Skip to main content

Adnan Oktar - lawyers get in touch (II)

Regarding this previous post, I just received this...

Your publication of the contents of websites that consist of immoral and unjust allegations as well as defamation on your blog means that you are in fact writing these. Intellectual struggle is not carried out through such defamation or slanders, but with scientific methods.

If you would like to carry out a scientific discussion, you may have this debate with my client at any place you like; he may come to your location or you may go to his, but it is not possible to achieve any results through defamation or slander. This kind of behavior does not suit you and humiliates you. There is a psychological warfare waged against Harun Yahya and Science Research Foundation (SRF) by masonic circles in both Turkey and throughout the world. This is implementation of social engineering, and you may find the evidence of psychological warfare waged against the author and SRF on the website www.psychologicalwarfaremethods.com .

Since the author and SRF are struggling against masonry, Darwinism, communism, materialism and satanism, the opposed forces and especially freemasons are making a counter attack with all their means. It is not proper for you to be an instrument to this also.

Would you be pleased if there were a website which slandered and defamed yourself? Definitely you would be disturbed of this situation and would not like it at all. Nobody would be pleased of this.

The request of my client is that nobody insults or slanders another. He aspires for a totally democratic atmosphere where a loving, courteous and peaceful environment is established. Everyone may have different ideas, and religious beliefs, it is normal, but there needs to be a respectful environment. Publishing articles containing insult is inappropriate in the understanding of honesty. By doing so, you are supporting the ones who are waging psychological warfare against Harun Yahya and SRF.

The persons in question who are waging psychological warfare cannot confront Harun Yahya and SRF with their ideas and thoughts. Since they are beaten intellectually, they have recourse to insult and slander.

We would like to inform you that this situation does not comply with morals, respect, the understanding of humanity.

Comments

Sharkey said…
Wow, so much crazy in so few paragraphs...
dobson said…
Waah... the nasty philosopher said some mean things about my book... make it stop... Waaahh
Michael Young said…
Beware - saw this on Pharyngula this morning: apparently, the next step may be hacking your site.
I'm trying to figure out if the disjointed nature of those paragraphs are due to English-as-second-language issues or delusional thinking. Well, I mean, clearly, "freemasonry" indicates some kind of crazy, but the statements, as written, raise other issues.
Anonymous said…
"masonry, Darwinism, communism, materialism and satanism"

Seems international Jewish conspiracy has gone out of fashion...
Anonymous said…
This is clearly psychological projection. Harun Yahya and his organisation are well known for slandering others in many different ways.

From their perspective, on some level there must be a slight awareness of what they do in the name of morals, but their behavior isn't able to be fully consciously acknowledged and so they accuse others of what they themselves do to others.

It appears that the lawyers acting on his behalf are party to his delusional belief system. It is very worrying that people with so much power have deeply irrational and dangerous beliefs towards others and freedom of speech.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se