The falsity of atheistic belief, expressed by Prof. Richard Dawkins

The falsity of atheistic belief, expressed by Prof. Richard Dawkins (Note Prof. Peter Atkins often repeats similar and bogus ‘lazy’ accusations”

Dawkins: in reply to a quote from hos own book, “The God Delusion”
Book p126 says “One of the truly bad effects of religion, is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding”

Dawkins reply[00:18:00]

“Science uses evidence to discover the truth about the universe. It’s been getting better at it over the centuries, in the teeth of opposition from religion, although it has t be admitted that of course science grew out of a religions tradition. Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding.I think that when you consider the beauty of the world, and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you’re naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We all of us us share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life, for the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time.And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.What science has now achieved, is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator, and it’s a MAJOR emancipation, because humans an almost overwhelming desire to think that they’ve explained something by attributing it to a maker. We’re so used to explaining things in our own world, like these television cameras, like the lights, like everything we make, the clothes we wear, the chairs we sit on, everything we see around us is a manufactured object, and so it’s so tempting to believe that living things or that the stars or mountains or rivers have all been made by something. It was a supreme achievement of the humam intellect, to realise that there is a better explanation for these things. That these things can come about by purely natural causes.

When science began, the aim to achieve it was there was there, but we didn’t know enough. Nowadays at the end of the 20th Century, beginning of the 21st century, we still don’t know everything, but we’ve achieved an enormous amount in the way of understanding, we now understand essentially how life came into being. We KNOW that we are all cousins of all animals and plants. We know that we’re descended from a  common ancestor what might have been something like bacteria, we know the process by which that came about. We don’t know the details but we understand essentially how it came about. There are still gaps in our understanding, we don’t understand how the cosmos came into existence in the first place, but we’re working on that. The scientific enterprise is an active seeking, an active seeking out of gaps in our knowledge, seeking of ignorance so we can work to plug that ignorance, but religion teaches us to be satisfied with not really understanding.

Every one of these difficult questions that comes up, science says ‘right, lets roll up our sleeves and work on it”, religion says “oh God did it. We don’t need to work on it, God did it.” It’s as simple as that. We have no thrusting force  pushing us on to try to understand. Religion stultifies the impulse to understand because religion provides a facile easy apparent explanation and it prevents the further work on the problem.”

I will comment on this in due time.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Withdrawl – closer than ever before

At what point should one withdraw from a decaying world? Islamically, when society appears on the point of collapse or beyond rescue, one is advised to detach/flee from that society .

I have fulfilled some of my responsibility by speaking out against what I believe are (some of) the GREAT EVILS of this world. I had the aim that of showing this to others and encouraging them to do so similarly against this grand tyranny.

But lets take a reality check here: The sheeple are NOT waking up (in anywhere near enough quantities). The masses are going along with the slide into despotism, and I suspect they are doing so with various levels of deliberate decision making.

Those who can and have seen the evil core of society spreading and infecting just about anything it can are massively ineffectual (yes, including me).

I think it may be time to stop shouting and time to withdraw. I must have spent years of my life reading and researching. Sadly I have almost nothing to show from it, other than an inner satisfaction that I have not succumbed to that evils and its withering touch (or so I believe!). I think a lot of my use of ‘life force’ has not been fruitful.

I am increasingly of the mindset that its just about time to ‘call time’, and begin to prepare seriously for the collapse, but I suspect any such preparation other than relocation to the isolated countryside to live a detached simple life, relatively free of technology, would be doomed.

That is surely what should occupy my time now.

Islam and monotheism has all but gone, and some miserable deceptive imitation has been hoisted up in its place. I simply can’t see any way to bring back the kind of God fearing (fear of the unquestionably justice that we will one day have to account for) and God loving based society that we need and offers salvation.

I’m not a Christian in the commonly understood sense of the word, but there is something in the concept of humans; may I call it: perpetual sin, which does indeed show the need for man to have an absolver and guiding ‘father’ figure.

I think it’s time to be a bit more “selfish” and prepare.

Question is…. am I able to?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

The atheists and anti-theists poor performance.

I’ve been feverish of late trying to expand my familiarization (and re-visitation) of the church of atheism. I am shocked at what I’m turning up. The theists, mostly Christians, are (generally) positing a scientific line in defence of their world view (and very powerfully I must say) and the hijackers of ‘science’, those who are seeking to covet science, i.e. the atheists,  simply side-step the issues, instead trying to ‘sell’ their world-view by simply bashing the sins of a minority of people of people professing religiosity but who do great crimes. Any attempt to talk about the science issues are pathetically in the atheistic camp.

From the last time I looked at this, it seemed mostly the opposite way around. Now the atheists are loitering in the realm of sociology and social science and are getting trampled upon.

Yes, as a theist I look at things from a theistic viewpoint, but as I’ve said elsewhere, I think this is balanced by the atheists viewing things from their standpoint. But I have tried to be sincere to looking at the atheistic arguments sympathetically.

