Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[TANGODANCER]

As a leaving present to the thread I've removed all the er, "pompous" pictures. Over and out.

[Montreal Wanderer]

which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

I'm not sure Joan was considered sane at the time and she didn't actually kick the English out of France (they were still there to burn her in Rouen). However, she had to wait an awfully long time before she was accepted as a saint - I think she was canonized less than a century ago after considerable French pressure. So give Sutcliffe five hundred years to see if the church accepts the accuracy of his claim to hear the voice of God before making comparisons. Although they were both a little odd IMHO.

[Prufrock]

Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.

Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.

It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?

I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....

which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

again you confuse the beliefs of a body with the beleifs of an individual. im sure nobody here would question the fact that people have done some pretty dodgy things in the past in the name of christianity, or indeed any religion, or indeed any belief. Stalin killed millions, doesnt stop me being a communist. he was a grade a wonkhammer who happened to originally, and vaguely and publicly (if not privately) share similar beliefs to I, doesnt mean I agree with killing millions of his own farmers to kill an uprising for instance.

[Prufrock]

as i complete aside to the whole religion and beleif basis, i would ask anyone who wishes to question their own belief ( like i have said i am an atheist who thinks all questions of beleif and faith should be questioned, all the time, to confirm or dismiss our own beliefs, if you disagree and are happy with your faith it is your choice whether to look it up or not) to look up and read articles about 'confirmation bias'. tis a field i have a great interest about due to books i have read, for example by Derren Brown (you may laugh, but behind the obvious play to the channel 4 viewership elements the man raises a lot of very interesting questions in his book); personally i feel i try to be as unbiased as i can regarding religion and any other belief system, i believe myself to uphold the values of free speech and democracy, to be a spokesman for the middleman, to overcome any aspects of disagreement and to be on the whole strictly open minded, whilst at the same time true to my own beliefs.


























now, everybody read the bit in bold, and think about yourself...................now read about confirmation bias, as a good introduction i suggest wikipedia, although there are better, if a little heavier, books out there















ps. would most people not describe themselves in near to, if not, the exact same way as i have?

[Prufrock]

i agree completely with anyone who says the points i suggest are self-serving, i use not only evidence in its most basic form, but even evidence that suggests i use evidence in its most basic form (i hope people follow because im not even genuinly sure i do) to back up my own beleifs; even by saying i dont want to judge others, i am being self serving, because i think myself liberal and free minded, and i only use evidence to back that up. as i mentioned above, 'confirmation bias' is a terribly interesting subject. anybody who wishes to judge others (both theists or atheists) would do well to read around it and question theirselves before they question others. i raise this point because i have read said (notice my rhyme ) Derren Brown book again tonight, and every time i read it, it makes me question all my beliefs, confirming some, and contradicting others. IMO everybody else, of whatever faith would be wise to do so.

[qwertywarrior]

don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop

Well, to me at least, that is considered racist?

ditto there is a difference in my view between certain ridiculous elements of PC such as telling children they have acheived 'deferred success' as opposed to failure, and calling somewhere a 'paki shop' which in my view is racist and unnecessary.

ok try it this way

if it is bad for language to evolve then how about culture also

i am not being racist just stating facts

the term paki shop was according to older people than me in general use in the 60's and 70's in fact some other ethnics referred to them as such also and it was generally accepted

yet now to use the term is racist when in fact to gran it was descriptive, e.g. i'm going out for a far eastern meal........no 'm having a chinky, chinese thai

surely that should be racist also then, what about an english or scottish breakfast

that is why i classed it as pc mad and infantile it doesnt make sense

[Prufrock]

don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop

Well, to me at least, that is considered racist?

ditto there is a difference in my view between certain ridiculous elements of PC such as telling children they have acheived 'deferred success' as opposed to failure, and calling somewhere a 'paki shop' which in my view is racist and unnecessary.

