Originally Posted by The Bear:
Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes - Telegraph

Not quite such unsubstantiated hype as you might care to believe or suggest.

There's sheds more in the web from bona fide sources to add to this, and not just Britain either.

Note the article says:

"Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim's wishes."

It is common for the law not to be applied if the victim doesn't wish to press charges - this is British Law.

The second statement also relates to British law.

So in this case, even if "Sharia Law" is happening, the important point to realize is that it is no way replacing British Law.

Headlines like "Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes" is trying to suggest that Sharia Law is replacing British Law.
This is not the case, and this case in particular is an example of headline overhyping to (once again) make people increasingly islamaphobic (as the media and govt want in order to divide and conquer)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
You may think you are not be living under sharia law but you’re certainly “subjugated” by Islam.

Every time that something is done so as not to “offend” Islam you and I are being “subjugated”. Every time some doctor or nurse in our hospitals refuses to use alcohol based disinfectant, every time they refuse to use soap that may have been in any way “contaminated” with pork derivatives, every time some nurse refuses to work with bare arms, every time some pharmacist refuses to process a prescription for contraceptives or the morning after pill, every time that a supermarket check out woman refuses to process a sale of alcohol and calls some one else over to do so, every time that you hear the name “Muslim Parliament of Britain” and don’t object, every time you …. The list just goes on and on.

Not subjected to sharia law? Are you sure? How about the extra taxes you and I pay so that a Muslim man can have multiple wives and multiple kids under protection of sharia when the same man if he were not able to claim protection would be prosecuted for bigamy? And there’s more besides the obvious once you scrape the surface.

Not living under sharia? Not subjugated?

Not many.

For god sake Bear - you're trying your hardest to make people hate everything about Islam aren't you.

Let's get back to the basic facts shall we ?

1) Law is made by the government, not by islam, sharia law or anybody else.

2) If that law victimizes the British people and is pro-Islam or anti-British, then it is the fault of the government for doing that - not of Islam or anybody else.

3) If someone doesn't want to serve you in a shop/institution then you either:

a) get served by someone who will (problem solved)
b) go somewhere else that will serve you (that's their right by the way...)

To say we are being "subjugated" (under enemy attack) is extreme overhyping (as we've come to expect from you)

That isn't to say the government doesn't deserve to be shot for implementing such policies or politically correct laws in favour of certain groups.
Consider the fact that the law has usually historically been made in favour of the rich for example - that doesn't mean we are "under attack from rich people".....

The point is that we are all being played off against each other (as you well know because you constantly try to add fuel to the fire)

You see I can post in bold too !
[Rep]

Dearest The Bear darlink I have just found some horryfying stats:
The number of people killed on Britain's roads increased last year, according to government figures.

The Department for Transport said 3,508 people died in road accidents in 2003 - 77 (2%) more people than in 2002.

This is scary. These daned terror types have nothing on the woman drivers quoted above.

Bear darlink do you drive? My advice, dont. It is very dangerous on britains roads.
[Rep]

I'm glad someone replied to my points.....

P.S Good discussion !

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Quote:
As for Richard Dawkins - yes he may well come up with his theories about the "god gap" but equally he cannot explain what occured before the big bang.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Atheists don't need to explain what happened before the big bang. All one can say is that "we cannot know". It would be wrong to suppose anything until it had been shown to be the case..

Who is supposing anything except Dawkins ?

Yes maybe "we cannot know" but hold on - did something come from nothing ? Seems unlikely to me....

Doesn't matter how far back you go - you will always have the unanswered question
"And where did that come from ?"

Richard Dawkins cannot prove god doesn't exist either, but it doesn't stop him trying to persuade people that God doesn't exist.

So why is he trying to persuade people about something that can never be known either way ?

I suppose you're right that they "don't need to explain" - I'm just saying that they can't.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that if they could explain it, then they would !

Whether they "need to explain" is irrelavant to the fact that Dawkins is promoting his theory based on a lack of explanation of where the universe came from.

We cannot prove God exist, but we cannot disprove it either....

Quote:
More importantly he cannot explain human emotions like love, kindness or anything else to do with the human soul either

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
What soul? The person who believes in this so-called soul cannot explain it either. The fact is, it happens. Further, certain parts of the brain have been shown to light up (for example, the emotion regions light up when one makes a moral judgement), this would lead one to indicate that the brain at least plays an important role. Positing a soul as an explanation is not only a non-explanation, but is a burden on our ontology.

Ok forget the word "soul" for a second - that sounds like it refers to "buddhism" etc which wasn't my intention.

Just making the point that again, we are expected to believe that these emotions magically exist for no reason, without design, yet no-one can explain why.

I'm sure you'll say "they don't need to" but I don't buy into the idea that something can come from nothing. Yes "we may never know" but equally we don't know there is no creator/designer either.
The whole point of people who have "faith" is that they have faith - that's the whole point ! Whether people agree or not, you cannot disprove that faith, but Dawkins attempts to discredit the whole concept of faith, by pointing the finger at examples of misplaced faith.