Here’s some things that the atheists get stumped on.

1) Atheists are at a total loss to explain how the first life form came about. Instead they beguile their audience with micro-evolution of pre-existing life forms and fool you into accepting micro evolution as actually macro-evolution – not that they will point out the difference.

2) The question of how the Universe began.

3) The fine tuning of the Universe, the anthropic principle.

4) The Dawkinite “high probability” of aliens seeding life is TOTALLY lacking evidence.

5) The Multiverse theory does not and CANNOT have any evidence for it.

6) The attempt to set up science as the new religion air-brushes the large number of theistic and deists who engage fully in science.

7) Science – th study of the physical simply CANNOT explain that which is proposed to he beyond physicaliy.

–

The moral and conscious/mind/information/language/geological/palaeontologically/historical and economic arguments against the atheists are also pushing the atheists into a corner.

I’m seeing that it’s game set and match! It seems its never been a better time to argue for the existence of God.

Alhamdulillah, and these are Christians who are doing it, the Muslims are proportionately deadly silent on the matter.

–

Anyway, this post is triggered by me uncovering what I think is a lie by Christopher Hitchens in his ‘never’ having had a Christian debate his standpoint from a scriptural stance.

So watch these two videos:

1) Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens)
September 9, 2008

2) The God Debate: Hitchens vs. D’Souza
April 7, 2010

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Science of the gaps – Richard Dawkins debating John Lennox

a) Personal prologue
b) Main post

 

Personal prologue

I believe in God. I never used to. Being raised in ‘a kind of’ Christian environment, there was usually a latent background of God, e.g. walking home I’d pass a few churches or the Christmas TV programs etc. Somhow, probably because of the story of Adam, who in my mind, was a declaration that a ‘modern man’ was the first man – very much like we are today, hence, if man came from ape-like ancestors, then that would disqualify the notion of God.

Looking back, all things considered, I’m ashamed that I came to such an ultimate conclusion so hastily, on something which has the most enormous implications for us as a species, and deserves deep study in many fields. Really, I was armed with only a minuscule level of knowledge, and sadly I was far too accepting of the information that was coming my way; I didn’t scrutinise it, I didn’t look for alternative explanations. Because of that I must have been a simple level “darwinian atheist” from the ages of about 14 to 21.

Perhaps my personal shame is a bit harsh given my youthful years, but I was “convinced” it was true and naturally I would promote such a stance when in discussion/debate about it.

Since then, I came across the Qur’an, which tells of how Isa (Jesus) a.s. was raised up from the eyes of man. The utter confidence of that statement {please read it for yourself in the Qur’an – or if you can’t read Arabic, even an English translation retains much of its power} rocked me and it just seemed that what I was reading was the truth,
so how could I deny it?

Atheists may say I was simply swapping my simple level “Darwinian atheist” mindset for a similarly simple level “God exists” mindset instead, and other atheists may also say my personally amazing experience and feelings on reading the Qur’an are   laughable. I would appeal to those who may be rofl right now to try and recall something from their own lives that fundamentally changed their perspectives. I’m sure many could recall such a thing and hence I’m sure you will better appreciate my experience on
reading the Qur’an.

I have since invested much time in gaining a much greater understanding of the God question and
try to familiarise myself on the near endless debate about whether God exists or not. Yes, I have a bias
towards God, but atheists has a bias against God, so I guess that’s fair and square.

All this means I have come across the works of Richard Dawkins.

–

–

Main post

I’m referring to this: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God

21:03 – 31:29

[P.S. Dawkins made an error in the debate saying no to ‘things going from simple to complex’, it’s obvious he wanted to to say no to things starting from complex (i.e. God)]
In my pursuit of the Gods existence debate, I was watching Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God.

I’m quite familiar with Dawkins’s arguments now. Dawkins puts scorn on religious people who, Dawkins says(!), say ‘we don’t know what that phenomenon is’ therefore God did it, i.e. God fills the gaps of our ignorance. Like much of what Dawkins says, it’s very sweeping and unfair in that it doesn’t acknowledge the great number of God believing scientists who do undertake the challenge at revealing aspects of what we don’t understand. Such as the Mathematician Lennox. I am what they would call a ‘scientist’ so I know this – I see it. But Lennox did a very interesting thing. He took Dawkins up on this issue (and Lennox knows perfectly well that Dawkins is very experienced in discussing) but he turned it around.
Dawkins was saying things have to go from simple to complex and that simplicity, in his eyes, negates the need for a complex God. Dawkins protests a complex God needs explanation, and an explanation as to where that God came from.

Typical Dawkins. He attaches onto God the very thing that would nullify God. A good definition of God is ‘that which has not been created’. It’s probably his greatest trick and is self-negating. The trouble is the closer you get to the ‘instant’ of the bog bang, which I think it’s fair to say almost everyone is (currently) at ease with about being how the physical Universe came into being, then it actually gets more and more complex.