ok try it this way

if it is bad for language to evolve then how about culture also

i am not being racist just stating facts

the term paki shop was according to older people than me in general use in the 60's and 70's in fact some other ethnics referred to them as such also and it was generally accepted

yet now to use the term is racist when in fact to gran it was descriptive, e.g. i'm going out for a far eastern meal........no 'm having a chinky, chinese thai

surely that should be racist also then, what about an english or scottish breakfast

that is why i classed it as pc mad and infantile it doesnt make sense

in my mind the difference is this; the word breakfast describes a morning meal, no matter what it is. the phrase engilsh breakfast describes a take on that meal which is viewed by the as having originated in england. therefore the word 'english' is only used to show the differnence between this type of breakfast, and another.

regarding shops, your gran referred to a 'paki' shop. this word has racial connotations, and i doubt whether you, i, or your gran would dispute that; if your gran meant a pakiSTANI shop that sold pakiSTANI goods then i think you could use the excuse that sometimes older folk use words that are not acceptable today, to describe ideas that are. however i am guessing by the police reaction, the use of the word 'paki' or indeed pakistani, was unnecessary.

i admit i am making a MASSIVE generalistion when i assume that the shop your gran was referring to was a newsagents. in my view there is no need when describing a newsagents to refer to the nationality of the owner (especially with a word that carries its own negative and racial connotations, i would like to point out i have questioned my own nan, who is probably my favourite person in the world, on this point). a newsagent owned by a pakistani man sells nothing different to one owned by an englishman in my view, therefore the word pakistani is unnecessary when describing the shop, never mind the word 'paki'.

[communistworkethic]

And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Ok lets do the scientific approach. Only witness to the Big Bang theory? errr no-one.

yes but that's a "theory" it's not proposed as fact and it's a theory based on knoweldge of other factors, it is open to be contested based on other evidence - that's how science works, it asks questions, finds answers based on evidence nad concludes, but never does it say those conclusions are not to be contested.

The other thing, seeing as you raised BBT, is that question of where matter came from. BBT states that a hugely dense piece of "matter" explodes and expands outwards. The religious will ask " but where did that come from", science doesn't have a definitive answer as it accepts its limitations, which simply isn't good enough to the religious questioner, no they want proof. Turn the question round and ask they where God comes from and the answer you invariable get is "nowhere, he just is, God is eternal", suddenly they don't want to challenge any further. No evidence of existence but just happy to accept an easy answer because it's easy, consistency?

[communistworkethic]

which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

I'm not sure Joan was considered sane at the time and she didn't actually kick the English out of France (they were still there to burn her in Rouen). However, she had to wait an awfully long time before she was accepted as a saint - I think she was canonized less than a century ago after considerable French pressure. So give Sutcliffe five hundred years to see if the church accepts the accuracy of his claim to hear the voice of God before making comparisons. Although they were both a little odd IMHO.

She was convicted of heracy and burned at the stake at the behest of the English church, 24 years later she was beatified by a Spanish Pope. Never said she achieved kicking the English out, that was her goal though. It's 27 years since Sutclifee was convicted.

Both were guilty of murder, yet, by your own acceptance, political pressure gets one canonised. The Cathlic church bowed to pressure for a retrial, then decided that God must have told her to kill the English. So in about 2500bc God is saying "thou shalt not kill" and in 15th century the church accepts that God said "It's ok to kill the English". Change of mind there according to the Church.

[Prufrock]

And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Ok lets do the scientific approach. Only witness to the Big Bang theory? errr no-one.

yes but that's a "theory" it's not proposed as fact and it's a theory based on knoweldge of other factors, it is open to be contested based on other evidence - that's how science works, it asks questions, finds answers based on evidence nad concludes, but never does it say those conclusions are not to be contested.