People like Dawkins also want to persuade people that there is no reason for our existence etc etc.
It could indeed be quite a convenient argument if there was a desire to punture a society and teach people "Don't care about your morals" or the consequences of your actions - i.e. do what you like - just my theory.....

Quote:
- that makes me very suspicious of this know it all who can't really explain anything except his reasons not to have any faith for any good reason. (except what he believes is "improbable" based on his theories and scientific understanding.)

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. This works both ways. Not to mention, an atheist should not be making positive claims on such things like what came before the big bang (hypothesising is fine, making truth-based claims is another). The religionist does the latter - this is their problem.

I agree - you could argue Dawkins and people who have faith both lack evidence. No-one is necessarily more right than the other.

What truth-based claims are you referring to specifically ? The existence of Jesus Christ ?

Is this "truth based" or is it again simply their faith ?

Are Dawkins claims "truth based" ? He certainly want people to believe he is telling the truth ?

Quote:
Probabaly just another NWO minion I'd guess....

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Whether this was true or not would be irrelevant to the arguments you are commenting on above.

It is irrelevant to my other points - I was just adding another opinion of mine into my post.

I'm just saying that Dawkins gets a lot of attention from the mainstream.
Normally if a scientist is to be taken seriously he can explain something completely - Dawkins can't but he still want people to believe him - isn't that suspicious behaviour from a supposed scientist ?!

Personally I'd rather have my own faith, than to take his version of unscientifically proven theory, (in my opinion probably backed by political and personal motivation.....)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:

Who is supposing anything except Dawkins ?

Yes maybe "we cannot know" but hold on - did something come from nothing ? Seems unlikely to me....

Doesn't matter how far back you go - you will always have the unanswered question
"And where did that come from ?"

Perhaps, but this does not mean we can posit God as the cause. In fact, I would venture to say that the phrase: "God did it" is far more ontologically baggy than the phrase "something came from nothing".

Originally Posted by :
Richard Dawkins cannot prove god doesn't exist either, but it doesn't stop him trying to persuade people that God doesn't exist.

He doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on the theist, and so far, their arguments are far from adequate.

Originally Posted by :
So why is he trying to persuade people about something that can never be known either way ?

I don't think he claims to know that God doesn't exist. I don't know that unicorns do not exist, but I still believe that they do not.

Originally Posted by :
I suppose you're right that they "don't need to explain" - I'm just saying that they can't.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that if they could explain it, then they would !

Well, of course, but we can't go plucking explanations out of thin air.

Originally Posted by :
Whether they "need to explain" is irrelavant to the fact that Dawkins is promoting his theory based on a lack of explanation of where the universe came from.

We cannot prove God exist, but we cannot disprove it either....

Firstly, I think he has more arguments than just that. Secondly, again, the atheist doesn't need to disprove God, the burden of proof is on the theist.

Originally Posted by :
Ok forget the word "soul" for a second - that sounds like it refers to "buddhism" etc which wasn't my intention.

Just making the point that again, we are expected to believe that these emotions magically exist for no reason, without design, yet no-one can explain why.

This is couched in religious language, which is weighing the argument in one way before we even start. I do not believe that the Principle of Sufficient Reason can be applied to the reasons you are implying here.

Further, it has been shown - particularly in moral psychology - that emotions play a vital role in moral judgement and moral action, which would show a clear advantage to having emotions. Contrast with the psychopath who has no emotions yet still have the knowledge. He knows something is wrong and he knows why it is wrong, yet he still does it - because he lacks the emotive component - the same is true the opposite way around, of the person who is controlled by emotions without knowing why things are the case.

Originally Posted by :
I'm sure you'll say "they don't need to" but I don't buy into the idea that something can come from nothing. Yes "we may never know" but equally we don't know there is no creator/designer either.

I don't think anyone is saying that human emotions come from nothing. Also, we know that emotions exist and that they can be detected in brain scans and that they have usefulness in our everyday life (the morality example is just one of several examples of the usefulness of emotions), we don't know that a deity exists.

Originally Posted by :
The whole point of people who have "faith" is that they have faith - that's the whole point ! Whether people agree or not, you cannot disprove that faith, but Dawkins attempts to discredit the whole concept of faith, by pointing the finger at examples of misplaced faith.

You can disprove faith quite easily. I have faith that if I jump out the window I will fly. How do you disprove this? All I need to do is jump out the window to my death.

Originally Posted by :
People like Dawkins also want to persuade people that there is no reason for our existence etc etc.
It could indeed be quite a convenient argument if there was a desire to punture a society and teach people "Don't care about your morals" or the consequences of your actions - i.e. do what you like - just my theory.....

I don't think Dawkins' supports ethical egoism, but even if he did, this would not be an argument against atheism - since I wouldn't agree with him in this instance (and neither would many others).

Originally Posted by :
I agree - you could argue Dawkins and people who have faith both lack evidence. No-one is necessarily more right than the other.

What truth-based claims are you referring to specifically ? The existence of Jesus Christ ?

