On Friday there was a protest at Lakemba about pictorial dipictions of Mohammed in a magazine.

Below are a few comments of some speakers. Others are in todays press.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi said Muslims had a duty to respond to the magazine.

"It is unacceptable for a Muslim to remain silent in the face of the attacks on our beloved prophet," he said.

One speaker at the rally, Sufyan Badar, took aim at what he called the arrogant West.

"They force their world view onto us: 'We are the arrogant West and you Muslims have to accept our
world view, you have to accept our freedoms ... to insult your prophet'," he told the crowd.

He dismissed the defence of freedom of speech.

"We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow," he said.

One wonders why muslims remain here if our society is so alien to them. The door is open, they are not forced to stay. But last time I looked it was still our country and we make the rules.

So do we change to accommodate muslim desires, remain as is or put measures in place to encourage those that do not like it to leave?

Obviously many are unhappy and this is not good for community cohesion.

Yes, Banjo...it would appear that they are taking advantage of their freedom of expression to protest at someone else's freedom of expression.

From the headlines (Google News): Hundreds of Muslims rallied in Sydney yesterday night to protest against negative media coverage of Islam and French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of Prophet Mohamed.

So,
1.Muslims are against simple reporting of facts and events. They want us to pretend that the hate and violence Muslims do has nothing to do with Islam, in spite of all evidence to the contrary;
and
2. Muslims protest against any negative portrayal of their dear prophet, a man that attacked his neighbors for 10 years, committing all manner of atrocities against them.

Then Muslims cannot quite figure why they have problems. They cannot understand all the negative coverage of their religion.

In other words, Muslims want others to be as stupid, blind, dishonest and immoral as they are. This is why Muslims cannot live in peace, in numbers, with non-Muslims.

Islam is a cancer.

Oh yes, and our leaders always blame us for any problems that Muslims have. It is always the 'other' that must change, that must be more understanding, that should do more to integrate Muslims. Never do they ask Muslims to change, to be more honest, to be respectful of others.

Good onya Poirot for trying to re-frame it in a nice PC way!

<<it would appear that they are taking advantage of their freedom of expression>>

It reminds me of what is said about islamists getting democratically elected << “one man, one vote, one time>>

If the Lakemba mob ever got their way --their little protest would be the last example of freedom of expression.

Piss weak governments are what is to blame. They are too worried about offending others and forget to stand up for the rights of their own people.

This was Auatralia, F knows what we should call it today.

Let's think a little about this.

The Lakemba mosque is the home of the Sydney Lebanese community. The Sydney Lebanese community has been copping racist and religious abuse from "welcoming" Australians since the Whitlam Government introduced the Family Reunion provisions of the Immigration Act and there was an influx of new immigrants from the Lebanon, many of whom were escaping the turmoil of civil war and Israeli aggression. They were to a very large extent poorly educated and poor, so they didn't qualify for immigration through the normal channels. They clung together and they became ghettoised to some extent, much like the Chinese had done. Unlike the Chinese, who came from a Confucian culture where doing as you're told is the most honourable way to behave, the Lebanese are a lot more like the Irish, coming from small rural communities where local loyalty is strong and outsiders are welcome guests as long as they know how to behave. If they stretch the friendship, all bets are off - ask the Poms, or the Israelis for that matter.

Most of the people commenting here would be able to claim Irish descent. Your ancestors would be rolling in their graves to see the sort of weak-minded pissants their descendants have become.

We need to show these people we want them here and they are welcome guests or they will treat us like enemies. They are tough, strong-willed people and they come from a very old culture (no, not Islam, but Assyrian). We want them to be our friends, not because we are scared of them as enemies, but because they are good friends.

@Craig,

<< they come from a very old culture (no, not Islam, but Assyrian)>>

Nonsense! And you were lecturing others on their knowledge of history

There are those of Assyrian extraction/background in Oz --but few of them congregate around the Lakemba mosque!

I suggest you do some more research, SPQR. It's still not too late to enrol in that OUA course.

Here's a simple map from Wikipedia you might like to investigate in the meantime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Assyrian_Empire#mediaviewer/File:Map_of_Assyria.png

‘morning Banjo,

I don’t think there are many people in western society that are not aware of or fearful about the threat to their societies and values from multiculturism in general and Islam in particular. If there are, they are getting fewer by the day as the genie is now out of the bottle.

The exposure to Islamic values and beliefs is a shock to many because the information we have needed to form our perspectives has been manipulated and censored. Now we are becoming better informed and starting to express our views and concerns.

The PC left are even more acutely aware of the threat than the rest of society because they are the ones working hardest suppress the formation of views or, where concerns are expressed, to avoid the debate and to bully us into accepting the PC dogma.

They “defend” through deconstruction and relativism, because they have much to be defensive about. The public is beginning to realize that the grinding persistence of the PC left to steer policy on immigration, multiculturism, civil rights, human rights and social engineering, are the very “enablers” that have brought our society to the level of concern being expressed today.

As evidenced on OLO, the PC brigade refuse to debate content. Typical responses include quotes or links from their self referential networks as affirmation of their perspective or to splat us with the sort of “thought terminating clichés” Poirot offers,

<< it would appear that they are taking advantage of their freedom of expression to protest at someone else's freedom of expression>>

This of course is not a discussion about the topic content, it is just a means to close down the debate, everyone is wrong to even discuss it. This is why there will be no debate from them, just the same tired and frustrating rhetoric and platitudes.

Multiculturism is not a “switch” that is suddenly thrown on, it is a progression. If we want to see where that progression might lead us, we just have to look to Europe and dare I say it, Lakemba.

@Craig,

So lets see, lets try and follow the Craigian logic

A: Because the Assyrian empire controlled much of Lebanon circa 600BC
B Anyone from that region now owes their cultural values to Assyria!

Are you kidding us?

There have been at least a dozen empires since that time that have controlled the same land. The fact that the Lakemba mob now speak Arabic, adhere to an Arabia derived religion and closely follow its religious texts should speak volumes--but apparently not to Craig :)

There are Assyrians in Oz, absolutely. But they are not associated with the Lakemba mob and dont want to be. They hold to a very different value set and a different language

SPQR,

Careful, the truth could upset Craig Minus.

It's fascinating that someone who uses a handle celebrating the form of Government of the ancient Roman Republic (from which our own modern democratic model derives in a highly modified form) might try to argue that a similar influence might not apply elsewhere.

You really are special, SPQR.

I see you have the support of a fellow anonymous internet troll. How nice for you.

‘morning SPQR,

It’s interesting that the PC Left try to blame our lack of “tolerance” as the cause of our woes, when in fact it’s Australian tolerance and acceptance of multiculturism that has offered migrants safe haven, a fresh start, public financial support, education and security. So how can our lack of tolerance be the cause? It’s the exact opposite.

I wonder if this glaring hypocrisy will be debated or dismissed with a 360 degree head spin?

The three protagonists are just warming up, Islam, the PC Left and the increasingly concerned public. In order to avoid this debate or even recognize it, the PC Left will either close it down, avoid it or to try to break it down into ever more complex elements in order to find some good bits (excuses, historic diversion or mitigation).

(Excellent Craig, we are impressed with your “research” into a 2,600 year old piece of history? What was it I said about “deconstruction and relativism”. Hey look everyone, another Unicorn. I bet you can find millions more historical diversions on Google?).

All they can offer is an intellectualized perspective from the high moral ground to slap down the bogans, racists, bigots and the Islamaphobics that dare to try to discuss what they wish to avoid. Which nicely identifies them as part of the problem.

I suggested earlier that “The PC left are even more acutely aware of the threat than the rest of society”.

This because the PC Left are fully aware that if the debate is allowed to follow just the building tensions between the three main players, the public will inevitably come to realize that in spite of Australian “tolerance” which is now being thrown back in our faces, it is the PC Left do nothing policies of appeasement that has both enabled and continues to sustain the problem they have created.

Craig and Co have reached rock bottom and we should encourage them to keep digging.

(Craig enters stage left in a belligerent outburst, brandishing a new shining Unicorn and a shovel)

Oops, he beat me to it. Onya Craig.

Oh look SPQR, you've got another anonymous internet troll on your side.

You must be so proud...

Well it's interesting that Hizb ut Tahrir can put 800-1000 people on the street in Lakemba and Reclaim Australia can muster five in Penrith...that's five people in total, not five hundred.
As for the "far right" I think both of them are still on remand after a brawl with a group of Lebanese back in December.

Glad that you noticed, Craig, and anonymous I is and anonymous I'll stay. I am Is Mise.

I don't blame you for remaining anonymous, Is Mise...