The other thing, seeing as you raised BBT, is that question of where matter came from. BBT states that a hugely dense piece of "matter" explodes and expands outwards. The religious will ask " but where did that come from", science doesn't have a definitive answer as it accepts its limitations, which simply isn't good enough to the religious questioner, no they want proof. Turn the question round and ask they where God comes from and the answer you invariable get is "nowhere, he just is, God is eternal", suddenly they don't want to challenge any further. No evidence of existence but just happy to accept an easy answer because it's easy, consistency?

i can speak only for myself here, but i agree with your religious beliefs. In what i will call our view (although i speak for you so if you wish to contradict that is fine by me) we base everything we believe on on what we would call rational ideas in some cases, and probability, based on these, in others. we would both no doubt agree (as would anyone) that someone who says a metre is 106 cm is wrong.

my view is he is definately wrong because i can prove it equals 100 cm. until a similar situation arises with god i personally would not say someone else definatively wrong who beleives in god. i disagree, but i cannot say them wrong. you may think differently, that is your perrogative.

[communistworkethic]

And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Ok lets do the scientific approach. Only witness to the Big Bang theory? errr no-one.

yes but that's a "theory" it's not proposed as fact and it's a theory based on knoweldge of other factors, it is open to be contested based on other evidence - that's how science works, it asks questions, finds answers based on evidence nad concludes, but never does it say those conclusions are not to be contested.

The other thing, seeing as you raised BBT, is that question of where matter came from. BBT states that a hugely dense piece of "matter" explodes and expands outwards. The religious will ask " but where did that come from", science doesn't have a definitive answer as it accepts its limitations, which simply isn't good enough to the religious questioner, no they want proof. Turn the question round and ask they where God comes from and the answer you invariable get is "nowhere, he just is, God is eternal", suddenly they don't want to challenge any further. No evidence of existence but just happy to accept an easy answer because it's easy, consistency?

i can speak only for myself here, but i agree with your religious beliefs. In what i will call our view (although i speak for you so if you wish to contradict that is fine by me) we base everything we believe on on what we would call rational ideas in some cases, and probability, based on these, in others. we would both no doubt agree (as would anyone) that someone who says a metre is 106 cm is wrong.

my view is he is definately wrong because i can prove it equals 100 cm. until a similar situation arises with god i personally would not say someone else definatively wrong who beleives in god. i disagree, but i cannot say them wrong. you may think differently, that is your perrogative.

You don't get it do you? I don't have any religious beliefs.

You've done a good job of repeating what I said about 10 posts ago but in a really complicated way. Congrats.

[Batman]

Can't believe anyone has made a 'Scientology c*nt' joke yet.

[communistworkethic]

Can't believe anyone has made a 'Scientology c*nt' joke yet.

they did, you cult.

[qwertywarrior]

don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop

Well, to me at least, that is considered racist?

ditto there is a difference in my view between certain ridiculous elements of PC such as telling children they have acheived 'deferred success' as opposed to failure, and calling somewhere a 'paki shop' which in my view is racist and unnecessary.

ok try it this way

if it is bad for language to evolve then how about culture also

i am not being racist just stating facts

the term paki shop was according to older people than me in general use in the 60's and 70's in fact some other ethnics referred to them as such also and it was generally accepted

yet now to use the term is racist when in fact to gran it was descriptive, e.g. i'm going out for a far eastern meal........no 'm having a chinky, chinese thai

surely that should be racist also then, what about an english or scottish breakfast

that is why i classed it as pc mad and infantile it doesnt make sense

in my mind the difference is this; the word breakfast describes a morning meal, no matter what it is. the phrase engilsh breakfast describes a take on that meal which is viewed by the as having originated in england. therefore the word 'english' is only used to show the differnence between this type of breakfast, and another.

regarding shops, your gran referred to a 'paki' shop. this word has racial connotations, and i doubt whether you, i, or your gran would dispute that; if your gran meant a pakiSTANI shop that sold pakiSTANI goods then i think you could use the excuse that sometimes older folk use words that are not acceptable today, to describe ideas that are. however i am guessing by the police reaction, the use of the word 'paki' or indeed pakistani, was unnecessary.

