Australia foils Islamic State terror plot to commit Lee Rigby-style murders

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Since you would give up Liberty for Safety you deserve neither

I am realistic that a bunch of crazy jihadists on the other side of the world is less threat then allowing the police force these sort of powers... see the USA.. Ferguson and dozens of others prove it...
Is my or the communities supposed safety worth letting police use forms of torture? hold for 14 days with out charge? track and enter property with out warrant?  My answer is NO most definitely not... but then against I'm not a coward  

Quill will appreciate the comparison, the area I grew up in closest in comparison to something link Compton California.. but multicultural immigrants instead of just black... Thus I DO NOT TRUST OR LIKE POLICE ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth::

What liberty?
You live in an illusion if you think you have liberty, when nobody does, you cannot walk down the road and shoot someone without repercussions, thus you and everyone else has no liberty ad never has had.
The reality is what are you losing?
Nothing, sadly the left are so naive as seen by the points Quill and zack make, they also live under an illusion, where they think they have rights to deny a nation doing what is necessary to counter a threat.
The biggest threat to democracy today is religious extremism, especially within Islam. The problem with any religion it is based on unbreakable laws ad where there is no ground for questioning these laws, there will always be an issue.
You and others scream like banshees over some belief you think your own selfish beliefs are more important than the safety of a nation, it shows you only look at within yourselves and not others. You all seem to be conspiracy nuts also, where unless there is actual murder, you will only believe, that a threat has become reality. It is the illness of the left wing policy, where you hold some grandeur of self importance. What you need to do is stop and think about the actual threat, of which there is one and we do have those within our society, who have no loyalty to that nation but a faith.

That is dangerous, even Zack stated to me he places his faith above everything, even his own family, I find that very disturbing to be honest, to place something he cannot even prove above those closet to him.
In this day and age, and Zack is very intelligent and he is no extremist, that the very fact we have thus a problem where people put more loyalty in something they cannot prove, they put faith in a book. They do not even question what they follow is wrong, they blindly believe and that is dangerous.
Think about it, may people follow commands made over 1400 years ago and even longer with Christianity, where as a human as well as yourself, we can show more compassion that is found within these books and yet people do not even see that when they blindly follow them as if law. Sadly religion instills fear, for people to believe, but there is nothing loveable about any of these man made deities, and that is the point nothing of supreme intelligence would be so harsh and emotive as we mere humans are, which would show to anyone with any sense how ridiculous the claims made from within religion are. Anything that intelligent would not need or eve require any love or affection from something they supposedly created.
The biggest hypocrisy of the main religions is this, the deities threaten to have eternal punishment to those that do not believe or love them,yet we are creators ourselves by having children, how many people have had children and threatened them with untold pain and suffering if they do not love us?
You see how illogical the belief in religion is?
That is why religion will always be a threat to normality within society, because it has daft unbreakable rules.

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.

So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

What liberty?
You live in an illusion if you think you have liberty, when nobody does, you cannot walk down the road and shoot someone without repercussions, thus you and everyone else has no liberty ad never has had.
The reality is what are you losing?
Nothing, sadly the left are so naive as seen by the points Quill and zack make, they also live under an illusion, where they think they have rights to deny a nation doing what is necessary to counter a threat.
The biggest threat to democracy today is religious extremism, especially within Islam. The problem with any religion it is based on unbreakable laws ad where there is no ground for questioning these laws, there will always be an issue.
You and others scream like banshees over some belief you think your own selfish beliefs are more important than the safety of a nation, it shows you only look at within yourselves and not others. You all seem to be conspiracy nuts also, where unless there is actual murder, you will only believe, that a threat has become reality. It is the illness of the left wing policy, where you hold some grandeur of self importance. What you need to do is stop and think about the actual threat, of which there is one and we do have those within our society, who have no loyalty to that nation but a faith.

That is dangerous, even Zack stated to me he places his faith above everything, even his own family, I find that very disturbing to be honest, to place something he cannot even prove above those closet to him.
In this day and age, and Zack is very intelligent and he is no extremist, that the very fact we have thus a problem where people put more loyalty in something they cannot prove, they put faith in a book. They do not even question what they follow is wrong, they blindly believe and that is dangerous.
Think about it, may people follow commands made over 1400 years ago and even longer with Christianity, where as a human as well as yourself, we can show more compassion that is found within these books and yet people do not even see that when they blindly follow them as if law. Sadly religion instills fear, for people to believe, but there is nothing loveable about any of these man made deities, and that is the point nothing of supreme intelligence would be so harsh and emotive as we mere humans are, which would show to anyone with any sense how ridiculous the claims made from within religion are. Anything that intelligent would not need or eve require any love or affection from something they supposedly created.
The biggest hypocrisy of the main religions is this, the deities threaten to have eternal punishment to those that do not believe or love them,yet we are creators ourselves by having children, how many people have had children and threatened them with untold pain and suffering if they do not love us?
You see how illogical the belief in religion is?
That is why religion will always be a threat to normality within society, because it has daft unbreakable rules.

