This picture is only here because I much prefer this to pictures of "Red Ted"
While Ray is full of praise for a Lib who makes a call for ordinary Aussies to be more accepting of refugees today I want us to consider a related issue, namely what to do with those who are deemed to be both a “legitimate” refugee and a security threat to this country. Under the current rules such individuals may be detained indefinitely as long as they choose to stay in this country.
Click for source
Now isn’t that a juicy conundrum?
Its all well and good to suggest that releasing these individuals into the community is the most humane thing for them but what of the bigger picture of the ongoing management of them under control orders as suggested by Daryl Melham? Add to that the way that these suspect individuals will incite suspicion of their fellows who have been given the all clear by ASIO and I tend to think that keeping things as they are is the only viable option other than this country repudiating the UN convention and then forcibly deporting all of those who are deemed a security risk*. That is not going to happen. Anyhow let me just close with a most timely reminder that none of these rejected individuals is obliged to stay in detention if they are willing to leave the country voluntarily.
Cheers Comrades
* never going to happen
I tend to favour control orders in these circumstances – I think Daryl Melham is entirely right about the injustice of lifelong detention without committing a crime, which is an infringement on Habeas Corpus, and the obvious practical dangers of releasing someone who is a threat to public safety.
Control orders have worked well in the UK – there have been some sensible criticisms of them, but when we take into account both the human rights of the individual and the collective rights of the populace then control orders for those who are stated enemies of the democratic way of life are the least bad option.
Re: the UN convention. It is a good think that this convention will not be repealed. We cannot as a civilised society return people to a real and present danger of death, no matter how repulsive their views. Yes, this can be costly and frustrating, but it is the price of upholding decent liberal principles of justice and human rights.
I don’t know what the answer is to this very small percentage of refugees assessed as security threats (but not as actual criminals), Iain. However, I reckon if ASIO assessed ALL Aussie citizens they’d come up with a very long list of Aussie-born people who are also security threats and who are roaming free amongst us. What should we do about them? You might have one living nearby – I certainly do.
One thing it proves though, is that we are certainly very thorough with our screening process. Much more thorough than we were in the 50s & 60s when we imported all types of potential criminals and gave birth to our own branch of the mafia.
I presume you’ve expressed concern about this person to the relevant authorities, Ray. Otherwise it’s all hyperbole on your part. So there’s some weird guy down the street from you. Obviously he is Caucasian, otherwise you wouldn’t say a thing would you?
That’s pretty simple isn’t it? Duh, you failed the entrance exam, now go back home! Australia is responsible for its misfits, not those from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is another option. These people who have been assessed as being a security risk could return to their country of origin and do whatever it takes to not be a security risk; ie stop planning to blow up Australian defence bases; stop making bombs in their bedrooms; and don’t arrive here claiming ‘Allah Akbar’
If ASIO is so effective now, as Ray reports, these blokes must be real bad eggs. Why the hell should we take them? Their sort has already f*cked up their country. It’s madness to import scum like this into Australia.
GD: stop planning to blow up Australian defence bases; stop making bombs in their bedrooms
Those are crimes GD and people who do that stuff are put on trial. I believe we were discussing just such a current case a few threads ago.
don’t arrive here claiming ‘Allah Akbar’
I think you’ll find that as a matter of principle people are allowed to worship the deity of their choice in this country.
Oh and I think I should also point out that ‘Allah’ is in fact the same deity known to others variously as ‘God’, ‘Y*w*h’, ‘Jehovah’ and even perhaps ‘the Big Boy in the Sky’ or ‘WC Grace’
JM
I think that it is a gross oversimplification to contend that each faith worships the same single god. Now while all of the faiths you cite (with the exception of Cricket which is always expressed in the plural, “the Gods of Cricket”) insist upon exclusivity and that their deity is the only one (as the it says in the Muslim affirmation “There no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet “) and In fact there have been riots in Malaysia (I think ) when a Christian Group wanted to use the word “Allah” instead of the word god in a publication.
The different faiths you cite may all be monotheistic but to claim they worship the same one single God is just plain wrong.
Iain, this is absolute nonsense.
The Abramaic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all worship the same deity.
Christianity recognizes Judaism (at least when it’s not blaming the Jews for “killing Jesus”) while Islam demands that its followers recognize “other people of the book” namely Christians and Jews and treat them well. The only differences between them are obscurantist trivialities over doctrine (transubstantiation versus the other one comes to mind here) and mythological stories that have often led to dangerous heresies (the near cannabilistic death cult combined with ritual sacrifice of the ressurection). There are no doubt other examples in the other two religions but I don’t know them as well.
All 3 religions recognize Abraham as the original prophet of their faith. Judaism does not recognize Jesus but Islam does.
All 3 religions are based on the same concept – that of the “Book of LIfe”. The “Big Guy in the Sky” is up there writing down everything you do in his big book and when you die he will judge you according to his ledger and give you either life or death – kinda like Santa with a big bag of goodies but with the added bonuis of the boobie prize of hellfire if you’ve been bad.
Allah, Jehovah, God. They’re all the same deity. Not a single (knowledgable) adherant of one of those 3 religions would dispute that.