Dear Banjo,

If you believe in freedom of speech then surely you
also believe in the right of people to express
that freedom by way of protesting about something
they feel is important to them. Effective free speech
is crucial for a democracy. And true believers of any
religion feel particularly strongly about their faith
and what's sacred to them. There were huge demonstration
against the art work "Piss-Christ," not only in this
country but around the globe. People even vandalised the
art-work. Feelings were very strong. Cardinal Pell
wanted the art work banned and the religious fury was very
strong against the painting. Trials and a court case were
even involved:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/andres-serrano-piss-christ-triggers-religious-fury-and-court-battle-in-1990s-trials/story-fnat7dag-1226591823318

cont'd ...

Perhaps for a better understanding we need to look
at the significance and context of what religious
images mean to Muslims and why lampooning them or
even drawing them is considered blasphemous and evokes
such strong reactions:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30813742

Quoting from the link:

"Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words
and actions of Muhammed and his companions, explicitly
prohibits images of Allah, Muhammed and all the major
prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions."

"More widely, Islamic traidtion has discouraged the figurative
depiction of living creatures, especially human beings,
Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or
decorative."

"Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban.
Representation of images of the prophet, mainly produced in
the 7th century in Persian can be found."

True, Foxy, but the Pellsians didn't storm the art gallery and shoot the artist and the director.

Perhaps they could find nothing in their creed that would be an authorization, bit hard to get around "Love thy neighbour as thyself".

@Foxy, Sunday, 25 January 2015 12:48:30 PM

You support the freedom of speech and behaviour that produced a 'Piss Christ' and allowed it to remain.

So you would see nothing wrong with a 'Piss Muhammad' and it is OK if there are demonstrations, with the police enforcement to ensure legal, peaceful demonstrations and no inconvenience to business and the public who should be allowed to go about their normal activities?

While those acts are in bad taste and one can understand the authoritarians (zealots?) on both sides not being amused, free speech is the cornerstone of democracy.

If we believe in free speech we cannot only
claim it for ourselves and deny it to others
in the form of protests. Also - people who enjoy
the rights of free speech have a duty to respect
other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is limited by the rights of others. For example,
their right to maintain their good reputation and
their right to privacy.

All societies, including democratic ones, put various
limitations on what people may say or do. We have laws
that prohibit certain types of speech and actions that
might harm people.

Freedom of speech should always be tempered with
responsibility. Of course drawing the line between the
two is difficult at the best of times. Editorial decisions
have always been guided not just by legal restrictions
but by what is fair and tolerable within their society.
They need to look more closely at their own boundaries
of what can and can't be said and done.

Foxy,

What can you possibly have against lampooning a man in his 50s who got the urge for a 6 year old virgin, then over ruled her father's objections to him marrying her?

Of course there was one redeeming feature, he didn't consummate the marriage until she was a robust, thumping big nine year old and after he bedded her she was still allowed to play with her dolls.

One imagines that the Neo-Nazis get upset at cartoons of Hitler but to be fair people are forbidden by law in NSW from using his picture as a target.

Foxy,

You did have quite a say about 'Piss Christ'. All I am trying to establish is whether you would apply the same rule to Islam.

Would a 'Piss Muhammed' be art or not?

Craig,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrians_in_Australia
Assyrians are CHRISTIANS. I have an Assyrian Lebanese friend who says they have the same attachment to Christianity (entrenched in their culture) similar to Jews and Judaism.

Yes, just ask the Poms what they did to Ireland, you fool. Our best prime minister, Ben Chifley happened to be of Irish heritage.

Bigot.

Craig and Foxy are correct in saying that we are ALL allowed freedom of speech in Australia, and if that means the protesters at Lakemba want to have their say about how they don't want their prophet depicted, then that is their right.

If the mad Christian protesters who infest the areas around abortion clinics are allowed to harass and upset innocent staff and clients of these clinics with their pathetic, gutless protests, then it should be the same for all others.

It doesn't matter what all the bigots and racists on this site feel about these comments, ithey are still free to meke them in our Australian society.

If Banjo, Constance , SPQR and comrades don't like what these Lakemba protesters are saying then perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a non-democratic country?

I would never deliberately demean any different
creed, belief, or race. I know what it feels like.
I have experienced it. I do not believe in deliberately
provoking people into taking reactionary action
or trying to alienate them in our society.
To truly champion civil liberties and freedoms,
we need to engage in more than just hashtag politics.
And if we're going to criticise Muslims for the way
they behave - we should also look at the way some of
us behave - white Anglo-Saxom men should keep silent
on what Muslim women wear, what Muslim's eat, or whether
Australian Muslim women are permitted to enter our
Parliament. And, as one writer pointed out -
"not all those who pose a threat to
civil liberties and freedoms stand behind a foreign
flag and hold kalashnikovs. Some stand behind the
Australian flag and promote the myth that civil
liberties and freedoms need to be sacrificed in order
to obtain security."

Dear Is Mise,

I would not presume to judge the habits of
other cultures. In this country we have a framework of
laws that we are all expected to abide by. However,
before you begin to finger-point at what other do -
how about looking at what some do within our own
culture. Incest, child abuse, sex slavery, exists here as well.
As do other unspeakable acts.

So, Foxy, you're quite OK with lampooning a 50+ paedophile providing that we keep in mind that such people exist in every society, but there seems to be some confusion when he is a revered deflower of nine year olds.
The Muslims have every right to protest about people having a go at their pet perv just as others have every right to see him as a caring paedophile who let the little girl keep her dolls.

He did have some redeeming features.

Dear Is Mise,

Why are you deliberately baiting me?

I have made my position quite clear.

I do not believe that we should insult any
religion and its adherents because s small
group of fanatics misuse its teachings.

Do you actually know any Muslims?

Foxy and Susie,
Oh, I don't mind the muslims protesting about our freedoms, in fact it is quite amusing that they want special exemption for their beloved prophet not to be subject to ridicule. Funny that they are not calling for beheadings this time, perhaps IS has made that a little out of vogue.

The blatant hypocracy of their protests is evident in that muslims use our freedoms to be offended about features of our society, such as females in revealing clothing, lingerie shops and bottle shops. Hey the young muslim males go to beaches in droves to perv on the scantily clad girls, while the oldies call them whores and claim false offence.

With muslims only making up about 2% of population, they may have to wait for more numbers to get law changes to suit them, but no doubt they will continue trying it on our gutless politicians.

In the meantime, just put up with the occasional joke at your prophets expense and add it to the list of things you don't like about Aus. Or, you can always leave as the door is open.

Now if muslims were genuinely offended that would be the obvious action would it not? As someone here said a while ago, find somewhere more suited to your culture.

Foxy,

I'm not baiting you, I'm just bringing it out that you seem to think that not liking dirty old men is somehow bad, particularly DoMs that use their religious position to over ride the wishes of a father.

I guess being called a 'bigot' by an anonymous bigot is a reasonably unique honour...

Dear Is Mise,

No. You are putting words into my mouth.

All I can do is politely suggest you go back and
re-read my posts and do try staying with the
subject of this discussion.

ChairmanSuzeMao,

It appears you definitely enjoy totalitarianism.

Ooh, that nasty word again, you love them don't you. And that's all you got. Oh, but you forgot about the IRA - but you got a few well deserved responses for that one, didn't you? So looks like you only got one bad argument left to keep on flogging to death.

>>>>>>>

Craig,

But bigots like yourself hate for no reason.

Sadly missed, but his courageous words will live forever,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEcBzxoMB8

"Hate" Constance?

You're a very funny old bigot...

OTB, Hitchens was a smartarse, although not especially smart. I admire him for that and lament the wasted opportunity he represents.

Vale.

Lol!...Constance is at it again.

I've never seen quite so much belligerent prose sprayed around so consistently on this forum - she's I think what's referred to in the classics as a "doozy".

So of the two OLOer's who plug their brand of Christianity with a vengeance (runner & Constance) - we appear to have the two best examples of hatred strewn around like confetti.

Fascinating...

Craig Minns,

Maybe if you could mount an argument to prove Christopher Hitchens was wrong and you are right?

What about this fellow, is he a 'smartarse' too?

http://richarddawkins.net/2014/09/if-isis-is-not-islamic-then-the-inquisition-was-not-catholic/

and,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8

"What about this fellow, is he a 'smartarse' too?"

Yes....

Poirot, "Yes...."

LOL, there is truth in that, however Richard Dawkins handled those Islamic objections rather well, calling the bluffs and dispelling the myths.

Constance, charming as ever.
Why are you so upset with me?

We have freedom of speech (mostly) on this site, just like those abortion protesters and the Lakemba protesters.
Isn't it wonderful that we live in Australia?

@Suze,
<<If Banjo, Constance , SPQR and comrades don't like what these Lakemba protesters are saying then perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a non-democratic country?>>

For what its worth ...and i know it will have zilch impact on you...what you are missing Suze is that these protesters are seeking to exempt their creed from the sort of criticism and lampooning that every other creed & icon (in the West) regularly faces. They want to vet what gets published.

Hi OTB,
Hitchens was wrong for several reasons.

His argument presented in this video is not just wrong, it's shallow and empty.