You're still not getting the subtlety of my point of view.

I don't put 'faith' or Islam before my family/country/etc.

My faith informs me (and surely any 'rational' (vs emotional) person would agree) that the sole purpose of anyone's life is to 'follow the path of righteousness'.

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.

So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
but he is not a robot

I hate religion as much as any good and sensible person but still in generally they are all in agreement on a basic idea of 'good' don't steal murder or generally be nasty if you can help it. be kind, share, love and try and be and make people happy.

there will always be fools that take things too literally or look for loop holes to justify their hate.... but generally all humans know what is kind or cruel... maybe because the 'knowledge' is based in our biology not any one theology.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
but he is not a robot

I hate religion as much as any good and sensible person but still in generally they are all in agreement on a basic idea of 'good' don't steal murder or generally be nasty if you can help it. be kind, share, love and try and be and make people happy.

there will always be fools that take things too literally or look for loop holes to justify their hate.... but generally all humans know what is kind or cruel... maybe because the 'knowledge' is based in our biology not any one theology.

You do not need religion for having good sense or being sensible and thus are missing the point, where religion is binding people to rules, many of which discriminate and were clearly written for the time and thus man made.
Zack does take his faith literally as many Muslims do by the way, so I doubt he will take kindly to the fact you are calling him a fool would I care? but I don't think he does based on what he has posted

Didge wrote:Not in religion they are and they do not come to the right decision over what is good or bad, for example punishing adultery or homosexuality, that is barbaric and I am not even going on about IS.
This is about people bound by man made myths which they see is divinely laid down. Again they follow to them a creator that instills fear of eternal damnation, where nobody else is allowed to be critical of that faith and it is only western views that have brought about some people of faith to move away from literal beliefs, but the reality is they are bound by the rules within their faith.
If they conflict with these views, then they do not truly follow that faith, as there is no variance to what is classed as the written word, being that it is meant to come from their deities.
Religion has always been the barrier to finding righteousness, where again it dictates as to what it claims is right or wrong, where again they form such poor discriminating views.

veya_victaous wrote:@Zack

really like and agree with....

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.

So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

the 'rational to be loyal' part is really good and it is part of my logic as to why Islam is not a threat here because Australia can potentially give people more reason to be loyal to it than a religion.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You're still not getting the subtlety of my point of view.

I don't put 'faith' or Islam before my family/country/etc.

My faith informs me (and surely any 'rational' (vs emotional) person would agree) that the sole purpose of anyone's life is to 'follow the path of righteousness'.

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.

So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

What an absurd philosophy one that you are trying to dance around if your righteousness is based upon Islam, it is thus placing man made myths above common sense.
So you then claim to what is right or wrong and your guide book states right from wrong, which I do not think in any shape or form is correct on many matters.
So there is plenty wrong with it, as you are bound by unbreakable rules, the problem with any faith.

So what you are basically saying is that if the law of the land conflicts with your religion, your religious laws would come first. Of course no doubt you will claim interpretation, but your righteousness is based upon myths. This is evident when you only seem to be vocal on matters relating to Muslims.
I fail to see what is rational or righteous being led by fear, as religion is nothing but fear of eternal damnation if you do not believe, and there is nothing sensible about that.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


What an absurd philosophy one that you are trying to dance around if your righteousness is based upon Islam, it is thus placing man made myths above common sense.
So you then claim to what is right or wrong and your guide book states right from wrong, which I do not think in any shape or form is correct on many matters.
So there is plenty wrong with it, as you are bound by unbreakable rules, the problem with any faith.

So what you are basically saying is that if the law of the land conflicts with your religion, your religious laws would come first. Of course no doubt you will claim interpretation, but your righteousness is based upon myths. This is evident when you only seem to be vocal on matters relating to Muslims.
I fail to see what is rational or righteous being led by fear, as religion is nothing but fear of eternal damnation if you do not believe, and there is nothing sensible about that.

Lol! You're being so hysterical and that you cannot tell how much we actually agree with each other.

My righteousness must be based on why I find rational, because it is me who will be judged - by those in this life and by God in the afterlife.

It's not about religious laws come before the law of the land. Nor is it do with myths or even a specific law in scripture.

The only religious law I'm adhering to is 'following the path of righteousness'. That's not a myth. Lol!

If I believe a law of the land is not righteous, I will oppose it. There's nothing Islamic, religious about it. Nor is is treacherous. It's actually democracy. Lol!

veya_victaous wrote:Science that we imported from the East with gunpowder and noodles

Buddhist Philosophy is the closet thing to Science except Science. at the core they are the same 'Seeking enlightenment' the only real difference is that Science Requires Mathematical evidence to support Peer Review, Buddhism just required Peer review.

I understand your point It is Just that your point is wrong. Humanity exceed theology in all but the most extreme cases... thus EVERYTHING can ALWAYS be Questioned by all but the most literal fundamentalist.

and when you say Muslim Countries you mean Middle eastern countries.. cause Malaysia is going pretty decent.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1026958

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! You're being so hysterical and that you cannot tell how much we actually agree with each other.

