# Religion IS crazy!



## Sean K (5 June 2008)

There's some strange things that religion makes people do. 

Like praying, for example. 

Then, there's some things that are good. Like providing shelter and food. (often free of charge, but usually you are persuaded to accept JC as the main man!) 

Then, there are some really damn crazy things that religion can take some responsibility for. (the inquisition and suicide bombing comes to mind)

I think this is a bit crazy:



> *Rabbi accused of torturing children*
> 
> BRAZILIAN police and Interpol have arrested a fugitive rabbi wanted in his native Israel on charges of torturing children in exorcism rites.




And, I have the feeling that this is just the tip of the iceburg for what people may uncover about:

*religion gone crazy*!!


----------



## Agentm (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

kennas

this one will envoke some heated debate, no doubt..

religion is a perosnal thing, each to their own.. the religion issue is really a concept that can be taken to extremes, and has been.. but imho the basis of what all religions is designed to do is fundamentally for the good..


----------



## Sean K (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Yes could. 

I'm sort of more interested in the *crazy *stuff at the moment, because there have been some absolutely incredible things that religion has been the foundation of.

Over the past couple of years I've been researching the history of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, and boy oh boy, some of the things these cultures did to appease the Gods is mind boggling!!!

We can get on to the more modern things like witch burning later...


----------



## Pat (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Yes could.
> 
> I'm sort of more interested in the *crazy *stuff at the moment, because there have been some absolutely incredible things that religion has been the foundation of.
> 
> ...



LOL! Apocalypto.
IMO religion has always been crazy. What's worse is using religion as an excuse/reason.


----------



## Sean K (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Pat said:


> What's worse is using religion as an excuse/reason.



Yep, but I didn't really expect this to get into a philosophical discussion so soon. I want to hear all the *CRAZY* stuff!!! LOL  

Circumcision based on religious grounds is a good modern day one. WTF!!!

I am sure at one point there was a cultural reason for it based on personal hygeine, but today? Or, maybe the chicks just think it looks better so little baby boys have to snip snip!


----------



## dubiousinfo (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Yep, but I didn't really expect this to get into a philosophical discussion so soon. I want to hear all the *CRAZY* stuff!!! LOL
> 
> Circumcision based on religious grounds is a good modern day one. WTF!!!
> 
> I am sure at one point there was a cultural reason for it based on personal hygeine, but today? Or, maybe the chicks just think it looks better so little baby boys have to snip snip!




Kennas   ,

Looks like there are other reasons for circumcision.



> Australian researchers say they have unlocked the key to blocking HIV infection in men in a breakthrough which could arrest the global AIDS epidemic.
> 
> The ground-breaking study uses the female hormone, oestrogen, to create a "living condom" in men, shielding them from the virus.
> 
> ...


----------



## JellySausage (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I like this quote:

Good men will do good, bad men will do bad...  but for a good man to do bad things; that takes religion.


----------



## derty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Here is a site that always amuses me - the Bible illustrated using lego figures. It is quite comprehensive.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/

For some explanations of some of the really CRAZY things in the bible have a look at the Law section. It makes it clear when it is acceptable to stone the whole family, or just your children, how to deal with menstrual cycle, male genital injuries and what it means for you, campsite defecation, how long to hang someone and much much more. Its all there, take your time.  
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html


----------



## Pat (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Yep, but I didn't really expect this to get into a philosophical discussion so soon. I want to hear all the *CRAZY* stuff!!! LOL



Is spending Sunday morning in church up there?


----------



## Pat (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Not sure if you could say this is a result of religion, perhaps just tradition, but the 2 meld don't they?

Chinese foot binding would be one of the strangest customs I've heard about.


----------



## Surly (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Yes could.
> 
> Over the past couple of years I've been researching the history of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, and boy oh boy, some of the things these cultures did to appease the Gods is mind boggling!!!




Your research would of pointed out that more human sacrifice was made in times of famine. This having the effect of reducing the population and feeding the poor the sacrificed (cannabilism being its own crazyness).

Selling human sacrifice to the populace would require a certain level of religious belief. Gods demand it versus an elegant but ugly solution to a food shortage?

cheers
Surly


----------



## disarray (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

religion does provide a convenient justification for the unhinged because you can't deny the word of god. in the case of individuals like jim jones or david koresh or the russian guy in the cave last month, they inhabit their own little world and draw in a lot of weaker people who look to latch onto strong or focused people. they go set up compounds and their own little society where they invariably get to have sex with all of the women, and then eventually take everyone out in a blaze of glory when their own personal doomsday arrives.

and that lego bible site is great


----------



## Happy (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Did somebody mention female genitals mutilation and old fashioned meat preparation to make it suitable for certain humans consumption and thank God Christians no longer burn witches alive.

I think all religions could move on with the times and modify old customs.
But I would not like to get into trouble like BB got in France


----------



## disarray (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> But I would not like to get into trouble like BB got in France




why? she seems like the only person in europe with any balls.


----------



## wayneL (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I think it's just humans that are crazy, religion is just the excuse for the more bizarr things.

AS the old English saying goes: "There's nought as queer as folk".

But look at the way we dress in secular society in certain situations. When you think about it, WTF?

1/ Womens fashion! WTF?







2/ Mens business attire. A uncomfortable and impractical suit... and what's with tying a piece of coloured rag tightly around your neck????????

3/ Jewellery. Very strange when you think about it.

4/ Tattoos, piercings and other cosmetic body mutilation. WTF?

5/ Hair styles. Huh?


----------



## Knobby22 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Good point, it doesn't need religion to be crazy.

Goths, 4WD, present house prices, people who buy dogs to fight, cockfighting, Big Brother, media shows that just talk about celebrities, President Bush being re-elected, guns being sold in Walmart in the USA, Australians trying to save the whale while we have the highest yearly extinction rate of any country, artists saying that there should be a special tax because art drives the country, most people believing we never landed on the moon, St Kilda council hiring a clairvoyant, every second article you read in the newspaper, Woody Allen, highest suicide rate in history at present, high drug taking by youth, government of Burma refusing aid, Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge, tribal warfare in Africa, people who blame everything on religion...the list is endless.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> ... been researching the history of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, and boy oh boy, some of the things these cultures did to appease the Gods ..!!!



kennas
this comic came to mind...

the text reads ..."Ha, and YOU were worried they wouldn't like Americans.  ... why these people just lit up when I explained we were Virginians!"


----------



## solomon (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Thanks Knobby22 for your reply. I am a Christian and you said clearly what I believe. People are screwed up. Some people wrongfully use religion to their own screwed up ends, and some choose other paths. This perhaps shows that it isn't religion per se that is wrong, but us, me included.

Interestingly, Jesus himself is one of the biggest critics of the religion of his people and his time.


----------



## Agentm (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

knobby

goths...  

lol

reminds me of a thing i heard about goths, a  tshirt that says 

i wish my lawn was a goth, then it would cut itself.


----------



## explod (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Religion is needed for most people to cope with life.   It was created over time to maintain peace and control over the populace.   Schivelry has the same function and socially the same psychological effect.  

In old England 2 knights in shining armour could control thousands by their mere presence.    The soldier represents the crown to which from the cradle they were conditioned to be loyal.

I grew up a devout Catholic, was going to be a priest at one early stage and became quite a scholar of metaphysics.   In later life at university my early grounding gave me the insight into the bigger picture of and how religion evolved.

To cut a long story short, religion is a mechanism of control to manitain the status quo and a con.


----------



## treefrog (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Pat said:


> Not sure if you could say this is a result of religion, perhaps just tradition, but the 2 meld don't they?
> 
> Chinese foot binding would be one of the strangest customs I've heard about.




hi pat - maybe not............

Victor Hugo   The Man Who Laughs   1869

"The comprachicos (child buyers) were strange and hideous nomads in the 17th century. They made children into sideshow freaks. To succeed in producing a freak one must get hold of him early; a dwarf must be started when he is small. They stunted growth, they mangled features. It was an art/science of inverted orthopedics. Where nature had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where nature had put harmony, they put deformity and imperfection. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. During the operation the little patient was unconscious by means of a stupefying magic powder.

In China since time immemorial, they have achieved refinement in a special art and industry: the molding of living man. One takes a child two or three years old and puts them into a grotesquely shaped porcelain vase. It is without cover or bottom, so the head and feet protrude. In the daytime the vase is upright, at night it is laid down so the child can sleep. Thus the child slowly fills the contours of the vase with compressed flesh and twisted bones. This bottled development continues for several years. At a certain point, it becomes an irreparable monster. Then the vase is broken and one has a man in the shape of a pot."


----------



## wayneL (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

The woman didn't need religion to do something crazy.







PS Not defending religion at all, just that crazy doesn't need religion.


----------



## Pat (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



treefrog said:


> hi pat - maybe not............
> 
> Victor Hugo   The Man Who Laughs   1869
> 
> ...



They can be a weird bunch 

What about 911, pretty crazy thing to do in the name of god?


----------



## Agentm (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



explod said:


> Religion is needed for most people to cope with life.   It was created over time to maintain peace and control over the populace.   Schivelry has the same function and socially the same psychological effect.
> 
> In old England 2 knights in shining armour could control thousands by their mere presence.    The soldier represents the crown to which from the cradle they were conditioned to be loyal.
> 
> ...





gotto say. that is saying something.. you get my respect...


----------



## Julia (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Knobby22 said:


> Good point, it doesn't need religion to be crazy.
> 
> Goths, 4WD, present house prices, people who buy dogs to fight, cockfighting, Big Brother, media shows that just talk about celebrities, President Bush being re-elected, guns being sold in Walmart in the USA, Australians trying to save the whale while we have the highest yearly extinction rate of any country, artists saying that there should be a special tax because art drives the country, most people believing we never landed on the moon, St Kilda council hiring a clairvoyant, every second article you read in the newspaper, Woody Allen, highest suicide rate in history at present, high drug taking by youth, government of Burma refusing aid, Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge, tribal warfare in Africa, people who blame everything on religion...the list is endless.



Knobby, I was reading this and laughing in agreement.  Then I realised it's all true and I stopped laughing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Well I think that when some old dude in fancy dress sworn to celibacy tells the peasants of Africa and much of the third world that condoms are wrong - that God would prefer the reality of thousands / millions of them dying of AIDS, ;   .....  that they should have more children that they planned because of the reality of Vatican Roulette (and other totally uneducated attitudes)  ...  I'd say that's religion gone absolutely crazy.


----------



## Sean K (6 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I agree that it is people who are crazy first. Religion has developed based on culture and custom, not the other way around. Problem now is that a lot of religious dogma is based on those early cultures and customs, and people are not allowed to naturally change. So, religion as a control mechanism has been effectively holding back the human species from moving forward for centuries. It's one of the reasons women are still second class citizens in many countries. I agree there's a lot of craziness out there not based on religion, which probably makes those acts even more crazy (Waynes photos), but it's confounding to me that we continue with craziness based on religion. 

The example of female circumcision is a good one. 
Putting Galileo under house arrest for looking through his telescope was another.  
Not using condoms in Africa is a decent one too.  

The list is long.


----------



## Sean K (26 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Polygamy had a function at some point in history.

Like when all the men went off to fight a war and left the tribe poor for studs.

Obviously to get the population back up, the women had to share the men who came back minus an arm. 

Just like why incest had a time in the sun. 

But today, there is no point and the only one's upholding it are living in the dark ages trapped by religios dogma, or cults led by men thinking with their dicks. 

CRAZY! Come on women of Islam, sort your men out!

*Melbourne sheik backs calls to legalise polygamy*
Barney Zwartz and Sarah Smiles 
June 26, 2008 

THE leader of Melbourne's Somali community yesterday backed calls for polygamy to be made legal, as an Islamic women's organisation said it was on the rise in Victoria.

African community leader Berhan Ahmed estimated there were perhaps 20 polygamous families in Melbourne's African community, mostly Somalis and mostly refugees.

Two Sydney Muslims, Sheik Khalil Chami and Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad, ignited a debate when they said that some imams were performing polygamous marriages, which should be recognised.


----------



## Happy (26 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Let’s pray that some migrants from cannibalistic tribe don’t request cannibalism to be legalised.

I think that paedophiles might think of something too, after all Scientology was invented not that long ago.

And let’s not forget that in certain countries wife can be bought and she can be 9, 10 or is it 12?

Should that be legalised too?


----------



## Mofra (26 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> Let’s pray that some migrants from cannibalistic tribe don’t request cannibalism to be legalised.



Reminds me of an exployer during WW1 who made contact with cannibal tribes in Papua, and was explaining the "Great War" and how many losses both sides were suffering.

The Chiefs response was along the lines of "You white people are amazing, how do you manage to eat so much meat!"

Even those whom Westerners regard as "savage" could not understand the pointlessness of war. Perhaps Human behavior gone crazy is a better category, as religeon (of which I do not partake of) is generally the medium and not the reason for straneg custom or behavior.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Two Sydney Muslims, Sheik Khalil Chami and Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad, ignited a debate when they said that some imams were performing polygamous marriages, which should be recognised.



yep,  not only will it not be entertained by the govt, it will remain illegal. !! them's the rules folks.  

But ... how do you prove that it's not just a "hippy commune" mentality?  I mean, there will only ever be one legal marriage yes? - but will there be some informal marriages to "others" on the side?  consenting husband, wife , concubines etc 

As if moslem women agree to polygamy willingly - sheesh. 

I heard Keysar Trad interviewed on ABC recently- went down in my estimation bigtime.


----------



## trinity (26 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> yep, not only will it not be entertained by the govt, it will remain illegal. !! them's the rules folks.




totally agree on this one!  

Saw yesterday on today tonight or ACA, I know the shows are dodgy but, they were trying to interview this mu$lim bloke who has 2 wives and, they were all on all sorts of pension.


----------



## Mofra (27 June 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



2020hindsight said:


> I heard Keysar Trad interviewed on ABC recently- went down in my estimation bigtime.



Interesting article in The Age today, argues that polygamy is apparently frowned upon by the rank and file islamic community.


----------



## Sean K (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

This is sort of linked to the Pilgrimage thread, but this guy is a good representative of his church I think.

Outrage over bishop's abuse remarks
Barney Zwartz 
July 17, 2008 

THE Pope's expected apology to victims of sexual abuse by priests has been sabotaged by a senior Australian bishop, who criticised people for "dwelling crankily on old wounds".

The bishop organising World Youth Day, Anthony Fisher, made the remarks in response to questions about two Melbourne women who were repeatedly raped by priest Kevin O'Donnell when they were pupils at Sacred Heart Primary School in Oakleigh from 1988 to 1993.

The case was detailed on ABC's Lateline on Tuesday, but Bishop Fisher told the World Youth Day daily media briefing that he had not seen the program. "Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying, delighting in, the beauty and goodness of these young people … rather than dwelling crankily, as a few people are doing, on old wounds," he said.


Crazy.


----------



## wayneL (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> This is sort of linked to the Pilgrimage thread, but this guy is a good representative of his church I think.
> 
> Outrage over bishop's abuse remarks
> Barney Zwartz
> ...



What is it with clergymen? Are they especially trained to kick own goals?

Unbelievable... and damning!


----------



## Sean K (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> What is it with clergymen? Are they especially trained to kick own goals?
> 
> Unbelievable... and damning!



Cranky old wounds.....??

I can't believe any modern person could say such a thing. 

Flabbergasted.


----------



## wayneL (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Cranky old wounds.....??
> 
> I can't believe any modern person could say such a thing.
> 
> Flabbergasted.




Clergymen must be seriously conflicted people.

Mrs and I were dragged along to Midnight Mass (CofE) last Christmas and as I listened noticed this:

Part of the service was just the padre speaking impromptu, "from the heart" do to speak, about peace and goodwill to all men, leading by example etc etc. Part of the service was pure doctrine, thou shalt and thou shalt not etc.

It struck me how different the two parts were. The impromtu bit was really good, enjoyed that. The doctrine bit was crap, couldn't wait to get out. But here was the same man speaking as two separate men.

How can one stay balanced under such circumstances?

...and this guy as a CofE reverend was at least allowed a shag at night. What does all the Catholic rubbish do to mens minds?


----------



## bunyip (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



explod said:


> To cut a long story short, religion is a mechanism of control to manitain the status quo and a con.




Exactly. 
The intriguing thing is, why do so many people fall for the con? Why are so many people so weak that they meekly buckle under to those who seek to control them? 

At least one religion I know of lets family members die rather than giving them a life-saving blood transfusion.

Some religions willingly give 13 and 14 year old girls to older men as wives, to be used and abused, and forced into child-bearing before their bodies are equipped to handle it, resulting in all manner of medical complications further down the track.

At least one religion brainwashes their followers into believing that if you commit a sin, all you have to do to wipe the slate clean is head for the confession box and tell the priest what you've done, and all will be forgiven.

At least one religion clearly tells its followers to 'kill the infidels' (non believers).

I could fill page after page with examples of ridiculous beliefs, rituals, policies, ideals and practices of various religions. 
But the question is....Why do so many people allow their behaviour to be influenced and controlled by such twisted beliefs? What sort of weakness of character do you have to possess to let these religions dictate your thinking, overrule your common sense, warp your judgement, cause you to act against the best interests of your family, your friends, yourself. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm just thankful that I'm of sufficiently strong character to have avoided getting caught up in the religious snare myself.


----------



## Sean K (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> Exactly.
> The intriguing thing is, why do so many people fall for the con? Why are so many people so weak that they meekly buckle under to those who seek to control them?
> 
> At least one religion I know of lets family members die rather than giving them a life-saving blood transfusion.
> ...



All these things were culturally important at some time and when religion was invented and put into stone (a book) it became dogma and had to be obeyed. There's some acceptions of course, and some natural development due to significant cultural shifts, but that's the gist of it, imo. 

As to why we still do it. 

Humans aren't very smart are they.


----------



## Dukey (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> All these things were culturally important at some time and when religion was invented and put into stone (a book) it became dogma and had to be obeyed. There's some acceptions of course, and some natural development due to significant cultural shifts, but that's the gist of it, imo.
> 
> As to why we still do it.
> 
> Humans aren't very smart are they.




Rabid Dogma!!!

Bite my Dogma !!

Beware: My Dogma Bites 

......