i admit i am making a MASSIVE generalistion when i assume that the shop your gran was referring to was a newsagents. in my view there is no need when describing a newsagents to refer to the nationality of the owner (especially with a word that carries its own negative and racial connotations, i would like to point out i have questioned my own nan, who is probably my favourite person in the world, on this point). a newsagent owned by a pakistani man sells nothing different to one owned by an englishman in my view, therefore the word pakistani is unnecessary when describing the shop, never mind the word 'paki'.

partial response and in no way addressing the point

do you wan tto be a lawyer or an MP

[Prufrock]

And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Ok lets do the scientific approach. Only witness to the Big Bang theory? errr no-one.

yes but that's a "theory" it's not proposed as fact and it's a theory based on knoweldge of other factors, it is open to be contested based on other evidence - that's how science works, it asks questions, finds answers based on evidence nad concludes, but never does it say those conclusions are not to be contested.

The other thing, seeing as you raised BBT, is that question of where matter came from. BBT states that a hugely dense piece of "matter" explodes and expands outwards. The religious will ask " but where did that come from", science doesn't have a definitive answer as it accepts its limitations, which simply isn't good enough to the religious questioner, no they want proof. Turn the question round and ask they where God comes from and the answer you invariable get is "nowhere, he just is, God is eternal", suddenly they don't want to challenge any further. No evidence of existence but just happy to accept an easy answer because it's easy, consistency?

i can speak only for myself here, but i agree with your religious beliefs. In what i will call our view (although i speak for you so if you wish to contradict that is fine by me) we base everything we believe on on what we would call rational ideas in some cases, and probability, based on these, in others. we would both no doubt agree (as would anyone) that someone who says a metre is 106 cm is wrong.

my view is he is definately wrong because i can prove it equals 100 cm. until a similar situation arises with god i personally would not say someone else definatively wrong who beleives in god. i disagree, but i cannot say them wrong. you may think differently, that is your perrogative.

You don't get it do you? I don't have any religious beliefs.

You've done a good job of repeating what I said about 10 posts ago but in a really complicated way. Congrats.

i have said something similar to you, because, in essence my beleifs are similar to yours. difference is i havent felt the need to impose, or think badly of anyone becasue of my own beleifs, or theirs. as i have said, if you wish wish to, that is your your perrogative. i reserve the right to think badly becasue of that, no doubt as you do becasue of what i think

[Prufrock]

Well, to me at least, that is considered racist?

ditto there is a difference in my view between certain ridiculous elements of PC such as telling children they have acheived 'deferred success' as opposed to failure, and calling somewhere a 'paki shop' which in my view is racist and unnecessary.

ok try it this way

if it is bad for language to evolve then how about culture also

i am not being racist just stating facts

the term paki shop was according to older people than me in general use in the 60's and 70's in fact some other ethnics referred to them as such also and it was generally accepted

yet now to use the term is racist when in fact to gran it was descriptive, e.g. i'm going out for a far eastern meal........no 'm having a chinky, chinese thai

surely that should be racist also then, what about an english or scottish breakfast

that is why i classed it as pc mad and infantile it doesnt make sense

in my mind the difference is this; the word breakfast describes a morning meal, no matter what it is. the phrase engilsh breakfast describes a take on that meal which is viewed by the as having originated in england. therefore the word 'english' is only used to show the differnence between this type of breakfast, and another.

regarding shops, your gran referred to a 'paki' shop. this word has racial connotations, and i doubt whether you, i, or your gran would dispute that; if your gran meant a pakiSTANI shop that sold pakiSTANI goods then i think you could use the excuse that sometimes older folk use words that are not acceptable today, to describe ideas that are. however i am guessing by the police reaction, the use of the word 'paki' or indeed pakistani, was unnecessary.