My righteousness must be based on why I find rational, because it is me who will be judged - by those in this life and by God in the afterlife.

It's not about religious laws come before the law of the land. Nor is it do with myths or even a specific law in scripture.

The only religious law I'm adhering to is 'following the path of righteousness'. That's not a myth. Lol!

If I believe a law of the land is not righteous, I will oppose it. There's nothing Islamic, religious about it. Nor is is treacherous. It's actually democracy. Lol!

What righteousness, your faith dies not do righteousness, no religion does, when it is based upon myths, something you cannot prove.
The reality is then do you not follow the laws of your faith?
If your views on your faith are conflicted, then you are not religious as you cannot pick and choose, it is a complete works, meant to be divine.
The reality is do you place your religious views above common sense and yes you do, otherwise you are thus not a follower of your faith, that is why there is no such thing as moderate followers of religion, only literal believers.
So either your views are based off religion or they are not and being democratic is not something that is compatible with religion.

veya_victaous wrote:Science that we imported from the East with gunpowder and noodles

Buddhist Philosophy is the closet thing to Science except Science. at the core they are the same 'Seeking enlightenment' the only real difference is that Science Requires Mathematical evidence to support Peer Review, Buddhism just required Peer review.

I understand your point It is Just that your point is wrong. Humanity exceed theology in all but the most extreme cases... thus EVERYTHING can ALWAYS be Questioned by all but the most literal fundamentalist.

and when you say Muslim Countries you mean Middle eastern countries.. cause Malaysia is going pretty decent.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1026958

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

What righteousness, your faith dies not do righteousness, no religion does, when it is based upon myths, something you cannot prove.
The reality is then do you not follow the laws of your faith?
If your views on your faith are conflicted, then you are not religious as you cannot pick and choose, it is a complete works, meant to be divine.
The reality is do you place your religious views above common sense and yes you do, otherwise you are thus not a follower of your faith, that is why there is no such thing as moderate followers of religion, only literal believers.
So either your views are based off religion or they are not and being democratic is not something that is compatible with religion.

Your view on righteousness and religion is strange.

You talk about the laws of a religion when I haven't mentioned any.

Righteousness (the clue is in the word) is about "doing the right thing" based on rational process.

The purpose of life in Islam is that simple.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Science that we imported from the East with gunpowder and noodles

Buddhist Philosophy is the closet thing to Science except Science. at the core they are the same 'Seeking enlightenment' the only real difference is that Science Requires Mathematical evidence to support Peer Review, Buddhism just required Peer review.

I understand your point It is Just that your point is wrong. Humanity exceed theology in all but the most extreme cases... thus EVERYTHING can ALWAYS be Questioned by all but the most literal fundamentalist.

and when you say Muslim Countries you mean Middle eastern countries.. cause Malaysia is going pretty decent.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1026958

No it is not, that is complete gobbledygook!
No I mean Muslim countries, where for example couples cannot court in public like in Indonesia.

Bali is a strange mix of holy and wild, with its traditional temples coalescing beautifully with the wild beaches. The island is green and that adds another dash of dichotomy to its appearance. You never know what to expect from this island. It can be serene at one time and outrageously uproarious at another.

10 years in Indonesia have taught me that even when Indonesian bar girls speak English, what they mean is not always obvious. Here is a little guide to help you dealing with your relationships!

I'm not eating pork
{Translation}
I drink alcohol, I don't pray and I've had sex before marriage so the last thing that keeps me from going to hell is to refuse eating pork

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your view on righteousness and religion is strange.

You talk about the laws of a religion when I haven't mentioned any.

Righteousness (the clue is in the word) is about "doing the right thing" based on rational process.

The purpose of life in Islam is that simple.

There is nothing righteous about religion, seriously if you had children, would you threaten them with eternal suffering if they did not love you?
Of course not, but you follow something that does, that is not righteous in any shape or form, but plays on your fears, as if you did not fear you would not need to believe.
So either you are literal religious believer or you are not, there is no common ground.

Wow Al-gebra lol is that it?
I think you find it was individuals that advanced our knowledge, not religion itself.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

No it is not, that is complete gobbledygook!
No I mean Muslim countries, where for example couples cannot court in public like in Indonesia.

I think you have some mistaken ideas about Indonesia



https://touradvisers.wordpress.com/tag/bali/



the majority of Indonesia is quite liberal. it is probably less religious (definitely less fundamentalist than Italy for example)

Bali is a strange mix of holy and wild, with its traditional temples coalescing beautifully with the wild beaches. The island is green and that adds another dash of dichotomy to its appearance. You never know what to expect from this island. It can be serene at one time and outrageously uproarious at another.

your no courting thing is a bit of an out there statement

http://www.jakarta100bars.com/2014/06/what-indonesian-girls-say-what-they-mean.html

10 years in Indonesia have taught me that even when Indonesian bar girls speak English, what they mean is not always obvious. Here is a little guide to help you dealing with your relationships!