Dawkins’ second trick is to simply call it simple. Well I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I think Dawkins is actually saying the SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS used to try and simulate the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE at some time when the universal physical constants stabilised may be regarded as simple, but even then, they surely cannot be simple in physical actuality due to anti matter and dark matter, the latter of which is said by many scientists that Dawkins would be happy to stand along side himself to account for most of the mass and therefore energy of the universe, and these are very poorly understood indeed, hence any simple model is surely wholly inaccurate, causing another major stumbling block to Dawkins on this issue.

Anyway, He says natural, blind unthinking natural selection caused the biological complexity we have today, so things went from simple (Dawkins’s ‘simple’ remember!) to complex, hence God doesn’t need explaining. But Lennox correctly drew reference to two utterly complex issues, the “pre-Dawkinist simple” beginning of the universe [my words not Lennox’s] and the origin of biological life.

It is at this point when Dawkins impales himself completely on his own sword. He says We don’t know these things yet, but we know there will be a Darwinian explanation to it. What Dawkins has done is to use a ‘Science of the gaps’ approach to it. He has blind faith that there will be a simple [it HAS to be simple – that’s a main theme for Dawkins] explanation. But any fair minded person will surely agree, from primordial soup to life today or from a ‘rugby ball’ sized ‘thing’ (from which the Universe too shape) is of course utterly complicated.

Sadly Lennox doesn’t quite navigate as well to expose this as I have tried to do above, but of course, a face to face debate is completely different from a prose based composition like this.

I also liked Lennox’s previous point about consciousness, which Dawkins took up to talk about avoiding a rock or not jumping off a cliff. Lennox is saying reductionism cannot explain consciousness (at least as far as best we know today). there is no rational way in which the reduced set of atoms and molecules can have consciousness. There has to be a way in which the structure of those atoms and molecules can store information and be able to interpret that information.
This is what separates the living (in a bio-physological sense) from the non-living*. That requires a consciousness which surely cannot be explained by step-wise selection or even by the instantaneous crossing of a hugely significant feature (which would in any case require quite a lot of genetic information to encode and endow inheritance).
Lennox called this a ‘language‘ which indicates the pre-existence of a ‘mind‘. Dawkins quickly went away from this point.

It is interesting that when Lennox rather traps himself and puts himself on the back-foot having to explain the mind of God. Dawkins rightly gets a stronger line of argument, but this is an unfair advantage to Dawkins because if there was a God, it’ is inescapably impossible to explain the word of God. Even on a human level success at explaining the means and motives of other humans often fails. How can we with a lifespan of about 80 years, a mind the size of a honeydew melon and primarily only input/output/process information one ‘channel’ at any one instance ultimately explain anything?

* non-living – actually Islam mentions rocks, which are considered non-living, as talking in some future event. This I would say, should encourage you to think there is a very different kind of ‘living’which the ‘non-living’ have access. If that’s a struggle for you, just remember djinn and Angels. Of course, the realm of God is beyond us. Dawkins protests he would/could not do science if this ‘magic’ as he pejoratively calls it interfered with science, as if God is likely to say intermittently hide then re-reveal a chromosome for example – He’s trying to cast God in a dark light. And if Dawkins was to ‘give up’ what happened to his accusations of ‘cop out’ and ‘mental lazyness’ etc

The mind consciousness/meaning part resurfaces at 49:57

At the end, I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that Lennox thanks Dawkins; “Thanks Richard” says Lennox, yet all Dawkins does is acknowledge it with a ‘mouth open and close to smile’ kind of thing. Interesting having just heard what the human moral behavioural aspect of the debate.

I believe I’m so familiar with Dawkins’s stuff that I see many many holes in it.

It’s interesting that I can’t find Dawkins debating an intelligent Muslim scholar experienced/familiar with the ‘Western’ style of this debate.
Next up (additions to this post outstanding) is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx0CXmagQu0 (which I notive Atkins also attributes a derogatory term of lazyness to the ‘design’ issue)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 

Women and Islam

I came across this:

First of all I am surprised the BBZ broadcasted this. Perhaps they felt forced to give a morsel against the countless hours of pro-Zionism propaganda they stream out. Anyway, the short clip was quite interesting.

Often on western media, coincidence strikes with great regularity when speakers with ‘Islamic connections’ talk about it in a negative light (e.g. Tarek Fatah, Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali), usually offering ‘media portrayals of Muslims’ or the bad non-Islamic acts of Muslims as ‘evidence’.

Here, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (YAB) seems to take on the part, but the refreshing thing is to see Kristiane Backer actually talk FIRST HAND (and not via third party – a la YAB – who is supposedly relaying some very peculiar things people have said to her in their written communications to her) about the inner peace that Islam has brought, i.e. talking about it in a positive sense.

It’s amusing to see the female journo ask Kristiane that surely “she [KB] misses some of the freedoms” showing she is utterly clueless as to what Islam is or means to people.