Citations
please JM and in any event you claimed that more than just the Abrahamic religions all worship the same single deity, which is plainly wrong as my Cricket example proves
Iain, unfortunately Wiki is down today, but it is accepted that all 3 Abrahamic religions worship the same deity. Christianity explicitly states that it worships the same deity as Judaism, while Islam – the most recent historically, explicitly states that it worships the same deity as Judaism and Christianity while differing from them on certain doctrinal matters.
Read the Bible and the Koran. Those are my citations. In the case of the Bible the first few books are the same as the Torah of the Jews. In the case of the Koran there is explicit acknowledgement of previous prophets – including Jesus – and a very specific instruction to adherents of the faith that the Jews and Christians worship the same god and are to be respected.
And I did not say that more than the Abrahamic religions all worship the same single deity. I simply, and I think quite plainly said that the 3 Abrahamic religions do so.
I think that is a very uncontroversial fact.
Oh and Iain, my reference to WC Grace was a lame joke recalling Monty Python not an actual suggestion that the “gods of cricket” were worshiped in the same way.
I thought you would have recognised the reference actually and have lived the last 24 hours or so in dread of some smart retort from you.
JM
You said this:
Two examples out of your five clearly wrong.
however given the fact that as an atheist there is no way that you can argue that your subsequent claim is objectively true (because all gods are in essence imaginary) then how can you get into the heads of all of those believers to check if their visions of their deity are consistent enough for your claim to be true?
Iain: objectively true … [claims] are consistent enough for your claim to be true?
I only have to refer to the sacred texts of the 3 religions Iain. All of which explicitly state what I have said. I don’t know how much more objective I can be.
Now if I had said, for example, that Buddhists worship the same god you’d have a case – not least because Buddhists don’t actually worship Buddha (or at least those of the “lesser way” don’t) as they don’t believe the man was divine. And even those of the “higher way” who do believe that the Buddha was divine don’t really believe in a “Big Guy in the Sky”*
As for Hinduism which is an entirely different mythology of which I know virtually nothing, well yeah if I’d claimed that was identical with the mythology of Abraham then I’d really be in trouble.
As for the cult of Thor or the Pantheon of the ancient Greeks or Romans. Nup.
* I think I’ve got the definition of the lesser and higher ways right there, but please excuse me if they’re the wrong way round.
Dread JM???
well you refuse to get my jokes so why should I not play by the same rules?
JM
But you were not talking about the sacred texts JM you were talking about what the actual believers in those faiths actually believe and I think that any decent survey of the actual congregations of the three great faiths would find that the Idea that they are worshipping the same Deity would be fighting words to the majority of them.
But it all depends on how pedantic you want to be doesn’t it?
Iain: would be fighting words to the majority of them.
You know what Iain? I doubt it. A few extremists, yes. But the majority no.
Or do you believe for example that the Jews and Christians are in fundamental disagreement about the identity and nature of God? They disagree solely about the divinity of Jesus.
An assertion also disputed by Islam, and interestingly not claimed by adherents for Mohammad as some form of substitute.
You know what Iain, I think your real problem is that apart from theological niceties that are calculated only to divide, you can’t put a piece of paper between the day-to-day beliefs and practices of the Jews, Christians and adherents of Islam.
You don’t like that fact and want simply to stick with your own tribe.
Sure you can throw up any number of extremists on any of the three sides including such lunatics as the Mormons who believe in magic gold tablets that no-one has ever seen (and magic underwear) on the Christian side, or nutcases who refuse to believe that non-fundamentalist Jews are people (on the Jewish side), or wahaddis in Saudi Arabia who believe women can’t and shouldn’t drive.
But the fact remains that the majority believe in the same god and adhere to the same tenets.
Their sacred texts say it. Out loud.
That’s history and you can’t change it.
JM
As the Christians claim that Jesus is more than just “divine” and more than just a Prophet what you claim is just not the case.
JM
My tribe?
Mate I don’t have a horse in the race because I am an atheist as you well know.
Me: There are no doubt other examples in the other two religions but I don’t know them as well.
Actually I just had a thought on this. You are aware that there are differences between the Shite and Sunni versions of the Islamic faith? That Iran and Iraq supposedly fought a war over those differences (not really, but that’s the way it was sold in the west)?
You know what that that is? It’s a doctrinal difference that has its origin in a dispute about which family member should inherit the prophets legacy. ie. politics. Because religion is, or used to be about politics. And power.
Religion is about power Iain. Its grip has relaxed a lot in the west since the Enlightenment but there are other parts of the world, notably the Middle East, where it still has a pretty strong hold.
Iain: As the Christians claim that Jesus is more than just “divine”
You’re agreeing with me. That is exactly the dispute between Jews and Christians. One side claims Jesus was divine and the Messiah, the other says not (and even disputes the man’s existence to some extent).
Islam agrees with the Jews that Jesus was not divine, but asserts that he did in fact exist.
(Please note, I am using the word ‘divine’ here to denote the full meaning of the Christian belief regarding Jesus as the Son of God, etc, etc. It’s a shorthand. I don’t think we need to discuss the details as we both know what we mean.)
Iain: Mate I don’t have a horse in the race because I am an atheist as you well know
You aren’t reacting like one. You are reacting like a cut snake.
Me agree with anything you say JM????
Never!!!