I think this one sums up the majority of Indonesian Muslims  

I'm not eating pork
{Translation}
I drink alcohol, I don't pray and I've had sex before marriage so the last thing that keeps me from going to hell is to refuse eating pork

that sounds like something the girl in the blue and stars bikini bottom woudl say

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

I think you have some mistaken ideas about Indonesia



https://touradvisers.wordpress.com/tag/bali/



the majority of Indonesia is quite liberal. it is probably less religious (definitely less fundamentalist than Italy for example)





your no courting thing is a bit of an out there statement

http://www.jakarta100bars.com/2014/06/what-indonesian-girls-say-what-they-mean.html


I think this one sums up the majority of Indonesian Muslims  



that sounds like something the girl in the blue and stars bikini bottom woudl say

:asballsas?:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

There is nothing righteous about religion, seriously if you had children, would you threaten them with eternal suffering if they did not love you?
Of course not, but you follow something that does, that is not righteous in any shape or form, but plays on your fears, as if you did not fear you would not need to believe.
So either you are literal religious believer or you are not, there is no common ground.

Wow Al-gebra lol is that it?
I think you find it was individuals that advanced our knowledge, not religion itself.

I just said above that even if my mother did the wrong thing, I would oppose her. So yes, that applies to my children too. Especially to my children, for it would be incumbent on me as a parent to guide them on the righteous path. You better believe I would make their life 'hell' if they did something 'wrong'. And hopefully they would know that and be fearful of what I would do, and so avoid doing it.

What you think is irrational or unrighteous is actually good parenting and applies to the children of God too.

Didge wrote:
(IN reply to veya's previous post, Didge wrote..)
.......... loony rants get better by the minute for sheer comedy value to now claim the working class are middle class, fucking hilarious stupidity at its best:

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

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

.........................................................

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:
What liberty?
You live in an illusion if you think you have liberty, when nobody does, you cannot walk down the road and shoot someone without repercussions, thus you and everyone else has no liberty ad never has had.
The reality is what are you losing?

...............................................

You're still not getting the subtlety of my point of view.

I don't put 'faith' or Islam before my family/country/etc.

My faith informs me (and surely any 'rational' (vs emotional) person would agree) that the sole purpose of anyone's life is to 'follow the path of righteousness'.

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.
So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I just said above that even if my mother did the wrong thing, I would oppose her. So yes, that applies to my children too. Especially to my children, for it would be incumbent on me as a parent to guide them on the righteous path. You better believe I would make their life 'hell' if they did something 'wrong'. And hopefully they would know that and be fearful of what I would do, and so avoid doing it.

What you think is irrational or unrighteous is actually good parenting and applies to the children of God too.

How do you define wrong?
Is this based on Islamic principles?
What if they did not wish to be religious?
Again you are ignoring the fundamental point, religion is not righteous, how can it be when it is based upon fear?
Let me ask you of characters in history that used fear, like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler etc, would you have blindly followed them based off fear?

This is why the Abrahamic deities are irrational, a crime within this faith is non-belief, which we as humans would not carry such a penalty, nor one that would be eternal suffering. Basically the deities here are tyrants, that use fear and have less compassion than humans, that is not righteous in any shape or form, it is in fact evil. As all examples in history show we detest those who use fear, which is what the deities use also and the most extreme punishments

If there was such a deity why would it even need affection, it would thus mean this deity is insecure, which would be absurd, for something so powerful it could create anything to love it, yet for some mythical reason many believe though they are created as a test?
How sick and fucked up is that? As why created something to be used as a game, knowing full well what they would do, it is again sick ad irrational.
Hence if there was a deity or creator it would be nothing like those found in religion, it would prove them wrong by the mere fact we are more compassionate.

veya_victaous wrote:@Zack

really like and agree with....

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.

So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

the 'rational to be loyal' part is really good and it is part of my logic as to why Islam is not a threat here because Australia can potentially give people more reason to be loyal to it than a religion.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

:asballsas?:

I think your stupidity has no limit:


It's almost sunset in Banda Aceh and the locals rush towards Ulee Lheue beach before the barrier goes down. The authorities close access to this popular spot after 6pm, to prevent promiscuity between unmarried couples.

Many families, couples, and groups of friends have arrived early, and enjoy a drink or corn on the cob at one of the food stalls lining the seaside. On the pier by the port, several couples brave the law by sitting closely together, sometimes holding hands. Luckily for them, the sharia police don't seem to be coming this evening. Islamic sharia law was adopted in 2001, a “gift” from Jakarta to quell separatist ambitions in this very religious part of Indonesia. A series of bylaws passed since impose Islamic dress code and forbid gambling, alcohol consumption and “seclusion” between unmarried couples.