YAB totally miss the point, quelle surprize, e.g. apparently believing women only come to Islam because they want rules. e.g. she focuses on women asking about LOLing and clapping after a show. I would say these women are asking this question because they have accepted Islam and THEREFORE they want to follow (if any) the correct way, or best way of behaving. YAB is making it appear that women just want rules and THEREFORE came to Islam for that. YAB’s view suggests a dead or certainly soundly sleeping heart. She also is portraying women who embrace Islam simply because of some temporary feeling. Dear oh dear. Kristiane Backer does very well to correct YAB’s incorrect portrayal of it as being an ‘escape’. Islam OFFERS the escape once Islam is accepted. A-B is getting the order of it wrong. Backer does look at it from a heart prospective but YAB from a negative ‘strictness’ regime. I find it extremely hard to believe an actual Muslim convert would soon after his conversion trumpeting, as YAB cast it, about chastising his wife.

Also, YAB opens up another flank raising the yet another negativism about the Hijab and make-up, when nobody had made any mention of it thus far.

In short, we have a demonstration of someone who seems to genuinely love Islam and someone who we actually puts Islam in a bad light. The latter was expected, the former welcomed.

Actually Revery is a better word than convert as we are Muslims before we are born. ‘Convrts’ are just getting back to their roots.

P.S. I think Gita Sahgal (the atheist from a Hindu background) is another Irshad Manji type. In just a few seconds she goes from talking about Muslim coverts to Islam and then to repression then to repression of women and then to the Taliban in just 20 seconds!!!! PHEW! She honestly believes there is a link to converts and those falling into the clutches of the Taliban. Dear Lord! Incredible and what rally takes the cake is she attributes most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Bet her chances of future western media appearance paint a bright and rosy financial future.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Dear oh dear.

Christmas in Hedonia – Reflections of a Muslim

Over Christmas, I’m spending some time in Hedonia. Hedonia is the capital of Hedonism – the place where desires are fulfilled. Actually to be more accurate, there are a few Hendonias, I just happen to be staying in one of them.

Well today is Christmas and someone I know treated me to a buffet meal of excellent cuisine (an eat all you want type affair).

There were some signs of Christmas around the place, some party poppers (a relatively new phenomenon of which the marketing men must be most proud), some Christmassy decorations, a few ‘Seasons Greetings’ type thingies stuck on the walls, and some dude dressed up as Santa, handing out some toys (Made in China) and there was the usual ‘leisure facility’ band singing some Christmas type songs.

While I was eating – admittedly pretty far beyond my means, the band started singing some Christmas song containing a repeated line saying something like ‘let us remember his [Jesus’] name’. Consciously thinking bout the environment, I don’t think a single person was remembering his name let alone his message/ the meaning of his life. Jesus was relegated to an amateur entertainment act; background music which that nobody was really listening to.

And it was mighty sad indeed.

The VERY last of the prophets to come (on this earth) which will mark an unprecedented and most tumultuous period of man, is being treated as an irrelevance where even the tanned Santa had more of peoples life-force attention devoted to him.

Well I was in Hedonia. What did I expect !?

This particular Hedonia is in a Muslim County, where it seems not only were the White foreign, presumed Christian tourist contingent ignoring Jesus, but the Muslims ignored him even more! I’ve written an article on Muslims attitudes to Jesus before, so I won’t repeat it, but it is very sad indeed to see the meaning of Christmas ‘doubly’ ignored.

But even in the UK branch of Hedonia, The ‘new agers’ and ‘agnostic spiritualists’ seemed to have muscled their way into Christmas too, once more elbowing out Jesus and the whole meaning of his life (and meaning of his life to come once he returns), replacing it with the ‘Good will to man’ and New Years salutations, you know, those greetings about which any thoughts/practicality/actions in that direction expire the moment the end of the catchphrase is uttered.

Earlier in the day, the ‘body beautifuls’ were parading around, leaving very little to the imagination. I am sure some of them were deliberately showing off, their impossible glossy magazine figures which surely were an advert about them that their body is their temple and that their body shape defined/provided them with their lifestyle. Yip, when I saw these Nefertiti’s I did averting my eyes, which was pretty tricky, not just because the female of the species is my strongest kind of allure, but seemingly, it was impossible to establish a new line-of-sight without some other body beautiful being in the way! – well, a bit like that anyway. Before I head off on a tangent, I was just looking at all those people and saw them standing virtually completely isolated from the purpose of their lives (i.e. to worship God). There were hundreds of them just focusing on ‘having a good time’, people for whom their holiday was an opportunity to achieve their pinnacle of joy. It was of course a joy firmly routed in the dhunya (this world) and I guessed their thought could never possibly hope to conceive of anything other than this world – or rather, that’s how I thought of them at the time anyway.

And please don’t write in saying Jesus wasn’t born on 25th December so Christmas is phoney anyway, because that’s utterly irrelevant to what I am talking about i.e. Christmas (as I have already alluded to) is about the actual significance and meaning of Jesus’ life.