*What we need is for people to KICK THE DOGMA !!!!!!!!!*

.... sorry - just brain storming... could go on forever...   Spank the dogma ... (no - inappropriate!) 
Gawd - havn't even had my morning coffee yet!!!!!!!!

-Dukey

PS - notice how god = dog backwards......

devil = evil with a D....
good is good minus an O...?????????????


----------



## bunyip (17 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> Clergymen must be seriously conflicted people.
> What does all the Catholic rubbish do to mens minds?




It warps their minds Wayne, that's what it does. It makes them incapable of sound and intelligent judgement in some (not all) matters.
We wonder why so many Catholic priests run off the rails....hell - I'd damn near run off the rails myself if my natural attraction to the opposite sex was thwarted, frowned upon, regarded as sinful, or forbidden. What normal man (or woman) is going to voluntarily commit to a life of celibacy, is going to allow him/herself to be dictated to by a bunch of clowns who forbid them to ever marry and have a family. 
Is it any wonder that people who are brainwashed at an early age into becoming Catholic priests, find out sooner or later that's it's virtually impossible to control their natural sexual urges.

I had to smile at the reaction of some of the male and female parishoners who were asked by a TV reporter what they thought about the revelation that their Catholic priest was involved in a torrid affair with one of the women of their congregation.
Most of them answered along the lines of "Well, thank God he's normal....better for him to have an affair with a woman than to molest the altar boys!


----------



## kotim (20 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Whatever one thinks of religeon one must keep an opem mind admit that the science we rely upon when it comes to combating religeon is lunacy.

I did an indonesian martial art for years and still try to from time to time, anyway the things that some of the gurus could do, scientists/people say is impossible. thinks I saw felt and witnessed, Science would tell you is not possible , yet these things were done.

Sure one can take religeon perhaps to far when it comes to injuring others, but the really interesting thing when dicussing religeon is the complete lack of faith people who claim to not believe actually have in their stance.

Event the athiests in  the quietness of their own invironment at times pray, will they tell you, no, becasue it defeats the position they hold and they are too scared to admit their true position.

The simple fact is, people don't want to believe in religeon mostly to justify their own lack of moral/ethical behaviour, not because they don't have some sort of belief in the divine.

In fact besides some crazy extremist relgeous people the people I most love to engage in "philosphy" are those who don't believe becasue they are the easiest to defeat

Some people will try and find all sorts of ways to deny the divine but when confronted with the spectre of very real and obvious miracles, they do everything they can to avoid the outcome of thier reasoning and resort to the incredible to explain away the obvious, when the first position they take is to try and use reason to justify their beliefs.

For those that don't believe, what a sad life they live, they don't believe, yet they don't have the guts to live life according to their own belief structure, meaning that their is no right and wrong hence their is nothing wrong with anything, Their is nothing wrong with killing, their is nothing wrong with stealing and all that sort of stuff.

Imagine bringing children into this world and a parent having a personal belief of an athiest yet then not teaching the child that it is fine to steal and cheat, which is only wrong if their is a moral code from above rather than a code imposed by a gorup of people for no good reason other than control.

Humans we are a strange.


----------



## kotim (20 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Bunyip your claim is foolish, you make a claim without invesitigation, whether we wish to believe catholic position is right or wrong does not come into the question.  The simple fact is that sexual abuse by clergy in the catholic church is substantailly lower on a per capita basis than the rest of society, and it is a further fact that sexual abuse is higher amongst the protestant type churches who allow their ministers to marry than the catholic church.

Are you aware that 80-90% of sexual abuse by catholic clergy was on males, this is very good for analysis becasue in the catholic church they only allow male clergy.  So we can say that those people with a homosexual persuasion are way more likely to abuse those under the age of consent.  Not only that but in general society homosexuals make up some where between 1-3% of the population according to studies done.

The number of males under the age of consent sexually abused is greater than 5% in society, with the figures generally believed to be between 10-20%.
Funny isn't it, at least 5-10% of young males are sexually abused by males who make up less than 3% of the population.

Have a think about those figures and you will realise that it means that it is extremely likely that homosexuals WILL sexually abuse young males.

Look at the way society is now promoting the homosexual movement and when you relaise that whilst not all homosexuals will abuse young males, it is extremely likely that they will.

The catholic Church, indeed any church or religeous groups deserves to be critisized for its members/clergy failings, but we as people do anything to justify our opinions rather than look into the real truth.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kotim said:


> Look at the way society is now promoting the homosexual movement and when you relaise that whilst not all homosexuals will abuse young males, *it is extremely likely that they will*.



 Hahahhahahahah!

LMAO!


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kotim said:


> Sure one can take religeon perhaps to far when it comes to injuring others, but the really interesting thing when dicussing religeon is the complete lack of faith people who claim to not believe actually have in their stance.
> 
> Event the athiests in  the quietness of their own invironment at times pray, will they tell you, no, becasue it defeats the position they hold and they are too scared to admit their true position.



 I am still LMFAO!

And confused. 

But I'm praying!!!

I'm praying to that big teapot!! 

And, try writing your posts in Word first and do a spell check.

Good luck!


----------



## Surly (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Kotim,

You have two concepts confused.

You do not need to have religion to have a sense of morals.

A belief in a greater being(s) or simply the admission that more happens in the universe than you or anyone else can understand is fine. It does not require you to live according to a book or set of rules imparted by someone else who had no more idea than you. Their imaginary friend is not better than yours.

cheers
Surly


----------



## nioka (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Surly said:


> You do not need to have religion to have a sense of morals.
> Surly




You don't, but it does help by establishing guidelines and setting boundaries. The fact that some religious people overstep them or overemphasise them doesn't alter the guidelines or the boundaries. Is there a better set of guidelines than those set with the ten commandants?


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> Is there a better set of guidelines than those set with the ten commandants?



Perhaps. It's called Common Law.


----------



## Surly (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> You don't, but it does help by establishing guidelines and setting boundaries. The fact that some religious people overstep them or overemphasise them doesn't alter the guidelines or the boundaries. Is there a better set of guidelines than those set with the ten commandants?




1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not murder*
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10.You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

1-4 completely irrelevant
5 A little more respect here would not go astray in society
6,8,9 Covered by criminal law but still good ideas
7 Covered within marriage vows
10 The full commandment is commonly shortened. Originally it was fine to enslave people just not covet other's slaves.

Sorry Nioka a sensible upbringing by parents and a reasonable eduction system will add a lot more to a person than half of that rubbish.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Surly said:


> 10.You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
> 
> cheers
> Surly



Is that for real Surly? Cripes, I haven't seen the extended version before.

I'm going to hell, I'm quite fond of my neighbours donkey.


----------



## cuttlefish (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I thought if you were Catholic you could pretty much do what you liked and then just vist your local Priest, confess your sins, a few Hail Mary's and away you go. (seemed to work for the God fearing members of Mafia).


----------



## nioka (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Perhaps. It's called Common Law.



 That's right but remember, because our law is based on christian principles, it is based on several of the ten commandments. 
Who preaches common law so that it is clearly understood by the young? It seems to be preached in the home more by christian families than by those non christian. 
I'll admit that is a generalisation. From my experience in a life that has seen many sides of life I have found it to be fact.
If we only rely on the law to establish rules we will soon become a police state.


----------



## bassmanpete (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> For those that don't believe, what a sad life they live, they don't believe, yet they don't have the guts to live life according to their own belief structure, meaning that their is no right and wrong hence their is nothing wrong with anything, Their is nothing wrong with killing, their is nothing wrong with stealing and all that sort of stuff.
> 
> Imagine bringing children into this world and a parent having a personal belief of an athiest yet then not teaching the child that it is fine to steal and cheat, which is only wrong if their is a moral code from above rather than a code imposed by a gorup of people for no good reason other than control.




What utter bull****!!

Being an atheist does NOT mean having no morals. And I would add that if you rely on a higher authority for your morals then you are only 'doing the right thing' because you fear retribution not because you truly believe it's the right thing to do. As an atheist I would find it very offensive if someone accused me of having no morals. 

Nioka, I would say that the Golden Rule covers just about everything of importance in the 10 commandments and that was around long before Christianity came on the scene. In fact, a strong case could be made that a moral code was incorporated into religion rather than religion being the source of it.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> In fact, a strong case could be made that a moral code was incorporated into religion rather than religion being the source of it.



I think that's a given bassmanpete.


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> There's some strange things that religion makes people do.
> 
> *Like praying*, for example.....





Hehe. I wonder, did Il Papa pray for a greener, better start to the trading week?

Looks like the bears have unexpectedly and suddenly gone into hibernation.... :hide:




AJ


----------



## bassmanpete (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> I think that's a given bassmanpete.




Not according to the religious - they won't give you anything unless there are brownie points to gained with the big daddy in the sky.


----------



## Julia (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Aussiejeff said:


> Hehe. I wonder, did Il Papa pray for a greener, better start to the trading week?
> 
> Looks like the bears have unexpectedly and suddenly gone into hibernation.... :hide:
> 
> ...



No.  They've just taken over the coal stocks.


----------



## Julia (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I completely disagree that religion is a prerequisite for having a decent moral compass.   

One saying, which I think comes from the Bible, though, is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Pretty much covers most things really.

I don't care if people want to go to a church, sing songs, pray, chant, etc, (even taking communion which seems pretty silly to me).  But I do object when those people tell me I am missing out, living an immoral existence, or otherwise failing to appreciate the reality of life, if I don't want to do the same.

And to those ghastly people who so persistently come knocking at the door, especially when they trail little kids with them, I'd suggest they spend their time more constructively.  Might just 'accidentally' let the dog out next time I see them coming.


----------



## cuttlefish (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

.







			
				Julia said:
			
		

> No. They've just taken over the coal stocks




and gold stocks ...


----------



## nioka (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> Not according to the religious - they won't give you anything unless there are brownie points to gained with the big daddy in the sky.



What a lot of rot. That is a statement without much thought. WHO run most of the charities with VOLUNTEER help, is it ST.Vincents, The Salvos etc. Our local op shop, where the proceeds are gifted to the needy (and they don't have to be christians). I think it is run by a group which is multi denomination.The reason I'm not sure is because they don't push the point. Most of the workers are there to help the needy and are not asking for anything more than to feel as though they are helping someone.
 Go and help the salvos sometime it will be a learning experience that will make you a better person. To help them you may have to go to the front line in a war, a fire tragedy, a flood disaster, out in the cold to feed the homeless, or something just as inconvenient.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> What a lot of rot. That is a statement without much thought. WHO run most of the charities with VOLUNTEER help, is it ST.Vincents, The Salvos etc.



Call me a skeptic, but would any of the religious based charities hope to convert, or 'save', anyone they provide a lunch to? Hmmmm 

But, I'm a skeptic.


----------



## Julia (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> What a lot of rot. That is a statement without much thought. WHO run most of the charities with VOLUNTEER help, is it ST.Vincents, The Salvos etc. Our local op shop, where the proceeds are gifted to the needy (and they don't have to be christians). I think it is run by a group which is multi denomination.The reason I'm not sure is because they don't push the point. Most of the workers are there to help the needy and are not asking for anything more than to feel as though they are helping someone.
> Go and help the salvos sometime it will be a learning experience that will make you a better person. To help them you may have to go to the front line in a war, a fire tragedy, a flood disaster, out in the cold to feed the homeless, or something just as inconvenient.



Nioka, various other community organisations with no religious affiliations provide help.
And plenty of volunteers do what they do with no religious guidance or stimulus, just a reasoned wish to contribute to their community and help others.  Nothing to do with God at all.

Agree about the Salvos, though.   They are about the only bunch of religious people who will unquestioningly pick up a drunk from the gutter (literally) and care for people without foisting any stuff about God on them as a condition for the help.


----------



## nioka (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Call me a skeptic, but would any of the religious based charities hope to convert, or 'save', anyone they provide a lunch to? Hmmmm
> 
> But, I'm a skeptic.



 I guess some try and a lot hope but most will accept people for who they are and will help someone that needs help without any religous overtones at all. If they are handing out soup or a blanket on a cold night it is not done with any strings attached. Get involved and see for yourself.


----------



## nioka (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> Nioka, various other community organisations with no religious affiliations provide help.
> And plenty of volunteers do what they do with no religious guidance or stimulus, just a reasoned wish to contribute to their community and help others.  Nothing to do with God at all..




Agreed with 100%, but the topic here seems to be denigrating religious people as a whole. My reply was to a statement that religious people will not give something "unless there are brownie points"


----------



## disarray (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> If we only rely on the law to establish rules we will soon become a police state.




that will be the end result of our "open" society because we insist on importing cultures that have serious defects in them.

as a society we've been lumbered with all this cultural guilt (i'm really pissed off about the "200 years of white lies" hung on the MCA in front of sydney harbour) so all of our values and the identity based upon it are under constant attack. we don't know what we stand for anymore (or feel we are no longer allowed to stand for it), so instead we've adopted some limp wristed cultural and moral relativism to fill the gap where everyone is a precious and unique snowflake, so and so annoying behaviour has to be tolerated, and there's no need to push yourself to succeed because winning isn't important and someone else will eventually pay for you anyway.

a nation with a strong religious / philosophical backbone doesn't need rafts of laws to govern everything because behaviour will be governed by culture. but now we are multicultural so we need laws that say you can't kill your daughter because she won't marry your husband of choice, or you aren't allowed to mutilate the body parts of babies etc because what is obvious to us isn't always obvious to others.

it's not so bad here in australia, luckily our national character is quite robust, but i despair for the state of england and the rest of europe. westerners really need to find their identity and reaffirm the values they stand for in real terms, and not just keep on mouthing platitudes in the hope it will stop various minorities bitching.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> What a lot of rot. That is a statement without much thought. WHO run most of the charities with VOLUNTEER help, is it ST.Vincents, The Salvos etc. Our local op shop, where the proceeds are gifted to the needy (and they don't have to be christians). I think it is run by a group which is multi denomination.The reason I'm not sure is because they don't push the point. Most of the workers are there to help the needy and are not asking for anything more than to feel as though they are helping someone.
> Go and help the salvos sometime it will be a learning experience that will make you a better person. To help them you may have to go to the front line in a war, a fire tragedy, a flood disaster, out in the cold to feed the homeless, or something just as inconvenient.




I agree Nioka.

My area has a St Vinny's (Catholic)
                    Salvo's  (Salvation Army)
                    Community Op Shop (Anglican)

The Salvation Army and St Vincents have volunteers on the ground with facilities to help the needy and they work with the dregs of society. The hopeless alcoholics, young adults, mentally unwell and drug users. I know as I have helped. One used to be a doctor, another a judge so you can see all types of perople end up living in the streets with their family's deserting them. Maybe they asked for it. Maybe John Dawkins would say they should be euthanised to help society.

Many of the other charities that are non religion based pay their collectors, pay the guy organising them, pay the people doing the charity. The guy who owns it uses it to make tax breaks  *yes.. I'm looking at you Steve Vizard *. They charities often are helping children or cats. Anything to do with tugging of heart strings.

The other non-religous charities that get money and people do donate their time are usually to do with diseases e.g. breast cancer, heart disease etc. These are fine charities but it is often the case that the people involved have had that particular disease touch their lives and they want to do something about it. That is fair enough but it is the religous charities that do the horrible no hoper stuff. 

Did you know that when AIDs first reared it's head, in the US, no one would even touch them. That is why Mother Theresa sent out her nuns and set up hospitals to help in the US though they were Indian based.

The works the Salvos are doing near where I work is fantastic. The seflessness of the people is amazing and no they don't spout religous stuff at anyone.

No one is perfect. 
Christianity recognises the weaknesses of the flesh. I have nothing but respect for Catholics and Salvation Army people. That is why the turnout was so good for the youth festival.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> What a lot of rot. That is a statement without much thought. WHO run most of the charities with VOLUNTEER help, is it ST.Vincents, The Salvos etc. Our local op shop, where the proceeds are gifted to the needy (and they don't have to be christians). I think it is run by a group which is multi denomination.The reason I'm not sure is because they don't push the point. Most of the workers are there to help the needy and are not asking for anything more than to feel as though they are helping someone.
> Go and help the salvos sometime it will be a learning experience that will make you a better person. To help them you may have to go to the front line in a war, a fire tragedy, a flood disaster, out in the cold to feed the homeless, or something just as inconvenient.




I agree Nioka.

My area has a St Vinny's (Catholic)
                    Salvo's  (Salvation Army)
                    Community Op Shop (Anglican)

The Salvation Army and St Vincents have volunteers on the ground with facilities to help the needy and they work with the dregs of society. The hopeless alcoholics, young adults, mentally unwell and drug users. I know as I have helped. One used to be a doctor, another a judge so you can see all types of perople end up living in the streets with their family's deserting them. Maybe they asked for it. Maybe John Dawkins would say they should be euthanised to help society.

Many of the other charities that are non religion based pay their collectors, pay the guy organising them, pay the people doing the charity. The guy who owns it uses it to make tax breaks  *yes.. I'm looking at you Steve Vizard *. They charities often are helping children or cats. Anything to do with tugging of heart strings.

The other non-religous charities that get money and people do donate their time are usually to do with diseases e.g. breast cancer, heart disease etc. These are fine charities but it is often the case that the people involved have had that particular disease touch their lives and they want to do something about it. That is fair enough but it is the religous charities that do the horrible no hoper stuff. 

Did you know that when AIDs first reared it's head, in the US, no one would even touch them. That is why Mother Theresa sent out her nuns and set up hospitals to help in the US though they were Indian based.

The works the Salvos are doing near where I work is fantastic. The seflessness of the people is amazing and no they don't spout religous stuff at anyone. St Vincents do their work even more secretely than the Salvos, the work they do is amazing.

No one is perfect. 
Christianity recognises the weaknesses of the flesh. I have nothing but respect for Catholics and Salvation Army people. 
That is why I am happy the turnout was so good for the youth festival.


----------



## Rafa (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> I don't care if people want to go to a church, sing songs, pray, chant, etc, (even taking communion which seems pretty silly to me).  But I do object when those people tell me I am missing out, living an immoral existence, or otherwise failing to appreciate the reality of life, if I don't want to do the same.





Completely agree Julia...
But then again, you are one of the few atheist I know who doesn't actually preach the religion of atheism.

the fact is, most people like to think they have got it right, and most people like to tell others about that, and whilst there is nothing wrong with that... to simply say its the religious who love preaching when you only have take one look at the ABC to realise there is a significant amount of preaching also coming the other way, is a bit harsh.