Twenty-year old Leonie, chatting with two male friends while watching the sun go down on the sea, is one of the few women around not wearing a headscarf. She has been stopped by the sharia police before, at one of the checkpoints they regularly set up to “advise” people who do not abide by the dress code. Headscarves are mandatory, and wearing tight trousers or shirts, or for men, shorts, are a no-go. Leonie remembers the embarrassment of being reprimanded in public while having to wait with sharia police officers for her parents to come and pick her up. She hasn't learned her lesson though, and still refuses to cover her head. “I sometimes get comments on the street but I don't care, it's my problem.” What will she do if the sharia police come now? “Run,” she laughs.

At the North-Western tip of the Indonesian archipelago, Aceh - Banda Aceh is the capital - is the only province in Muslim-majority Indonesia allowed to partly enforce sharia law, as part of a special autonomy status agreement that put an end to a 30 year conflict between Aceh separatists and the central government in Jakarta.

The sharia police have registered 13,000 offences between 2009 and 2013, the head of the unit, Zulkarnain, tells The Independent. He says “minor violations” of sharia law don't usually end up in the sharia court, even though the law states that three violations to the Islamic dress code requirements are punishable by caning. “This has never been enforced,” he says.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/young-and-in-love-in-indonesia-beware-the-sharia-police-are-watching-9405776.html

Lone Wolf wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
You're still not getting the subtlety of my point of view.

I don't put 'faith' or Islam before my family/country/etc.

My faith informs me (and surely any 'rational' (vs emotional) person would agree) that the sole purpose of anyone's life is to 'follow the path of righteousness'.

So I put 'righteousness' (that means doing the 'right thing') before anything or anyone else.
So even if my country or indeed my mother are doing the 'wrong thing', I will oppose it.

I don't see anything wrong or worrying with that. It's actually the right way to do and think. I would be more worried if someone was blindly loyal (which is what you're worried about in the first place). I'm loyal if it's rational to be loyal.

   HELLO there, your Zackiness...

STILL haven't crossed the border yet to join those jihadists, I take it ?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

How do you define wrong?
Is this based on Islamic principles?
What if they did not wish to be religious?
Again you are ignoring the fundamental point, religion is not righteous, how can it be when it is based upon fear?
Let me ask you of characters in history that used fear, like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler etc, would you have blindly followed them based off fear?

This is why the Abrahamic deities are irrational, a crime within this faith is non-belief, which we as humans would not carry such a penalty, nor one that would be eternal suffering. Basically the deities here are tyrants, that use fear and have less compassion than humans, that is not righteous in any shape or form, it is in fact evil. As all examples in history show we detest those who use fear, which is what the deities use also and the most extreme punishments

If there was such a deity why would it even need affection, it would thus mean this deity is insecure, which would be absurd, for something so powerful it could create anything to love it, yet for some mythical reason many believe though they are created as a test?
How sick and fucked up is that? As why created something to be used as a game, knowing full well what they would do, it is again sick ad irrational.
Hence if there was a deity or creator it would be nothing like those found in religion, it would prove them wrong by the mere fact we are more compassionate.

You yourself have admitted that morality and ethics is not the monopoly of religious.  Atheists can be moral too. We all know what the major wrongs are - murder, violent abuse, theft, etc. And even in secular law we have means to instill fear of punishment in people, so they do not do such things - such as the death penalty and imprisonment.


Are you saying that the law is irrational?

And God doesn't need to be worshipped or helped. YOU (the humanbeing) needs to worship God. YOU don't have absolute control over your life - you don't have freewill. You have a limited set of choices. For those who believe in God, they pray to give them the will (in sha Allah - God willing) the mental and physical strength to make the right choice.

veya_victaous wrote:@Didge
Tony Abbott Our PM  is trying to Pass sweeping new Powers for ASIO

And Not really showing a great web because any nutjob can knife someone there is nothing to suggest these guys are actually in link with ISIS. just they think ISIS is cool and IF they had big enough balls they would go and join them.
But they don't so I call out to them COME AT ME BRO

Chicken Shits Got to be told       We wont be scared, we'll kick their fucking heads in if they want to try shit here.

victorisnotamused wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@Didge
Tony Abbott Our PM  is trying to Pass sweeping new Powers for ASIO

And Not really showing a great web because any nutjob can knife someone there is nothing to suggest these guys are actually in link with ISIS. just they think ISIS is cool and IF they had big enough balls they would go and join them.
But they don't so I call out to them COME AT ME BRO

Chicken Shits Got to be told       We wont be scared, we'll kick their fucking heads in if they want to try shit here.

how many dead will satisfy your insanity veya??

what you going to do whne (and i hope never) one group of these nutters flies a fully fueled airliner into the sydney opera house when packed to capacity???

who's head you gonna kick in then....

this ISNT a schoolboy playground scrap...

of course IF that happenes, no doubt, like most you will scream blue murder that the "security forces" are not doing enough....

they cant do right for doing wrong can they?

veya_victaous wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

how many dead will satisfy your insanity veya??

what you going to do whne (and i hope never) one group of these nutters flies a fully fueled airliner into the sydney opera house when packed to capacity???

who's head you gonna kick in then....

this ISNT a schoolboy playground scrap...

of course IF that happenes, no doubt, like most you will scream blue murder that the "security forces" are not doing enough....