The way the Catholic church was organised in the 30s and 40s and is to a large extent still organised today was strictly hierarchical, with specific departments tasked with handing down the latest interpretation of church dogma. Furthermore, it was and is a very large corporation, in the business of selling salvation for cash. How the Church behaves and how individual Catholics behave may well be considerably at odds. A very large number of Catholics fought the same regime that Hitchens argues the Catholic Church supported.

The Muslim religion is not hierarchical and there is no central dogmatic body. Individual Muslims are free to interpret the Quran in whatever way they see fit and local Imams sometimes attract considerable personal followings for their particular interpretation. This is not unlike the position of the Dissenters in the Anglican Church in the 17th Century, many of whom were forced out of the country and became settlers in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters

He then goes on to ridicule the Quran based on the stupid premise that Mohammed was illiterate. If I have to explain why that's stupid, there's no point trying.

Dawkins and Hitchens and Krauss (less so) are all examples of people who are, to use the Australian vernacular "so far up themselves they haven't seen daylight in years". They are arguing at cross purposes to the people they are arguing against, and they are seeking to destroy a framework that has been very successful (after all, it produced them) simply because some part of it are busted, but they don't offer anything to replace it. They are interested in creating controversy and polarising opinion so they can cash in with a few book sales and paid lectures.

My own views on the topic of religion are available on this site. Feel free to look them up.

Craig,

"He then goes on to ridicule the Quran based on the stupid premise that Mohammed was illiterate. If I have to explain why that's stupid, there's no point trying."

Must agree; for a successful merchant to be illiterate stretches the imagination; that a successful businesswoman would hire an illiterate for the work that Muhammad did is also far fetched.

That he is said to have used scribes merely indicates that he could afford their hire or that they wished to work for him.
Henry VIII was undoubtedly literate and moreover, well educated.
He also used scribes.

Some of Henry VIII's writings survive, he was a prolific writer and debater and an enthusiastic humanist, he also wrote songs/music and poetry and devised elaborate theatrical performances to entertain the court.

"They are arguing at cross purposes to the people they are arguing against, and they are seeking to destroy a framework that has been very successful (after all, it produced them) simply because some part of it are busted, but they don't offer anything to replace it.

Please explain.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Vandalism and violence should be punished.

You're kidding, Jay,

More Protestant propaganda and collusion with Islam

Henry VIII was a fat syphilis infected tyrant covered in sores who disposed of his wives (like Muslims). The CC let him do once but not again.

And like Muslims, the Protestants destroyed all images of Christ and beauty, destroying monasteries and Churches. A lot of Anglican churches were stolen from the CC and what do the Protestants do, charge entry. God, Catholics would never do that as they're not that GREEDY. Usuary was considered sinful in the CC, but the Protestants got plenty of bounty out of it. Now we're slaves to work and slaves to mortgages. Oh yes, the Protestant work ethic which ultimately took away the fun and celebrations and ultimately breaking up the family unit. Notice what's happening now.

Protestants have also destroyed the Christian community.

Martin Luther wrote the blue print of Anti-Seminism. So what came later?

And the FREEEMASONS collaborating with the Commies in the Mexican and French revolutions against the CC. Persecuting the CC and its people.

ISLAM AND PROTESTANT COLLABORATIONS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam
Following the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmet II and the unification of the Middle East under Selim I, Suleiman the Magnificent, the son of Selim, managed to expand Ottoman rule to Balkans. The Habsburg Empire thus entered into direct conflict with the Ottomans.

At the same time the Protestant Reformation was taking place in numerous areas of northern and central Europe, in harsh opposition to Papal authority and the Holy Roman Empire led by Emperor Charles V. This situation led the Protestants to consider various forms of cooperation and rapprochement (religious, commercial, military) with the Muslim world, in opposition to their common Habsburg enemy.

Anglo-Turkish piracy
Main article: Anglo-Turkish piracy
"After peace was made with Catholic Spain in 1604, English pirates nevertheless continued to raid Christian shipping in the Mediterranean, this time under the protection of the Muslim rulers of the Barbary States, and often converting to Islam in the process, in what has been described as Anglo-Turkish piracy"

Cont...

...Cont

You take any one man ideology and it creates or at least has the potentional for TOTALITARIANISM and/or harsh politicalisation. That's why the Catholic Church is the best form of Democracy as it depends on many people, not just one man. And ordinary people become saints instead of one inflated ego with a mad idea. The one idealistic leader dies, then all falls apart and only gets more corrupt.

Every man and his dog is against the Catholic Church, and you're right it is the largest institution in the world, and has broad shoulders, and conviction, and intellectual prowess, and that's why it's lasted. As ultimately the CC has the interests of people at hand so is more HUMANE than anything else. The CC has always been Communism's greatest enemy. And everyone else's, colluding against the CC. It's not perfect, but if you believe in utopia, you're delluded.

"How to be Free" by Tom Hodgkinson. The Dark Ages weren't so dark afterall. Protestant propaganda once again and corrupt historians have portrayed Catholic harmonious societies as Dark.

Now we have ISIS wanting to kill the Pope.

The Pope is the only leader in the world who speaks of greed and extreme Capitalism.

So the Protestants got a few tips from Islam. How curious.

Why is Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit so popular? Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

Why is everyone on drugs and medicated? Because any real harmonious community has been taken away since the Reformation which has had so many detrimental consequences.

Constance,

The Pope (whom I admire) is totally out of step with capitalism. All the world leaders will do is pay him lip service - because he does truly represent the ethos of Christ. They represent the greed and avarice of consumerism. This consumerist mindset does deliver us in the West a very comfortable lifestyle...but "no moderation" so we lose our soul in the process.

Tom's book " How to be Free" also has a chapter titled "Sail Away from Rudeness and toward a New Era of Courtesy, Civility and Grace"

(You should read it sometime:)

The PC case seems to be based on the premise that Islam is “just another religion” and as such, is entitled to the protection of, and compliance with the same laws as any other religion under our Australian democracy.

That is precisely what Islam is entitled to and what it should get, nothing more and nothing less.

I can accept that, and I suspect most Australians could too. But Islam hasn’t and it won’t.

Additionally, the PC block gives Australia hundreds of reasons why we should in fact give Islam special dispensation.

Many Australians perceive that Islam demands more from Australian’s than we offer other religions and that Islam wishes to change us, our values and our beliefs.

Australians are hearing and seeing more of Islam in our own communities, whilst being exposed to their wider values, beliefs, depraved actions internationally. Perspectives are being formed.

It doesn’t matter if those perceptions are right or wrong, they are the perceptions of Australian individuals who are absolutely entitled to their perceptions and nobody, not even from the highest offices in the land, has either the right or the authority to challenge a persons perceptions.

Unless of course, you are of the PC Left, who are challenging our public perceptions. We are tagged as something socially ugly and denied the opportunity to have the conversation.

Threads like this are diverted away from our social interaction with Islam and the tensions building here in Australia. This interaction between the Public, Islam and the PC block must be discussed.

We’ve had every religion, culture, empire and political system for the last 2,600 years dragged into the debate to distract discussion. The worlds “Orrible Histories” are not relevant to Islam in today’s world, because they are not of today’s world, they are pure distractions to convince Australian’s that Islam is no different to any other religion.

As Jonathan Swift observed, “it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he wasn’t reasoned into in the first place”.

The PC block is fast approaching culpability and Australians will not be kind to them.

Spindoc,
The PC brigade have abandoned secularism and subordinated themselves to the false presentation of Islam given by Tony Abbott and re-affirmed section 18c, some have even suggested censorship should go even further.
Look at what happened in France, maybe 10% of the population surrendered en masse to globalism and the "New World Order", the PC brigade are now bonded not only to Islam but to Merkel, Netanyahu, Hollande, Cameron and over here Tony Abbott.
So fraternity and liberty have been dumped by the Left and their commitment to equality is under severe stress.

'Tom's book " How to be Free" also has a chapter titled "Sail Away from Rudeness and toward a New Era of Courtesy, Civility and Grace"

(You should read it sometime:)'

You certainly are a hearer and not a doer Poirot.

Luciferase, they are trying to argue with religionists on deductive grounds, when religion is largely inductively derived.

They suggest that the religious experience must be inherently solipsistic (self-referential) and is therefore an entirely personal exercise which should have no place in the doings of the world, but then contradict themselves by trying to make people accept their view that their brand of atheism (which is also an entirely personal exercise) has some preeminent right to be heard.

Dawkins and Krauss have some interesting things to say, Pinker has much more interesting things to say, but for my money Hitchens was just a bandwagon-rider.

Western enlightenment philosophy, which these "public intellectuals" (as Krauss lies to call himself ina fit of purest wankerism) would all like to claim as their own is derived directly from Western theology and science (natural philosophy)follows on directly from that. The atheist argument that Dawkins et al put forward is conceptually the same sort of thing that theology students debate in seminaries and their brand of atheism is nearer to a religious doctrine than they'd like to admit.