(beleive me, i know, as being a christian, with plenty of atheist friends, i am constantly the focus of their conversion attempts... this forum itself if full of the holier than thou athiest preachers)

the key to this is tolerance... if an atheist is going be intolerant and ridicule someone else's beliefs then, in my humble opinion, they are no different to the very people they are so dead against!


----------



## Julia (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Knobby22 said:


> That is fair enough but it is the religous charities that do the horrible no hoper stuff.




Not exclusively, Knobby.
I have worked as a volunteer Emergency Relief Counsellor for a community organisation which has no religious affiliations whatever for over twelve years.   Frequently complicated problems are dealt with by St Vinnies, Salvos and one other church organisation combining with us to meet the full cost of some situations.

I know all about the "horrible no hoper stuff".   I have had people throw up alcohol induced vomit at my feet, frequently had to sit in the same room with people who smell vile because they haven't washed for a week or more, but who still also stink of alcohol and tobacco, had someone threaten to "slit your jugular" because I declined to give him gambling money.

None of that is unusual at all.  Neither are the huge numbers of people who use their tax payer funded benefits to continue making poor lifestyle choices then want the tax payer to pay their electricity bill.  

But amongst all this, there are genuinely needy people whose stoicism and courage in the face of the most horrible lives just leaves me in awe.

Nothing like being prepared to make a contribution to this section of our society to bring your own petty dissatisfactions right back into perspective.


----------



## bassmanpete (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> Agreed with 100%, but the topic here seems to be denigrating religious people as a whole. My reply was to a statement that religious people will not give something "unless there are brownie points"




Nioka, you obviously ignored the smiley after my comment.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> You don't, but it does help by establishing guidelines and setting boundaries. The fact that some religious people overstep them or overemphasise them doesn't alter the guidelines or the boundaries. Is there a better set of guidelines than those set with the ten commandants?





Agreed that the 10 commandants are probably the best set of guidelines on how to live life as a decent person. And if I hadn't been raised as a Christian I'd probably never have been aware of them. 
But at the core of Kota's confusion is his failure to realise that there are many decent people in the world who don't believe in God, yet they still lead lives of integrity and consideration for others, basically in line with the 10 commandments. 
I know, because I'm one such person.
You _*do not *_have to be Christian and God-worshipping to be a decent person leading a wholesome life.
And if you do belong to the camp that believes in and worships God, it most definitely _*is not*_ a guarantee that you're a good and decent person. 
My goodness.....the sort of behaviour I've seen from some of the religious/Christian fraternity is so rotten it would make your toenails curl.


----------



## bassmanpete (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> the key to this is tolerance... if an atheist is going be intolerant and ridicule someone else's beliefs then, in my humble opinion, they are no different to the very people they are so dead against!




I for one am happy for everyone to believe whatever they like, although to me it's silly to let someone else decide what you should think or believe. The only thing I am intolerant of is attempts to teach creationism as science. That's not a big problem here in Australia (although I personally know creationists who home school their kids) but is an ongoing battle in the USA where creationists are elected to state education boards.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Rafa said:


> Completely agree Julia...
> But then again, you are one of the few atheist I know who doesn't actually preach the religion of atheism.



Atheism isn't a religion though. By definition it can't be.

But what about us agnostics?


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



cuttlefish said:


> I thought if you were Catholic you could pretty much do what you liked and then just vist your local Priest, confess your sins, a few Hail Mary's and away you go. (seemed to work for the God fearing members of Mafia).




Unfortunately  that's what many Catholics believe. And the Catholic church does little to dispel these beliefs, from what I can see. On the contrary, they seem to encourage them. I'm not saying that they encourage people to do wrong, but they definitely teach that you can wipe the slate clean simply by heading for the confession box. A few minutes telling the priest what a bad girl or boy you've been, and he declares your sins forgiven.

I saw this in action first hand with a mate of mine. He and I were in Brisbane together for ten days while the Brisbane Exhibition was on....a couple of young blokes down from the country, visiting the big smoke for a bit of R & R. 
One night we went out with two young ladies we'd charmed on to at a night spot the previous evening. After an enjoyable few hours at a restaurant, followed by drinks at a classy hotel, they announced that they'd better be getting home. So we rang a taxi, and waited outside the pub with them until the taxi arrived.
I said goodnight to them when the taxi turned up, but my mate Bill jumped into the taxi with them and disappeared. Apparently his lady had invited him home to her place for a bit of action.
3 o'clock next morning I'm woken by Bill banging on the door of my room. He asked me to make sure I woke him by 8am so he could get to mass by 9.
I said 'Why are you so keen to get to mass eh  Bill......were you a naughty boy last night'?
Bill gave a sheepish grin and admitted that things had got a little physical between him and his lady. "But no problem mate", says Bill, "I'll go to confession and square everything up with the priest".
So I woke Bill at 8, as requested, and off he went to mass. When he arrived back at our hotel a couple of hours later, I asked him how it went. He grinned and said "No worries....I'm pure again".

And that, my friends, is a true story.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> :
> Originally Posted by nioka
> If we only rely on the law to establish rules we will soon become a police state.






> that will be the end result of our "open" society because we insist on importing cultures that have serious defects in them.




Hi, what would these cultures with serious defects be please?

The one most obvious is "hip-hop" which involves property damaging graffiti, abusive lyrics in music, schizophrenic drugs  and gang/ghetto mentality.Many of us rebel against `the machine` but this culture attracts aggressive and violent minded youths.


----------



## Rafa (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> Atheism isn't a religion though. By definition it can't be.
> 
> But what about us agnostics?




Well, technically, an atheist believes there isn't a GOD... (i.e a definite position), means it might as well be a religion.

not sure about agnostic... in its purest form, NO, it can't be a religion, as an agnostic suspends judgement or is indifferent to the presence or lack there of, of God. But when an agnostic simply rejects the probability of God full stop, then for all intents and purposes... that is the same as an athiest.



bunyip, 
if you are to go to confession, it must be for the purpose of admitting guilt and comitting to not re-offend. the key being the words with which the priest ends the confession... Go and sin no more! 

Its actually the basis for the modern justice systema the process of rehab. we all know there are plenty who abuse that system too!


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> Agreed that the 10 commandants are probably the best set of guidelines on how to live life as a decent person. And if I hadn't been raised as a Christian I'd probably never have been aware of them.
> But at the core of Kota's confusion is his failure to realise that there are many decent people in the world who don't believe in God, yet they still lead lives of integrity and consideration for others, basically in line with the 10 commandments.
> I know, because I'm one such person.
> You _*do not *_have to be Christian and God-worshipping to be a decent person leading a wholesome life.
> ...




Let me qualify that.....some of the 10 commandants are definitely nonsense, but there are some good ones among them as well. Overall they provide a pretty good blueprint for leading a decent life and being a decent person.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Rafa said:


> bunyip,
> if you are to go to confession, it must be for the purpose of admitting guilt and comitting to not re-offend. the key being the words with which the priest ends the confession... Go and sin no more!
> 
> Its actually the basis for the modern justice systema the process of rehab. we all know there are plenty who abuse that system too!




Thanks Rafa, for clearing that up.
However, they do sin again, and again, and again, and go back to confession again and again, and are forgiven again and again.

The whole confession thing fosters an attitude of "If I sin, no worries...I can easily be forgiven simply by going to confession'.

So in my humble opinion, it defeats its own purpose.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> Agreed that the 10 commandants are probably the best set of guidelines on how to live life as a decent person. And if I hadn't been raised as a Christian I'd probably never have been aware of them.
> But at the core of Kota's confusion is his failure to realise that there are QUOTE]
> 
> Sorry Kotim, for getting your name wrong.....not like me to be so careless.


----------



## Muschu (21 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Interesting topic.  
I am not a practising Christian but I did volunteer work as a counsellor, for a year or so, for a Catholic-based drop-in centre for the homeless and people with a myriad of issues. 
At times this was a dangerous environment.  For me this was only occasional. for regular staff it was continous. I remember, on one occasion, "calming" a huge guy in a drug-induced state for over an hour, knowing he had needles and knives on him, while waiting for the police to arrive.  
The paid staff worked for pretty much the minimum wage.  I never once heard religion raised as an offer or as an issue.  They had no monetary ambitions other than keeping food on the family table. Their entire focus was on the difficult task of how best to help others.  Entirely selfless and based on the welfare of others.
There are good people everywhere.


----------



## chops_a_must (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Rafa said:


> Well, technically, an atheist believes there isn't a GOD... (i.e a definite position), means it might as well be a religion.
> 
> not sure about agnostic... in its purest form, NO, it can't be a religion, as an agnostic suspends judgement or is indifferent to the presence or lack there of, of God. But when an agnostic simply rejects the probability of God full stop, then for all intents and purposes... that is the same as an athiest.



If an agnostic rejects the idea of God, they are an atheist full stop. I am 99% sure in myself there is no god, certainly not in the western form anyway. Therefore I am agnostic, because no presented format for god has any merit, apart from 2 ideas, which aren't congruent with western religion - but it is possible.

The word religion isn't the one you are reaching for, it's dogma, or dogmatic that you are.


----------



## Sean K (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Sorry that this has turned into a religion bashing exercise at times, I didn't really intend that. 

Your everyday Christain, or Muslim, or whatever, is just a regular person. 

It was the extremes of religion that I wanted to highlight that just seem to make no sence in the modern world. 

I think commandment 10, and not coverting thy neighbours slaves is a pretty nice example. lol  

In regard to being and Atheist or Agnostic, you need to define what it is you're saying does or does not exist. I believe 'God' with a big G is just a human invention that has developed over the years. When you trace the history of God, he was previously just one of the Elohim, named Yahweh, YHWH, and the supreme God was actually El. Then you can trace a whole bunch of other supreme gods around this era, right back to Marduk, who was probably the first 'supreme' god in the Enuma Elis. But they are gods with a little g. It's only the Abrahamic monotheastic religions that have a God with a capital G, and that is the one we westerners all pray to. He doesn't exist. It's all myth and metaphor to describe the indescribable, and unknowable. 

Fancy praying 5 times a day to a myth. Now that's crazy!! 

Oooop, that's a regular Muslim. 

Sorry, but it is a bit odd from this side of the fence.


----------



## kgee (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

God's that bloke with the big white beard that hangs out in the clouds right?
Mate whats the problem stop giving him a hard time I was having a beer with him the other day, nothing wrong with the bloke


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Muschu said:


> Interesting topic.
> I am not a practising Christian but I did volunteer work as a counsellor, for a year or so, for a Catholic-based drop-in centre for the homeless and people with a myriad of issues.
> At times this was a dangerous environment.  For me this was only occasional. for regular staff it was continous. I remember, on one occasion, "calming" a huge guy in a drug-induced state for over an hour, knowing he had needles and knives on him, while waiting for the police to arrive.
> The paid staff worked for pretty much the minimum wage.  I never once heard religion raised as an offer or as an issue.  They had no monetary ambitions other than keeping food on the family table. Their entire focus was on the difficult task of how best to help others.  Entirely selfless and based on the welfare of others.
> There are good people everywhere.




Very true. Those of us who are critical of religion, myself included, need to acknowledge that there's a good side to religion as well. Nowhere is that good side more evident than in religions doing volunteer work for needy people such as druggies, the homeless, victims of natural disasters, or whatever.


----------



## Sean K (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> Very true. Those of us who are critical of religion, myself included, need to acknowledge that there's a good side to religion as well. Nowhere is that good side more evident than in religions doing volunteer work for needy people such as druggies, the homeless, victims of natural disasters, or whatever.



I agree, that's all great, but is it religion being good, or just people being good?


----------



## nioka (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I agree, that's all great, but is it religion being good, or just people being good?




It is people being good but they are that way through, and because of, their religious upbringing or beliefs.


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I agree, that's all great, but is it religion being good, or just people being good?




That's a good question. There is lots of evidence of virtuous behaviour outside of religion. 2,500 years age Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Te Ching, before Taoism turned itself into a religion. 

Anyone who follows the philosophical Tao would be a "good person". Nuttin' religious about it.IMO


----------



## Sean K (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> It is people being good but they are that way through, and because of, their religious upbringing or beliefs.



 I think we'll talk this one around in circles till the cows come home.


----------



## nioka (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I think we'll talk this one around in circles till the cows come home.



Many years ago my grandmother told me that the best way to get into an argument and lose friends was to talk religion or politics and if they were combined it was dynamite. I'm afraid I never learnt to back off from either. However it never hurts to find out what the other person thinks and to listen to their points of view.


----------



## bassmanpete (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by nioka
> It is people being good but they are that way through, and because of, their religious upbringing or beliefs.
> 
> ...




I think you're right kennas, but I have to say that I totally disagree with nioka's statement above, good people will be good with or without religion.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> I completely disagree that religion is a prerequisite for having a decent moral compass.
> 
> One saying, which I think comes from the Bible, though, is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> 
> ...



Ah yes, the door knockers....Jehovah's Witnesses mostly - the same religion who will let their loved ones die, rather than allow them to have a life-saving blood transfusion.

I once asked them if they believed in the well known bible quotation of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. I told them that my interpretation of this was that we should treat others with the same consideration we expect ourselves.
As you'd expect, they said yes, they very much believed in treating others with consideration.
So I said "OK.....some of the people whose doors you knock on may be night shift workers who sleep during the day. Some of them may be parents who are exhausted after being up all night with a sick child. Some of them may be family people in the middle of a family reunion with loved ones they haven't seen for months or years.
Some of them may be sick, or old and frail, or in the middle of some personal crisis, or grieving over a death in the family. Or whatever. 
And you people, completely uninvited, come knocking on their door, waking them up or disrupting their lives, so that you can give them your completely uninvited views on god and religion and on how they should be running their lives.
Now, do you really think you're showing consideration for other people? Is that the way you'd like to be treated yourself? What if each one of these people whose doors you knock on, were to come uninvited to your house and knock on your door and start asking you what you think of the world, and giving you their views that you never asked for. Would you perhaps consider their behaviour to be inconsiderate?

Generally they don't have very good answers when confronted in that way.


----------



## Sean K (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> Many years ago my grandmother told me that the best way to get into an argument and lose friends was to talk religion or politics and if they were combined it was dynamite. I'm afraid I never learnt to back off from either. However it never hurts to find out what the other person thinks and to listen to their points of view.



Well, my position is that culture made religious laws, not the other way around. So, it's people who are good first. 

If you are very religious, the rules in the book were actually handed down by God, or Angels, and then later 'tweeked' at some big conferences between very important men. So, religion comes first in this case.


----------



## Judd (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> It is people being good but they are that way through, and because of, their religious upbringing or beliefs.




Nope.  You are either born good or born bad.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  Upbringing and religious beliefs may moderate or inhibit poor behavior but they are not the cause of underlying behavior - personality is.

Cheers


----------



## disarray (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

disagree judd, religion can provide a strong moral framework to keep some people on the track where they would otherwise stray, just as religion can get normal people to strap bombs to themselves and blow up a marketplace. it cuts both ways.

/agree with the culture determining religion thing though


----------



## Sean K (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



disarray said:


> agree with the culture determining religion thing though



Yep, another supporting point to this is that if it wasn't the case, why do we have different religions? 

Although, I'm quite sure God was spot on when he said thou shalt not covert they neighbours donkey.


----------



## Mofra (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Judd said:


> Nope.  You are either born good or born bad.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  Upbringing and religious beliefs may moderate or inhibit poor behavior but they are not the cause of underlying behavior - personality is.



Just personality? Circumstance is a very strong inhibitor to behavior. 
Crime statistics for example are very closely intwined with poverty & education levels. Neither are an excuse, but there is a strong statistic slant towards circumstance/upbringing and lawful behavior.

Either way I don't beleive religion is the sole (or even the underlying cause of most) altruistic behavior. Ther are countless examples of agnostic & atheist people who perform selfless acts to help people they do not know.


----------



## Surly (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Judd said:


> Nope.  You are either born good or born bad.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  Upbringing and religious beliefs may moderate or inhibit poor behavior but they are not the cause of underlying behavior - personality is.
> 
> Cheers




Apparently, the concept of original sin as applied to varying degrees in christian belief has us all born evil Judd with a life of prayer and good deed hopefully enough to rectify our evil ways and allow our soul passage into heaven.

Google Pelagius and Original Sin for more insight.

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

"Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (ca. 354 – ca. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which God called very good), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology."

cheers
Surly


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I agree, that's all great, but is it religion being good, or just people being good?





Maybe a bit of both. The point is that some religions put considerable time, effort and expense into helping others. And that should be acknowledged and appreciated, particularly by those of us who are not backward in voicing our criticism of religions.
In spite of my criticism of religion generally, I have to say that I've found most religious people to be basically pretty decent at heart. Sure there are exceptions, including some that are out and out rotten. But generally, I find religious people to be OK.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Surly said:


> Apparently, the concept of original sin as applied to varying degrees in christian belief has us all born evil Judd with a life of prayer and good deed hopefully enough to rectify our evil ways and allow our soul passage into heaven.
> 
> Surly




That's one of the things about Christianity that really gets up my nose.......it constantly tries to paint me as a sinner who should forever be praying for forgiveness and redemption.
Sounds like a lot of nonsense to someone like me who has always conducted his life with honesty and integrity. Not that I'm faultless....nobody is....but I've never been a sinner in the true sense of the word, and I never will be.

On a lighter note......A few weeks ago I saw written on the notice board of a church....'THIS CHURCH IS NOT FULL OF HYPOCRITES - WE ALWAYS HAVE ROOM FOR A FEW MORE'.
Good to see that someone in that particular congregation has a sense of humour!


----------



## nioka (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> I think you're right kennas, but I have to say that I totally disagree with nioka's statement above, good people will be good with or without religion.



 Now you are quoting me out of context. I'm not suggesting that you have to be religious to be a good person. The discussion at that time was about religious organisations and their voluntary work. Good people will be good with or without religion but it is a religious upbringing that will encourage there to be more good people and help those that may be "bad" to become better people.
 A good example was the recent pope's visit. The young had a ball without sex, drugs and rock and roll. Had it been a rock fest with 400,000 young people together I'm sure there would have been a lot more young lives needing repair at the end of the session.