they cant do right for doing wrong can they?

can I say 6 ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D::  not very many but I think we need at least one...  


well considering we have all the security at airports now VERY unlikely to happen in fact IT IS VERY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN anyway

the Best they have got is a Knife threat!!!!!
I am not giving up my right to own a knife or 'knife like object' which is the only way to prevent such a low level attack....

they have taken our knives off us

I'm surprised at you Victor...  they already have our guns so we're down to Knives.... and you support taking them away too

nope...i never said that...I said you were talking bollocks basically.....you dont want to give your security the powers necessary to protect you, yet you would scream blue murder if they didnt manage to protect you?????
personally i would give you your guns back in a restricted manner....same as here...I would go for restricted concealed carry....

oh and dont think these knife wielding chickens are going to pick on someone who might fight back...if and when it happens it wont be a "rigby" type job....it will be some defenceless type, snatched off the street and slaughtered "halal style" in some lonely place and the video being released courtesy of alwhackybaccy television
so again...who ya going to fight?


and quite frankly having been in fights with knives before Not that scared, and besides you know how that woman came up when they killed Rigby? well I think (particularly now ISIS is in the media) more than one woman would come up to them on a Sydney street. If they were in western Sydney it woudl unlikely those guys would have been alive long enough for the police to get them.

And I always say I support Australians being denied guns because way too many of us are violent psychos who 'spill blood over spilt beer' every southern cross tattoo is praying to see that on the street so they can be a hero  

victorisnotamused wrote:what a load of cobblers...

righteousness.....the bane of mankind, since YOUR definition of what is righteous will (beyond a very few and highly specific examples) be totally different to what My definition of righteous is...

more innocent people have been done to an unjust death due to righteousness than any other cause....

gays slaughtered by any number of the religiously inclined...because they are not righteous
one "heretical sect" done to death (sunni v's shia ?) because one is not righteous....according to the other

people stoned for "fornication"  i.e sex before marriage ...because they are "not righteous"

crackpots that would sooner see a woman die from septic abortion than carry out a preventative abortion ~(recently in Ireland)

and where do we find the "guidelines" as to what is righteous or not....in the various handbooks of the crazies that follow blindly the twisted remanats of civilisations long gone, with no relevance to the here and now.

look closely at your view of what is righteous and see what informs it zack.....i doubt its whats i your head or even in your heart...its is what you have been taught to believ as truth...and your are blind to even that.....

Police say the teenager produced a knife and stabbed the federal agent multiple times, while the Victoria Police officer was stabbed twice in the forearm.

The Victorian Police officer discharged a single shot, killing the man.

It was not known what the threat against Mr Abbott may have involved or whether the teen had been involved in planning some kind of attack.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said the shooting by the police officer “was in self defence”.

Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius said the dead man had acted on his own.

“Obviously both members are in shock but we are doing everything when can to provide them with support and assistance in what is for any police officer an incredibly difficult and challenging time,’’ Mr Cornelius said.

The officers expected “an amicable discussion”, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius said, but after an altercation broke out it all went horribly wrong.

Police say the teenager produced a knife and stabbed the federal agent multiple times, while the Victoria Police officer was stabbed twice in the forearm.

The Victorian Police officer discharged a single shot, killing the man.

It was not known what the threat against Mr Abbott may have involved or whether the teen had been involved in planning some kind of attack.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said the shooting by the police officer “was in self defence”.

Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius said the dead man had acted on his own.

“Obviously both members are in shock but we are doing everything when can to provide them with support and assistance in what is for any police officer an incredibly difficult and challenging time,’’ Mr Cornelius said.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:My faith is not motivated by fear. Just as you obeying the law is not motivated by fear.
It is motivated by fear, because fear of punishment is based around not believeing like I said, you have no reason to believe, if you do not fear, you are just avoiding this main issue and skirting around the questions I have asked
I fear for those who don't follow the righteous path.  just as those with a propensity to commit crime fear the law, I would only fear God if (1) I believed one exists and (2) I was not trying to be righteous.
What righteous path? Your righteous path is based upon man made myths, something that is claimed to be directed by a deity and many who commit crime do not fear the law, if this was the case the death penalty would have been a good deterrent and it never has been, being as some people  see death as an escape from a world they find poor and also that death can be very quick, where as what is offered in religion views is eternal suffering. You keep skirting around what is wrong within your faith. The worst part is religion where they view death as a ticket straight to heaven, which is based within your faith.
Again if you did ot fear, you would have no need to believe

Regarding free will - you are confusing this with 'free choice' - the ability to you use your mind, sense and body to make choices. But you have no control when your mind, sense and body are taken away from you. You only have this ability temporarily but lose it during sleep, disability, disease and ultimately death.
I am not confusing anything, like I said much has to be learnt within this field ad I certainly can see what is rational and what is not rational, where your views re based upon beliefs, not real evidece

You keep on saying righteousness are based on tenants of my faith. They are the same tenants every rational, decent human would follow. Atheists can be righteous too, right.
Incorrect are they, yours is based upon laws directed by a mythical being, mine are based upon common sense as to what is right or wrong and where again, you are still missing the whole point that non belief is not a crime and why should it be being as we are creators ourselves when we have children and do not threaten them with any type of physical everlasting pain. Religion itself is not righteous, because it is based upon following rules, which they believe are right, which again within religion its views like on homosexuality on non married couples are irrational, all of which you keep ignoring.