Is Mise, I wasn't thinking along those lines, but you make a good point.

What I: was getting at is that there a lack of formal education does not imply a lack of capacity for insightful thought. Hitchens was simply being a snob.

"they are trying to argue with religionists on deductive grounds, when religion is largely inductively derived."

Whether a god exists, or not, was not their argument. Science cannot falsify such a belief, and Hitchens & Co, knew(know) it. They proposed alternatives to belief, founded in science. Their argument was with the impact of belief upon lives of non-believers, using all the logic, reason and science they could muster. Solipsism is a wish, but not expected it of the religious.

To characterize atheism as a 'belief', well, musn't the god's existence, rather than its non-existence, to be supported scientifically? A scientific hypothesis (belief) is not testable by induction. Hitchens appreciated this too well, and perhaps why you don't appreciate him.

Back to the point. A laissez-faire approach to Islamisicm is now a luxury. There are useful idiots (and I venture that may be all of us, on either side of the divide) to be countered by argument but, most of all, we must take security measures along the lines now being taken in France, IMO.

If Australia is at 'war' with terrorism, and therefore IS/Daesh, should those who at demonstrate their sympathies, by their words or (limited) actions, be interned until a truce is reached, as in the world wars (if there can be a truce between nations and ideologies), or, should they be left alone to cultivate their sympathies into others?

Constance,

We should strive to be historically accurate, Henry VIII was infected by syphilis in later life but he was very well educated and as Jay says was a playwright etc., but one thing that he was not was a Protestant ; he would probably have executed anyone who preached the Protestantism of later years.
It is arguable that Thomas Cranmer did not dare to introduce his reforms (for which he died under Mary I) until Henry VIII was dead.

One important point is missed if we only consider Islam a religion. It is not essentially a personal faith as we consider religions. It is essentially a POLITICAL world view based in shariah laws. In the view of the devout exponents of Islam any other form of government and law if not of Allah is spurious and must be exterminated otherwise we are not following the Laws of Allah. That is why Muslims influenced by Westernized values or democratic free speech must be exterminated. IT is the LAW of ALLAH.

10 pages of Posts & I get this to-day. Late again Graham. I've got a lot of catching up to do.

Banjo: One speaker at the rally, Sufyan Badar, took aim at what he called the arrogant West. "They force their world view onto us. "We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow," he said.

If they reject "Freedom of Speech" then why are they using it? Blatant Hypocracy.

Poirot: How was the rally,? Did you see Perciles, Arjay, Steelie etc.? How about a report.

Graig: they come from a very old culture (no, not Islam, but Assyrian
SPQR: There have been at least a dozen empires since that time that have controlled the same land.
In that case They could be Egyptian, Hittite, Hyksos, Philistine, Persian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman & a few others as well.

Spin Doc: It’s interesting that the PC Left try to blame our lack of “tolerance” as the cause of our woes.

The PC have a hide talking about intolerance.

SOL: Craig and Foxy are correct in saying that we are ALL allowed freedom of speech in Australia, and if that means the protesters at Lakemba want to have their say about how they don't want their prophet depicted, then that is their right.

& We have the right to depict the Mad Mahomet any way we like & the right to Demonstrate against Islam as well. Or, as the PC Left would have it. A majority is not allowed to Demonstrate against the minority.

cont.
Foxy: we should also look at the way some of us behave - white Anglo-Saxon men should keep silent on what Muslim women wear, what Muslim's eat, or whether Australian Muslim women are permitted to enter our
Parliament.

Now you want to take away WASM rights. Right.

Foxy: I do not believe that we should insult any religion and its adherents because s small group of fanatics misuse its teachings.

The trouble is that it is a Political System of Government, Like Democracy, Socialism or Communism, in the guise of a Religion.

Foxy: Incest, child abuse, sex slavery, exists here as well. As do other unspeakable acts.

But, but these "small group of fanatics" are "Lone Wolves." as emphasized on OLO many times by the moslem apologists.

Craig: The Muslim religion is not hierarchical and there is no central dogmatic body. Individual Muslims are free to interpret the Quran in whatever way they see fit and local Imams sometimes attract considerable personal followings for their particular interpretation.

Sounds like Southern Baptists, & O.P.D.'s. There's a lot of "in-fighting" there too.

Craig: "He then goes on to ridicule the Quran based on the stupid premise that Mohammed was illiterate.

He was, & it recorded that he used Scribes.

Josephus: In the view of the devout exponents of Islam any other form of government and law if not of Allah is spurious and must be exterminated.

Which brings me back to the point of Islam is a System of Government in the guise of a Religion & therefore incompatible with Australian values.

IsMise,

I don't know why you do this? You did this another time, pendanticaly and wrongfully. Then you got obsessed with your one liners bringing up homosexuality on the Black and White Flag thread ignoring all else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
Look at bottom - Excommuncicated by the CC and Convert to Anglicanism.

Yes, there are plenty of educated useful idiots around, aren't there?

Josephus,

That is what I've been trying to say for past few weeks. Islam is NOT A RELIGION, rather, it is a demonic ideology and 100% way of life.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17000&page=0#300037
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17019&page=0

IDEOLOGY IS NOT A THING
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/01/ideology-is-not-thing.html#more
"Islam is a good example of the protean aspects of ideology. It essentially got its start not as "the faith of the true believers," but as a rather sleazy device for uniting the desert tribes to take full advantage of the massive mutual weakening that the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires had been inflicting on each other for decades beforehand. The faith or ideology of Islam would have had no traction otherwise, and in the face of two healthy empires able to repel them, the tribes would have cheerfully returned to slitting each other's throats. It was plunder that built Islam, and when the plunder ran out, it went into a protracted period of abeyance. It's recent revival since 1967 as a supposed "ideological force" has much to do with the expediences of asymmetrical warfare for which its tribal origins give it some utility and its convenience as a channeling device for second-generation immigrant ressentiment in Europe."

Dear Jayb,

The problem is not Islam - it's all religious
fundamentalism.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/danger-religious-fundamentalists-just-muslisms.html

Foxy,
For the hundredth time, South America and Asia, where the bulk of Christians reside have no problem with militant, violent religious extremism save for the Phillipines where there's an ongoing Islamist insurgency.
What's more Islam is not a religion, so comparing it to Christianity at all is useless, it tells us nothing about the world.

don't forget feminism Foxy that slaughters the unborn by the truck/ship load.

Poirot,

My favourite saint is St Francis of Assissi who Tom called the most polite person on earth, but then St Francis wasn't contending with Islam at the time, was he?

You don't want to be polite and gullible towards the point of inanity where you tolerate aggression and violence.

Blaise Pascal said that the beginning of morality was to think well; generosity of spirit is not enough.

Some thinking required please.

Dear runner,

It's best not to open your mouth and speak
about something you know nothing about.
Try religion instead. You just may have more
credibility with that subject. Worth a try
anyway.

Dear Jay,

Now - you're becoming an embarrassment.
Go away!

Constance,

From your reference,
".... Because his principal dispute was with papal authority, rather than with doctrinal matters, he remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings, despite his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church.".

Therefore Henry VIII was not a Protestant, his beliefs remained Catholic but his politics were his own.

What's wrong with historical accuracy?

As for throwing one liners into the 'Black and White Flag' debate that's about all that there was room for, besides what is wrong with asking defenders of Islam why they still advocate the murder of homosexuals?
When did I "pendanticaly [sic] and wrongfully" do what you complain of?

Foxy: it's all religious fundamentalism.

The problem is dear Foxy is that Islam is a Harsh Political System in the guise of a Religion.

Poirot: My favourite saint is St Francis of Assisi.

Mine too. He was the Arch Bishop of Goa & Malacca & the Patron saint of Mangos. He lived in Malacca for a number of years. He is revered as a Saint not only by the Catholics but by Hindu's & Moslems alike. He died on over looking Japan & was buried under the Alter in St Pauls Church on the hill over looking Malacca. The Indian Catholics wanted him buried in Goa & partitioned the Pope at the time. The Pope said he was to go to Goa. The people of Malacca dug him up & found that the had been perfectly preserved like the day he was buried. Apparently the Pope smelt a rat & said, "Send me his right hand." which the Malays cut off & sent to the Pope. The hand is now in the centre of the High Alter in the Vatican. He was buried in Goa. The Church was never used again.

In 1938 the Malaccans erected a statue of St. Francis behind the Church over looking Malacca. On the Day of dedication by the Christians, Hindu's & Moslems, a small, lone black cloud came over Malacca & a single Stroke of Lightning came from the colour & struck the Mango tree beside the statue smashing a large branch off which hit the statue & broke of the right hand.

Now I thought this was a bit much, but I spoke to a number of people that were there that day. It was they who told me the reason for the broken hand on the statue. One was our Pilot that flew us when we went skydiving in Kluang. So strange but true, apparently.

If you ever lose anything he's the bloke to go to. Finds it every time.