As I see it JM there are enough differences in that way that the three Abrahamic faiths view the nature of God and what he expects of believers for any commonality to be entirely coincidental, For instance Christianity teaches that confession will lead to automatic forgiveness and entry into heaven,something that neither Judaism or Islam would support, and Islam teaches that to Kill unbelievers in the name of Allah will not only guarantee a place in heaven but the conjugal service of fifty virgins as well. So if each has such a different vision of their deity how can you or anyone else claim that they are worshipping the same God?
JM
You have to learn to stop projecting your own emotional state upon me. I am entirely calm here and absolutely unfazed by your argument.
Iain, just try refuting the statement. And not with minute doctrinal differences.
For instance Christianity teaches that confession will lead to automatic forgiveness
Only the Catholic version. Other sub-sects have different ideas.
And we’re talking about the identity of the deity, not paltry details of practices.
Your specific claim is that god of the Jews, Christains and Muslims is different in each case. Prove your claim.
JM
As an atheist who thinks that all supernatural beings or entities do not exist the only thing that the God of the Jews , the Christians and the Muslims have in common is their non-existence. So like all imaginary creatures or entities they are precisely what each individual who believes in them imagines them to be and as every individual has an entirely autonomous imagination then no two people of one faith , let alone differing faiths will imagine God in the same way as any other individual. Therefore no matter what their professed faith may be no two people actaully “worship” precisely the same God QED
Iain, it doesn’t matter two hoots what you and I believe.
All that matters is what the adherents believe because that’s what informs their actions. Two people having a trite argument about semantics don’t matter a hill of beans against the millions who live their daily lives by these beliefs.
Let’s pose a question to test this:- “Is your god the god of Abraham?” – and ask it of knowledgeable adherents of each faith.
The Rabbi: “Yes”
The Priest: “Yes”
The Imam: “Yes”
Same god. QED.
Get used to it Iain, the people you despise share your faith.
(And don’t start up with your “I am an atheist” nonsense. I don’t believe you. Particularly after your years long confusion of equating science with religion.)
JM
Read my last comment again, slowly, so that you can actaully follow the logic of my argument because even if I say so myself I think that the logic is faultless.
Mate I take at face value the religious affiliation that anyone claims so I find it rather bizarre that you won’t accept that I am an atheist.
I am what I say I am, nothing more and nothing less.
As for your suggestion that I have had years long confusion of equating science with religion that is utter rot because you are confusing my observations of the Warministas and the religiosity of both their arguments and their passion for the AGW theory with me understanding the nature of science.
.
Iain: I think that the logic is faultless.
And sophistic and dare I say it solipsistic. On the one hand it’s an artful argument that is simply calculated to provoke further (useless) debate.
On the other it’s constructed so as to be unassailable. There is no ‘there’ to assault. Anyone can have a viewpoint even about their religion and since it is a personal viewpoint that no-one else has access to there is no way to dispute it. This is a commonplace.
But that’s not the standpoint you took. And it’s not the standpoint I disputed. You said that Muslims worship a different god to Christians (you’ve been a bit evasive on the identity of the Jewish god – is he different or not?).
Now if everyone worships a different god, how many are there? 6 billion?
the religiosity of both their arguments
Really, how can you say this? I condemn you for equating religion and science and you “refute” my point …. by equating religion and science.
C’mon Iain you can do better than that.
Oh and Iain, re your little GIF at your comment earlier today
The actual game is called “Whack a Mole” and I think it’s an original from the Coney Island theme park in New York. There is an installation of it (also original) at Luna Park in Melbourne. Or at least there was last time I took my kids there.
You might like to visit sometime. I think you’ll find it’s quite a fun game, kids love it and no kitties are hurt.
Iain: … there are enough differences … any commonality [between the 3 Abrabamic religions] to be entirely coincidental
Can you explain this complete [c****]. Why on earth would you think that? Why would you begin to even contemplate such a thought?
The history of all of these 3 religions is understood enough to know that each is derived from the earlier one. ie. the order goes Judaism to Christianity to Islam. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
None whatsoever.
Or are you suddenly a great religious scholar Iain? I mean along with your welding skills?
Iain, I honestly wonder why you bother with this lug-head. While he is in possession of some, and I say some, facts, his thoughts are far from being worthy of consideration. Far from being a scientist, a musician, an economist, or whatever he claims to be, he is most likely an unemployed labourer, or a retired public servant.
Given his lack of basic comprehension, I’d say he is the latter. Labourers generally have a good grasp of common sense.
Public servants, on the other hand, are wary of biting the hand that feeds them.
GD
I bother with him for fun and my own amusement nothing more .
JM
Why thank you for admitting that I am both skilful with words and artful in my arguments, however your whinge about that argument being unassailable is rather sad because it would be nice if you would just admit that I am right for once when you have clearly been bettered on this one.
There are no gods if you want to measure them empirically which is what you would do if you were truly the man of science that you claim to be however you would be correct to suggest that to each believer there is the deity that they imagine.
Do you understand the difference between the words “religion” and “religiosity“? because I think that you have the mistaken belief that secular arguments can not be pursued with a religious zeal and that believers in something that is essentially unprovable like AGW are not displaying excessive piety and presenting a faith based argument that is an example of “religiosity” and the absence of any sort of supernatural being or nonentity in the argument does not lessen or alter that one iota.