We all have an inner sense of what is right or wrong, at least where it really counts.  Not sure why you are confused.
Not confused over anything what you are saying in fct is you are not a literal believer

No it's based on the principles of humanity and human rational. Each of us as individuals (not as a society) must determine our path based on our rational and wisdom. As it happens, that is the Islamic way. Look up 'hikmah' and 'niyaat'.
The Islamic way as other religious ways are irrational, because they are based upon irrational belief in something you cannot prove, you might as well believe in unicorns, but you do not, yet Muhammad was meant to have been swept up to heaven on flying horses, are you saying that is rational and that you do not believe this? Again the very core of the abrahamic faiths is based around if you do not believe you will suffer pain, which is never going to be righteous but placing no choice onto a person and is barbaric

My childern must determine their own path. Nor can a child blame his parents for how they turned out. As adults, we each our responsible for our own selves, only. I can only guide them while they're children.
Of course children can blame parents for how they turn out, that is complete nonsense if they are taught poorly and parents are responsible until children are of a mature state of mind to function solely themselves. It is well known the problems of neglect for children and children are also badly indoctrinated with beliefs, never truly given the choose to choose over whether to understand faith from an early age, which is utterly wrong.

I don't understand your last point. It doesn't resonate. My faith is not based on fear. I've explained that above.

I might have followed one them based on fear of losing my life. But equally then, I might not have. So your analogy is pointless. You will only know when you are confronted with a 'free choice'. That's how your faith is tested. Not for God but for yourself. In this case, God would forgive either way. Was it a FREE choice or was it compulsion? I may follow Hitler if my children's lives were at risk - as opposed to mine. This is why NIYAAT is everything in Islam. You will be judged by your intentions.

Australia continues its obsession with terror, which is the latest mania to sweep the nation since loom loop bands and Gerard Henderson/David Marr erotic fan fiction.

West Australian backbencher and former UN staffer Melissa Parke has argued rational debate about extremists has been drowned out by “the beating of the drums of war”. She went on to say that any perceived terrorist threat is “never going to be resolved by outsiders, especially not outsiders with guns and bombs, and not by approaching this as a crusade against a death cult”.

Parke’s views are a thrilling departure from current Labor strategy on Australia’s terror threats because they actually say something. Bill Shorten, subject to baseless speculation he is the opposition leader, has restricted his statements to whatever the Prime Minister said five minutes ago.

In fact, who is providing actual opposition to Abbott’s war against terror? Scant few, depressingly enough.

Greens senator and meme-fancier Scott Ludlam has questioned the usefulness of Australia’s involvement, wondering if we would “make people safer by pouring petrol on the fire that we helped start in Iraq”. Ludlum has also advocated for a new National Security Monitor to fill the vacancy left by Bret Walker SC – who has recently told media outlets the proposed extraordinary powers to detain people without charge are “worse than useless”.

NSW senator David Leyonhelm has also questioned proposed legislation calling for greater clarity to close potential torture loopholes and questioned media independence to report on investigations and acts. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has also made his opposition known, enough to merit a withering offense from the Australian.

Where’s Bill Shorten in the midst of almost non-existent debate over rushed anti-terror laws? Probably bombarding Swanny and Julia to endorse him on LinkedIn.

Meanwhile, new anti-terror laws will be hurriedly debated in the Senate again today, with some carrying a penalty of life imprisonment if people plan or go overseas to participate in hostile activities or providing goods, services, transport or buildings for offences. Exemptions can be granted on humanitarian, court appearance, family, media or government grounds. Countries can be declared hostile destinations for three years.

But, you know, no biggie. Everyone’s really cool with rushed legislation expanding powers against citizens and not subject to normal committee or Security Monitor review, right?

Didge wrote:Thank goodness Australia has good sense to be protective of its citizens.

NSW senator David Leyonhelm has also questioned proposed legislation calling for greater clarity to close potential torture loopholes and questioned media independence to report on investigations and acts. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has also made his opposition known, enough to merit a withering offense from the Australian.

Though Randa Abdel-Fattah and Anne-Azza Aly’s contributions to QandA were widely praised throughout the online community, Hawke bravely bucked convention and criticised their views from the relative safety of the Coalition Party room.

On the show, Ms Abdel-Fattah opined that "you cannot help but feel cynical about the timing of these raids, the fact that it is whipping people up into a frenzy of hysteria, or war fever….It reinforced this wider narrative of Muslims as criminals ... and I'm very cynical about the government's decision to politicise these raids."

Counter terrorism expert and academic Ms Aly said "all terrorism is theatre and all counter-terrorism is theatre, so yes, [the raids were] a manufactured spectacle". This comment was immediately challenged by another panellist.