Henry VIII was a Protestant, ie he protested against the rule of Rome.

I am really fed up with all this Islamist $^&* we are having to put up with.
I am heartily sick of it.
Either give in to them or we get rid of them.
The Islamists have drawn the line, well let us cross it !

I would just like to say I do not give a Continental what muslims, christians, mormons or scientologists think. They can think what they like but they must afford the same privilege to me. I may be a anti religion but that is nothing they can object to in Australia.
If they do not like that they can leave our free country.
I think it is a disgrace that politicians and the ABC toady to these scum and I think if religion was taxed it would be dead within our lifetime

Dear JBower,

Please be more specific in your criticisms.

Of whom do you speak precisely.

Who exactly is telling you what to think and do.

Thanks for that, Constance.

"Blaise Pascal said that the beginning of morality was to think well; generosity of spirit is not enough."

Blaise Pascal also thought that Christ was the savior, because he had been foretold in Jewish scriptures. That is the sole pedestal on which his conviction stands.

That, and you may as well believe in God, because what have you got to lose if it's all a human invention.

But I'm sure he thought well and long. Actually I have a rather handsome volume of Pensées - interesting to dip into from time to time.

Poirot, and your point is?

>>>>>

IsMise,

"What's wrong with historical accuracy?." Because your're not being historically accurate. Catholicism is not a political organisation and that's where Henry's political beliefs didn't blend with the Catholic ethos. And that's why he was excommunicated and CONVERTED to Anglicism. And as Bazz said, he was Protestant. Clear and simple. Martin Luther was excommunicated also. He apparently didn't volunteer to leave it but then created his own religion.

On another note, and that's why as a consequence of Protestant and Muslim co-operation that England and the Royal Family are still in cohoots with Saudi Arabia and the rest of their old Muslim colonies. England also was never particularly welcoming to Jews.

Well there you go, Constance...being surprised that you actually managed to post a (half)civil post to me, I made the mistake of posting one back.

Your post to me:

"Poirot,

My favourite saint is St Francis of Assissi who Tom called the most polite person on earth, but then St Francis wasn't contending with Islam at the time, was he?

You don't want to be polite and gullible towards the point of inanity where you tolerate aggression and violence.

Blaise Pascal said that the beginning of morality was to think well; generosity of spirit is not enough.

Some thinking required please."

Constance, your point was?

Like Bazz, I too am fed up with the attitudes of muslims, not to mention their violent, deadly and childish reactions to cartoons, freedoms and democracy. The silence of the majority when atrocities are committed in their name is deafening, and discredits them. The religion encourages deceit against non-believers who must be annihilated. They don't want freedom, yet use it in our society to condemn us. Assimilate or get out. Religion is a personal belief and should not be inflicted on others.

Luciferase, I've spent most of my life in science, engineering and practical work, I think I have a reasonably good handle on the things that can be achieved deductively and the role of inductive inference. I've also got a pretty strong grasp on the role of abductive reasoning, which may be less well understood by some, including some like Dawkins, who have happily used it in the past.

I have to admit I was deliberately a little provocative in my posts regarding Hitchens, but only a little.

The question of the existence of God is an inherently uninteresting one. Why do I say that? Because it is unanswerable at the moment: as you say, it cannot be conclusively proven inductively and it's not amenable to deductive approaches. However, the observations that people make which lead them to posit the existence of God are more approachable and what's more, they are to some extent testable inductively and there is at least a theoretical way in which a conclusive proof cpould be derived. A fairly large number of people have spent a considerable time throughout recorded history (and no doubt prior to that) trying to do just that.

The problem for some empiricists is that one of the primary criteria which is almost without exception agreed is necessary to experience the "hand of God" is a willingness to accept that this is possible ("faith"). Scientists have faith too; the scientific method is to accept an hypothesis that seems to work until it is shown to be wrong by experiement. Sometimes the definitive experiment can take a long time to be found, or rely on lots of other things falling into place (emergence) and people may look for other explanations while they're waiting, but the initial hypothesis remains.

There are about 10 mutually incompatible explanations for quantum behaviour and no definitive experiment in sight. Should we do as Dawkins and the charming "Hitch" do with religion and pretend that this means QM is nonsense?

People are often prone to getting caught up in details and tend to overlook wider pictures. This is a common feature of all educated people (which is all of us, ever since there were people) and it has become more and more entrenched as educations have become narrower and knowledge of the details of the world increases.

We "know what we know" but we think that means we also know what we don't know and that's a serious category error.

Rumsfeld was pilloried for his talk of "known unknowns", which is not surprising given the large amount of "unknown unknowns" that most people have no idea they don't know about. It was an important and clear phrasing, however and it is applicable in all sorts of ways.

I'm not religious, but I do not assume that the people who are must be less intelligent than me and therefore wrong. That's not just a serious error, it's about as stupid as it's possible to be.

I have experienced for myself some things that I cannot readily explain, which some might see as having a religious connotation, but because of my particular mode of thinking I don't. Instead, I try to think of ways to test those observations and to explain what they might mean.

That puts me in pretty good company.

Further to that, Constance, is the fact that inserting someone's seemingly intelligent quote in your posts, doesn't mean diddly-squat.

"Blaise Pascal said that the beginning of morality was to think well; generosity of spirit is not enough."

Yes, I think he's right...but as I've pointed out, his conviction rests on the point I mentioned previously - and he tends to build the rest of his long discourse around that. Lots of wise stuff interspersed of course, but that's par for the course with that sort of man.

Humans come up with their own "wisdom" all the time...such as your towering theme "Islam = The Devil".

That's your biggy and you build everything else around it.

Well and good, but not hard to analyse.

And as for your quote:

"You don't want to be polite and gullible towards the point of inanity where you tolerate aggression and violence."

Coming from one of the most aggressive posters on this forum, that's rather rich.

Foxy I meant the whole stinking lot of people who follow religion. They think what they think and I think they are wrong. There is no God, they just need a crutch to lean on and use it to try and oppress me.
What do you mean about them telling me what to think? They all want me to do as their religion says and they can shove that.
Now I suppose you will try and bait with more stupidity. Foxy just kiss the muslim's feet(or above) and leave me be.

Constance,

"...."What's wrong with historical accuracy?." Because your're not being historically accurate. Catholicism is not a political organisation and that's where Henry's political beliefs didn't blend with the Catholic ethos...."
Henry's religious beliefs were Catholic and although he dallied with Protestantism he remained Catholic in his core beliefs and died so.

"....These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII. The King was a keen theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous policies. In 1539 the Act of Six Articles returned the Church to unambiguous Catholic orthodoxy apart from papal supremacy. Amongst other things, transubstantiation and auricular confession were reaffirmed. Clerical marriage, which had crept in, was condemned, and vows of chastity were now held to be unbreakable. This was an embarrassment to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, whose marriage was an open secret at the time.

More significantly, under this act heresy again became a felony. This was a clear signal that Henry VIII wouldn't tolerate those with radical religious views. Henry tried to establish a concensus between Protestants and conservatives. Protestants were punished for violating the Six Articles, while papists were punished for denying the royal supremacy.

Until Henry's death in 1547, the Act of Six Articles remained the basis of the Church's faith. In 1543, 'A Necessary Doctrine & Erudition for any Christian Man' came down entirely on the side of traditional orthodoxy, and merely replaced the papal supremacy with the king's authority. Any traces of Lutheranism that were present in the Book of 1537 'Institution of a Christian Man' had now disappeared. Although the English Bible was retained, access to it was severely restricted by the Act for the Advancement of True Religion in 1543. This allowed only upper class men & women to read the Bible, with such women only allowed to read it in private.

continues.

Constance said;
Catholicism is not a political organisation

Well not now as such but it was very much so then, eg the Holy Roman Empire.
The Pope made war and destroyed kings etc.

The further away from Rome the stronger the protestants.

Henry VIII had dallied with Protestant ideas, but ultimately he proved to be conservative on matters of religious doctrine. It would take his son, Edward VI, and his advisors, to turn England into something more like a genuine Protestant country."

The High Church in Anglicanism bases many of its beliefs and practices on the foundation of Henry VIII retention of Catholic ways.

See: http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html

Craig, re abductive reasoning, isn't the invention of a god to explain all this less economical than blaming a singularity? Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss cho(o)se the most likely inference, while others choose faith.

It's what people do with their faith that HDK rail(ed) against, especially re modern-day Islam.

Craig Minns,

I don’t see how theists using inductive reasoning to justify their beliefs is any reason to not discuss with them arguments that use deductive reasoning. Some may never have considered arguments that use deductive reasoning. More to the point, theists rarely (if ever) arrive at their beliefs through any sort of reasoning. It’s usually taken on faith entirely and as the result of childhood indoctrination or an emotional need later on in life. The inductive reasoning they give to justify their beliefs later on are arguments they put forth to support a belief they already have and only find convincing because the belief came first. No-one, for example, hears the Kalam Cosmological Argument and then decides that God must exist. So I think your criticism of Dawkins and Hitchens, here, is confused.