----------



## Julia (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> It is people being good but they are that way through, and because of, their religious upbringing or beliefs.



Disagree, Nioka.  I don't claim to be 'good' but for most of my adult life, even when working full time, I've volunteered in various capacities helping people with whom I have no connection in any personal sense.   I don't have religious beliefs, nor was I brought up in a religious environment (other than a few ghastly visits to Sunday School as a kid).   

And of all the fellow volunteers I know, none of them is motivated by any religious inspiration, but rather a belief that any community is about as good as the contributions of its members.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> Now you are quoting me out of context. I'm not suggesting that you have to be religious to be a good person. The discussion at that time was about religious organisations and their voluntary work. Good people will be good with or without religion but it is a religious upbringing that will encourage there to be more good people and help those that may be "bad" to become better people.
> A good example was the recent pope's visit. The young had a ball without sex, drugs and rock and roll. Had it been a rock fest with 400,000 young people together I'm sure there would have been a lot more young lives needing repair at the end of the session.




Well, I'm not so sure there was no sex involved among the young people at that festival. I've known a few Catholic girls who were hot little numbers. And very few young blokes, Catholic or otherwise, will turn down the opportunity if it arises.
Some of them were giving the booze a fair sort of a nudge. 
And it wouldn't surprise me if a joint or two was smoked, either.

But basically I agree with what Nioka is saying.....their general behaviour was pretty darn good, certainly far better than you'd see at a rock concert or a schoolies celebration or most other events involving young people.


----------



## nioka (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> Disagree, Nioka.  I don't claim to be 'good' but for most of my adult life, even when working full time, I've volunteered in various capacities helping people with whom I have no connection in any personal sense.   I don't have religious beliefs, nor was I brought up in a religious environment (other than a few ghastly visits to Sunday School as a kid).
> 
> And of all the fellow volunteers I know, none of them is motivated by any religious inspiration, but rather a belief that any community is about as good as the contributions of its members.




 If you check all the discussion you will see that I agree with you.  You don't have to be religious to be good . I agree (for about the fouth time). I am stating facts in relation to suggestions that religious people only help others to try and convert them, that religious people are crazy, that religious people are fanatics etc, etc. 
Actually I am not a very religious person myself. My visits to church are usually for a funeral or a wedding. However I am open minded. I have had some unique experiences that leave me wondering. One I described on another thread which I cant find at the moment but it defies logical explanation.
 Being brought up in a presbyterian family I was certainly taught the difference between right and wrong and I thank my parents for that. I have a son in law who is a devout catholic. He would be an inspiration to most as a good person yet he has never pushed his religion on myself or my daughter except for asking that our grand daughters attended the catholic church.


----------



## Muschu (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I think we'll talk this one around in circles till the cows come home.




Yep.  One post and I'm outa here. 

Now, who started this thread?


----------



## Julia (22 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

One aspect of this discussion I feel a bit uncomfortable about is the sense of intellectual superiority implicit in the posts from some of the confirmed atheists.  There is a derision and denigration towards those who do have religious beliefs which would get well and truly shouted down were it to be flowing in the other direction.  There are plenty of highly intelligent and well educated people who have religious beliefs.  

I think what I'm feeling here is that in our mostly secular society it probably takes quite a bit of courage to openly state religious affiliations, especially on a thread like this.  Reminds me rather of the way we tend to behave towards other minority groups, e.g. homosexuals, that we can't simply let people be whatever they want to be.

Just a proviso here:   the sentiments expressed above in no way should suggest acceptance of the hypocrisy displayed by the hierarchy of most of the churches.  Hmm, and maybe there also needs to be a sub-clause for fundamentalist Christian politicians.


----------



## bassmanpete (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

If you think there have been some harsh words said in this thread, check out Catherine Deveney in The Age today:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/re...o-believe-in-one-fewer-god-20080722-3jas.html


----------



## Sean K (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> If you think there have been some harsh words said in this thread, check out Catherine Deveney in The Age today:
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/re...o-believe-in-one-fewer-god-20080722-3jas.html



She sums my opinion up pretty well.


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I watched a program once where they had done a study of people attitudes on various topics.

Put a group of people in a room and ask for their opinions on a topic

Invariably there would be a spectrum of views

Leave them alone for a few hours and let them discuss it

Without fail, the group would become very polarized and adversarial, dividing into two sub-groups taking opposite and extreme views to each other.

It showed that when there is debate on a topic, folks will separate themselves into extreme groups.

So on the topic of religion, a much debated topic, most people will go to extremes - atheism or religious dogma - with very few people maintaining moderate or "in between" views.

But the only truly intellectual position in my humble opinion is agnosticism as this leaves the door open for any discovery/revelation, and awaits conclusive proof one way or the other.

It's right to challenge religion on the basis of logic, but that really only serves to dis the practice, it doesn't disprove some.... err whatever people want to call it. 

From where I stand, it's nice to be somewhere in the middle. I see faults of logic on both sides (and conveniently ignore my own ). I personally find it totally cool to be open to anything and everything and also to be be able to toss anything I like, picking up bits of useful philosophy along the way.

That article had a bit toooo much feeling attached to it IMO. The woman has emotional baggage (and I fully accept it was handed to her by the church) that was visible between the otherwise excellent logic, ergo, not completely balanced.

Just my 2c


----------



## bassmanpete (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

WayneL, I think you'll find that most atheists' thinking goes along the lines of "There's no evidence for a god, therefore I choose to believe there isn't one. Show me some hard evidence and I could well change my mind."

Hard evidence does NOT include what appears to be the face of Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich or other such cases of pareidolia.


----------



## disarray (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

don't lump athiests in with the pantheists.



> At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred.
> 
> Scientific or Natural Pantheism -  Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.


----------



## nioka (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nioka said:


> . However I am open minded. I have had some unique experiences that leave me wondering. One I described on another thread which I cant find at the moment but it defies logical explanation.




Found it. Check out post No 114 in the thread "Recent Events Beyond Earth"

It may not be proof but it must make even a sceptic think twice. (and the story is 100% true).

( maybe the mods could add the post I refer to here)


----------



## refined silver (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> WayneL, I think you'll find that most atheists' thinking goes along the lines of "There's no evidence for a god, therefore I choose to believe there isn't one. Show me some hard evidence and I could well change my mind."
> 
> Hard evidence does NOT include what appears to be the face of Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich or other such cases of pareidolia.




You're right, toasted cheese sangas are not good enough evidence. 

However, the Bible says that Creation itself is enough evidence for us to know there is a Creator. Evidence within us and without, is enough to leave us guilty should we neglect or supress it.


----------



## nioka (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> WayneL, I think you'll find that most atheists' thinking goes along the lines of "There's no evidence for a god, therefore I choose to believe there isn't one. Show me some hard evidence and I could well change my mind."
> 
> Hard evidence does NOT include what appears to be the face of Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich or other such cases of pareidolia.




Check my post above. More than an image on a sandwich.I don't claim it as hard evedence but ?????


----------



## spooly74 (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> So on the topic of religion, a much debated topic, most people will go to extremes - atheism or religious dogma - with very few people maintaining moderate or "in between" views.
> 
> But the only truly intellectual position in my humble opinion is agnosticism as this leaves the door open for any discovery/revelation, and awaits conclusive proof one way or the other.
> 
> ...




Agnostiticism is supposed to be the middle ground between atheism and thiesm although really, you either believe something or you don`t.

Theism and atheism refer to belief and lack of respectively, while gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge and lack of.
If you're agnostic, you need to clarify what you are agnostic _about_. 

Either you`re an agnostic athiest or an agnostic theist ..... or fundamental to the extreme one way or another!


----------



## JellySausage (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> One aspect of this discussion I feel a bit uncomfortable about is the sense of intellectual superiority implicit in the posts from some of the confirmed atheists.  There is a derision and denigration towards those who do have religious beliefs which would get well and truly shouted down were it to be flowing in the other direction.  There are plenty of highly intelligent and well educated people who have religious beliefs.




While it's true that there are plenty of intelligent, educated people who have religious beliefs, it's also true that _usually_ the more educated or intelligent you are - the more likely you are to abandon religion.

Your impression of a sense of atheistic intellectual superiority I think comes from the fact that most atheists you're exposed to are the vocal ones.  They've gone through the PRATT's presented by religious people and had to put up with so much ignorance about basic concepts like evolution that it's hard not to feel like you're debating an inferior in some ways.



Julia said:


> I think what I'm feeling here is that in our mostly secular society it probably takes quite a bit of courage to openly state religious affiliations, especially on a thread like this.




Australia is not "mostly secular".   The latest census figures I can get my hands on (2006) state that well over 60% of Australians identify as Christians, not to mention any other religion.  Maybe you just walk in more educated circles where the theists taper off?


----------



## Julia (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> But the only truly intellectual position in my humble opinion is agnosticism as this leaves the door open for any discovery/revelation, and awaits conclusive proof one way or the other.



Agree.   I won't be holding my breath waiting for the proof, though.




> That article had a bit toooo much feeling attached to it IMO. The woman has emotional baggage (and I fully accept it was handed to her by the church) that was visible between the otherwise excellent logic, ergo, not completely balanced.




Again, agree.   I just don't personally see any need to poke, prod or otherwise deride anyone's belief system as long as it doesn't affect me or hurt or abuse children.   

The bit I did like in Ms Deveny's article was:



> I don't care what people believe in, but I do care that religion impacts on political discourse, public policy and that it stunts the ability of people to think for themselves and question. And that it kills people and causes suffering. But most of all I care that the invisible electric fences that are wired in the minds of children brainwashed by religion are difficult to remove. And impossible if you don't even know they're there.




Hence my earlier expressed loathing of the Jehovah's Witness devotees carting little kids around with them in their tedious door to door proseltyzing.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



JellySausage said:


> While it's true that there are plenty of intelligent, educated people who have religious beliefs, it's also true that _usually_ the more educated or intelligent you are - the more likely you are to abandon religion.
> 
> Your impression of a sense of atheistic intellectual superiority I think comes from the fact that most atheists you're exposed to are the vocal ones.  They've gone through the PRATT's presented by religious people and had to put up with so much ignorance about basic concepts like evolution that it's hard not to feel like you're debating an inferior in some ways.



OK, good reasoning.  I just don't much like the complete dismissal of every person who nurtures a belief in some sort of God as a total fool.







> Australia is not "mostly secular".   The latest census figures I can get my hands on (2006) state that well over 60% of Australians identify as Christians, not to mention any other religion.  Maybe you just walk in more educated circles where the theists taper off?




I doubt that I walk in especially educated circles.

I accept your quoted statistic above, though it does somewhat surprise me.
Of those, though, I'd be surprised if many of them were actually *practising* Christians.   e.g. I know that both my parents would have ticked the box for "Christian" in any Census papers, but neither were remotely interested in participating in any religious activities.


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bassmanpete said:


> WayneL, I think you'll find that most atheists' thinking goes along the lines of "There's no evidence for a god, therefore I *choose to believe* there isn't one. Show me some hard evidence and I could well change my mind."
> 
> Hard evidence does NOT include what appears to be the face of Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich or other such cases of pareidolia.



But there's those words - "choose to believe"

A true agnostic says I just don't know, otherwise you're an atheist.


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



spooly74 said:


> Agnostiticism is supposed to be the middle ground between atheism and thiesm although really, you either believe something or you don`t.




Wrong. 
If a person has no proof that God does or does not exist, then it's quite reasonable for that person to say "Maybe God exists and maybe he doesn't....I don't have an opinion either way...I neither believe nor disbelieve it".


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I was thinking during physical exercise that air was indeed a wonderful thing.I looked at the plants and thought how convenient it was for them to create oxygen from carbon dioxide in a plants life cycle.

I thought of the sun and how the light and heat from it is easily adapted to.I thought of the gravitational forces on my body and it was just right.

Because I thought, so it was.



.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Wysiwyg said:


> Because I thought, so it was.
> 
> 
> 
> .



I don't doubt that your thought processes are magnificent, Wysiwyg, but your post implies that your very thinking caused the processes you describe to occur.   Probably not quite what you intended?


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> I don't doubt that your thought processes are magnificent, Wysiwyg, but your post implies that your very thinking caused the processes you describe to occur.   Probably not quite what you intended?




 Hi Julia, I attended a School of Philosophy course late last century and one of the questions (one of those zen thingys) was 

What sound does a boulder falling make in a canyon with no person around?

I told Miss that you would have to place a recording device in the canyon to capture the sound. 

"No recording device" she said."What would it sound like?"


.


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Wysiwyg said:


> Hi Julia, I attended a School of Philosophy course late last century and one of the questions (one of those zen thingys) was
> 
> What sound does a boulder falling make in a canyon with no person around?
> 
> ...




It would make the same sound that it would if someone did hear it.

The sound is constant, only the capture of the sound in someone's ear differs.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Jules, I have moved the comma to a different position.



> Because I thought so, it was.





WayneL ... i thought that way too.


----------



## spooly74 (23 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> Wrong.
> If a person has no proof that God does or does not exist, then it's quite reasonable for that person to say "Maybe God exists and maybe he doesn't....I don't have an opinion either way...I neither believe nor disbelieve it".



You did not include all of my post where i explained my thoughts.
Either god exists or god does not exist.
Not believing in god is not the same as believing the opposite.


----------



## JellySausage (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Wysiwyg said:


> Jules, I have moved the comma to a different position.
> 
> WayneL ... i thought that way too.




I guess you're saying that it wouldn't sound like anything if there was no one there to interpret it. 

You make it analogous with how wonderful you perceive the world to be.

Though, I'm unsure how this relates to the thread.  Care to elaborate for those of us who aren't quite so zen?


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Re Morals:

I came across this today reading stories of Lao Tzu.



> ...Confucius asked of Lao Tzu, "What do you say about morality? What do you say about how to cultivate good character?" -- because he was a moralist and he thought that if you cultivate a good character that is the highest attainment.
> 
> Lao Tzu laughed loudly, and said, "If you are immoral, only then the question of morality arises. And if you don't have any character, only then you think about character. A man of character is absolutely oblivious of the fact that anything like character exists. A man of morality does not know what the word `moral' means. So don't be foolish! And don't try to cultivate. Just be natural."


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

...and this FWIW



> LAO TZU says: The moment you start thinking of order, disorder arises. The moment you think of God, the devil is already present there -- because thinking can only be of the opposites; thinking can be only of the duality. Thinking has a deep dichotomy in it, thinking is dysfunctional, it is a split phenomenon. That's why there is so much insistence on attaining to a non-thinking state -- because only then will you be one. Otherwise you will remain two, divided, split, dysfunctional.
> 
> In the West psychological dysfunction has become by and by more and more common, because all the Western religions deep down are duplicitous; they divide. They say God is good. Then where to put all the evil? God is simply good and he cannot be bad, and there is much that is bad in life -- where to put that badness? So a devil is created. The moment you create a god, immediately you create a devil. *I must tell you -- Lao Tzu never talks about God, never. Not even a single time does he use the word "god," because once you use the word "god" the devil immediately enters through the same door.* Open the door -- they both come in together. Thinking is always in opposites.


----------



## Sean K (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> ...and this FWIW



Wu Wei.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



JellySausage said:


> I guess you're saying that it wouldn't sound like anything if there was no one there to interpret it.
> 
> You make it analogous with how wonderful you perceive the world to be.
> 
> Though, I'm unsure how this relates to the thread.  Care to elaborate for those of us who aren't quite so zen?





No


----------



## bunyip (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

_
Quote:
...Confucius asked of Lao Tzu, "What do you say about morality? What do you say about how to cultivate good character?" -- because he was a moralist and he thought that if you cultivate a good character that is the highest attainment.

Lao Tzu laughed loudly, and said, "If you are immoral, only then the question of morality arises. And if you don't have any character, only then you think about character. A man of character is absolutely oblivious of the fact that anything like character exists. A man of morality does not know what the word `moral' means. So don't be foolish! And don't try to cultivate. Just be natural."_

*Sounds like a lot on nonsense to me, Wayne.

My wife and I put considerable effort into raising our four children to be people of character, integrity, and strong morals.
Since we saw fit to talk about the subject frequently with our kids, I guess that means  (according to Lao Tzu at least) that neither of us has any character or morals.

Almost every day I see examples of people who clearly are devoid of character and morals. It disappoints me, and I wish they could have had the upbringing that I had, or that my kids had, so they could have learned about character and morality and lived their lives accordingly. 
But here again, my very act of thinking about character and morals betrays me, according to Lao Tzu, as someone who is devoid of both qualities. 

I'm sure there was much wisdom in the teachings of Lao Tzu. But in regard to morals and character, it appears that the man had a lot to learn.*


----------



## bunyip (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

There's been plenty of debate/discussion on this thread about the existence/non-existence of God....some are adamant that he exists, while others are convinced he's a myth.
If you're from the camp that believes in God, what do you think of him?
Below are just some of the qualities attributed to God........

* He's loving, caring and compassionate.
* He makes a reliable friend.
* His wisdom is unsurpassed.
* He's an absolute rock for us in troubled times....if we take our troubles to God he'll help us cope.
* He'll keep us safe...nothing can hurt us while we walk with God.
* He'll provide us with whatever we need....ask and we will receive.
* He'll never forsake us.
  etc etc etc

So what are the thoughts of the forum......how do you think God shapes up in these areas?


----------



## Judd (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Hmmm, probably a pretty boring dude.  S/he (what are the religious so certain that God is a he or indeed has any gender) is omnipotent right?  So that means no point telling any jokes cause s/he/indeterminate would already know the answer.

And me baptized as a relapsed Roman Catholic.  Tch, tch.


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> _
> Sounds like a lot on nonsense to me, Wayne.
> 
> My wife and I put considerable effort into raising our four children to be people of character, integrity, and strong morals.
> ...



_
Well, Confucius didn't like what he heard either, according to the story, and I'll admit in isolation and without the context of the rest of Lao Tzu's teachings, it may seem nonsense. 

But if you look at the next post, the writer gives some clues as to what this might mean and you might see you are looking at it in slightly the wrong way.

If you go ahead and define good morals, you immediately create bad morals. If you define good character, you create bad character. This is the dichotomy of western thinking. Lao Tzu held the view that... well let's let the same writer give a run down.