I don’t need to do any better on this subject because I am correct.
I was well aware of the game that the Gif alludes to which is why I think that its so funny and you will notice that the cudgel used in the gif is both well padded and more importantly not used with any great force either. I may not be that fond of cats per se but I am not a cruel man inclined towards hurting any creature gratuitously.
Any atheist worth their salt has to be a religious scholar to some extent and I am no different. Despite being a life long unbeliever I have an equally long-standing fascination with religion and belief so I have studied it and debated the topic endlessly with believers.
Iain: Why thank you for admitting that I am both skilful with words and artful in my arguments, however your whinge about that argument being unassailable is rather sad because it would be nice if you would just admit that I am right for once when you have clearly been bettered on this one.
Those are not compliments. Look up the meaning of those words, and their history.
I don’t need to do any better on this subject because I am correct.
Ha.
JM
I did not take them to be complements, I took them at face value as an admission that you think the argument skilful and clever even though you sneer at it. Such an admission from you rather contradicts your usual line that (and I paraphrase) “I should stick to welding because I am crap at debate” and for your information I did look up the words, just to be sure that my understanding of them was absolutely correct.
Iain: you think the argument skilful and clever
On the contrary Iain. I am being sarcastic. I think the arguments are silly, ridiculous, bogus and not worthy of a small child with a dictionary.
But then you’d know that wouldn’t you, because you so often claim expertise in the art of sarcasm (you’ve got little else to your name).
Go easy on the sarcasm, and criticism JM.
Even a small child can remember what email address to put in, every time they comment on a blog.
You can’t even do that right, to don’t be too quick to judge anyone else here ?
Dear JM,
Most of the Christians I know have no trouble differentiating between Allah and the God of the Jews and Christians. To an atheist, I do not think this should be a matter of import.
That Islam should claim for itself the Jewish prophets is nothing more than trying to shore up its claim to be part of God’s revelation to man.
You really should read a few of the good books available that would clear up your “misconceptions”. “From Jihad to Jesus” and “Mohammed and Jesus” are just two I can recommend.
I have a question for you. What is Truth? If, as the God of the Jews and Christians has commanded, we are not to bear false witness, why is it that the Muslim god, Allah, (one and the same in your eyes) says to his followers that lying is permitted in certain circumstances (taqqiya) and is not a sin?
One more thing. You laughably claim that the Koran mandates that the People of the Book be treated well. Pull the other one. You do know about the dhimmi laws, don’t you? You know, the ones where Jews and Christians must pay the poll tax (jizya) and feel themselves subdued? The very same laws that the Copts have announced recently they will in no way submit to again? Yes, in modern, post-Arab Spring Egypt, there is the threat of the dhimmi laws being applied.
Try reading this:http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/56267/sec_id/56267
“Sax”: Even a small child can remember what email address to put in, every time they comment on a blog.
My belief is that only blog owners can see email addresses. Correct? So how come you’re making this comment?
Luzu I asked a simple question, posed in the simplest fashion possible:- “Is your god the god of Abraham? Yes or No”.
You well know that clerics of all 3 religions would all answer “Yes”.
End of case.
Furthermore a small child with a dictionary could indeed identify that all 3 religions worship the same god
As indeed could the same child armed with Wikipedia.
And the same small child could explain to Iain that “sophist” and “solipsistic” are in fact very derogatory descriptions of an argument.
Luzu: You laughably claim that the Koran mandates that the People of the Book be treated well. Pull the other one.
This is so ridiculous. Of course it does. Let me give you some references.
Firstly Wikipedia – People of the Book which I will quote the full introduction of:
People of the Book (Arabic: أهل الكتاب ′Ahl al-Kitāb) is a term used to designate non-Muslim adherents to faiths which have a revealed scripture[1] called, in Arabic, Ahl-Al-Kitab (Arabic: الكتاب “the people of the Book” or “people of the Scripture”). The three types of adherents to faiths that the Qur’an mentions as people of the book are the Jews, Sabians and Christians.
In Islam, the Muslim scripture, the Qur’an, is taken to represent the completion of these scriptures, and to synthesize them as God’s true, final, and eternal message to humanity. Because the People of the Book recognize the God of Abraham as the one and only god, as do Muslims, and they practice revealed faiths based on divine ordinances, tolerance and autonomy is accorded to them in societies governed by sharia (Islamic divine law).
In Judaism the term “People of the Book” (Hebrew: עם הספר, Am HaSefer) was used to refer specifically to the Jewish people and the Torah, and to the Jewish people and the wider canon of written Jewish law (including the Mishnah and the Talmud). Adherents of other Abrahamic religions, which arose later than Judaism, were not added.[2] As such, the appellation is accepted by Jews as a reference to an identity rooted fundamentally in Torah.[3]
In Christianity, the Catholic Church rejects the similar expression “religion of the book” as a description of the Christian faith, preferring the term “religion of the Word of God.”[4] Nevertheless, other denominations, such as the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Seventh-day Adventist Church[5][6] as well as Puritans and Shakers, have embraced the term “People of the Book.”[7][8]
Ok? There is no, no, absolutely no argument amongst anyone, anywhere, anytime (except this obscure and insanely batty blog) about this.