<<They suggest that the religious experience must be inherently solipsistic (self-referential) and is therefore an entirely personal exercise which should have no place in the doings of the world, but then contradict themselves by trying to make people accept their view that their brand of atheism (which is also an entirely personal exercise) has some preeminent right to be heard.>>

You are talking about two different things here. Whether or not something has a “place in the doings of the world”, and a group’s right to be heard are two different things. Atheism isn’t a personal exercise either, it’s a response to a claim.

<<The question of the existence of God is ... unanswerable at the moment: as you say, it cannot be conclusively proven inductively and it's not amenable to deductive approaches.>>

I don’t see how it’s not amenable to deductive approaches. There are varying degrees of certainty that can be achieved, and attaining them can still be useful. Proving something conclusively, or reaching absolute certainty about something, is not necessary. In fact it’s useless, and introducing the notion of absolute certainty or conclusive proof is a red herring.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Scientists have faith too; the scientific method is to accept an hypothesis that seems to work until it is shown to be wrong by experiement.>>

That depends on what you mean by “faith.” Faith can be a religious belief without evidence, or it can be the complete confidence in something/someone. You are conflating these two; presumably to make Dawkins and Hitchens sound ignorant. It’s been years since I’ve read any of their books on religion, but from what I can remember, you have portrayed their positions as caricatures of what they really are. Usually, they only ever speak/spoke of a lack of evidence and the importance of evidence. Neither of them is/was stupid enough to transfer the burden of proof to themselves, or commit the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, by claiming dogmatically that this definitely means that a god mustn’t exist. So I have no idea of what you’re referring to when you claim that their “brand of atheism” is closer to religion than they’d like to admit.

<<There are about 10 mutually incompatible explanations for quantum behaviour and no definitive experiment in sight. Should we do as Dawkins and the charming "Hitch" do with religion and pretend that this means QM is nonsense?>>

I’m not aware of either one of them having said anything that could lead you to think that this is a conclusion they would reach. This is usually the type of caracaturisation that non-believers make when they either haven’t read their books, or something about them just got up their nose and they’re not sure what it was.

This is another example of the caracaturisation I’m talking about…

<<We "know what we know" but we think that means we also know what we don't know and that's a serious category error.>>

This alludes to a similar error in reasoning that “agnostics” always make in assuming that the question of the existence of a god somehow requires a higher level of certainty than other questions in life. And what would give you the impression that theists might know something that the rest of us don’t?

Luciferase, HDK take the null hypothesis to be that no God exists. In doing so they limit their possible explanations of the observations that religious people ascribe to a divine origin in an unscientific way. They may be right, but they may not: their approach requires a standard of evidence that is higher than that demanded of other hypotheses that are regarded as impeccably scientific.

AJP, I'm not suggesting there is any reason not to engage deductively other than the fact that it is always going to be unproductive. Using a light microscope to explore QM is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you have a deterministic (deductive) mindset, but it won't help you to understand why electrons don't behave like molecules.

The "scientific" approach that HDK use is based on a certain view of probability (that of Bayes) which has proven just as useless in understanding QM as a deterministic model and I suggest it is similarly useless in coming to grips with the religious experience.

In speaking of a lack of evidence, what is being said is simply: "I don't believe your account unless you can show me something I can explain based on what I already know". I have expalined why that is essentially a poor approach and is not one that Krauss, for example would take in his work in physics.

My point on QM was analogy, not literalism. Your response, however, is a good demonstration of why trying to explain religious experience to those who are determined to be unconvinced is always doomed to failure. I had hoped to have a discussion, not a debate.

What would give you the idea that theists don't know something that you don't?

Craig,

HDK take the position that the universe is explicable with known science, making a God hypothesis unnecessary. They understand a God hypothesis is unfalsifiable, that faith and science are separate, that a null hypothesis is unneeded.

You expect science to accommodate a 'god of the gaps', like it did with the 'God particle' (until its existence was confirmed), but science has never posited the existence of a god to explain anything. Long should it remain that, "In doing so they (scientists) limit their possible explanations of the observations that religious people ascribe to a divine origin". That would be going backwards.

When things are done in the name of a god, they are done on behalf of a figment of imagination. That's fine until those things become nasty. I didn't get much response to my 'war and internment' treatment of the problem. Should those espousing extremism be interned as enemies of the State for the duration of the conflict?

Craig Minns,

I've heard analogies using the weirdness of QM to shoehorn the possibility of the existence of a god into otherwise rational debate, but never quite like this.

<<I'm not suggesting there is any reason not to engage deductively other than the fact that it is always going to be unproductive.>>

What do you mean by “unproductive” then? When most people say this, they usually mean that it’s no use trying to change the minds of theists (which is not always true); you were even talking earlier about theists and atheists using different forms of reasoning, which further suggests that this is what you’re talking about. But then you give an analogy in the very next paragraph that appears to assume that religious experience is a very real thing that transcends rational thought processes, thus rendering discussion unproductive.

<<Using a light microscope to explore QM is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you have a deterministic (deductive) mindset, but it won't help you to understand why electrons don't behave like molecules.>>

What makes you think that similar could be said of religious experiences; that there is anything more to religious experiences than rational or naturalistic explanations? You seem to assume that religious experiences have their own mystical explanation, in the same sense that QM doesn’t obey our understanding of cause and effect, but provide no justification for this.

<<In speaking of a lack of evidence, what is being said is simply: "I don't believe your account unless you can show me something I can explain based on what I already know".>>

Rubbish. A religious experience is not a way of coming to “know” anything. Because even if the experience was a legitimate revelation, the person who experiences it would also have started from a position in which they did not possess sufficient knowledge on which to base the conclusion that the experience was in fact divine. Personal revelation is not a reliable pathway to truth and even if it were, how could you possibly make that determination without reason and evidence?

It always comes back to evidence.

Continued…

...Continued

<<I have expalined why that is essentially a poor approach and is not one that Krauss, for example would take in his work in physics.>>

Do you mean with your conflating of the different meanings of “faith” regarding hypotheses? An hypothesis is not a belief without evidence and it’s also not a complete trust or confidence in an idea. Both would be unreliable and unscientific starting points. Furthermore, theists are not investigating a belief, they’re already convinced of its truth and hold it in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Your analogy was wrong on every level.

<<My point on QM was analogy, not literalism.>>

Yes, I understood that. And my point was that the analogy was a misrepresentation of the line of reasoning and arguments of Dawkins, et al.

<<Your response, however, is a good demonstration of why trying to explain religious experience to those who are determined to be unconvinced is always doomed to failure.>>

My response demonstrated nothing of the sort. And how does someone - who is sceptical that their own unexplainable experiences are anything other than natural phenomena with rational explanations - explain religious experiences to someone who is of the same mindset in a way that is going to enlighten them? You yourself suggested that your default position, when you experience something unexplainable, is to assume a rational explanation.

You sound very confused.

<<What would give you the idea that theists don't know something that you don't?>>

I didn't say they didn't. This is a shifting of the burden of proof.

I was just curious as to why you entertained the idea (that theists might be privy to some special revelation) to the extent that you would label Dawkins', et al. disregard for the possibility as a "serious" error. I don't know that Russell's teapot isn't orbiting the sun, but I wouldn't consider my dismissal of the idea a "serious" error. This goes back to what I was saying about agnostics' error in assuming that the question of God requires more certainty than any other absurd idea. There's no reason it should.

My goodness, haven't you heard ?
Stephan Hawkins proved God does not exist !
God could not have initiated the big bang because before the big bang
there was no TIME !
Time only came into existence at the time of the big bang !

Luciferase, my own position is the same as you ascribe to Dawkins, et al. I do not expect science to accommodate any kind of God at all, as I have said repeatedly. Use of terms like "God of the gaps" is meaningless in the context.

My position is simply that the religious explanation satisfies a particular human need to explain things which is shared by science. I am prepared to accept that somebody else's explanation may use different words for concepts that we share and try to fit my own grasp of their meaning to their own usage.

Dawkins et al arrogantly refuse to do so and so they are left arguing about things they refuse to accept as even worth their time, which to be honest, is pretty damned foolish behaviour for people who are apparently intelligent.

When things are done in the name of QM they are similarly done in the name of a figment of the imagination and so we come full circle to where we started. Dark matter is another great mystery that we have no way of meaningfully explaining; it would be just as useful to call it "God" as DM.

Feynmann, in one of his famous Lectures on Physics made the point that the process of advancing science starts with the making of a guess to explain something that the scientist has observed and can't explain.

The lazy atheism of Dawkins et al doesn't approach the problem of the observations that lead to a religious explanation, it attacks the explanation on grounds that the explanation doesn't attempt to cover. It would be like attacking Boyle's Law because it explains how gases behave even though Boyle had no idea what gases really were.