			Lao Tzu is not mathematical at all, yet he is very, very logical in his madness. He has a mad logic! When we penetrate into his sayings you will come to feel it; it is not so obvious and apparent. He has a logic of his own: the logic of absurdity, the logic of paradox, the logic of a madman. He hits hard.

To understand Lao Tzu's logic you will have to create eyes. It is very subtle, it is not the ordinary logic of the logicians -- it is the logic of a hidden life, a very subtle life. Whatsoever he says is on the surface absurd; deep down there lives a very great consistency. One has to penetrate it; one has to change his own mind to understand Lao Tzu.

When you try to understand Lao Tzu he zigzags. Sometimes you see him going towards the east and sometimes towards the west, because he says east is west and west is east, they are together, they are one. He believes in the unity of the opposites. And that is how life is.

So Lao Tzu is just a spokesman of life. If life is absurd, Lao Tzu is absurd; if life has an absurd logic to it, Lao Tzu has the same logic to it. Lao Tzu simply reflects life. He doesn't add anything to it, he doesn't choose out of it; he simply accepts whatsoever it is.
		
Click to expand...


When you first read Lao Tzu, with typical logical western thinking, it does indeed seem nonsense, but there is an alluring truth in all he wrote that keeps  me trying to nut it out. 

Whenever I go off the rails, get disappointed, angry with people, depressed... I come back to Lao Tzu; he brings me back to the centre in a way no other Guru can.

It is not a religious thing, it is a philosophical thing.

But back to morals and character: What are good morals and character.

It was once considered that homosexuality was completely immoral, now it is considered completely natural by most. It was once considered that a lady showing here knee was immoral, now we lucky guys get to see much more. The ancient Greeks considered the womans back to be erotic and to show it in public was immoral, the breasts were not considered something to necessarily be covered.

It was once considered good character to fight to the death if one's honour is insulted. This is now considered murder. It was once considered bad character to get drunk, now it is almost a badge of honour. It was once considered good character to face your enemy in lines with brightly coloured tunics, playing bagpipes and keeping a stiff upper lip; this is now considered lunacy.

Morals and character have very shifting goalposts and and are something that are inflicted upon us by the society we live in; it is this absurdity that Lao Tzu observes and comments on. 

To me it makes all the sense in the world. But Lao Tzu would probably laugh loudly at me too. :_


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bunyip said:


> There's been plenty of debate/discussion on this thread about the existence/non-existence of God....some are adamant that he exists, while others are convinced he's a myth.
> If you're from the camp that believes in God, what do you think of him?
> Below are just some of the qualities attributed to God........
> 
> ...



He's also:

Racist
Jealous
Spiteful
Vengeful
Genocidal
Murderous
Sexist
Vindictive

The list goes on.

Read the Old Testament, it's quite shocking actually. 

And before any Christain says, this is not Christianity, this is not about Christ, this is about God, and the God of the Old Testament is YOUR God.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Gee Kennas, now you`re talking about the thoughts and actions of human beings.


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Wysiwyg said:


> Gee Kennas, now you`re talking about the thoughts and actions of human beings.



LOL. Well, that's how you would describe the God in the Old Testament. 

I'm glad we don't have that God hanging about in Australia and we have the modern Christian version. He's a much nicer chap.


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> LOL. Well, that's how you would describe the God in the Old Testament.
> 
> I'm glad we don't have that God hanging about in Australia and we have the modern Christian version. He's a much nicer chap.




Not if he's anything like George Pell.


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> Not if he's anything like George Pell.



Yep, just a generalisation. There's a lot more loving with the Christian God. Or, is it Christ who does the loving, and God is still evil. 

I'd obviously prefer we were just loving and caring without needing Christ as a motivation to do it. But maybe we all need idols, or examples to model our lives on? Nowadays it's rock stars and movie stars, or footballers. 

We all need models of some sort....


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Yep, just a generalisation. There's a lot more loving with the Christian God. Or, is it Christ who does the loving, and God is still evil.
> 
> I'd obviously prefer we were just loving and caring without needing Christ as a motivation to do it. But maybe we all need idols, or examples to model our lives on? Nowadays it's rock stars and movie stars, or footballers.
> 
> We all need models of some sort....




Yes, it's a shame it's not Ma & Pa though...

...or maybe not, as the case may be.


----------



## Sean K (27 July 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> Yes, it's a shame it's not Ma & Pa though...
> 
> ...or maybe not, as the case may be.



Yes, and yes. Also, teachers are in a pretty good position to provide some guidance. Very important people it would seem. That's why they are paid so well, I suppose. 


I've noticed in the ET thread that people have been commenting on God and whether we were made in his image, or whatever.

The second oldest recorded creation myth (but most complete) is actually in the Enuma Elis. (The oldest is the Sumerian creation myth, Eridu Genesis, in about the 18th c BC, but it has substancial holes in it).

Anyway, this is how humans were made according to the Enuma Elis, written sometime between the 14th and 12th c BC:



> When Marduk heard the word of the gods,
> His heart prompted him and he devised a cunning plan.
> He opened his mouth and unto Ea he spake
> That which he had conceived in his heart he imparted unto him:
> ...




You will find the Enuma Elis full of fire and brimstone and death and destruction, much like the Old Testament. Some scholars say the Enuma Elis is actually the basis for much of Roman and Greek mythology which itself informed the Cults of Abraham.


Wayne, It's also interesting that your four horses are mentioned in here. Perhaps the basis, for the four horseman of the apacolypse? 



> He mounted the chariot, the storm unequaled for terror,
> He harnessed and yoked unto it four horses,
> Destructive, ferocious, overwhelming, and swift of pace;
> ... were their teeth, they were flecked with foam;
> ...






Interesting read the Enuma Elis. 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 August 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Just read this Peter Ustinov quote :-
Probably strictly belongs on a thread "is religion a prerequisite for morality? or rather are they even really vaguely related  "



> Draft #1 “There are undeniably fine upright and compassionate Christians”






> Or rather
> 
> Draft #2 “There are undeniably fine upright and compassionate people whose Christianity is not allowed to stand in the way of a free expression of those qualities”






> But even that is a lopsided way of looking at the question …
> 
> Draft #3 “There are simply those people who never allow their religion to stand in the way of their human qualities”






> That’s better, now we’re getting somewhere - Try again one final time
> 
> Draft #4 “There are those with a high moral purpose whose religion is merely incidental to their attitude;  *Immediately religion becomes a motivating force, instead of a mere adjunct to instincts all men are born with, it occupies too great a place in the psyche for a balanced outlook”. *


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Re Religion <> Morality:

* Surely the care of disabled members of society would be regarded as a "moral" pursuit.

* Some time ago, paleontologists discovered the skeleton of a disabled Neanderthal which had survived into adulthood. It was determined that there was no way that this being could have survived without the support and care of it's family/community. Ergo, it was cared for despite the fact it could not participate in gathering/hunting. (*don't have a link)

* It is doubtful that there would have been a developed religious/moral teaching at the time. Ergo, Neanderthals behaved morally sans religion.

Other conclusions at your discretion.


----------



## Sean K (27 August 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Does this stuff happen at non Catholic schools?

And, is it religion that causes these people to act in such an immoralistic way, or is it just human nature.

Surely, the forcing of 'normal' humans into celebacy and then surrounding them with nubile young minxes, no matter what the gender, is going to turn them troppy. 


*Police investigate paedophile ring at St Stanislaus*
By Gemma Jones
August 26, 2008 12:19am

Claims up to 40 students abused at St Stanislaus 
Police charge priest with 33 counts 
A man's fight for justice 

POLICE are investigating claims that up to 40 boys were sexually abused over a seven-year period by a paedophile ring comprising priests and teachers at an exclusive private school in Bathurst, in central west NSW. 

The walls of St Stanislaus college have housed budding Wallabies players and the bravest of war correspondents but an unimaginable secret has been stored for more than 20 years.

A former priest at the school has been charged with 33 counts, a former teacher has already been convicted of several offences and two other teachers are under investigation.


----------



## Sean K (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Flabbergasted.

What hope for the human race when this is allowed to continue.




*Amnesty: Rape girl, 13, killed for adultery *

Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, 13, was stoned to death October 27.

Amnesty says 1,000 spectators watched the punishment, report adds

Rights groups says she was accused of adultery after claiming she was raped


MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. 

The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.


----------



## Glen48 (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Until some one can prove beyond doubt that one God existed some where it should be the Alleged JC or Allah.
Why is some nutter in standing on the corner preaching is carted away yet some m one is allowed to stand up in a church and say the same thing?
Religion is ok just like people who believe a game of Bowls or Bingo is good BUT it can't be allowed to run our lives.


----------



## Naked shorts (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

This website is a must read to see how some contrarian ideas can go wrong.
They have a section dedicated to religion and it blows my mind.
http://www.whatstheharm.net/


Another interesting thing is the definition of delusion.

"A fixed belief that has no basis in reality, and is not affected by rational argument or evidence to the contrary."
www.copingwithmentalillness.com/cope/resources/glossary.aspx

"A fixed, false belief that is resistant to reason or factual disproof."
www.enotes.com/nursing-encyclopedia/schizophrenia

I got these definitions from typing "define: delusion" (without quotation marks) into Google.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Naked shorts said:


> This website is a must read to see how some contrarian ideas can go wrong.
> They have a section dedicated to religion and it blows my mind.
> http://www.whatstheharm.net/
> 
> ...




I have a mate in Perth who is a trickcyclist and emailed him this.

He said that it is partially true, however, if the belief is culturally appropriate it is not a delusion.

So I guess that religion is not a delusion, its a belief.

gg


----------



## IFocus (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Flabbergasted.
> 
> What hope for the human race when this is allowed to continue.
> 
> ...




If true I am afraid Kennas it just show the evil that exists within the hearts of some men like Hitler and company not sure you can blame religion.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have a mate in Perth who is a trickcyclist and emailed him this.
> 
> He said that it is partially true, however, if the belief is culturally appropriate it is not a delusion.
> 
> ...



Nope. It just becomes a grand delusion. How that is taken up into a belief system is irrelevant, it's whether it is a false or true belief that counts. But you can see through people like Berkeley what can be claimed in a subsequently "logical" and "rational" way when grand delusions are taken or assumed to be true.

What I want to know is this:

How come we lock up agnostic or atheist schizophrenics, when the same people who are religious are lauded as prophets and "provide messages from god", in the form of revelation?

Because there seem to be an awful lot of horrendously and dangerously insane people out there that would actually be locked up if they weren't religious...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> Nope. It just becomes a grand delusion. How that is taken up into a belief system is irrelevant, it's whether it is a false or true belief that counts. But you can see through people like Berkeley what can be claimed in a subsequently "logical" and "rational" way when grand delusions are taken or assumed to be true.
> 
> What I want to know is this:
> 
> ...




Agree mate.

However Rudd, Bush, Abbot, Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, Amrozi (until today)
 Osama, Sarkozy and one hundred other leaders all trot off to worship weekly.

So its a matter of " in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"  or 

Go with the flo.

It has gone crazy.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

There has been a delay with the shooting of the Bombers while the round up 207 Virgins.


----------



## IFocus (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> Nope. It just becomes a grand delusion. How that is taken up into a belief system is irrelevant, it's whether it is a false or true belief that counts. But you can see through people like Berkeley what can be claimed in a subsequently "logical" and "rational" way when grand delusions are taken or assumed to be true.
> 
> What I want to know is this:
> 
> ...





Good post Chops so true


----------



## chops_a_must (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree mate.
> 
> However Rudd, Bush, Abbot, Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, Amrozi (until today)
> Osama, Sarkozy and one hundred other leaders all trot off to worship weekly.
> ...



You and I are both aware that the majority of people are just plain idiots.

Therefore, to appeal to the majority of these idiots, leaders have to appear on certain levels on par. That means taking on, or feigning beliefs, no matter how moronic.

I mean... could you imagine a presidential candidate going through the bible belt telling voters that light bends and therefore their "god" is a complete croc of ****, as horizoning disallows any possible omniscience? It would be a laugh though...

But then again, if we were drawing the meat curtains Sarkozy is on a daily basis, we may be willing to re-think our positions on some concepts...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> You and I are both aware that the majority of people are just plain idiots.
> 
> Therefore, to appeal to the majority of these idiots, leaders have to appear on certain levels on par. That means taking on, or feigning beliefs, no matter how moronic.
> 
> ...




Regret not mate.

Je ne regrette rien

I've known lasses like Carla and they apportion.

Look at poor ole Bill Clinton, master of the world for 8 years and his one and only one b**w job , and its all over the Daily Telegraph.

Religion is a means to an earthly end mate.

gg


----------



## jonojpsg (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> You and I are both aware that the majority of people are just plain idiots.
> 
> Therefore, to appeal to the majority of these idiots, leaders have to appear on certain levels on par. That means taking on, or feigning beliefs, no matter how moronic.
> 
> ...




How does this possibly make God a crock of ****???  Come on now, God made light so I think horizoning is a bit below Him


----------



## chops_a_must (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



jonojpsg said:


> How does this possibly make God a crock of ****???  Come on now, God made light so I think horizoning is a bit below Him




Lol...

Yeah, just like the rock he created he couldn't lift. That's a bit beneath him too.

And ahh... yeah... western religion relies on the omniscience of "god". Otherwise, as a great man said, "why call him God?"


And also, no western religion is actually logically possible. There are only two arguments that are logically valid for God's existence IMO, and they have nothing to do with christianity.


----------



## mayk (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> And also, no western religion is actually logically possible. There are only two arguments that are logically valid for God's existence IMO, and they have nothing to do with christianity.




Care to share?


----------



## nick2fish (2 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I believe that religion is more an insight into the makeup of the human psychology than the makeup of the universe.
You have my interest as well Chops.



chops_a_must said:


> And also, no western religion is actually logically possible. There are only two arguments that are logically valid for God's existence IMO, and they have nothing to do with christianity.


----------



## Naked shorts (3 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



nick2fish said:


> I believe that religion is more an insight into the makeup of the human psychology than the makeup of the universe.




I agree nick, and I would like to note, that as a catholic turned agnostic, its a sobering thought thinking that there is no afterlife. It has helped me live for today, but there is just a sense of comfort in the fact that with religion, I can live forever and see all my old dead friends again.

I have noticed over the years, anything that we didnt know, it was assumed 'god did it'. I.e. People didnt know how rainbows were made 2000 years ago, so they just assume "god made them". Now we do know how rainbows are made (light passing through water particles and slowing down, splitting up the different wave lenghts of light, the light from our sun produces), and now god cant be said to be the one who made it happen.

I feel as we learn more about the universe, the religiuos peolpe will eventually not be able to say "god did it", because we will have a logical explanation for everything........i dont know if the beginning of the universe can ever be explained, to my knowledge, it is impossible to find out what is going on before time and space dont exist, which is why i am agnostic. 

All this is reminding me of "2001: a space oddesy", anyone else think the monolith represented god?


----------



## Sean K (3 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



IFocus said:


> If true I am afraid Kennas it just show the evil that exists within the hearts of some men like Hitler and company not sure you can blame religion.



I'm not even sure if it's evil that causes these things. 

Initially, these sorts of laws were for a reason, and suitable for the day perhaps. They controlled the population and assisted in the survival of the species in what must have been pretty dire times. However, they developed into dogmatic religious law, that does not change over time, even though the world and human societies have changed dramatically. 

So, while initally not religions doing, now they are.  

Just like the Catholic churches stance on homosexuality, contraception, or female priests. At some time, these things were relevant. Now, not so. 

Sharia Law is the ultimate time freezing weapon to keep Muslims trapped in the 6th Century. Not really relevant to the 21st...

Stoned to death for being raped? Her father and brothers probably partook in the excitement...


----------



## Happy (3 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Sharia Law is the ultimate time freezing weapon to keep Muslims trapped in the 6th Century. Not really relevant to the 21st...
> 
> Stoned to death for being raped? Her father and brothers probably partook in the excitement...





I am concerned for future of liberal democracy in Australia if these issues are not taken into account in screening immigrants and refugees.

It might not be good news for some of them, but shouldn’t we be more concerned for safe and peaceful life in Australia first?


----------



## Glen48 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

The Bombers Mother proclaims what her Sons did was a good thing because they killed non believers who don't pray, so much for a Mothers love and she has no remose.
That's religion for you


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Enough Muslim bashing, time to turn our attention to the Catholics.



A few things I don't get with this cult. 

They are: 

No females in the clergy
No condoms etc
No abortion, ever
Babies being dunked when they're young
Eating crackers out of the hand of a man in a dress on Sunday mornings
No stem cell research


Now, President Elect Obama is in the bad books and being threatened by a Catholic Priest from Mexico about allowing medical research.

Why should it be prevented? Because it 'serves no purpose' and is 'good for nothing'. 

Probably like they objected to analysing DNA.




*Vatican warns Barack Obama over stem cell research*
Richard Owen in Rome | November 12, 2008 

THE Vatican has fired a warning shot over the bow of Barack Obama in response to the President-elect's intention to lift the US ban on embryonic stem cell research.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan of Mexico, who acts as the Vatican health minister, said that stem cells taken from human embryos and involving the destruction of the embryos "serve no purpose". 

Asked whether the Vatican was concerned about reports that Mr Obama might reverse the Bush Administration's ban, the cardinal said that embryonic stem cell research had not resulted in any significant health cure so far and was "good for nothing".


----------



## gav (12 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Enough Muslim bashing, time to turn our attention to the Catholics.
> 
> 
> *
> ...




Kennas, what makes you believe Catholicism is a "cult" and not a religion? 

Also, I dont see anything wrong with the rituals of baptising a baby or receiving the body of Christ?  If you believe these rituals are silly is a separate issue, they are harmless traditions IMO...


----------



## spooly74 (12 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



gav said:


> Kennas, what makes you believe Catholicism is a "cult" and not a religion?
> 
> ...




True  ... to take a quote from Frank Zappa:

"The only difference between a religion and a cult is real estate"


----------



## Sean K (13 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Every sect of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a Cult of Abraham. In fact, the three main religions are Cults of the Yahwehists, who was the God of Abraham. Before that Yahweh was El the chief God of Ugarit a town in present day Syria, who may have been based on Marduk, who was the chief God of Babylon. So, we are all in fact, just a cult of ancient Mesopotamian beliefs.