i admit i am making a MASSIVE generalistion when i assume that the shop your gran was referring to was a newsagents. in my view there is no need when describing a newsagents to refer to the nationality of the owner (especially with a word that carries its own negative and racial connotations, i would like to point out i have questioned my own nan, who is probably my favourite person in the world, on this point). a newsagent owned by a pakistani man sells nothing different to one owned by an englishman in my view, therefore the word pakistani is unnecessary when describing the shop, never mind the word 'paki'.

partial response and in no way addressing the point

do you wan tto be a lawyer or an MP

i, like you, am new on here, i wish not to offend anyone, i sincerely apologise if my willingness to be to open other's has clouded my own views. since you question me i shall reply. unless your nan was talking quite specifically about pakistani goods from a specialised pakistani shop, she was being racist. perhaps 50 years ago the word, paki was allowed, now it isnt ( i, as i have said, have have called my nana on it, and in fact complete strangers before) it is unnecessary. even to call a shop a pakistani shop is unnecessary, to call it paki is racist. if your nana is going to any shop (sell that what it may [notice the multiple subjunctive Tango ]) why does she feel the need to describe it so? this is not as you state 'pc gone mad' but in fact pc in its right mind

[Worthy4England]

And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Ok lets do the scientific approach. Only witness to the Big Bang theory? errr no-one.

yes but that's a "theory" it's not proposed as fact and it's a theory based on knoweldge of other factors, it is open to be contested based on other evidence - that's how science works, it asks questions, finds answers based on evidence nad concludes, but never does it say those conclusions are not to be contested.

The other thing, seeing as you raised BBT, is that question of where matter came from. BBT states that a hugely dense piece of "matter" explodes and expands outwards. The religious will ask " but where did that come from", science doesn't have a definitive answer as it accepts its limitations, which simply isn't good enough to the religious questioner, no they want proof. Turn the question round and ask they where God comes from and the answer you invariable get is "nowhere, he just is, God is eternal", suddenly they don't want to challenge any further. No evidence of existence but just happy to accept an easy answer because it's easy, consistency?

Thanks for letting me know how science works, I'd completely forgotton since my Uni days...Someone, I think Brucie, was putting forwards a line that said people who believed in God need to prove he exists, to which I suggested that actually they didn't need to do any such thing, if they want to believe it's up to them, on went the conversation about "witnesses" and there only being one (Moses) to the Commandments, put forwards by youself, to which I responded that no-one witnessed big bang either.

It isn't just the religious that ask where did matter come from - plenty of scientists play with their particle accelerators too, trying to get to the answer. So actually, imo, "proof" is probably more within the science sphere whilst "belief" is more within the religious sphere. The only time I can see that changing soon, is if the religious side decided they could "prove" God existed, which, for my own part, I think they'll be hard pushed to do. That said, if the whole shebang can be rationalised down to a collision between particles and somehow from this collision, a whole host of years later, we have sentient life-forms holding irrelevent debates about something called religion on internet fora, then I suspect anything is possible, including as yet to be discovered "higher life forms". The scientific theorists would also have us believe that it isn't likely that we've the only planet in the cosmos to "evolve" in this manner, so what makes us think we're the highest lifeform, and if we're not, then it is just possible that something/body had some sort of hand in the development of the human race. Maybe it was a scientist playing with a particle accelerator?

[Lord Kangana]

I'd p*ss myself if they found out we were on the backs of 4 elephants who stood on a giant turtle who goes by the name of Great A'Tuin, mind...

[Worthy4England]

I'd p*ss myself if they found out we were on the backs of 4 elephants who stood on a giant turtle who goes by the name of Great A'Tuin, mind...

You mean this isn't true????

[Bruce Rioja]

I'd p*ss myself if they found out we were on the backs of 4 elephants who stood on a giant turtle who goes by the name of Great A'Tuin, mind...

It's not a turtle, it's a tortoise. Get your facts straight.