It's pointless.

AJP, what I "seem" to do in your mind and what I "say" on paper, "seem" to be at odds.

No point in trying to go any further, I'd say.

Bazz, what is time?

The fourth dimension !

My idea of Hell.

Spending eternity on your knees, bum in the air, facing a mythical being & kissing the ground. Then running around with your hands in the air singing, "F'reeze a jolly good fellow."

Bazz, what is time? The fourth dimension !

No Bazz. See below. :-)

T = 1/f(Hz)
t = V/d

Time is that which just passed as I typed this.

I’m sorry, Craig Minns, but I don’t think they are.

<<… what I "seem" to do in your mind and what I "say" on paper, "seem" to be at odds.>>

And I don’t think you could give an example of what you’re referring to either.

You have placed quotation marks around the word “seem”, which suggests that I used the word often enough for you to conclude that any further discussion is useless due to an alleged inability on my behalf to understand where you’re coming from, or a penchant for putting words in your mouth. Yet I only used the word once in all my responses to you, and as an invitation for you to clarify what you’ve said at that. Any request on my behalf for your clarification is accompanied by a good explanation of why what you’ve said is vague.

I may have said some things that were “at odds” with what you meant to say, but I don’t think I have said anything that is “at odds” with what you have written.

Your post to Luciferase does nothing to suggest that we have a communication problem here either. Take this for example…

<<My position is simply that the religious explanation satisfies a particular human need to explain things which is shared by science. I am prepared to accept that somebody else's explanation may use different words for concepts that we share and try to fit my own grasp of their meaning to their own usage.>>

This is perfectly in line with my responses to you regarding your incorrect application of the concept of “faith” when referring to the hypotheses and hypothesising of scientists; my pointing out to you that atheism isn’t an “activity”; my reminding you that theists don't investigate their beliefs honestly or reliably like scientists investigate an hypothesis; and my request for you to explain how the weirdness of QM is in any way similar to, or as unexplainable as, religious experiences.

Continued…

…Continued

Now you’re suggesting that one can do things “in the name of” QM, just as things can be done “in the name of” religion - one couldn’t; and that it would be just as useful to refer to DM as "God" - it wouldn't be, because the term "god" carries with it some baggage because of its historical use.

You are trying to pass off religion and science as almost exactly the same thing, just with different wording. Speaking of which…

<<Dawkins et al arrogantly refuse to [accept that somebody else's explanation may use different words for concepts that we share] …>>

Not when that's actually the case: http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

I have demonstrated that all of the parallels you draw between science and religion, however, are false. And why would you try to draw parallels that theists not only don’t try to draw themselves, but often deny in their attempts to portray the two as answering different questions?

I’m sorry, but this gripe you have with Dawkins et al. is a total non-issue. Religion may (sometimes) satisfy the human need to explain things that are (sometimes) shared by science, but that doesn’t mean that theists use the same methodology as scientists, and to suggest that it does is a non sequitur. Furthermore, the fact that both science and religion pursue explanations and satisfy our need for them does not then mean that they're both as rational or useful as each other, and any suggestion that it does only further suggests that the arguments and goals of Dawkins et al. are bang on target.

Talking about time ...

Here's one of my favourites from J.R.R. Tolkien:

"I sit beside the fire and think
Of all that I have seen
Of meadow flowers and butterflies
In summers that have been

Of yellow leaves and gossamer
In autumns that there were
With morning mist and silver sun
And wind upon my hair

I sit beside the fire and think
Of how the world will be
When winter comes without a spring
that I shall ever see

For still there are so many things
That I have never seen
In every word in every spring
There is a different green

I sit beside the fire and think
Of people long ago
And people that will see a world
That I shall never know

But all the while I sit and think
Of times there were before
I listen for returning feet
And voices at the door."

T = 1/0

Bazz: T = 1/0

Can't be. T = 1/0 = 1
Try this one.
T = 2*F (Fun). Time flys.

F = (BBQ+b)(Nf+k)

BBQ = BBQ
b or w = Beers or wine
N = Number
f = friend
k = kids
T = Time

Therefore T = 2*(BBQ+b)(Nf+k)

That works for me.

OK, T=1/0
Does not calculate, no result

I'm finding sweeping analogies about QM and Boyle's Law hard to fathom.

For example, " It would be like attacking Boyle's Law because it explains how gases behave even though Boyle had no idea what gases really were." Gas laws and QM are are mathematically derivable from some first principles and assumptions bound up in models. The predictive power of a model is what gives it credence, and gas laws and QM certainly have that.

If you are saying the God "model" is no different from a scientific model, i.e. it is a mental construct, OK, but what value has it if only a catchall for anything science leaves unresolved, which is daily diminishing. So, why should HDK give it the respect of a scientific model, if only to spare feelings? They do respect what religion can provide, without having to respect it from a scientific standpoint, as AJP said.

Back to the point, again. What should be done with those whose particular mental constructs are threatening the rest of us? It's fine to protest at Lakemba but what of those going beyond protest and inciting extremism? Is a fine and 'move along please' enough? Shouldn't we be looking at community safety less wide-eyed?

AJP, I'm sorry for not responding to your rather lengthy contributions. I'll do so now, albeit only rather selectively. As I said, I'm not interested in a debate, but I'd like to have a discussion. The difference goes to your question about my use of the term "productive" in an earlier comment. In a discussion, we are both, in good faith, seeking to understand the point of view of the other and to pass on our own view so that it may be properly understood. We are not trying to "change the mind" of the other, nor are we trying to score points as in a debate. The first is a useful endeavour, the second is a rather pointless recreation.

On religious experience, it seems there isn't much to discuss, since your a priori view that it has no value tends to make the whole topic pointless. This is the same problem that I discussed vis a vis Dawkins et al.

On "faith", I was referring to the very common exhortation in religious writings that it is necessary for a person to have such faith to become a believer. This has much in common with the way in which QM places the observer in the role of interacting with the action observed. It also has some congruities with my use of the term "good faith" in referring to interactions between people: if it is absent, then understanding is impossible, because a priori scepticism prevents proper critical thinking.

The standard of proof that atheists require of theists is simply higher than required. I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist, it simply doesn't fit your own version of atheistic normativism that an atheist may be able to accept theists as honestly seeking to explain a human experience in any way other than your own.

Religion and science ARE about exactly the same thing. You don't understand either well enough if you don't understand that.

I think that is about all. If you'd like to have a longer discussion, by all means start one.

Hi Luciferase, I agree that the religious approach has largely run its course as a means of enhancing understanding of the physical world. however, you're quite wrong to limit the credence of any POV to its predictive power. Explanation of currently available observations is the primary test of credence.

The point of the QM analogy is that the many different hypotheses that have been created to explain the observations which have been made all have their quite passionate adherents and yet they are all to a large extent mutually incompatible.

It is assumed that at some point the "truth" will be found, but there is no guarantee that this will be possible, given the nature of quantum behaviour. Any reasonably honest physicist will happily acknowledge this. I say "happily", because physics is all about the mystery of the world and exploring that mystery. Does that sound at all like what a religious person might say? Furthermore, if a the "truth" is found, then one or none of the current explanations will be wrong and the adherents to those models will have been merely "believers" who have to adjust their belief structure to accommodate new evidence. Once again, religion has done this throughout history.

In the meantime, both religion and physics continue, despite not having a "truth", because they provide a framework for people to think with.

There is more to the world that we live in than the physical sciences are able to explain at this time. Perhaps there ultimately is not, but until that day is reached, we need to accommodate those other things, just as cosmologists need to accommodate Dark Matter.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Craig Minns,

I am quite happy to have a discussion too. However, if I see an error on your part, then I will still want to correct it; and if I see a claim that needs supporting before there is any point in proceeding, then I will request a justification for it.

<<The difference goes to your question about my use of the term "productive" in an earlier comment.>>

All I did was ask for a clarification while explaining why what you had said was vague. If that’s not in good faith and an attempt to understand your point of view, then I don’t know what is.

<<On religious experience, it seems there isn't much to discuss, since your a priori view that it has no value tends to make the whole topic pointless.>>

No, that’s not my a priori view. A priori views are formed independently of experience and I was a devout, Bible-thumping Christian for over 20 years.

But whether or not I think religious experience has no value would depend on what exactly you’re referring to. Are you just talking about the experience of being religious in general? Are you just talking about brain activity that occurs when someone has an actual ‘religious experience’? Are you referring to a revelation that is actually divinely inspired?

I don’t think you could assume this of Dawkins et al. either until you’ve clarified the above with them.

<<On "faith", I was referring to the very common exhortation in religious writings that it is necessary for a person to have such faith to become a believer.>>

This still doesn’t explain much unfortunately. Not even believers can agree on that. Essentially, the Bible tends to refer to faith as a state of gullibility, and supports the definition of ‘belief without evidence’ to varying degrees in Hebrews 11:1, Proverbs 3:5-6 and 2 Corinthians 5:7. So in that sense, yes faith is necessary for religious belief, but not for scientists like Krauss, as you claimed earlier.