I am in Hedonia(major) for a purpose and will shortly leave and head back to Hedonia(minor)

It’s been a interesting and sad day, and I know as part of Hedonia I am contributing to it in some kind of indefinable way.

Good day, and have a religious Christmas.

lwtc247

Who wants to live forever?

I’ve recently had some discussion of this question.

Yes, it’s an age old question and one that you yourself have probably had a number of past discussions on. Personally, I sometimes revisit these kinds of questions, because as I advance in years, I gain different perspectives as do the generally ageing people around me which opens up a new avenues for stimulating contemplation.

Well, either that or I’ve simply forgotten!

Re: older minds giving more productive discussions: It does take some time to get ‘clued up’ on such matters hence youthful thinking can, in the main, appear as ‘has been‘ or unproductive thinking, reinventing the wheel if you like, so perhaps older more seasoned and experienced minds are becoming more valuable to me. Yet at the same time, as the video below will point out, a conversation between a) Aubrey de Grey (formerly of Cambridge) with and Sherwin B. Nuland of Yale b) Aubrey de Grey with Martin Raff of UCL, seems ‘devoid of any possible intellectual divide based on youth’, but that’s because I’m talking about people from all different walks of life and not within scientific specialisation.

The main point of this post is to ask you if you would want to live forever and if yes or no, your reasons why, but that question rapidly diverts onto the question of can death be cheated, within which I make some assumptions:

1) The vast majority of those who believe in God accept (or will one day accept) death

2) Those who do not believe in God will seek ways to cheat death.
http://w   ww.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYTiAbEASo

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Jesus / Isa – alahi salam

On occasions, I feel Muslims ‘lose’ something when it comes to religion. I am speaking about the second last prophet Jesus or Isa (E-sa) peace be upon him.

Muslims believe that Christianity, as we know it today, and its history, has suffered a corruption of Jesus’ (pbuh) message. They believe this is one reason why the had the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) whose recitation of Divine revelation is encoded in the Qur’an, whose message today is the same as what it was almost 1400 years ago, and is protected so by God.

Why ‘bother’ with what is said of Jesus (pbuh) then when a particular issue may contain distortiortions and errors?

Indeed, I was never able to really understand why what I’ve always thought were Christians discussing the New Testament, identified the books of the apostles as having been written some 50,60,70,80,90 or so years after the ‘death’ of Jesus (pbuh) yet they never seemed concerned with that to me seemed like that very time sequence suggesting that in there weren’t actually written by the apostles. I can’t understand how an apostle who was x+50, x+60, x+70… years old (where x=their age while at the last day of of Jesus) could himself have written it, or even if he did write it, how could such writings be accurate. I know this issue isn’t ‘new’ and OK, the Grace of God could have made these things happen, but I don’t think there is any evidence or indeed, any claim that that is indeed the case. For some time now, I’ve held the assumption that the books of the apostles were ‘ghost’ written on behalf  of the words/techings of the apostles, but again, I’ve never seen any claim of this by the Church.

In addition to the above oddities, that the Church – a still generally beneficial force in society, despite various corruptions – then allowed usury,causing Christians to thereafter adopt, is something unless I am mistaken, which Jesus (pbuh) abhored [Note: Some Muslims also practice usury, is a part of which is in something they call Riba, a sin of such seriousness that it invites Gods War against you]. The acceptance/normalisation of usury struck a severe blow to Christianity from which it argueably has never recovered, and doubtless, has aided the huge fall from grace as a faith in the eyes of some Muslims.

And in recent times we the Judeo-Christian allaince when for millenia, generally Christians viewed Jews in similiar, yet milder way, from how Jews viewed Christains.

All of which have contributed to Muslims distancing themselves from the Christian faith.

In recent years, I have come across people who call themselves Christians but don’t seem to cede to the Church, instead, believing in Christianity according to their own analysis and understanding, and of the significance of Jesus. [These people could always have existed, perhaps it’s just my age, exposure and social cirles that is makeing them more visible to me]. Personally, what they are doing appeals to me [As it is increasingly doing so in the disorganised ‘organised religion stricture’ of Islam. I think these Christians are able to ‘see’ some fictions propagates by the Church. However, they still seem likely to adopt other distortions about Jesus – like some indulging the usurers [Muslims too remember!] and not following Jewish custom e.g. Sabbath, circumcision, eating Kosher and so on. But I don’t think in this say any age that anyone is pure – that goes for Muslims too.

My general opinion of Muslims is that they tend to take on a facile view of Christianity and don’t see those ‘independent’  Christians mentioned just above, and from my experience of these people, they are very amicable and  have significant overlap with Muslim perspectives and teachings [Not really surprisin]. Thin thoughts of Muslims about their Christian counterparts – most significantly in Muslim dominated populations – unnecessarily widens the gap between them, and that’s a shame.

A similar thing – primarily form distortions embedded in their religions – exists with (real) Jewish-Christian and Jewish-Muslim relations, but I’d say the philosophical gap between Jews and Christians as well as Jews and Muslims is greater than that of Christians and Muslims.