----------



## refined silver (13 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Kennas mate, you're spinning !@#$. 

You've read one loopy, left-wing, liberal chick, a disgruntled ex-believer, and that's your story, you like it and you're sticking to it.

If you ever want a slightly more factual understanding about the Ancient world and the development of religions, try any of the following scholarly journals for a start.

- Biblical Archaeology Review
- Archaeology Odyssey
- Bible and Spade
- Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
- Biblical Archaeologist


----------



## Naked shorts (13 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> No females in the clergy
> No condoms etc
> No abortion, ever
> Babies being dunked when they're young
> ...




You missed out:
The constant feeling of someone else in your head
Putting your hands together to improve the reception of your thoughts
Females being of lower status because they came second

What i find most crazy isnt religion however, its this world from an evolution perspective


----------



## Sean K (13 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



refined silver said:


> Kennas mate, you're spinning !@#$.
> 
> You've read one loopy, left-wing, liberal chick, a disgruntled ex-believer, and that's your story, you like it and you're sticking to it.



 LOL

No, I've read more than one book on it.

And, I'm not sticking to any firm 'belief', like others.


----------



## Sean K (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I like that Australia is a multicultural society, as immigrants have brought a great deal to our country.

Great coffee.
Pasta.
Fried rice.
Chicken tikka.
Irish pubs.
Franco Cozzo.

to name but some small contibutions...


But this I am not happy about:

Segregation, violence against women, polygamy.

This is NOT Australia.

*Cleric vows to end segregation in mosques*

I hope this Mufti starts having an influence.


Then I might also add a Kebab to my list of great contributions...


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Every sect of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a Cult of Abraham. In fact, the three main religions are Cults of the Yahwehists, who was the God of Abraham. ...Yahweh ... El the chief God of Ugarit ....  Marduk ... heaps of other !@#$  lol ... [Glugs of Gosh]







refined silver said:


> Kennas mate, you're spinning !@#$.
> 
> You've read one loopy, left-wing, liberal chick, a disgruntled ex-believer, and that's your story, you like it and you're sticking to it.
> 
> ...




lemme guess RS,  you post this, don't give us any summary, and expect us to read a few million words - maybe to find that you haven't read them (or fully understood them ?).  THanks a lot lol.

So do you object to kenna's (first comment) theory that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share common roots?  

sheesh they all share the Old Testament for a start


----------



## Lantern (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Pat Condell has interesting views on religion


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YjZ-lSn0A3M


----------



## mayk (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I like that Australia is a multicultural society, as immigrants have brought a great deal to our country.
> 
> Great coffee.
> Pasta.
> ...




Adding chicken Tikka to your list has already given credence to them, remove it until your demands are met...


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



mayk said:


> Adding chicken Tikka to your list has already given credence to them, remove it until your demands are met...




Better still, sit down with them - and some chicken tikka (Indian / Pakistani whomever) - and discuss this in a civilized manner 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikka

:topic  PS I notice that Tikka is also "a line of hunting rifles manufactured by Finnish firearms manufacturer SAKO."    So maybe insist on them being removed before we negotiate etc.   

PS I take that back ... Could be , what with global warming and the dire predicament of the baby seals in the (mid - to) northern Baltic, that shooting them might be the humane thing to do 

PS   "hundreds of baby seals are now facing a painful death"   - gee I should have posted this on the thread about "so do you think that global warming is a source of jokes and jests?" 

PS religion gone crazy? - yep - especially when they/we have "so much heaven on their/our minds" - and so little respect for our role as Curators of the Earth ...   :2 twocents

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,540694,00.html



> Hundreds of Baby Seals Could Starve to Death
> 03/11/2008
> 
> Rising temperatures could spell disaster for seals living in the Baltic Sea in northern Europe. An environment group is warning that hundreds of baby seals are now facing a painful death.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



2020hindsight said:


> - especially when they/we have "so much heaven on their/our minds" - and so little respect for our role as Curators of the Earth ...   :2 twocents




http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNoiQ8LkS8
embedded:-
 Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Heaven On Their Minds (Stereo)

Or this from the poetry thread #1137, Adam Lindsay Gordon, mid 1800's (some things never change ) :-


> Vain is half this care and caution
> O'er the earthly shell,
> We can neither baffle nor shun
> Dark-plumed Azrael.
> ...




PS Azrael is archangel of death - the one who can't be "baffled" or "shunned".  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azrael



> Azrael is the Islamic Archangel of Death. It is an English form of the Arabic name Azra'il (عزرائيل) or Azra'eil (عزرایل), the name traditionally attributed to the angel of death in Islam and some Hebrew lore.[1] The Qur'an never uses this name, referring instead to Malaikat al-Maut (which translates directly as angels of death; not one angel). It is also spelled Izrail, Izrael, Azrail, Ezraeil, Azraille, Azryel, or Ozryel. Chambers English dictionary uses the spelling Azrael. The name literally means Whom God Helps.
> 
> .......
> Rather than merely representing death personified, *Azrael is usually described in Islamic sources as subordinate to the will of God "with the most profound reverence."*[4]
> ...


----------



## Sean K (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



mayk said:


> Adding chicken Tikka to your list has already given credence to them, remove it until your demands are met...



Tikka is Islamic? 

It's at least a mesh of different flavours and cultures, isn't it?

Anyway, if it is an 'Islamic' idea I submit ..... 


Damn, can't find the bow down smillie ...

:dunno:


----------



## mayk (22 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Tikka is Islamic?




It is a south Asian, mostly western side (Pakistan and south west India). But can be justified as Indian / Pakistani. But if you go deep in to the discussion, Indian major religion Hinduism forbid eating any sort of animal (Vegetarian philosophy), so I guess Tikka can be classified as a Muslim south Asians (India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh) food.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I like that Australia is a multicultural society, as immigrants have brought a great deal to our country.
> 
> Great coffee.
> Pasta.
> ...




Kennas,

Don't you think the word should be multiracial? 

And above I don't see any muslim bashing going on - just discussion. 

How is your Spanish going? 
Cheers..


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> - especially when they/we have "so much heaven on their/our minds" - and so little respect for our role as Curators of the Earth ... :2 twocents




We (not us) spend a lot of time pithing each other off hey.




> Don't you think the word should be multiracial?




Like the red Indian nation became multiracial and the Aboriginal nation became multiracial and the African nation became multiracial.

People are tolerant more than accepting.


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Seems Islam has been bashed a bit here.

Not intentional, just listing the stories of the day where some religious events or decisions don't seem to add up in this modern world...


*Malaysia's Muslims banned from yoga*
November 23, 2008, 2:02 pm 

Malaysia's top Islamic body fresh from banning tomboys has issued an edict prohibiting Muslims from practising yoga, saying they could be corrupted by elements of Hinduism in the exercise.

The National Fatwa Council's chairman, Abdul Shukor Husin, said Saturday many Muslims failed to understand that yoga's ultimate aim was to be one with a god of a different religion - an explanation disputed by many practitioners who say yoga need not have a religious element.

"We are of the view that yoga, which originates from Hinduism, combines physical exercise, religious elements, chanting and worshipping for the purpose of achieving inner peace and ultimately to be one with god," Abdul Shukor said.

News of the yoga ban prompted activist Marina Mahathir to wonder what the council will ban next: "What next? Gyms? Most gyms have men and women together. Will that not be allowed any more?"


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Seems Islam has been bashed a bit here.
> 
> Not intentional, just listing the stories of the day where some religious events or decisions don't seem to add up in this modern world...
> 
> "Malaysia's Muslims banned from yoga"



well kennas lol - surprise surprise, Moslems finding fault with Hinduism etc ..    - By the way, it's dead simple to find a balancing counter to that one ... here is what some Christian nutcases have said about Transendental Meditation for example .... 

This (first) bloke claims to be a PhD - probably specialising in the Druids or something. 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=17335



> Transendental Meditation Is Dangerous.
> posted by Gary Gold
> 
> Not everything of a spiritual nature is good for us. Anytime we venture into spiritual explorations we desperately need discernment. During the height of Transcendental Meditation fad in the 70's, the TM instrutors also had the highest suicide rate of any trainers in a spiritual system.
> ...






> *Meditation is UnChristian*. *It is an act of evil which invites fornication,* Satan and all his followers. It should be kept far away from decent, God-fearing folk




This one posted by Reverend Ian Porter  (American) ...  he seems to think that acupuncture is flirting with Satan lol.   Never mind mate, whatever else you say about acupuncture, you can't say it's pointless lol. 



> America is populated by God Fearing Christians. *Anyone treading the waters of acupuncture,* homeopathy and other heathen rites *is dancing with Satan and all his non-American demons*. God Bless America - *may he protect us from foreigners *and their evil.




I agree with a bloke there who argues that prayer is just a form of meditation - the same self-hypnosis factor, but a considerably enhanced self-delusion factor to boot.  

Some notes I took whilst reading Adam Smith's "Powers of the Mind" :-

You can use a mantra of "one" - or your can use a mantra of "Hare Krishna" - or for that matter "Jesus, show me the way"  ... same feeling of peace in the end :2 twocents 

I'd also agree with this bloke (a pom) ...



> As an Englishman reading the article and some of these comments, I have just one thing to say:
> 
> These American Jesus Freaks who attack Meditation sound more frightening and "evil" than the people they are attacking, to me.




Here's a counter from an American ... (with which I do not agree - or at least should be put in perspective) ...


> Yes us Christians are just intolerant backwoods nuckledragging snake-handling neandrethals in need of serious orthodontia. *Well I am a former Anglican and have an advanced degree from Carnegie-Mellon * (??) [in plumbing and growing roses]  - and was a published behavior therpast at Johns Hopkins. While traveling in South Africa I ministered at a church of almost two thousand former Hindus of east Indian descent (they were brought as slaves to Durban, South Africa.)
> 
> The demonic oppression from these Hindu dieities is real. I saw people go into trances and slither around like snakes. Us Americans are above believing in this stuff but it is real. Most of members of the church were well educated and *have even renounced vegetarianism in their efforts to break free *of Hindu strongholds




So , lol - as if people talking in tongues - or conversely passing out etc aren't "possessed" - possessed by a vivid imagination for a start.   Even Sarah Palin was getting the special witch-soothsayer-treatment in a recent youtube  :eek3:  

Or the odd case requiring an exorcist etc ... Trouble is it takes more than just giving up vegemite to sort them out.  

Summary, Muslims prohibit yoga?  - well imo Christians are no better when/if they are frightened of Satan "attacking" them whilst they are meditating / or practicing listening to your lungs and heart , whatever you want to call it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



2020hindsight said:


> Here's a counter from an American ... (with which I do not agree - or at least should be put in perspective) ...
> 
> "Well I ... have an advanced degree from Carnegie-Mellon. I saw people go into trances and slither around like snakes. Us Americans are above believing in this stuff ... "




Lol ...


> Advanced Degree My Ass
> posted by chris mccasland on 22 Jun 2007 at 4:10 pm
> Your grammar is horrible. You say 'us' christians and 'us' americans. It is "we". You couldn't pass a 7th grade grammar exam


----------



## a5e0i (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Key to a successful life...God, family, finances - in that order...works for me!


----------



## cbacamden (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Well said Solomon.

Really the only people Jesus Christ got cranky with was the religous leaders of the day.

God, Family and finance for me to

Sure we need enough money to live, but we try to live a simple life. I try not to let money drive me. 

With trading its more the challange to achieve rather than the money


----------



## a5e0i (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I agree. Trading's more about the fun than the money.The money is just a bonus.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 November 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



a5e0i said:


> Key to a successful life...God, family, finances - in that order...works for me!




Do you prefer scalping or intra-day.


----------



## Sean K (6 December 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

LMAO


*School chaplains 'worked miracles' *
Caroline Overington | December 06, 2008 

GOD has cured at least one state school student of attention deficit disorder and another of asthma, according to interviews with chaplains employed in 2850 schools under a $165 million federal government program.

The Lord has also made it stop raining at a state school assembly in Queensland and performed other miracles to bring state school children to Jesus. 

One chaplain was able to "fix the head" of a disruptive student by placing his hands upon the boy's head, and praying for him.



$165m program to stop the raining during assembly?

God cured asthma as well! Incredible! 

How about He distribute some condoms about Africa too. Oh no, can't do that because the Pope (His representative of Earth) says....


----------



## Muschu (6 December 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I noticed a reference to Transcendental Meditation [TA] above.  There's an interesting [non-religious] book titled "TA and Cult Mania" by Persinger et al.  TA has a very checkered histroy if you bother to research it.
It offers far more [or less] than a "free" introductory course.  Even a google search will tell you more if you are interested.  See if you can find references to actual costs, the range of programs, the origins of the supposed secret mantras and the experiences of ex-followers.  There was an international organisation called TM-Ex -- not sure of its current status.
Like shares I am simply suggesting you DYOR.
Regards
Rick


----------



## Illuminated one (6 December 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Religion is way to fulfill the spiritual needs of humans, it had been commercialized many years back to generate massive profits, you can see that Religious leaders are the most influential and wealthiest people on earth! they have become bigger than any government or political influence, for example the Vatican is the worlds largest property holder and owns many big corporations.


----------



## James Austin (6 December 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



a5e0i said:


> Key to a successful life...God, family, finances - in that order...works for me!





well . . . i'm disappointed in "your" God a5e0i. have u watched SBS news lately? he/she sure is an under achiever.


----------



## Sean K (22 December 2008)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

LOL

Are us humans really this stupid?

I guess we are. 

Perhaps the title _should_ be changed to 'Human's gone crazy', with one of it's obvious manifestations religion. 

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone! 


*50 'witches' beaten by villagers *
By Sujeet Kumar in Raipur, India | December 22, 2008 
Article from:  Reuters 

POLICE are investigating reports that villagers in a tribal area of central India beat 50 women with sticks and cut off their hair after accusing them of witchcraft,

The villagers acted on the advice of a local spiritual man who said the assault would protect them from evil spirits, in a forest in a poor district of Chhattisgarh state, 400km from the capital Raipur, police said.

Dozens of women are killed every year on suspicion of being witches or witch doctors in India, where superstition is widespread, especially in rural areas that lack an effective schooling system.

While there are few killings in Chhattisgarh, more than 100 women are tortured, paraded naked or harassed in the state every year, officials say.

The state passed a Witchcraft (Prevention) Act in 2005 to counter a rise in witchhunts, handing out jail terms of up to five years for offenders, though many cases are still reported.


----------



## Sean K (4 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

The Catholic church is getting desperate now. Jumping on the environmental bandwagon to stop, of all things, the pill!

 


*The Pill 'polluting the environment'*
From correspondents in Vatican City
January 04, 2009 06:38am

THE contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said today.

The pill "has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature" through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report. 

"We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill," he said, without elaborating further. 

"We are faced with a clear anti-environmental effect which demands more explanation on the part of the manufacturers," Mr Castellvi said.

The article was promptly dismissed by several organisations. 

"Once metabolised, the hormones contained in oral contraceptives no longer have any of the characteristic effects of feminine hormones," said Gianbenedetto Melis, vice-president of a contraceptive research association, quoted by the ANSA news agency. 

Pope Benedict XVI in October reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of artificial birth control. 

Contraception "means negating the intimate truth of conjugal love, with which the divine gift (of life) is communicated," the leader of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics wrote on the 40th anniversary of a papal encyclical on the topic. 

An encyclical is a letter usually treating some aspect of Catholic doctrine and issued occasionally by the pope. 

The landmark document, whose title in English is On the Regulation of Birth, was published at a time when the development of the Pill was giving new sexual freedom to women across the world. 

Millions of Catholics distanced themselves from Rome as a result.


----------



## Whiskers (4 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> LOL
> 
> Are us humans really this stupid?
> 
> ...




Geesus... I'll have to watch where I go now I've mentioned 'astrology' and 'numerology' in another thread. 

But seriously, some of these ancient rituals, dare I call them religions, are nothing short of barbaric.




kennas said:


> The Catholic church is getting desperate now. Jumping on the environmental bandwagon to stop, of all things, the pill!




I won't be lending any support to the church's cause, but it seems it is an issue with recycled water for human consumption. Some reports claim there are gaps in the testing proceedures and known side effects.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> "We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill," he said, without elaborating further.





They wouldnt consider that enviromental pollution is simply caused by over population I guess ....

How many people does the Catholics want on this planet I wonder .....


----------



## CoffeeKing (4 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> The Catholic church is getting desperate now. Jumping on the environmental bandwagon to stop, of all things, the pill!





What's next, "_No farting in public_" :flush:


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

The Pope is doing it for the baby bonus IMO.


----------



## Sean K (5 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



chops_a_must said:


> The Pope is doing it for the baby bonus IMO.



Maybe he'll put the funds towards a new plazma for the sacricity, or a new gold crucifix danging off the rear vision mirror of the Pope mobile?


----------



## Sean K (17 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Should there be a time limit on these sorts of things?

Or, is the church just trying to save some compo payouts?


*Church seeks to lift sex abuse claim time limit *
Michael McKenna | January 17, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 

AUSTRALIA'S church leaders are secretly lobbying for the removal of a time limit that blocks child sex victims from suing for compensation over institutional abuse.

A multi-denominational push, led by Australia's Anglican leader, Brisbane Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, is pressuring Queensland's Bligh Government to set a nationwide precedent and exempt child victims from the laws, which normally require that they launch legal action by the time they turn 21. 

Hundreds of victims - including those openly acknowledged as being abused for years by some of the country's most notorious pedophiles - have been blocked by state and church lawyers from having their claims tested and compensated by the court by the "time-limit defence".


----------



## Sean K (18 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I was a little shocked to read this article thinking that this type of practice is a clear hangover from 6th C customry law in the region and has no place in the modern world, but then I read the last sentance and thought, aaah, that's fine then, these people are very forward thinking.  


*Top Saudi cleric: OK to wed young girls*

(CNN) -- The debate over the practice of men marrying children in Saudi Arabia was back in the spotlight this week, with the kingdom's top cleric refusing to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.

Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh says it's OK for a girl aged 10 or 12 to get married.

 "It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom in recent weeks.

In December, Saudi judge Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.

The judge rejected a petition from the girl's mother, whose lawyer said the marriage was arranged by her father to settle a debt with "a close friend." The judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.