Either way, I don’t know how you then come to this…

Continued…

...Continued

<<This has much in common with the way in which QM places the observer in the role of interacting with the action observed.>>

I think you are more referring to religious experiences here (which is what you were actually comparing QM to before), but could only be doing so if your assumption is that they really are divinely inspired. But then you say you’re not a believer. So what do you think it is that theists are interacting with?

And even if faith or religious experiences do share traits with QM, so what? I share many traits with my computer but I don’t draw anything from that. You still haven’t linked this back to your criticism of Dawkins et al.

<<The standard of proof that atheists require of theists is simply higher than required.>>

That’s a bit of a blanket statement. Personally, I don’t know what it would take to convince me that a god existed. It would be arrogant for me to assume that I knew. But if a god did exist, then it certainly would know; so either it doesn’t exist, or it’s not willing to reveal itself to me in a way that is reliable, and as I explained earlier, religious experiences are not reliable.

How do you know how much evidence would be required, anyway, when we have nothing else to compare a god to?

<<... it simply doesn't fit your own version of atheistic normativism that an atheist may be able to accept theists as honestly seeking to explain a human experience in any way other than your own.>>

This is slander. I have said nothing to indicate either of your claims here and would challenge you to present anything that I’ve said that does.

<<Religion and science ARE about exactly the same thing.>>

As I explained yesterday, only sometimes. And even then, only from a sociological and evolutionary perspective. Any significance of the parallels you have drawn between QM and religion beyond that, and how they render what Dawkins’ et al. do “pointless,” are yet to be explained.

AJP, I'm happy to accept your good faith in the discussion, but with all due respect, we're talking at cross purposes.

I have no stake or in trying to "prove" that the religious explanation is "correct", therefore asking me to do so is pointless and non-constructive. All I am saying is that it is defensible as a response to some kinds of human experience, whether those types of experience are able to be explained some other way or not, just as the various "explanations" of quantum behaviour are to some extent defensible, despite none of them presuming to be comprehensive.

The point is that some experiences that may be "revelatory" may be assumed to be divine manifestations or to be the emergence of a new idea from the interaction of the mind with experience of the world, or any number of other things, depending on the context of the observer. One obvious one is Kekule's linking of his dream of circling snakes swallowing each other's tails to the structure of benzene; it would be easy for a devout person to think of this as divinely inspired and if they did, would it make the "revelation" less interesting? I say not and there are innumerable other examples that could be given.

You have raised an interesting topic though, which is that of your own experience. You say you were a devout Christian for some years and have now recanted that view. Would you mind asking a couple of questions about that? What drove you to be devout and what drove you to recant?

Craig Minns,

I would disagree that we are talking at cross purposes.

<<I have no stake or in trying to "prove" that the religious explanation is "correct", therefore asking me to do so is pointless and non-constructive.>>

I have no stake in asking you to prove that the religious explanation is correct. At no point have I requested this of you. Reminding you that it is not as useful or as rational as science, however, is necessary if you’re going to claim that what Dawkins et al. do is pointless, and that their approach is lazy. Because not only has religion's usefulness waned to a point of relative insignificance, but the attributes that used to serve ancient humans and their communities well have now largely become harmful to modern society. Creationism is a good example of this. The explanations that once used ease our anxieties of not knowing something have now become poison to people’s minds and a hindrance to progress when scientists have to waste their time combatting pseudoscience.

Dawkins et al. attack the irrationality of religious belief and highlight the damage it does, while defending science and reason. Whether or not religion and science used to address the same questions is a side issue; but if religion still attempts this, then that’s probably even a cause for concern.

<<All I am saying is that it is defensible as a response to some kinds of human experience, whether those types of experience are able to be explained some other way or not…>>

Understandable maybe, but whether or not it’s defensible has everything to do with whether or not certain experiences can be explained in other ways. If you disagree, then I would invite you to give an example of any situation in which ruling out the possibility of rational or naturalistic explanations for unexplainable phenomena or experiences is justifiable. And even if you could, you’d only be half way there. You’d still need to find evidence for the accepted explanation, otherwise you’re just committing the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...just as the various "explanations" of quantum behaviour are to some extent defensible, despite none of them presuming to be comprehensive.>>

But the problem with religious explanations for phenomena is not that they’re not comprehensive, it’s that they have other more rational explanations that don’t have potentially harmful flow-on effects.

QM is still a natural phenomenon too, and there are no people fighting scientific research, spreading pseudoscientific nonsense, opposing the rights of women to have autonomy over their own bodies, influencing governments with powerful lobby groups or killing other people over QM. So your analogy has problems on two levels, thus demonstrating that your criticism of Dawkins et al. is misguided.

Your next paragraph strays even further from any relevance to the positions/motivations of Dawkins et al. I’m not sure what point the fact that some experiences can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the context of the observer, is trying to make. There are critical thinking tools that we can make use of in order to reduce the influence that contextual biases may have, and increase our chances of arriving at the most rational conclusion.

I agree, too, that Kekule's dream wouldn’t be any less interesting if it were assumed to be divinely inspired, but I’m not concerned (and neither are Dawkins et al., I dare say) about whether or not the assumption of a divine revelation makes something more or less interesting. I’m interested in whether or not it’s rationally justified.

As for you questions, I was a Christian because that’s the way I was brought up. I became devout because I thought I felt the love of Jesus in my life and that it was evident in everything; I wanted everyone else to experience that “love” and I feared for the souls of those who hadn’t “found God” (praise Jesus for alcoholism, eh?); I enjoyed the comforting feeling of a celestial father figure watching over me; and I was good at pushing uncomfortable realities about my beliefs to the side.

Continued…

...Continued

I’m sure there were many other psychological reasons that I was never aware of. I was very involved with the church. I like kids so I started teaching Sunday School at 19 and later when on to being a Youth Group leader. I attended Bible study regularly too.

My de-conversion happened gradually over a few years. Slowly over time the inconsistencies, injustices and absurdities of my beliefs became harder and harder to ignore, and the excuses that I used to ignore them became less satisfying. One specific memory I have was when the curiosity of what “evolutionists” believed got the better of me. Suddenly my assumption that atheists believed that monkeys started giving birth to humans didn’t seem realistic anymore and so I had a look into what this evolution thing really was. I remember feeling annoyed when I realised found out how wrong I was. It felt like I had been lied to, and I was guilty too.

I tried to reconcile it with my beliefs for a short while there, but the fact that it effectively destroyed Christian theology (i.e. no Adam and Eve = no need for the resurrection) eventually ended in my church attendance dropping off. I continued to believe in God and pray from time to time for a short while there, until that dropped off too and I started referring to myself as an “agnostic” after a while. I then started to read the opinions of atheist authors because I was big on apologetics as a Christian and wanted to see what others had to say about the arguments that I had once used to defend my belief. I remember feeling really stupid when I saw just how easily the rationalisations that I had used my whole life were discredited (I’d heard some arguments in discussions with atheists before but never absorbed any of it). It was then that I finally accepted that I was an atheist and have had a keen interest in counter-apologetics ever since.

My apologies for the length of this response.

Constance,

When did I "....pendanticaly [sic] and wrongfully...." do what you complain of?

Ah's waitin'.

AJP, we are indeed talking at cross purposes, unfortunately.

Of course religious explanation is irrational, that is and should have been recognised by now as a given, however that does not invalidate its value, any more than the irrational nature of complex numbers invalidates their value (although algebraic geometry makes their use less necessary). The point is that if we take the a priori view that the explanation for a particular observation must be strictly rational, then we exclude the possibility of learning from those who have irrational explanations for observations that may nonetheless be informative.

More fundamentally, we establish a barrier between religious and non-religious people that is likely to cause human ill-will to no good purpose, which as a group species is about as irrational as it gets.

Thanks for the honest account of your own journey through the faith experience, it's one I've encountered before, including from a very close friend sadly no longer with us, who spent many years as a "counter-apologist" (nice term, BTW) and earnt considerable respect for his efforts from Christians. The site Theology Web took the trouble to send a representative to his funeral, which I thought was a very moving gesture.

It is easy to consider the religious explanation to be dishonest and I have no doubt that there are shonks and spivs who take advantage, but was Jesus himself dishonest? Mohammed? Even Joseph Smith? Or were they simply trying to explain things they had honestly observed in the only way they knew how? Are there things we, as rational people, might be able to learn from their experiences if we look at them with our own eyes and apply our own knowledge?

It's worth a shot, surely?

Jayb,

You addressed Poirot where it should have been me.

You have mixed up St Francis Xavier with St Francis of Assissi.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dozens-of-antimuslim-attacks-as-islamic-leaders-warn-of-community-fear-20141009-113tmk.html

And -

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2011/02/09/has-multiculturalism-succeeded-australia

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

Constance,

I'm waiting.