Note what it says above? The Koran and Sharia law “accord tolerance and autonomy to “People of the Book”.
Ok? Got it?
Also Judaism uses the same phrase to mean the same thing. Christianity uses a similar phrase to mean the same thing.
Any other view is ridiculous and simply extremist. Are you an extremist Luzu?
JM
its simple when you put in different email addresses you get different avatars
Really??? as if I care about you running me down JM
the point is I have made an argument that you admit is unassailable so just deal with it.
Iain, I don’t make any such admission. I used a very derogatory term “solipsistic” for your argument.
I did not in any way say your are right.
You in fact are grossly wrong.
JM
This looks like an admission to me:
Deal
JM,
Can you please show me where the current treatment of the Copts in their own country (because you do know it is the Copts who are the indigenes, right?) accords with what you claim is “tolerance and autonomy”? Can’t build or repair churches without the consent of local Muslims? Accused of blasphemy for not respecting Mohammed sufficiently? Cannot have places of worship higher than the mosque? Does that really equate with tolerance and autonomy in your mind?
And just because the Muslim cleric claims they follow the God of Abraham, doesn’t make it true.
From a recent doco I watched on SBS: Why is Abraham important to Muslims? Answer: Because he is very important to Muslims! LOL.
thanks Iain, well explained.
Iain. You are wrong.
You have reduced yourself to disputing a dictionary definition.
JM
I’ll ask you a simple question, do you have any religious conviction yourself? Because I think that you have previously claimed to be an unbeliever haven’t you? I could be mistaken about that so before we debate the matter further would you care to share your own faith position with the readers?
Sax
No worries mate
Iain, I have been a lifelong atheist. I mean that. Lifelong. I have never “lost my faith” because I never held it in the first place. I have also not participated in the ceremonies common in Christian families including those that usually occur in early childhood.
As for debating further, we really are down to a dictionary definition here – which I’ve provided. I agree with that definition, you do not. The definition is from the Oxford.
I have no interest in your desire to tell the editors that they are wrong and you are, solely amongst all the “scholars” in the world, right. Take it up with them, not me.
You do, however, JM, show a strong support for Islam. Could it be the 72 virgins that are attracting you? You’re an older man, and time is fleeting, those virgins must look pretty good to you JM. Much cheaper than a mail order bride from the Philippines. Deprived of any Christian comfort as you say, and although I fear it is only through Wikipedia that you have any knowledge of Islam, you do seem partial to that faith.
Good thing you’re too old for suicide bombing, though you could always grow your beard and preach in mosques in NSW and VIC. Maybe Richard Ryan could join you. You know, preaching the downfall of the USA and the subsequent Islamisation of Australia. It’s all food for thought.
Just make sure it’s halal.
We wish you a merry Ramadan.
Go away GD, you’re an i****. If you gain some comfort from your misunderstandings, limited knowledge and abilities and failure to understand the world or come to grips with it, you’re welcome to that comfort.
I hope it makes you feel warm at night.
JM
Yet you are willing to argue that the three great faiths worship precisely the same deity? A deity that you as an “lifelong atheist” are certain does not exist at all? No wonder you hate the logic of my argument! Because its is as you say “unassailable” and undoubtedly, were I arguing the other corner,an argument that you would consider running yourself!
However I think that GD may be onto something when It comes to your obvious sympathy for Islam, what with your tendency towards a totalitarian mind-set and your refusal to compromise or even to keep the debate friendly and affable you could very well be a Jihadist because You don’t sound like a true atheist to me. You are more like this:
Iain we’ve been over this. Each of them say in turn that they worship the same deity. They may interpret things differently but so do Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Methodists and Presbyterians. As do the Shia and the Sunni within Islam and the several subsects within Judaism.
You are wrong. Period.
Getting back to the topic, GD said:
Look mate, every neighbourhood has people living there who are threats of one kind or another. But you can’t report them to the relevant authorities until they’ve actually done something. Your over-simplification of the issue just suits your prejudices against refugees. You have no idea on what basis ASIO has determined these people (who are genuine refugees) might pose some kind of potential threat, yet your simple response it to say “send them home”. On what basis should they be deported, GD? Do you realise that your views on this complex issue make you look like a Pauline Hanson-like simpleton?
JM
So you are willing to take these claims at face value even though there can be no empirical proof of the claim but you won’t accept that I am an atheist?
Talk about a double standard!
Iain, we are going in a circle here. As I pointed out long ago in this thread, their own sacred texts say that they are the same god.
What more empirical* proof do you need.
* Another word I’m quite sure, from long experience, that you don’t understand.
JM
How pray tell can you measure and objectively quantify which God/s the faithful are actaully worshipping?
You can no more do that than you can measure the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
Gee, JM, no reply from you re: taqqiya and the treatment of the Copts. Could it be because those two examples undermine what you’ve been banging on about the entire thread?
As an atheist, you have no right to tell me as a believer Who it is I worship. What’s it to you, anyway? Nor do you have the right to insist that Allah and Yahweh are one and the same. You have every right to mock and denigrate religious people, label their God a ‘sky fairy’ or equate belief in Jesus with believing there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and a clear indication of sub-normal intelligence. You do not, however, get to redefine God for your own purposes. Just as I do not wander around considering the nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor should you as a non-believer be concerned with the nature of God, an entity you hold does not exist. It’s ridiculous.