----------



## Sean K (22 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

And after you marry the 8 year old, you're allowed to hit them and have sex with them any time you like, along with your other wives....





*It's OK to hit your wife, says Melbourne Islamic cleric Samir Abu Hamza*
By Mark Dunn
Herald Sun
January 22, 2009 12:01am

A MELBOURNE Islamic cleric has told his male followers they can force their wives to have sex and hit them if they are disobedient. 

Coburg's self-styled cleric Samir Abu Hamza said despite Australian rape laws it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex with him, the Herald Sun reports.

In a recorded lecture entitled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage", delivered to his male worshippers but now broadcast on the internet and viewed by several thousand people, Mr Hamza said Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort, but they were not to make them bleed or become bruised. 

He said under Islamic law, as described in a koranic verse, it was a man's right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2z_2dMecFM

I like his analysis on why people get married.


----------



## Happy (22 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> APOLOGISE FOR RAPE REMARKS, RUDD TELLS CLERIC
> From ABC, 22 Jan. 09
> 
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called upon a Muslim cleric who said it was ok to rape and hit your wife to publicly apologise.
> ...




Shouldn’t we just accept it as part of heritage and culture?

After all they worked on it since 7th century didn’t they?


----------



## Sean K (22 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> Shouldn’t we just accept it as part of heritage and culture?
> 
> After all they worked on it since 7th century didn’t they?



I'm not sure if your taking the piss or not there Happy.

Pretty funny if you're being sarcastic.

7th centruy values are good for Australia I reckon. Other gems include; polygamy, stoning to death, apostacy, and praying five times a day to a myth. 

Pure idiocy.


----------



## Happy (22 January 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I'm not sure if your taking the piss or not there Happy.
> 
> Pretty funny if you're being sarcastic.
> 
> ...





I do not agree with my statement, and if it is called sarcastic so be it, but when I think about those hated by me words – ‘heritage and culture’ in reference to customs of people who came to Australia 35 or 40 thousand years ago I just see a lot of parallels to this somewhat slow to change way of living.

Did anybody notice that women in both cases don’t get an equal chop as men in both cases?
Just few weeks ago or was it months, our Nicole Kidman offended certain group of our society by daring to touch Didgery doo.
Is it acceptable for equal rights society to accept any of that archaism?

It just looks that the whole world must change no matter what, but some groups are allowed to lock themselves in yestertime plus of course all the modern developments: free housing, 4WDs, now we are going to close 17 years life expectancy gap in the most remote parts of our almost Europe size continent.

Did somebody notice that excessive piss and massive flocks of diseased dogs might have something to do with life expectancy not to mention personal hygiene?


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I wonder how close these guys were to actually bombing the G and Crown?

Maybe a good thing for Crown to cop it, but the G!!!! Sacrilege!!! 

Is this 'religion gone crazy' as it may be based purely on religion affiliation, or is it more a social/cultural phenomenon, or maybe it's all the same...



Bomb the G!!!! Now there's a sign of Western excess!!! Maybe because of all the light beer being drunk in the outer, and chicks in bikini tops at the cricket?


*Terror cell 'aimed to wage war on non-believers'*
Mex Cooper 
February 3, 2009 - 12:11PM 

A Melbourne-based terror cell was dedicated to the destruction of non-believers, a Supreme Court judge has said.

Justice Bernard Bongiorno made the comments during the start of a sentencing of seven men found guilty of terrorism-related charges last September.

Abdul Nacer Benbrika, 48, of Dallas, became the first Australian to be convicted of leading a terrorist organisation following the country's biggest-ever terrorism trial that lasted seven months and cost tens of millions of dollars.

The father-of-seven faces a maximum 25 years' prison for directing the terrorist group that the jury heard had discussed attacking Melbourne's Crown Casino and bombing the MCG on grand final day.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=97627&videoChannel=2603


Girl marries dog in bizarre ritual
(00:42) Rough Cut


> Jan 26 - In India's eastern Jharkhand, villagers 'married' off a young girl to a stray dog to ward off an evil spirit.
> 
> The locals at Munda Dhanda village performed the ceremony as they believe it will overcome any curse that might fall on the family
> 
> ...


----------



## derty (6 March 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I think these guys are just anti-fun when it boils down to it.  Now we have the fatwa against the evil and sinful cricket. What next?



> *The Australian*
> _Islamists wage war against cricket, 'the other religion'_
> 
> ...Following the Indian cricket tour of Pakistan in 2004 -- the first in a decade -- the Lashkar-e-Toiba terror group in Pakistan issued what amounted to a fatwa against the sport.
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25144579-25837,00.html


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Afghanistan has just passed laws that allow a husband to rape a wife, based on Sharia. 

Good one.

Now Islamextremists in Pakistan add more fire for the need to get religion based laws out of this world.

Although, I'm not sure where the 'immoral behaviour' law is written into the Koran. 


*Outrage at Taliban's public flogging of girl*

FACE down before a crowd, the teenage girl shrieks and writhes, begging for mercy. But the three masked men holding her down merely tighten their grip while a fourth man whips her again and again.

"Leave me for the moment ”” you can beat me again later," she screams. Paying no heed, the commander continues the flogging.

The video of a 17-year-old girl being publicly lashed by the Taliban in Pakistan's Swat Valley has galvanised the nation, drawing protests from human rights groups, denunciations from the Government and expressions of revulsion from Pakistanis.

The video, made earlier this year, surfaced on Friday on Pakistani television and the internet.

While reports of abusive acts by the Taliban have been filtering out of the north-western valley, where the Government struck a truce with Islamic militants in February, such brutal scenes are rarely caught on camera and publicly aired.

"This is intolerable," said Asma Jahangir, head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in the eastern city of Lahore.

Ms Jahangir said the girl was believed to have refused to marry a Taliban commander. *The militants then accused her of immoral behaviour and ordered 34 lashes *as a punishment, Pakistani news reports said.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Afghanistan has just passed laws that allow a husband to rape a wife, based on Sharia.
> 
> Good one.
> 
> ...




And Australian soldiers will continue to die for these people.


----------



## Happy (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> ..
> 
> Ms Jahangir said the girl was believed to have refused to marry a Taliban commander. *The militants then accused her of immoral behaviour and ordered 34 lashes *as a punishment, Pakistani news reports said.




If she was allowed to walk away from that forced marriage, maybe 34 lashes is nothing compared to what she would have to endure for the rest of her life.

If she got the 34 lashes and then got married anyway, then I must say she is in big trouble. And clear message for other females to just obey.

Anyway, for our multicultural Australia looks that we've got it wrong too.
We should have one democracy, one set of rules and transparent education otherwise we will allow different groups to educate their kids to unknown standards.

Remember school that Australian anthem was not part of curriculum?


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> And Australian soldiers will continue to die for these people.



The new Afghan laws seem to be rebated at the moment, but this article was about Pakistan, although I think we'll all be in there soon also.

Yes, why should we be sacrificing our own for this?

It's quite ludicrous really.

On the surface of it.


Can we bring about change, for the 'good'?

Will this region wake up to modern day values?

Or, because they are living in the past, should they stay in the past?

Are the past values right for them in their world?

It seems to me sometimes that there are societies around the world that shouldn't have 21st century values enforced on them. 

They can only live in the past due to their ecosocio circumstances and laws relevant for their survival.

Perhaps this region is one of them??

They need to have 6th century laws because they are living in the 6th century....


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> If she got the 34 lashes and then got married anyway, then I must say she is in big trouble. And clear message for other females to just obey.



What?


----------



## Happy (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> What?




Submission law


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> Submission law



So females should accept that?


----------



## Happy (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> So females should accept that?




That's what Taliban wants and recent development shows that they partially get it legally (every 4 days woman must submit to sexual advances irrespective if she has a headache or not)


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> That's what Taliban wants and recent development shows that they partially get it legally (every 4 days woman must submit to sexual advances irrespective if she has a headache or not)



Ah, sounds fine to me.

Cheers.


----------



## shag (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

yes i think they should send the big one into areas inhabited by the talis. it makes more sense to use precision bombs but really a message needs to be sent. maybe putin and obama need to cut some sort of a fausian deal, as europe is pathetic.
i suspect only the soviets have the willpower to crush the extremists, as much as i sympathise with a small part of osamas ideals and determination.
nuc's are not quiet as bad as some make out.
if they used one in the valley when they knew oasma and his leaders were hiding out, it would be a different story now possibly.
the border with iran needs to be locked down too, like with technology and low population density, it should be relatively simple, but i guess too many are making too much.


----------



## Happy (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> That's what Taliban wants and recent development shows that they partially get it legally (every 4 days woman must submit to sexual advances irrespective if she has a headache or not)




Maybe it will be short lived misinterpretation of misunderstanding taken out of context (as one mufti would say).



> From ABC, 5 Apr 2009
> KARZAI TO REVIEW MARRIAGE LAW AMID INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION
> 
> Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he will reconsider a controversial new law which has been criticised for possibly tolerating rape within marriage.
> ...


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> Canada has demanded an explanation for the "extremely alarming" legislation and France said it was "shocked", while the UN human rights chief in Afghanistan said the law was similar to Taliban decrees.
> Italy has threatened to bring home its female soldiers in the NATO force in Afghanistan in protest at the law, a senior Italian defence official said.
> Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Strasbourg, the official said the 30 female members of the 2,665-strong Italian contingent could be withdrawn.
> "We will decide by Easter (April 12) on this question," he said.
> ...



 Females should just be locked up at home in the kitchen!

With a hood on!

A black hood actually!!!


----------



## Julia (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> That's what Taliban wants and recent development shows that they partially get it legally (every 4 days woman must submit to sexual advances irrespective if she has a headache or not)



What you've omitted is that the husband must only offer sex to his wife once in four months!   How unfair is that??


----------



## Happy (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> ..   How unfair is that??




Offer once in 4 months, forcibly take once every 4 days, imagine how stressful would be that for male with low sex drive?  

No wanders Chinese have huge reservations to number 4


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Egyptian swingers jailed: report
5th April 2009, 14:41 WST 

A Cairo court has sentenced a man to seven years and his wife to three years for setting up a swingers' club, the press reported on Sunday, in a case that has angered conservative Egyptian society.

Tolba Abdel Hafez, a 48-year-old civil servant, and his wife Salwa Higazi, a 37-year-old schoolteacher, were sentenced by the Agouza Criminal Court on Saturday, the state-owned Al-Gomhuria reported.

Extra-marital sex is illegal in the mainly Muslim country where Islamic law is a principal source of legislation.

The Cairo couple, who have children, used the pseudonyms Magdy and Samira on a website and in emails to organise wife-swapping parties and orgies.

They were arrested in October on prostitution charges and confessed to having sexual relations with three other couples, although at least 44 couples signed up for Cairo swinging sessions via the website.

In sentencing the pair, the judge described the case as "one of the worst crimes committed," Al-Gomhuria reported.

Rights groups have criticised the 1961 law that can be used to prosecute suspects because it defines certain sexual acts as prostitution even if no money changes hands.

AFP


----------



## nunthewiser (5 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Iraqi homosexuals shot dead: ministry
5th April 2009, 18:38 WST 

 The bullet-riddled bodies of three Iraqis said to be homosexuals have been found in Baghdad's Sadr City, bastion of anti-US Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a defence ministry official said on Sunday.

"Three corpses of homosexuals have been recovered in Sadr City. Two of the bodies, found on Thursday, had pieces of paper attached on which was written the word 'Pervert'. The third body was retrieved on Friday," the official said.

Residents said the bodies of two males aged 16 and 18 were found on waste ground on the outskirts of Sadr City, and that several days previously two homosexuals had been dumped in the street with their arms and legs broken.

During Friday prayers in Sadr City, a poor district of Baghdad where about two million Iraqis live, Sheikh Jassem al-Mutairi slammed what he called "new private practices by some men who dress like women, who are effeminate."

"I call on families to prevent their children from following such a lifestyle," he added.

Since a US-backed Iraqi army offensive on Sadr City in April and May last year, Sadr's powerful Mahdi Army Shi'ite militia has lost much of its influence in the area.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki launched the assaults on Sadr City and the southern city of Basra, in which more than 1,000 people died, in a bid to disarm the militia and restore law and order in the areas under Mahdi Army control.

AFP


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

George Pell goes crazy....

*Cardinal George Pell backs Pope Benedict anti-condom stance*
April 10, 2009 

Article from:  Australian Associated Press 

CARDINAL George Pell says he agrees with controversial comments made by the Pope, that the use of condoms were making the AIDS epidemic in Africa worse, not better.

On a trip to Cameroon and Angola in March, Pope Benedict XVI caused a storm of controversy, when he said condoms were aggravating the African epidemic rather than containing it.

Cardinal Pell, the head of the Catholic Church in Australia, said he "totally agreed'' with the pontiff's comments that condoms encouraged promiscuity.


----------



## Rumpig (11 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Website where the bible is explained using Lego characters. I'm glad my parents never had me stoned. Pretty funny.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

Rumpig


----------



## Bobby (11 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> George Pell goes crazy....
> 
> *Cardinal George Pell backs Pope Benedict anti-condom stance*
> April 10, 2009
> ...




Worse then crazy Kennas , its inducement of self genocide .
But then again God guides these people .
 Wow  ~  :headshake


----------



## Trevor_S (12 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Westbro Baptist Church

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

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



> The church bases its work around the belief expressed by its best known slogan and the address of its primary website, "God hates fags," and expresses the idea that every tragedy in the world is linked to homosexuality






> they issued a press release thanking God for the great earthquake that caused heavy loss of life in China, and "pray for many more earthquakes to kill many more thousands of impudent and ungrateful Chinese". In the article they also called Chinese people "vile oriental [sic] ingrates", and declared that "God hates China"




and speaking of religion, not getting into the whole did Jesus ever exist and the fallibility of translation argument of the bible... if you ever read the sermon on the mount, it's some powerful stuff, it's a pity the religions that purport to follow the guy don't pay attention to what he said.  

I have no problem with God or the concept of God, it's his followers that sh_it me


----------



## sails (12 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Trevor_S said:


> ...and speaking of religion, not getting into the whole did Jesus ever exist and the fallibility of translation argument of the bible... if you ever read the sermon on the mount, it's some powerful stuff, it's a pity the religions that purport to follow the guy don't pay attention to what he said.
> 
> I have no problem with God or the concept of God, it's his followers that sh_it me




Yes, it's crazy how some people use religion as an excuse to further their own ideas that completely go against the teachings of the religion they are supposed to be representing!  And I doubt that the Westboro church would be representative of the majority of Baptist people or churches.  In your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church it states:



> WBC is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations.




I believe there are possibly many predators who get themselves into positions of authority and then brain wash the weaker ones into believing their twisted theories.  The stronger ones who know the core teachings of their particular religion will vote with their feet.

I think it's important not to tar every religious organization with the same brush.  Just because someone says they are God's messenger doesn't necessarily mean God has anything to do with them.


----------



## Sean K (28 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

This one almost takes the cake.



*Girl, 10, beheaded by grandfather*

A 10-year-old girl was beheaded by her grandfather in India's eastern Orissa state who believed that sowing seeds mixed with her blood would yield a bumper crop, a news report said on Monday.

The incident, spurred by age-old superstitions, took place on Sunday in the tribal region of Sambalpur, 450km west of state capital Bhubaneshwar, the IANS news agency reported.

The barbaric crime was detected after the villagers caught the man Rajesh Hembram and handed him over to the police.

Hembram who owned 1.2ha of farmland, planned in advance to sow seeds mixed with the blood of his granddaughter on Akshaya Tritya on Monday, a day considered auspicious by Hindus, police said.

"He cut off his granddaughter Bernaka Kandulana's head with an axe in a room when nobody was at home and drained her blood into a pot," PC Nayak, a local police inspector told IANS.

"We found some seeds in a steel pot that were mixed with blood," he said. Police said the man was arrested and had admitted his crime.

*India has a centuries-old tradition of human sacrifices to appease deities, gain prosperity or ward off evil. Some cases are still reported around the country.*


----------



## sails (28 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> This one almost takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> *Girl, 10, beheaded by grandfather*




Totally sick.  With a granddaughter around that age and for whom we have bent over backwards to improve her life, it is totally incomprehensible...


----------



## Trevor_S (28 April 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



sails said:


> Just because someone says they are God's messenger doesn't necessarily mean God has anything to do with them.




that semantics... hows a fervent believer in the God proposed by Westbro any different then the fervent Catholic, Islamist etc etc ?  but you're right  I don't believe the Pope, Jesus, Mohammed etc etc... they're all either deluded or charlatans.  

I am happy to support peoples belief in their fairytale (sorry religion) of choice.  The part that grates me, is they refuse to afford me the same dignity and insist on imposing their morality and rule-set upon me and others of my ilk by ensuring, though legislation, they restrict my freedoms.


----------



## Sean K (5 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> This one almost takes the cake.



Actually, this one goes close.



This is 2009 isn't it?

*NZ family accused over exorcism death*
Tue May 5 

Nine members of a New Zealand family will be named tomorrow after being charged over the exorcism-style manslaughter of a 22-year-old woman. 

The six women and three men have pleaded not guilty in New Zealand's High Court to the manslaughter of Janet Moses during an indigenous Maori curse-lifting ceremony, known as a makutu.

Moses drowned in October 2007 when water was poured down her throat as part of the ceremony in the town of Wainuiomata, near Wellington.


----------



## metric (11 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

you wondered how rudd ever got a gernsey? but you did ntice him in church right? you noticed howard never gave up, he kept trying and succeeded? and you noticed him in church right?

heres you answer. the answer to many questions....i know its long. but worth the read.



> A new interview with Richard Bell, historian of money, retired manipulator of stocks.
> 
> Q: So, foreign investors are accelerating their withdrawal of money from the US.
> 
> ...




http://www.scribd.com/doc/7197144/Jon-R ... he-Vatican


----------



## Sean K (20 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

This is almost as crazy as priests being celibate, the burqa, circumcism, exorcism, and grown men wailing at a wall.




> *Burundian albino murders denied*
> 
> The trial has begun in Burundi of 11 defendants accused of attacking and killing 12 albino people, starting with the murder of a young girl.
> 
> ...




I must run out now and get me an albino toe to mix in the soup to cure my cancer.....