Jesus (pbuh) does appear in the Qur’an and in the saying of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Despite the possible explanations as to why above, it’s a pity and wonder why Muslims gove so little attention to Jesus’ story (pbuh), but other Prophets like Ismail (so called ‘Father of the Arabs’) and Moses and Abraham are given more (IMO) significance.

I get the feeling that this may be because: If an increase in discussions by Muslims of Jesus (pbuh) were to take place, it would be percieved as “being Christian”. To me, that’s a real shame, especially when one thinks about Jesus (pbuh) and his influence on the world today [I can’t here reference Paul / Saul of Tarsus, regarded as being the one to ‘establish/grow’ the religion of Christianity, being beyond the scope of this post]. After (possibly) Muhammad, the next most Influential man influencing the world today is Jesus (peace and blessings be to both of them), yet Muslims largely ‘whitewash’ him.

Frankly, it’s hard to accept the Church’s distortions and corruptions are a good enough reason for any ‘whitewashing’ of Jesus, and actually I don’t think Muslims have ever spent much thought at all as to how to weigh-up/assess Jesus’s role in their lives. That the religion of Islam was deemed to be completed very shortly before the death of Muhammad (saw) seems to make some think that Islam is all the need at the cost of looking for overlap with their Christian brothers.

To me, the influence of Jesus across the world (even when one factors in a corrupt Church) is testament that what this man did and said is of the most extraordinary power and significance. It’s amazing that the corruptions and distortions piled upon Jesus are incapable of destroying the way he is revered, and I don’t think he is revered because of those distortions.

Jesus performed miracles. As far as I know, Muhammad (saw) didn’t – although he did go on a miraculous journey – Al-Isra and Al-Miraj. I think Jesus was able to perform miracles so that people had no excuse not to fast-track themselves to belief in God, perhaps a sign that Jesus’ task was much more of a challenge than what Muhammad (saw) faced [It must be noted that Muhammad (saw) did have a very rough time himself in his duty as a Prophet; It wasn’t easy by any means]. The miracle worker was clearly special and should be listened to.

Why is it said that Allah(SWT) commands that the Muslims do not make judgements as to the fate of the people of the book? Some, in an attempt to shy away from this, many ask ‘which book?’ to which I propose, the bible at the time of Muhammads Divine revelations had not changed significantly from that time onwards. It makes more sense to think God was referring to the Divine scriptures, the ‘books’, at the time of revelation onwards which I’d say, works its way down to the Christians and Indeed Jews of  today. It also seems straightforward to think it’s the uncorrupted elements of those scriptures which still maintain a tie of Christians and Jews to God. Yet, some Muslims seem ‘quite edgy’ about all this.

When Muslims were being persecuted, the Prophet Muhammad (saw) sent some Muslims into Christian lands (Abyssinia) for refuge. They were protected. Isn’t this simple aspect of the history of Islam in itself a strong indication of the natural affinity of Christians and Muslims [And that Jews were given refuge in Muslim Arab lands also indicative of something?]

As I begin to end this post, hopefully my Muslim readers will not succumb to such instant dismissal from what’s said above and will consider these questions:-

1) Why is it Jesus/Isa (peace be upon him) that will return to ultimately re-establish mans solid relationship to God in the hearts of ALL mankind?

2) Why is it said that Muhammad (saw) is calimed to have said that of all the prophets, Jesus had a special place in the Prophets heart ? (I’m paraphrasing)

3) Aren’t many Muslims themselves already following distortions/corrutions in disorganised Islam? – Remember about the ‘sects’ within Isla, yet on the whole, we don’ really reject other Muslims, so why (when it happens) do we reject Christians?

4) Even some atheists brought up in Christian environments, and hence take some ‘Christian stuff’ on board, can be a fine example of a free and moral upstanding people. For some reason, Rodney Shakespeare comes to mind.

5) When Jesus (pbuh) dies, who will be be buried next to?

.

To some Muslims, they will instigate a mind-block about what is written here. They will dismiss it, believing it may ‘rock their Islamic’ faith, when actually I am trying to show them on the contrary, their faith can be strengthened. They may think it’s an attempt to ‘convert them the Christianity’. It most certainly isn’t, and if you thought as much, I suspect you ave a significant flaw in your understanding of Islam [I don’t pretend amateur ‘Muslim me’ is immune].

I believe that what I have written here is important and should be thought about and if what I say is wrong, then only by undertaking honest and thoughtful analysis of what I say will show that to be wrong.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Twilight

It finally looks like Brits and Yanks are starting to pay the price for the bankruptcy of perverted economic and moral bankruptcy (neo-imperialism) they allowed continue (largely unopposed and suckled off) for decades if not centuries. In all honesty, I can’t say I have any sympathy for them, after all, they keep voting for proven killers and killers-to-be, they are utterly deluded that the political system UK and US (I don’t care if you call it Democracy or what – as it’s totally irrelevent) is anything other a great failure.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”   – (Galatians 6:7 KJV)

The greatest protests the world has ever seen (Feb 2003)  against the looming obliteration of Iraq were encouraging (despite the fact Iraq had been under 12 years of murderous sanctions and wicked bombings by the rAF and USAF) but when the bombing started, those same people were pretty much content that ‘Febuary’s first step‘ meant that they had done their ‘bit’. How miserable.

