> You're flying in the face of empiricism.
Not really. Photons spring to mind,as do Tachyons, and gravitons.
Mu and Tua Mesons have been put to bed, phase transition is
still voodoo. Water really sucks. (Ah, I made a funny!)
>
>> > "god" is not something that exists as nobody can show evidence to the
>> > contrary.
>>
>> Try that again. Any number of things exist even though nobody can show
>> evidence to the contrary.
>
> You've fudged the argument - you weren't asking for "evidence to the
> contrary", the very opposite you were expecting somebody to prove a
> negative: unscientific claptrap.
>
>> > Asking others to "prove" the non-existence of a non-existent thing
>> > flies in the face of scientific method in a way that only the
>> > unscientific and superstitious could ever do.
>
>> I don't ask anyone to prove the non-existence of God/s. Nor do I ask
>> anyone to prove God/s exist. Until someone does one or the other I will
>> keep an open mind on the subject however.
>
> So you're asking for a negative to be proven....
>
> The fact is that modern empirical thought is governed by certain
> methods, and one of those is that we demonstrate positives,
> hypothesise and test.
That would explain the wave/particle duality in the transmission
of light through two dissimilar polarised shields.... How does that
happen BTW?
I've been trying to figure it out for two decades (at least), and it is
still a little beyond me. I can understand one or the other, but both is
a bit of a hard ask. And water still really sucks.
I don't pertikulary think that a God is at the bottom of all this nonsense,
but, who the hell knows?
I work with a VERY good DBA at the moment that thinks Vishnu is a real God,
go figure, he's not dumb, makes jokes about Abu in the Simpsons... Hey, if
it rocks his
boat, who am I to disagree?
There are a LOT of things still pending discovery. having a GOD do it is
one
of the answers. Makes as much sense as a lot of the other explanations.
Pick one you are happy with. or pick none at all.
Mark Addinall.
Arthur Brain
David Moss wrote:
> Do you believe a human being named David Moss exists?
There is some evidence which points to this being a possibility.
> Even though you have not personally observed me,
You're getting this wrong already: I have observed what could have
been the results of the actions of such a possible human being.
> you clearly believe I exist.
"belief"? Give me a break - you can't even finish your second sentence
without abandoning all the gains made during the Enlightenment.
> You also hold a number of beliefs concerning my nature, some of
> which may be true, some of which are probably quite inaccurate.
Belief is irrelevant, we're trying to be rational (you have failed
already).
> Regardless of what you believe, and irrespective of whether you have
> observed my existence empirically or not, I exist.
We aren't talking belief, we are talking observation.
Immediately, you have brought "belief" into this.
You fail.
> Until you actually observe me, you cannot be sure I exist however.
"sure" is also not a very good word to use, either, just like
"belief".
I can make observations and make a hypothesis based on them.
At this stage, I would certainly hypothesise there is a human being
that calls itself (at least part of the time) David Moss.
I would suppose from the intellectually disordered stuff it writes
that it has spent far too much time in high temperatures, say
Tennessee, or maybe Queensland.
> Until then there is always the possibility that I do not exist.
The observations I have made point to "something" existing - up to me
to devise a *testable* hypothesis to refine the "something" to
determine what it might be.
> Try to keep your eye on the ball and you will do better in the game.
> My assertion was that a great many things exist even though nobody can
> show that they do not exist.
What? that is just crud.
> The majority of observable things in the
> universe fall into this category.
What?
This is gibberish.
> We also demonstrate negatives. For instance, if I took skin scrapings
> from under the fingernails of a rape victim who claimed to have
> scratched his assailant, and compared the DNA with a sample taken from a
> swab taken from the lining of your mouth, the absence of alleles common
> to both samples would be regarded as evidence you were not the
> assailant.
That is *not* proving a negative - that is matching two observations.
Feel free to provide me with an observation of god to compare with
another observation of a different god if you think a comparison might
be useful.
> Why? If you assert God does not exist without any actual evidence to
> back the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.
There is no observation to support the idea of such an existence, let
alone a testable hypothesis.