And your knowledge of Islamic scripture, history and jurisprudence is sadly lacking.
Luzu: no reply from you re: taqqiya and the treatment of the Copts
Because it’s completely irrelevant. I did not claim that every person in every country of the world that could be termed “Islamic” was absolutely treated equally and could not possibly be subject to some form of injustice somewhere, sometime.
You posited that as a characterisation of my position, and it is a completely false characterisation.
Iain: How pray tell can you measure and objectively quantify which God/s the faithful are actaully worshipping
I can tell you’re rather proud of this “flawless logic” of yours, so let’s examine it.
You are positing (and Luzu is taking the same line) that no-one can know objectively what another person believes because no-one can get inside their heads.
Well that’s true as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough. We’re talking here about a personal conception of the deity and everyone is very likely to have a different personal conception. Agreed? I mean that is the substance of your argument isn’t it?
Firstly, you could pay attention to what the individual actually says about their beliefs.
And if what they say is identical (or at least sufficiently similar) to what another person says you could reasonably conclude they believe the same thing.
Could you not?
So let’s expand the circle of “similar believers” and look at how they form and adhere to those similar beliefs. They create writings that document those beliefs.
Couldn’t we look at what those writings say to decide what it is that these “similar believers” – let’s call them communities – actually believe?
I think we could do that could we not? After all, it’s a technique used throughout human history in all sorts of different ways and for a variety of purposes. One of those purposes historically has been the organisation of spiritual thought and guidance, otherwise known as religion.
Agreed?
Now could we posit that these writings are – in a certain area of human philosophy – called respectively “The Torah”, “The Bible” and “The Koran”
So once we’ve got here you would have to agree that those writings represent the beliefs of the various believers.
Right?
Now what if all 3 books are agreed that the one true deity is the “god of Abraham”?
Same god. QED.
Your alternative is to go back to step 1 and say that since everyone has a different personal conception of god, everyone worships a different god.
This is clearly a vacuous proposition.
You’ve made a category error. You’ve mistaken personal conception of the deity for social (and institutional) conception of the deity.
(Sheesh, Iain your intellectual capacities are quite low)
JM
yep that’s a fair summmary
Why does it need to go any further?it is entirely succinct just as it is.
What shapes those conceptions of the deity is just as diverse as there are individuals and frankly it does not matter at all where they get the building blocks of their faith, those conceptions of the divine are still going to be unique to each individual.
To be “the same thing” they have to be identical JM you can’t say that near enough is good enough in this instance when your argument is that the deity worshipped is “the same one”
Nah, that still does not mean squat, see may previous point.
You can look at a free-way full of cars and there is no way that you can argue that each driver is driving the same car
even if they are all driving the same model from the one manufacturer each ar is still an individual machine distict and different to all of the others driving on the same road(just though that a motoring metaphor would be a hoot)
No don’t accept that this makes your case at all.
NO they are nothing more than the embodiment of a tradition that is reinterpreted by each individual in each generation in their quest for personal spiritual enlightenment and now two individuals will ever be on precisely the same path.
It does not matter what the three books superficiality agree upon JM because it does not negate the fact that human beings each have an individual consciousness, rather than being part of of a Borg like collective consciousness that you socialists dream about so no matter what the books say they will work it out for them selves and create the deity that they need in the form that most suits them and as such it will always be entirely individual to them no matter what faith tradition they follow.
Why is it a “vacuous proposition”? it is a perfectly valid sociological explanation of the belief in God and one that any atheist worth their salt should be able to endorse, perhaps you an not worth your salt as an atheist after all.
Yep you are loosing, why else would you throw in that gratuitous last line?
Iain: What shapes those conceptions of the deity is just as diverse as there are individuals and frankly it does not matter at all where they get the building blocks of their faith, those conceptions of the divine are still going to be unique to each individual.
So the Pope and Cardinal Pell worship different gods do they Iain?
I’m sure that conclusion would be a surprise to both of them.
JM
Yes, you are finally beginning to get the crux of may argument you may not agree with my interpretation but none of your bluff and bluster has dented its “unassailable” (your term)logic. Time for you to admit defeat on this one JM
Iain: Yes, you are finally beginning to get the crux of my argument
Yes?. Yes?????? Yes?!!!!!!
So you are willing to make this utterly ludicrous statement that two members of the College of Cardinals who have spent their entire adult lives rising to the top of a famously political and doctrinally strict organisation …..
That those two individuals don’t adhere to the doctrine and texts of that organisation?????? Somehow I don’t think so.
And you’re willing to make this demented statement to support a stupid mistake that you made in defence of an absolutely rubbish argument – namely that we should deny (or deport, depending) visas to people based on their professed faith?
Then you follow up by loudly proclaiming that your “logic is unassailable” which is a word you cherry picked from a rough definition that I gave you to explain my quite derogatory description of said statement.
Iain, IMHO you are ill. I suspect you are suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. You exhibit all the signs. And the fact that you are willing, eager, to say this utterly stupid thing convinces me
Seek help. You need it. If not for yourself, then for the people around you who you are probably damaging and who very likely don’t know what’s going on. For their sake, if not for your own.
Since it is not beneficial to you to continue to have this public profile, my involvement in this blog is coming to an end.
