Sky news have reported that Amir Khan was arrested and bailed for assaulting two people?
Anyone know anything else about this?
Printable View
Sky news have reported that Amir Khan was arrested and bailed for assaulting two people?
Anyone know anything else about this?
Yes he had to take 3 counts before he was charged with assault .
It seems it's true he's been arrested in Bolton, Sky news more to follow.
Real man of god, that Khan...
His god is not the real GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
He's a fuckin trash man!!!!
Good for him !
2 people ? Still trying to one up Floyd eh :-X
And is your Dad bigger than his Dad ? would your Dad beat up his Dad ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminHis god is not the real GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Wouldn't consider talks with Mayweather which would have gotten him 20-30 million maybe more because of Ramadan, but he'll street fight?
Khan logic.
Apparently, he started feeling light headed... and started throwing haymakers at anyone who approached him... Go figure...;D
I would like to know more details before attacking him. The UK is a very easy place to get arrested in and I imagine Khan gets a lot of abuse. However, if I was in his position I wouldn't allow myself to be put into an uncompromising public situation with anyone. We need to know more about it before blaming anyone completely.
I hope he didn't forget his defense and get tagged.
That would be kind of embarrassing.
or BronerQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps85e3b706.jpg
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminHis god is not the real GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
God in Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah but none of them are right. Whether you believe in Allah, Jesus, Buddha, ect, you're equally stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBReally?Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminHis god is not the real GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
God in Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So that is the bahai faith. I thought you lot were going mad.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerYeah but none of them are right. Whether you believe in Allah, Jesus, Buddha, ect, you're equally stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBReally?Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminHis god is not the real GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
God in Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As an agnostic - you're equally as stupid to spout such dogmatic statements from a place of what is still essentially faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerYeah but none of them are right. Whether you believe in Allah, Jesus, Buddha, ect, you're equally stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBReally?Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminHis god is not the real GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
God in Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do you figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
Agnosticism is the only logical stance you can possibly take on the subject of spirituality and religion.
I don't see what's dogmatic about my statement. If you step back and look at all the teachings, history, ect of your personal religion objectively, you'd have to be an idiot to not see gross inconsistencies and straight up nonsense.
It's fairy tales for adults.
I don't see how agnosticism constitutes a "faith". I have no beliefs or stake in the religious racket.
;D Look at him. You can hear him thinking..Right then, so do I just throw the whole stack or singles, maybe take of the rubber band first...??? Lemme watch that video again.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I'm not saying that you're an agnostic... I'm speaking as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerHow do you figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
Agnosticism is the only logical stance you can possibly take on the subject of spirituality and religion.
I don't see what's dogmatic about my statement. If you step back and look at all the teachings, history, ect of your personal religion objectively, you'd have to be an idiot to not see gross inconsistencies and straight up nonsense.
It's fairy tales for adults.
To dismiss all religions as stupid is an absolute, dealing in absolutes is dogmatic.
I was under the assumption that you dismissing any and all gods (I'm assuming I was wrong?), to me Atheism requires faith, we lack the scope and capacity to understand the singularity that preludes the big bang, so to come to a definitive answer from what we currently know and can comprehend is faith.
HAHAH A YEAH HE IS FASTING FOR ramadan hahahahahahaaQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Oh ok, I read it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
I am agnostic, and I have the same problems with atheists as you do.
But as someone who was raised Catholic and has since done extensive research on quite a few religions, I'm speaking not from a disdain and complete dismissal of religions like an atheist, but as someone who has seen the proven inconsistencies and illogical teachings of them. I've had this conversation with a lot of religious people, and when you bring up the inconsistencies and illogical bits they have no explanation for them, don't know about them or don't want to talk about them.
If your belief system has major holes in it that you either can't explain or can't be bothered to think about, I think that is infantile and idiotic.
Atheism is not about faith it's about a lack of evidence and common sense that any of the 1000+ religions are correct about a divine creator. Science is constantly challenged, tested and advancing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
that statement in itself is a contradiction of its self and only goes to prove the existence of a god
Science is a theoretical work in progress, stating the conclusive non existence of any diety or creator goes way beyond that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A supernatural being/diety comes from a belief in whichever religious tale you've bought. As an agnostic you believe the evidence of these thousands of gods is nonsense, right? These tales/beliefs are clearly man-made? But you can never say never...
Athesim doesn't have to prove anything. It's based on learning and common sense. It's not about faith/belief.
hahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Look who wants more details before attacking like a bitch....lol.
If that were Mayweather or Broner you'd be talking shit already....but since it's one of your muslim immigrant brethren;D...you withhold your girlish attacks.
Interesting. I had no idea that I was pro immigration or Muslim, but I do know that you are an idiot and should be punched very hard in the groin. Now get out of my way, peasant.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclonehahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Look who wants more details before attacking like a bitch....lol.
If that were Mayweather or Broner you'd be talking shit already....but since it's one of your muslim immigrant brethren;D...you withhold your girlish attacks.
Amir Khan assault allegations withdrawn - Crime - UK - The Independent
This is why I was reticent in my original posting. I attack corruption and lies without restraint on all topics, but I won't attack for no reason. My original post was on the mark. I expect a handwritten apology and another free shot at the groin area.
lil Amir Faggy-Figgy Pudding Khan assaults someone during the Holy Month of Ramadan??? my my!
Atheism is the beleif that science is infalible and complete enough that you can make a dogmatic conclusion from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You've said it yourself: science is always changing, how can it be infalable? Our scope and comprehension of science are nowhere near complete enough and probably never will be.
It's very egocentric to presume that humans have the intellectual capacity to fully understand and explain existence.
Faith in science is still faith.
You're also a little off the mark about what being agnostic is.
Faith is good opinion of God. There rest are hopes, dreams, and illusionsQuote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBAtheism is the beleif that science is infalible and complete enough that you can make a dogmatic conclusion from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You've said it yourself: science is always changing, how can it be infalable? Our scope and comprehension of science are nowhere near complete enough and probably never will be.
It's very egocentric to presume that humans have the intellectual capacity to fully understand and explain existence.
Faith in science is still faith.
You're also a little off the mark about what being agnostic is.
Webster and Oxford might disagree with you there...
Science is infallible? I never realised this was claimed, I thought it was the exact opposite. I thought it was constantly trying to discover how stuff works.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBAtheism is the beleif that science is infalible and complete enough that you can make a dogmatic conclusion from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You've said it yourself: science is always changing, how can it be infalable? Our scope and comprehension of science are nowhere near complete enough and probably never will be.
It's very egocentric to presume that humans have the intellectual capacity to fully understand and explain existence.
Faith in science is still faith.
You're also a little off the mark about what being agnostic is.
Faith is not required to dismiss supernatural beings from stories.
Yes! The very essesence of science is that it is fallable...
To base a dogmatic beleif on something that is fallable requires you to have faith in it.
Not placing belief in a Deity or believing there is a no Deity in existence at all are very different things, one requires FAITH in the scope of Science, the other does not, I'll let you figure out which.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dogmatic belief?"Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
Can anyone prove there wasn't a supernatural creator? No.
Does science prove how things work? Yes. That is a fact not faith.
Dogma is essentially the opposite of theory... Google? ???
Science is not dogmatic in nature, stating the total nonexistence of god is
I'm now not even sure you can grasp science in anything more than a vague and oversimplified manner either, let alone how it relates to the concepts we're discussing so I think we're at an impass.
Lets talk about Hamed being overhyped by nostalgic jingoists instead.