As regards to the self declared non-elected leaders of the so called anti-war movement, they proved to be a disgrace. manufactured dissent, firmly thinking within the box, (I’m beginning to hate the expression “Thinking outside the box” because  ‘outside the box’ is not really outside the box at all. It’s actually still well within the establishments box – that of permitted dissent, besides, saying ‘out of the box’ is just about said by almost everyone these days who are attempting self-projection, believing they are subtly callin themselves clever, but in actual fact, they are drawing attention to themselves by trotting out tired and boring populist expressions. Saying ‘thinking outside box’ is now confirmation they are actually in sheeple box. I’ll grant Steve Jobs an honourable exception here) or simply cowards;

Actually it’s all three.

The so called ‘anti-war’ movement should have called for certain politicians (bLiar, Straw & Brown for a start) should have been hung drawn and quartered – not an extreme act at all, as it’s a similar philosophy bLiar & Co. used (so called pre-emptive military action*) – putting bLiars head on a spike outside Westminster would have saved a million innocent lives, but in fact it’s even more moral based compared to bLiars pretence at a moral stance, in that bLiar’s justification was a clear lie, Saddam was never going to attack, but it was abundantly clear bastard bLiar and jackass BuSh, Howard and Aznar were going to destroy Iraq – illegally. Lets not forget those so called Muslim Countries that did nothing, or those like France, China and Russia that stood by calculating no detriment to their own interests (and very likely thought they would ‘gain’ in the long term from it).  

Selfish Brits of course would have none of putting bLiars demon head on a spike – for passers by to spit at. It’s simply not on to kill a pathological liar, a cheat, hypocrite, willing partner in infanticide (over half a million Iraqi kids during 12 years of abhorrent sanctions). Blair is English, speaks English, wealthy, held power, and is white. All attributes which entitle him to escape punishment for his murder lust. Iraqi’s on the other hand are poor, darker-skinned, powerless, Iraqi and Muslim… BOMBS AWAY !!!

So the justice of having bLiar publically executed is unlikely to be realised, but at least they could have called for him to be publically beaten to a pulp, allowed to recover and then beaten to a pulp again and again; treatment herr mudjesties forces did to the people of Iraq.

Or at least allow some Iraqi mourners whose kids were blown to smithereens to given a damn good shiner and had a bloodied nose and a decent scar across his repulsive face and scratch his eyes out with their fingernails.

Despite the failing of the ridiculous so called ‘ant-war’ movement, people should not have ceded their morality to these anti-war ‘leaders’ and/or buried their moral conscience into an emotion-proof dungeon. They should stopped paying tax, refused to purchase goods from nations in the correctly named Coalition of the Killing, they should have taken out as much of their money from the banks and so on. But no, they were unwilling to risk any ‘luxury’. February (for those who bothered) was fine. And if you didn’t do any of those things, you could try, starting from tomorrow.

Today the UK and UK citizens still vote of liars, cheats, embezzlers, killers, killers-to-be, immoral shells (probably freemasonic/cabbalistic Satan worshippers – openly conscious of the fact or not) wanting to bend the law to their advantage and use it as a club to pummel the people who voted for them, while giving reassurances that everything’s ok, we’ll all pull through. I haven’t heard that other war-criminal Winston Churchill’s been called upon yet, but the stopwatch is running.

Face facts. Voters hands are bloodied with the crimes of the elect-ees. There is no escape from that.

So, the fact the western snake is starting to consuming its own tail, is actually a strange sence of poetic justice.

I do feel sorry for those that DID speak out against the white hot evil their nation spewed (and keeps spewing) out, but such people are tiny in number.

This post follows partly from watching Francis Fukuyama on fora.tv. Re: Noam Chomsky, StefZ said on Famous for 15 megapixels wrote something like “people keep saying Chomsky is a leading intellectual”. Fukuyama seems to be same. He’s preaching to the choir and gets promoted and admired by it. I first heard this (similar) ‘in-house’ point on the BBC”s Question Time in which Salman Rushdie’s literary award was dismissed as it was a bit of a Trades Union award / closed shop kind of honourarium. Fukuyama says some absolutely ridiculous and incredibly ignorant things (which I may describe in one of my final posts {assuming this isn’t it}) His rubbish words lapped up by his audience (TED’s a bit like this too – got it’s head up it’s ass, believing it occupies some kind of multi-dimensional high ground)  show what deep shit the planet we are in, a secular occidental bog of collapse. All of these occidentials (and Tariq Ramadan sadly seems little different) are like this. Beyond Sun Tzu, Confusious and Lao Tzu name 5 Chinese intellextons. Beyond Ghandi, and Siddhartha Gautama, name 5 leading Intellectuals, Name 10 African Intellectuals. Name 10 South American intellectuals. Don’t be surprised if you can’t – the West won’t let you. You’re only an intellectual if you play the game. And what a sick game it is.  