I may have something to say on the other thread about aboriginal affairs as it is an issue of some importance to me, but that’ll be it. I’m gone. Believe me, it’s better this way. People need to stop engaging you and withdraw as you are only drawing “oxygen” from the attention.
Believe me, you don’t deserve it. You might be a nice guy and I’d probably be quite happy to have a chin-wag with you, but your appreciation of yourself is vastly overblown.
JM
As I have argued repeatedly the source of an individual’s faith does not compromise the autonomy of their conception of the deity.
The point of this post was to look at the conundrum of those few individuals who we don’t want here for security reasons but who we can’t get rid of because of humanitarian reasons It does not matter what faith they have at all. Its a case of their history making them “problematic”
You don’t get it do you? I do this blogging thing for fun and really get a good laugh when commentators like you get all sanctimonious and full of righteous indignation because I am a hard nut to crack. Its obvious that you don’t come here in a spirit of friendship or good will and yet you wonder why I fight my corner so tenaciously?
So now you are going to suggest that you are qualified as shrink as well as that ever undisclosed science gong? Aren’t you the one who is always insisting that we should eternally defer to the experts on every issue of substance? So what qualifies you to make this claim?
I may not always be the easiest person to live with, and I may be rather curmudgeonly at times when my back is at its worst but I have managed to stay happily with the same woman for nearly thirty years which rather contradicts your armchair diagnosis
Nobody has EVER forced you to play here in my Sandpit JM and you will remain welcome because I seem to recall that you have sworn off playing here before
Why? most people get that this blog is intended for a bit of fun and once they realise that I am not at all the way my most strident critics paint me the enjoy playing. You that is YOUR problem here JM you so desperately believe all of the worst propaganda about me as your instance on sprouting paranoid nonsense like the tripe above. That is why you are so secretive and paranoid all of the time
I’m a really humble man JM and I have no tickets on myself at all, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if you can say that about your own self image, from the long history of your comments I think not.
Iain I’m not into Calvin Ball even if you change the name to “Iain Ball” and also change the primary rule to :
The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or deleted by Iain Hall. These rules are not required, nor necessary to play Calvinball
Sorry. You said you had an argument that was “unassailable and of faultless logic”.
It proved however to be
* assailable
* based on very faulty reasoning
* barely logical at all
You couldn’t defend it so you changed the rules.
Nup. Not interested.
Oh JM you are the very epitome of a bad loser, Aesop’s fable of the fox and the grapes was just absolutely meant for you, yet you have the hide to say that I have mental problems?
Your claims in turn
Is it really? strangely you have failed to that which you claim is easy? Hmm that either means that the task is harder than you assert or your abilities are less than you think they are, maybe both.
O goodness me you are still making the fundamental error of thinking that if you assert something the act of assertion makes it so, sadly for you it doesn’t. My reasoning is sound you just dislike it because you can’t get around the argument.
No it has an entirely consistent logic that goes like this:
There is nothing supernatural at all therefore all of those who believe in God are imagining a deity of their own design which is unique and not the same as any other believer’s deity.
Where pray tell is the fault in the logic?
There is none unless you want to admit to the objective existence of God which as an atheist you can not do.
I have only one rule at this blog and that is to keep it friendly and fun. So how have I changed the rules?
Iain: Where pray tell is the fault in the logic?
You could point it out. You have failed to do so, other than by asserting that two very important adherents of the same faith don’t actually have the same faith. (Which is so dumb I can barely believe that a sentient being could say it in the first place.)
I think that’s faulty logic by any measure.
So how have I changed the rules?
You’ve claimed a success for yourself and then, when it failed said “oh don’t worry, it’s all just a laugh”
I think Monty Python (and others) put paid to this sort of nonsensical imitation of intelligent thought about 40 years ago didn’t they? As a debating tactic it might have suited certain quite stupid members of the English caste system in the middle decades of the 20th Century, but you don’t have to imitate them. Particularly as you claim to be a “10 pound pom” and cannot claim membership of that caste. That would be just silly wouldn’t it? (Do you do silly walks as well Iain?)
I’m quite sure the Catholic Church – whose doctrines your argument seeks to overthrow – would have something to say about the issue as well.
Having read the last few comments, I’m surprised they let you out in public, JM…
JM
It is you who is claiming that MY logic is faulty so its up to YOU to demonstrate how. As for the Holy father and George Pell are they not distinct individual human beings? Are you privy to the inside of their heads? NO? then how can you demonstrate that when they pray that they are praying to precisely the same deity?
Hmm I think that your problem is that although you claim to be a “lifelong atheist” you are arguing as if the supernatural is real and a given, a true and consistent atheist would take as a starting point that none of the gods and supernatural monsters are real and frame their arguments accordingly.
My argument has been consistent and it has not failed when I point out to you the reasons that I write this blog it is in response to your attempts to play amateur Psychologist. and to try to get you to lighten up a bit.
What on earth are you on about here JM? For a man who chides me about my argument
this is a fine example of your fingers going bonkers on the Keyboard and producing drivel.
Wrong I am quite happy to see the catholic doctrines stand and to see its congregation believing what ever they please. Remember that just because people believe in something it does not make it so.