None of this was good enough for Mr Hawke who told Fairfax "I thought the ABC let the team down by entertaining these conspiracies".

Central to his concerns is the fact that the show did not provide more balance to the views offered by the pair, who have considerable academic and professional experience.
He’s right – it is a willful omission that QandA didn’t include a biased, conservative voice to push the party line against the views of two educated women with long standing careers in interfaith community engagement, counter terrorism and government departments. You know, apart from that Liberal MP on the panel pushing a biased, conservative voice pushing the party line.

West Australian backbencher and former UN staffer Melissa Parke has argued rational debate about extremists has been drowned out by “the beating of the drums of war”. She went on to say that any perceived terrorist threat is “never going to be resolved by outsiders, especially not outsiders with guns and bombs, and not by approaching this as a crusade against a death cult”

the Yirrakala school closed because of water supply issues. The school was host to Prime Minister Tony “Slow Wink” Abbott when he joined school attendance officers to round up kids and get them to class last week.
Residents claim they woke to no power or water after a power outage on Sunday night and scant information on when either would be restored. This meant that children – who were rounded up just the previous week to attend school – were turned away from the school because water wasn’t available.

Others groups oppose the new laws, claiming fears or a terror attack are being used to justify legislative overreach from our lawmakers. Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm said he won’t support moves to give greater power to ASIO as it could encroach on Australian’s civil liberties.

“Taken as a whole it could well be described as contrary to the rule of law and detrimental to our liberties,” he said.

Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns also is against greater powers for ASIO, saying: “Both major parties are using terror fears to allow ASIO to harass and rough up individuals, spy on our neighbours, and other associated activities without the media being able to ensure Australians know about such abuses of power.”

The forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations spokesman Kuranda Seyit said freedoms were being sacrificed in the name of security.

“I am very worried that we are allowing the terrorists to gain the upper hand. This is what they want,” he said.

“They want Australia to become a police state with very few human rights and freedoms.”

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@digde I did read your post.

There really isn't any point discussing this further because you're actually now saying what "I" believe, and think you're 100% on the money. Lol! How arrogant are you?

I think I know what I believe and what my motivations are.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@digde I did read your post.

There really isn't any point discussing this further because you're actually now saying what "I" believe, and think you're 100% on the money. Lol! How arrogant are you?

I think I know what I believe and what my motivations are.

veya_victaous wrote:

Others groups oppose the new laws, claiming fears or a terror attack are being used to justify legislative overreach from our lawmakers. Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm said he won’t support moves to give greater power to ASIO as it could encroach on Australian’s civil liberties.

“Taken as a whole it could well be described as contrary to the rule of law and detrimental to our liberties,” he said.

Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns also is against greater powers for ASIO, saying: “Both major parties are using terror fears to allow ASIO to harass and rough up individuals, spy on our neighbours, and other associated activities without the media being able to ensure Australians know about such abuses of power.”

The forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations spokesman Kuranda Seyit said freedoms were being sacrificed in the name of security.

“I am very worried that we are allowing the terrorists to gain the upper hand. This is what they want,” he said.

“They want Australia to become a police state with very few human rights and freedoms.”

If the Gov't cant respect OUR laws they should be charged as Terrorists too!!!!

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@digde I did read your post.

There really isn't any point discussing this further because you're actually now saying what "I" believe, and think you're 100% on the money. Lol! How arrogant are you?

I think I know what I believe and what my motivations are.

That is just a copout reply and I never stated or claimed what you believe but pointing out if you are a literal believer or not which by your answers you pick and choose what you follow.
Religion is nothing more than man made myths that plays on the gullible and weak, those who fear what happens after they die, if you did not fear death or what happens after, you would have no reason to believe as stated.
It has nothing to do with arrogance but you avoiding all the points of which you cannot answer, if all you can do is talk about me which is your constant copout reply I know you have no intelligent answer.
Religion clearly is irrational as it bases people to follow something they cannot prove, where no doubt you would mock somebody that believe in leprechauns, yet you believe in something that is also irrational.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

That is just a copout reply and I never stated or claimed what you believe but pointing out if you are a literal believer or not which by your answers you pick and choose what you follow.
Religion is nothing more than man made myths that plays on the gullible and weak, those who fear what happens after they die, if you did not fear death or what happens after, you would have no reason to believe as stated.
It has nothing to do with arrogance but you avoiding all the points of which you cannot answer, if all you can do is talk about me which is your constant copout reply I know you have no intelligent answer.
Religion clearly is irrational as it bases people to follow something they cannot prove, where no doubt you would mock somebody that believe in leprechauns, yet you believe in something that is also irrational.

Perhaps believing a creation like the universe has no creator is also irrational.

But that's not the point I was making. It was about righteousness. And it is a based in a rational process - not because I'm sacred of hell. Just as you don't commit crime for fear of imprisonment. You don't do it because it's the right thing to do.

I've said this above - but you think only atheists can be rational. Lol!