In the absence of even this most basic evidence of anything fitting
some rough description of "god" (omnipotent being, hangs around with
angels, strikes people down with bolts of lightning, big white beard,
etc...) it is an unavoidable basic premise that there is no such
thing.
> Thats why I stick with what I know for sure. God/s may exist.
If you were thinking "sticking with what you know" in the cartesian
sense, then only what you know exists, nothing else. Therefore god
does *not* exist.
If you meant some other sense, then your thinking is not in line with
modern empiricism, which would help explain your confusion.
You are basically contradicting yourself - but then that much was
already obivous when you started to confuse logic and "belief" from
the outset.
> Can't tell the difference between what?
Between empirical thought and gibber full of "belief", "being sure",
and other woolly nonsense.
> The bigot starts from an entrenched position, the true scientist starts
> from the position that anything is possible.
No, the science starts from the standpoint that *nothing* is true.
You have this all arse-about.
> One view leads to people being burned at the stake for heresy, the other
> leads to a continual development and enrichment of knowledge.
True, and you have it completely arse-about.
All sorts of things might be demonstrated to be true in the future,
but at this stage there is not even the faintest shred of evidence to
suggest the existence of anything even remotely resembling the big
bloke with the big white beard who smote lots of people and turned
others into pillars of salt.
It's just a story.
FACE
<arthur...@yahoo.co.uk>, wrote
>At this stage, I would certainly hypothesise there is a human being
>that calls itself (at least part of the time) David Moss.
>I would suppose from the intellectually disordered stuff it writes
>that it has spent far too much time in high temperatures, say
>Tennessee, or maybe Queensland.
The pie-eater is a Queenie banana bender -- posting injection point is some
burg called Toowoomba.
Petzl
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <5okg43h5sd211fsp0...@4ax.com>,
>pet...@gmail.com writes...
>
>> I want to eliminate Islam yes. Who in Australia doesn't?
>
>Me.
You are of course with the less than 2% that do want Islam eliminated
Petzl
wrote:
>> I want to eliminate Islam yes. Who in Australia doesn't?
>
>Well, me.
>
>Mark Addinall.
You are of course with the less than 2% that do want Islam eliminated
David Moss
AFaceIn...@today.net writes...
Do you really believe I am in Toowoomba?
Perhaps I should switch countries as a demonstration of how easy it is
to jump to false conclusions.
FACE
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au>, wrote
>In article <41sg43dnm6dotpfi5...@4ax.com>,
>AFaceIn...@today.net writes...
>
>> On 14 May 2007 06:44:00 -0700, in uk.politics.misc Arthur Brain
>> <arthur...@yahoo.co.uk>, wrote
>>
>> >At this stage, I would certainly hypothesise there is a human being
>> >that calls itself (at least part of the time) David Moss.
>> >I would suppose from the intellectually disordered stuff it writes
>> >that it has spent far too much time in high temperatures, say
>> >Tennessee, or maybe Queensland.
>>
>> The pie-eater is a Queenie banana bender -- posting injection point is some
>> burg called Toowoomba.
>
>Do you really believe I am in Toowoomba?
>Perhaps I should switch countries as a demonstration of how easy it is
>to jump to false conclusions.
Did I say that you were in Toowoomba? No, of course i didn't, but you once
again fail to actually read what was written and jump to conclusions; make a
fool of yourself, and hope that no one notices.
FACE
<pet...@gmail.com>, wrote
>On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:21:55 GMT, David Moss
><q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <5okg43h5sd211fsp0...@4ax.com>,
>>pet...@gmail.com writes...
>>
>>> I want to eliminate Islam yes. Who in Australia doesn't?
>>
>>Me.
>You are of course with the less than 2% that do want Islam eliminated
>petzl
Dontcha just hate it when you a word out, then post again to correct it but
forget to correct it?
-=Spudley=-
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
news:c5sh43lo4hs8bgl93...@4ax.com...
Grammatically speaking, there seems to be a theme here. :-)
Petzl
wrote:
opps
He of course knows that 98% of Australia do not want Moslems here
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
As Australia is a Christian Nation as is the USa.
Moslems offensive presence is unconstitutional and unlawful aside from
being massively unwelcome