He has a leash GD
But perhaps he should rememeber that even the son of god can have a bad day 
My head hurts. Anyone got
a jointa nurofen?Just like a pit-bull, or one of the staffies the lefties love so much. All bite and no reason.
Iain, your “logic” has just led you to say that two men who have spent their lives in the service of the same faith, DON’T have the same god despite years of their personal protestations that they do.
In fact, what you are loudly asserting is that it doesn’t matter what those two men say about their own beliefs – that YOUR assertions about their beliefs should take precedence.
I think you should take a long, long rest, JM. Turn off the computer, don’t talk on the phone, and just make sure you get your vitamins everyday. The Victorian Health Services will be around in due time.
Seriously, old son, chill out!
JM
You must be dumber than a bag of hammers JM if you can’t see that my argument rests upon the difference between the subjective and the objective. From the subjective view of each of the gentlemen in question may well believe they are praying to the same god but when you look at the matter objectively they are each creating that deity in their own imaginations and there is no way that two imagined deities will be precisely the same thing.
Iain your argument is utterly specious. You may think its clever but it’s junk.
1. There is an organisation called the “Catholic Church”
2. As a requirement of membership of that organisation members are required to believe in the existence of an entity called “god” whose attributes are outlined in a document called “The Bible”, widely published and with an agreed text.
3. Both men are senior members of the organisation “Catholic Church”
Therefore both worship the same god.
End of story.
(That is unless you want to believe in New Age’r type beliefs where words and logic have no meaning and which require regular ingestion of psychotropic substances to sustain belief in – if so be my guest.
And another thing:
my argument rests upon the difference between the subjective and the objective
No Iain. You don’t get to switch between the subjective and the objective.
For years now (and in this thread) you have insisted on the objective and “empirical”.
Suddenly you want to switch to the subjective.
Sorry, I’m not playing “Iain Ball” here. I’m holding you to your own standards.
JM, please get on over to the other thread where “Sax” reckons we need to hold immigrants to stricter controls. You are doing my head in here. WTF is “CalvinBall”? And who cares?
Ray, some background for you.
CalvinBall is a reference to a widely syndicated comic strip called “Calvin and Hobbes” The central characters are a small boy named Calvin about 5 or 6 years old and his stuffed toy tiger called Hobbes. Throughout the strip whenever Calvin and Hobbes are alone Hobbes is portrayed as a real living tiger and it is only when an adult, usually his mother, enters the frame that you see that Hobbes is actually a pretty ratty but much loved stuffed toy.
Anyrate, every so often Calvin and Hobbes play a game called “Calvin Ball” where they prance around with a ball. The rules to this game are entirely set by Calvin and change nearly every time they play. Hobbes sometimes proposes rule changes but Calvin always has to approve them.
You can see what’s going on. The comic strip is the portrayal of the imaginings of a small boy.
My equating this with Iain’s argument here – particularly his shifting of criteria from the objective to the subjective – is an accusation that he is playing his own version. He’s changing the rules when things aren’t going well for him.
Thanks for that explanation, JM. I get it. I still say “who cares?” Have you ever tried commenting at An Onymous Lefty? Talk about shifting the goal posts, he not only does that, he also refuses to put dissenting arguments through if he doesn’t have a response. At least Iain let’s you attack him (and quite viciously at times), albeit on moderation. It’s all good argy-bargy though, JM, and I enjoy the cut & thrust of yours and Iain’s clashes. Please give “Sax” another bash on migrants though – he’s way out there on that one.
At least Iain let’s you attack him (and quite viciously at times),
Yeah, I’ll cop to that. Iain is actually fairly good on that front. The only times he’s ever edited my comments is to correct formatting mistakes, and not to change content. I think he deserves respect for that.
(He has deleted a couple of comments recently but I’m not prepared to complain about it)
Anyrate the point of all this theological discussion was this:
You cannot in a secular society:-
a.) deny a person a visa on the basis of their professed faith, particularly when their faith believes in the same god as that of the dominant beliefs in your own society
or, b.) declare them a security risk based solely on their professed faith (again when their beliefs are very much the same as your own)
Get over it. Religion has no part in either visa applications or national security.
Actual behaviour does. And there is the character test in immigration law to take care of that one.
There is no conundrum.
JM
Don’t you realise that you are arguing for the objective existence that which is both imaginary and and lacking any provable existence? Your “logic” above falsely assumes something that can’t be proven by anything resembling empirical science.
When it comes to the existence of anything supernatural can we agree, as atheists, that there is no such thing?
That the real world is all that there is?
Fair enough starting point don’t you agree?
Well from that starting point how can you suggest that any supernatural entity is objectively real enough for you to declare that any two people “see” it in precisely the same way?
Its just empirically impossible because neither individual is actaully seeing anything at all they are relying on “religious faith” rather than their senses to perceive God and you think that such things can be quantified?”
Finally you misunderstand the difference between that which is subjective and that which is objective in this context and your claim that I am “switching” between them is a very clear example of your very muddled thinking.
Give it up Iain, I’m only arguing from the basis of what people tell me they believe in.
I don’t care if it’s “God”, “Allah” or “Pixies at the bottom the the garden”
What they tell me they believe in, is the only objective or “empirical measure” I have of what they believe.
Same for you. You can’t substitute your “Borg” fantasies for it.