Is this "truth based" or is it again simply their faith ?

I would say it was false faith. Jesus may have existed, but He doesn't now - since He's dead.

An example fo the truth based claims I was referring to would be "we don't know how the universe began, but here are some ideas..." versus the truth based claim: "The universe began with the big bang and it came from nothing..."

I would say the former is acceptable, the latter is not.

Originally Posted by :
Are Dawkins claims "truth based" ? He certainly want people to believe he is telling the truth ?

I wouldn't really know - I would have to go through each of his claims point by point, which would probably take the length of a book.

Originally Posted by :
It is irrelevant to my other points - I was just adding another opinion of mine into my post.

I'm just saying that Dawkins gets a lot of attention from the mainstream.
Normally if a scientist is to be taken seriously he can explain something completely - Dawkins can't but he still want people to believe him - isn't that suspicious behaviour from a supposed scientist ?!

Personally I'd rather have my own faith, than to take his version of unscientifically proven theory, (in my opinion probably backed by political and personal motivation.....)

I don't know if his atheism is a result of his science or not. However, a scientist has as much right to be an atheist and talk about atheism as he has to be a Christian and talk about Christianity. The same goes for anyone. The fact that Dawkins is a scientist is neither here nor there in my opinion.
[Rep]

The thing about Dawkins is like so many athiests he is annoying in the way he has to be so arrogant and try and "disprove" and attack religious belief. He doesn't believe in god, good for him, I'm far from orthodoxly religious but I don't need to see him attacking religions. Religion comforts people, leave them alone and let them be.
[Rep]

That plus his logic on the question is far from adequate.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
The thing about Dawkins is like so many athiests he is annoying in the way he has to be so arrogant and try and "disprove" and attack religious belief. He doesn't believe in god, good for him, I'm far from orthodoxly religious but I don't need to see him attacking religions. Religion comforts people, leave them alone and let them be.

I agree - why is it such a big issue ?

Anyone would think he trying to destroy Christianity :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Perhaps, but this does not mean we can posit God as the cause. In fact, I would venture to say that the phrase: "God did it" is far more ontologically baggy than the phrase "something came from nothing".

He doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on the theist, and so far, their arguments are far from adequate.

I don't think he claims to know that God doesn't exist. I don't know that unicorns do not exist, but I still believe that they do not.

Well, of course, but we can't go plucking explanations out of thin air.

Firstly, I think he has more arguments than just that. Secondly, again, the atheist doesn't need to disprove God, the burden of proof is on the theist.

This is couched in religious language, which is weighing the argument in one way before we even start. I do not believe that the Principle of Sufficient Reason can be applied to the reasons you are implying here.

Further, it has been shown - particularly in moral psychology - that emotions play a vital role in moral judgement and moral action, which would show a clear advantage to having emotions. Contrast with the psychopath who has no emotions yet still have the knowledge. He knows something is wrong and he knows why it is wrong, yet he still does it - because he lacks the emotive component - the same is true the opposite way around, of the person who is controlled by emotions without knowing why things are the case.

I don't think anyone is saying that human emotions come from nothing. Also, we know that emotions exist and that they can be detected in brain scans and that they have usefulness in our everyday life (the morality example is just one of several examples of the usefulness of emotions), we don't know that a deity exists.

You can disprove faith quite easily. I have faith that if I jump out the window I will fly. How do you disprove this? All I need to do is jump out the window to my death.

I don't think Dawkins' supports ethical egoism, but even if he did, this would not be an argument against atheism - since I wouldn't agree with him in this instance (and neither would many others).

I would say it was false faith. Jesus may have existed, but He doesn't now - since He's dead.

An example fo the truth based claims I was referring to would be "we don't know how the universe began, but here are some ideas..." versus the truth based claim: "The universe began with the big bang and it came from nothing..."

I would say the former is acceptable, the latter is not.

I wouldn't really know - I would have to go through each of his claims point by point, which would probably take the length of a book.

I don't know if his atheism is a result of his science or not. However, a scientist has as much right to be an atheist and talk about atheism as he has to be a Christian and talk about Christianity. The same goes for anyone. The fact that Dawkins is a scientist is neither here nor there in my opinion.

Smidgey - I take your point and agree with your argument to a certain extent, but when you say:

"The burden of proof is on the theist, and so far, their arguments are far from adequate."

You make it sound like they are scientists trying to prove something.

My whole point was that they have faith (in a certain theory of god if you like) so can't they just have their faith without being told they have to prove their beliefs ?

I don't see why the burden of proof is on the believer as opposed to the non-believer.

Surely we are discussing faith not science ?

I would argue your statement:
"I have faith that if I jump out the window I will fly. How do you disprove this? All I need to do is jump out the window to my death."

is not the same as faith in god since jumping out of a window can be explained by science, whereas faith in god can't be explained either way.

Also whilst a lot of religion is misguided(as Dawkins loves to demonstrate - well he's right just look at America evangelists lol) it doesn't necessarily mean ALL faith is necessarily misguided....
[Rep]