As well as residual feelings from my previous post, this post is also a result from the commentators on Craig Murray’s site and indeed Craig Murray himself. Craig posted something about no hope a week or so ago expressing he saw no hope and failed to realise the way he’s courting (conventional)politics with zero resistance (see above)  is why there is no hope. The commentators on that post and his subsequent post are the same. His commentators are of course far worse (I actually have a decent amount of respect for Mr. Murray, but it pains me that he’s performing like a half-way house). The commentators are those who talk-the-talk mighty fine, but don’t walk-the-walk, yet they believe they are radicals or true liberals and that the system is perhaps sound but just going through a rough period. Hah! Dupes(many of them). “Ooooh, we are going to drown” they cementing their feet in large blocks and throwing themselves off the jetty.

I am old, and no longer have fresh questions to ask about this world. I know how it run, I know the score. I know where it’s headed. Indeed Mr. Murray, there is no hope at all – at least in places where this globalised hegemony reaches – which is pretty much everywhere.

I look back on my youth (up to perhaps my mid 20’s) and remember a time when I thought there was actually something good and exciting about this world. I was really scared of it’s vastness and diversity.

Not now.

It’s all the same and it stinks. It’s suffocating the good people – mostly poor and innocent – people of traditional culture and values.

The western heartless, godless self pontificating/promoting arrogant world is fast approaching it’s doom. It’s fully realisable. Actually, it’s could be postponed but definately not with a prevailing ‘mind’.

Let the TSA continue to humiliate the people who voted for Clinton / Bush / Obama or whatever tyrant puppet is in control. Let the Irish idiots who voted for their funny-money politicians and loved them when they yields were high and the champagne flowed feel the consequences of their acton. Let the Brits feel austerity and have moe lies and deceptions flow from the mouths of the people they voted for (and will vote for next time) while more Yemeni, Somali, Pakistani, Haitians, Burmese, Roma, and of course the Palestinians in an ongoing Holocaust and other peoples etc.. continute to be oppressed by these secular power holding vampires.

It’s just a pity the good people will suffer too. 

My posts here are going to become very infrequent. There is no point. Even those USans who know 911 was a lie (WTC 7 – the main achillies heel of that horrific (ritual?) massacre) won’t do anything meaningful to stop the rot. The centres of power in China will continue as long as it believes it’s elite is making money, as will Russia, Brazil, India, The huge central asian ‘Stans’ are all on the same path, and I will not forget to mention the rotten seed of it all:  Israyhell. Israyhell is close to openly assuming it’s apocaplypic position as leadingnation in the world and so their champagne will also run dry soon. The powerfully built Jew with curly hair proclaiming(falsley) to be the messiah is almost ready to make his appearance. His paradise will he hell and his hell will be paradise, but you’re already in his paradise, faux-democray being a useful tool propagating it, and you will just vote again in his paradise to get even more paradise. And if you don’t believe the dajjal will get you, the dying environment and the GM(junk) food will.

After a last fling of time wasting, I’m purging my time wasting hobbies and am going to knuckle down with acquiring knowledge of my Creator and worshipping him accordingly.

That’s all that matters. Nothing else.

I will try and respond to the funny and thought provoking, most welcomed comments people graciously spend their time leaving here, and I may, occasionally, when I’ve decided to read current events for a quick break, post here again but like this world is entering its twilight, so is this blog while spiritual being makes effort to emerge from its self imposed twilight.

The twilight is just about here now, but I’ll leave with this; A pic of from the newz-journo-junk organisation called the BBC. Source: http://www.ZION-NEWS-OUTLET.co.uk/news/uk-11773665
(copy the link and although the above is correct, to read the article, replace the ‘ZION-NEWS-OUTLET’ part with ‘bbc’)

–

Big heads up to http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/ by the way.

–

* of course there was nothing pre-emptive about it. The Pre-emptive doctrine was ‘strike them before they strike us’ and of course you realise they would NEVER have struck us. but shich is the extent ir perverse and mind-rotting ssumes you act now to

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Riz Khan – Are we living in the end times – Slavoj Zizek

Interesting guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpiXJW3dYE

Generally, when I see a worshippers of Marx proselytising, visions of my old Student Union president appear before my eyes and is coupled with a strong feeling of wanting to say to him ‘grow up’. Zizek’s ‘thinking out of the Marx (match)box’ is refreshing, taking those bits Marxism (which by the way Marx likely rehashed cum swiped from Socrates) that are sensible but leaving off the “I ♥ marx”  underpants.

It’s going to be interesting to see the atheists expressions of denial morph to horror should they ever have the aptitude to see that their own predictions of turmoil map onto eschatology, but then again, fantasy is deadly seductive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8LPn4irao

–

–

–

–

–

–

–