----------



## Happy (20 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> This is almost as crazy as priests being celibate, the burqa, circumcism, exorcism, and grown men wailing at a wall.




Lets not forget that people who came to Australia 30 thousand years ago have set of *costly *beliefs too.


----------



## Sean K (20 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> Lets not forget that people who came to Australia 30 thousand years ago have set of *costly *beliefs too.



It's all superstition/myth/folklore, and it's all crazy! 

Religion is answers to what logic and science can not provide. The Earth was flat once, and the Sun and Moon gods. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition and jailed for looking through a telescope. Cripes, thunder was a god once. 

Time to move on humans!

Stop making yourself look so rediculous!!!


----------



## Happy (20 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Time to move on humans!
> 
> Stop making yourself look so rediculous!!!





It is also money drain, as houses of worship have generous tax concessions and to think that we have more than 140 religions officially registered it is a lot of dough.


----------



## ktrianta (20 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Just goes to show the fallible nature of mankind.
We could just as easily titled this thread athiesm gone crazy and pointed to the gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, the gas chambers of Hitler, Mao's cultural revolution and so on. We could point to the drug gangs and the criminals driven by the love of money and none of those would be out of place with this thread.

Nice thread to have a vent but not really much in terms of a reasoned discussion i would have thought.


----------



## Muschu (20 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



ktrianta said:


> Just goes to show the fallible nature of mankind.
> We could just as easily titled this thread athiesm gone crazy and pointed to the gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, the gas chambers of Hitler, Mao's cultural revolution and so on. We could point to the drug gangs and the criminals driven by the love of money and none of those would be out of place with this thread.
> 
> Nice thread to have a vent but not really much in terms of a reasoned discussion i would have thought.




Well said.  I've looked at this thread and wondered whether to express my point of view and chose not to -- Nice to see the logical counter argument so well expressed.  Quality values are important - and we could forever argue the best place/s of origin.


----------



## disarray (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



ktrianta said:


> We could just as easily titled this thread athiesm gone crazy and pointed to the gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, the gas chambers of Hitler, Mao's cultural revolution and so on. We could point to the drug gangs and the criminals driven by the love of money and none of those would be out of place with this thread.




well no, not really. none of that had anything to do with being athiest or not. the fact that the people doing these things are athiests is irrelevant because they didn't do these things because they ARE athiests. however many of the other posts in this thread are things done BECAUSE OF religious belief.

now if you wanted a counter you could do a "Science and Logic Gone Crazy" and go on about mad scientists, phrenology, klaus barbie, unit 731 and so on, but you'd still be slighty out of it because this thread bring up things that happen NOW because of religious belief. you'd need to find modern day mad scientists to be applicable. maybe look into that mad cloning doctor who makes fluroescent people.

religion is treated like some philosophical sacred cow (and the muslims are pushing to make it illegal to criticise religion) which is rubbish. all ideas, philosophies and concepts must be open to challenge or we all might as well just become the mindless automatons the government wants us to be.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



disarray said:


> well no, not really. none of that had anything to do with being athiest or not. the fact that the people doing these things are athiests is irrelevant because they didn't do these things because they ARE athiests. however many of the other posts in this thread are things done BECAUSE OF religious belief.
> 
> now if you wanted a counter you could do a "Science and Logic Gone Crazy" and go on about mad scientists, phrenology, klaus barbie, unit 731 and so on, but you'd still be slighty out of it because this thread bring up things that happen NOW because of religious belief. you'd need to find modern day mad scientists to be applicable. maybe look into that mad cloning doctor who makes fluroescent people.
> 
> religion is treated like some philosophical sacred cow (and the muslims are pushing to make it illegal to criticise religion) which is rubbish. all ideas, philosophies and concepts must be open to challenge or we all might as well just become the mindless automatons the government wants us to be.




Good defence of mad scientists Davros.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



disarray said:


> well no, not really. none of that had anything to do with being athiest or not. the fact that the people doing these things are athiests is irrelevant because they didn't do these things because they ARE athiests.




That's a popular view which I have to reject. It's entirely too simplistic a reduction. Any given action of a person is probabilistic in outcome. But the overall pattern of behaviour is bounded somewhat by a person's top-level beliefs and sociological structures. Top-level beliefs (worldview/paradigm) and society built on them will result in outcomes where desirable behaviours (paradigmatic and societal) are reinforced and encouraged, and undesirable behaviours are discouraged or punished. The structure and actions of social members are not always divorced from the paradigm. Hence in a society which demands allegiance to the state, rejection of religion and the subjugation of the individual to the group, a logical conclusion can be (has been, and is) that adherence to religion (or membership to a group eg. Jews) is damaging to the individual and the society and must be discouraged by any means necessary. In a completely materialist society, the conclusion that the elimination of certain beliefs and groups is "good", flows naturally from the paradigm. The materialistic and atheistic basis of some states cannot be divorced from the outcomes ie. holocaust, stalinist cleansings, killing fields and persecution of non state-sponsored Christians and Falun Gong members in modern China.

To believe that person A does X _because_ of their religion but that person B does Y _despite_ their atheism/materialism is, IMO, a naive generalisation.

Now I agree that religion should not have a privileged place in the sharing and critique of philosophies, and I fundamentally reject the view that there is a privileged and ideal philosophy that is the standard by which to judge all other worldviews....that includes materialism/atheism. It is not the default position for those who understand logic, philosophy, history and science.

There is way too much simplification in this thread.


----------



## Mr J (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



MS+Tradesim said:


> There is way too much simplification in this thread.




It's usually the case in any discussion.


----------



## Sean K (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



MS+Tradesim said:


> Now I agree that religion should not have a privileged place in the sharing and critique of philosophies, and I fundamentally reject the view that there is a privileged and ideal philosophy that is the standard by which to judge all other worldviews....



Is religion a philosophy? There is certainly a field of philosophy of religion, but I'm not sure if you could say it's a philosophy in its entirety. 

Religion had a place in the human world at one time, and obviously still must as so many people 'believe' and 'have faith'. We still seem to need it for some reason. Perhaps there’s too many questioned left unanswered. 

Its major problem, imo, is its dogmatic approach in following laws written 2000++ years ago which are irrelevant for today’s world. All religions need to take a look around, accept that science has changed the landscape, and what Yahweh, Gabriel and the other angels and demons laid out all those years ago, from mountain top clouds and burning bushes, is now bunk.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Dogmatism is not limited to religion and as demonstrated by a number of countries, materialist dogma can be ruthlessly destructive on a large scale.


----------



## Sean K (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



MS+Tradesim said:


> Dogmatism is not limited to religion and as demonstrated by a number of countries, materialist dogma can be ruthlessly destructive on a large scale.



Yeah, I agree. But how many people blow themselves up in a crowded market over not getting a pay rise?

I visited Chichen Itza today where the Maya sacrificed hundreds, and maybe thousands, to appease the gods. Most had their hearts cut out while they were still alive, the priest placed the beating hearts on a statue and they prayed to the gods, for whatever. The heart was then burned, and the now dead victim was thrown either in a Cenote (a big sink hole) or in a mass grave. 

Religion, gone crazy....


----------



## ktrianta (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



MS+Tradesim said:


> That's a popular view which I have to reject. It's entirely too simplistic a reduction. Any given action of a person is probabilistic in outcome. But the overall pattern of behaviour is bounded somewhat by a person's top-level beliefs and sociological structures. Top-level beliefs (worldview/paradigm) and society built on them will result in outcomes where desirable behaviours (paradigmatic and societal) are reinforced and encouraged, and undesirable behaviours are discouraged or punished. The structure and actions of social members are not always divorced from the paradigm. Hence in a society which demands allegiance to the state, rejection of religion and the subjugation of the individual to the group, a logical conclusion can be (has been, and is) that adherence to religion (or membership to a group eg. Jews) is damaging to the individual and the society and must be discouraged by any means necessary. In a completely materialist society, the conclusion that the elimination of certain beliefs and groups is "good", flows naturally from the paradigm. The materialistic and atheistic basis of some states cannot be divorced from the outcomes ie. holocaust, stalinist cleansings, killing fields and persecution of non state-sponsored Christians and Falun Gong members in modern China.
> 
> To believe that person A does X _because_ of their religion but that person B does Y _despite_ their atheism/materialism is, IMO, a naive generalisation.
> 
> ...





Excellent post. 
There is good and bad in all world views. One does not need to agree with another's world view, but one must realise that sometimes people act consistently with their world view and other times they can act inconsistently. All too often criticism is levelled at a world view where people act inconsistent to their own world view and ignore the good that is done when people act consistently to their world view.


----------



## disarray (21 May 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



MS+Tradesim said:


> Any given action of a person is probabilistic in outcome. But the overall pattern of behaviour is bounded somewhat by a person's top-level beliefs and sociological structures. Top-level beliefs (worldview/paradigm) and society built on them will result in outcomes where desirable behaviours (paradigmatic and societal) are reinforced and encouraged, and undesirable behaviours are discouraged or punished. The structure and actions of social members are not always divorced from the paradigm.




for sure, but athiesm still isn't the CAUSE of these behaviours. it may very well be a FACTOR, i'm not disputing this, but to say athiesm is the cause is an exact example of the simplistic thinking you mentioned. compare to some of the other messages in this thread where religious belief was the direct cause of the behaviour and you can see where the difference lies.



> To believe that person A does X because of their religion but that person B does Y despite their atheism/materialism is, IMO, a naive generalisation.




why? anyway that statement is a bit off - person A does X because of their religion, person B does X despite it. that means person B has other contributing factors to examine (like your broader social construct arguments)



> There is way too much simplification in this thread.




well this is a pretty simple medium we are communicating over, black text over a light background with maybe a few emoticons thrown in. its pretty hard to convey deep nuance over http


----------



## Sean K (10 September 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I watched this unfold on TV today.

Result not what many would have expected.



*Priest 'behind foiled plane hijacking' in *
September 10, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 

A BOLIVIAN priest said he was acting on a divine revelation when he hijacked a Mexican plane mid-air with 104 people on board.

Bible-carrying Jose Flores Mar Pereira was said by Mexican officials to have hijacked the Aeromexico plane after it left the popular tourist resort of Cancun on a flight to Mexico City. 

He told authorities after his arrest that he had "had a revelation that Mexico was facing a great danger, and was threatened by an earthquake,'' public security official, Genaro Garcia Luna, said. 

The alleged hijacker was said to be a former prisoner and drug addict, who has lived in Mexico for 17 years. But it was not immediately clear if he was helped by others amid reports that up to six people had been arrested. 

All the people onboard the flight were safely evacuated at Mexico City, officials said, as security forces swarmed the capital's international airport within minutes of the plane landing. 

Six people were shown being led away in handcuffs by Mexican television.


----------



## Chris45 (10 September 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

According to CNN: 







> The suspect, Josmar Flores Pereira, told authorities he hijacked the Boeing 737 jet because the date -- September 9, 2009, or 9/9/9, and *666* reversed -- held some significance for him, said Genaro Garcia Luna, the secretary for public safety.





> *Six* people were shown being led away in handcuffs by Mexican television.



Cue spooky music!


----------



## Sean K (15 September 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Is this the year 2009?

Maybe it's 0500 in Aceh still.

Stoned to death for adultery. No words can explain my dismay. 

Whipping for pre-marital sex. I would have been one whipped up boy. 



*Aceh to allow stoning to death*
Stephen Fitzpatrick, 
Jakarta correspondent | September 15, 2009 

Article from:  The Australian 

PARLIAMENTARIANS in the Indonesian province of Aceh yesterday passed a law that would allow stoning to death for adultery and whipping for premarital sex.

Critics plan to mount a legal challenge to the sharia law provisions, passed at the last possible moment before the current parliament in Banda Aceh is dissolved. 

The draft law came from the office of Governor Irwandi Yusuf, a US-educated veterinarian with secular views who spent his early adult years fighting in the Acehnese armed resistance. 

It was drafted in response to popular pressure to fully implement sharia law in the province, under the terms of an autonomy deal struck in 2000. Mr Yusuf is not thought to support the law's more extreme elements, cobbled together by a parliamentary committee.


----------



## Boggo (15 September 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

We may as well prepare the next generation for these characters, they are multiplying like rabbits.

The muslim population of Europe is doubling every 20 years.

Worth a look (bearing in mind that it produced by some scared yanks)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATXns0ywQ08&feature=related


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 November 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Uh oh 

Looks like the godbotherers are at it again! 

*Profit `Not Satanic,’ Barclays Says, After Goldman Invokes Jesus *

 Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Barclays Plc Chief Executive Officer John Varley stood at the wooden lectern in St. Martin-in-the- Fields on London’s Trafalgar Square last night and told the packed pews of the church that “profit is not satanic.”

The 53-year-old head of Britain’s second-biggest bank said banks are the “backbone” of the economy. Rewarding high- performing bankers with more pay doesn’t conflict with Christian values, he said. Varley was paid 1.08 million pounds ($1.77 million) and no bonus in 2008.

“Talent is highly mobile,” Varley, a Catholic, said. “If we fail to pay or are constrained from paying competitive rates then that talent will move to another employer.”

“Is Christianity and banking compatible? Yes,” he said in an interview after the speech in the 283-year-old church. “And is Christianity and fair reward compatible? Yes.”

Varley joins Goldman Sachs International adviser Brian Griffiths and Lazard International Chairman Ken Costa as London bankers who’ve gone into London churches in recent weeks and invoked Christianity to defend a banking system that critics say has created wealth and inequality in the U.K.

“The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest,” Goldman’s Griffiths said Oct. 20, his voice echoing around the gold-mosaic walls of St. Paul’s Cathedral, whose 365-feet-high dome towers over the City, London’s financial district. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” 


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aySZ9TS.aODA&pos=11


----------



## BradK (5 November 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



GumbyLearner said:


> Uh oh
> 
> 
> “The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is *an endorsement of self-interest*,” Goldman’s Griffiths said Oct. 20, his voice echoing around the gold-mosaic walls of St. Paul’s Cathedral, whose 365-feet-high dome towers over the City, London’s financial district. *“We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” *
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aySZ9TS.aODA&pos=11




Gobsmacked by the audacity. Speechless.


----------



## wayneL (5 November 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



BradK said:


> Gobsmacked by the audacity. Speechless.




Newspeak. 

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength etc.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Head in sand is reasonable option too.


----------



## nunthewiser (1 December 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> Police shoot and kill 'Jesus'AFP, The West Australian December 1, 2009, 11:07 am
> Police in a Washington suburb are in the awkward situation of having to admit they killed "Jesus"




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/offbeat/6535760/police-shoot-and-kill-jesus/


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (15 December 2009)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

http://www.news.com.au/world/khamis...ciating-with-men/story-e6frfkyi-1225810439816

HUMAN rights watchdog Amnesty International has called on Saudi Arabia to stay a sentence of 40 lashes handed down against a 75-year-old woman for breaching the kingdom's sex segregation rules.

"The minister of the interior (Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz) is reported to have ordered the immediate detention and flogging of a 75-year-old woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, along with two Saudi Arabian men known only as Fahad and Hadyan," the London-based watchdog said.


----------



## gooner (20 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Christians and Islamists going crazy.

First the Christians. Death penalty to be imposed in Uganda for being gay.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/apr/19/uganda-death-penalty-gay-mp-banned-from-uk

And the Islamists think women wearing revealing clothing is causing earthquakes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric


----------



## bellenuit (22 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



gooner said:


> And the Islamists think women wearing revealing clothing is causing earthquakes
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric




He may have a point

TV footage of one of the historic hotels in Kalgoorlie-Boulder that was badly damaged in the earthquake a few days back shows a sign out front proclaiming "skimpy barmaids" will be waitressing.


----------



## gooner (22 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bellenuit said:


> He may have a point
> 
> TV footage of one of the historic hotels in Kalgoorlie-Boulder that was badly damaged in the earthquake a few days back shows a sign out front proclaiming "skimpy barmaids" will be waitressing.




There you go. Scientific evidence that God exists. He must have smite the town of Kalgoorlie due to the skimpy waitresses. Perhaps He will smite Kings Cross next and rid us of the city's underbelly at the same time.


----------



## gav (22 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



gooner said:


> There you go. Scientific evidence that God exists. He must have smite the town of Kalgoorlie due to the skimpy waitresses. Perhaps He will smite Kings Cross next and rid us of the city's underbelly at the same time.




That won't happen, John Ibrahim has God on the payroll too...


----------



## Buckfont (22 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Find it highly amusing that these religious zealots point the finger towards those countries that are earthquake prone, to being lax with the dress codes.

I`d really appreciate if someone could fill me in as to why for thousand of years Iran and Iraq have been earthquake central. Where are the skimpy clad women there?

And when my partner walks through the house in her birthday suit that`s when things really start to shake

www.guardian.co.uk/world/.../women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric


----------



## gooner (27 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



gooner said:


> Christians and Islamists going crazy.
> 
> First the Christians. Death penalty to be imposed in Uganda for being gay.
> 
> ...




It appears there is going to be some scientific testing of the earthquake theory. In the US, 55,000 people have signed up for boobquake. The women whose idea it was said "I encourage other female sceptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts".

If you are religious, better avoid the US due to higher risk of earthquakes

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/55000-sign-up-for-boobquake-20100427-tnkv.html


----------



## bassmanpete (27 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



gooner said:


> It appears there is going to be some scientific testing of the earthquake theory. In the US, 55,000 people have signed up for boobquake. The women whose idea it was said "I encourage other female sceptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts".
> 
> If you are religious, better avoid the US due to higher risk of earthquakes
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/55000-sign-up-for-boobquake-20100427-tnkv.html




And here is the founder in her boobquake outfit: 

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/and-boobquake-experiment-has-begun.html


----------



## derty (27 April 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Let's Party Like it's 999.



> *Hardline Somali Militants Ban Music on Airwaves*
> Somalia's radio stations stop playing music after hardline militants label it un-Islamic
> 
> Rock, rap and love songs once filled the airwaves in Somalia's war-torn capital, one of the few pleasures residents had. But Islamist militants ordered music off the air Tuesday, labeling it un-Islamic in a hardline edict reminiscent of the Taliban.
> ...



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10358663


----------



## bellenuit (5 May 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

*Priest conducts 'bizarre' faith healing*

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/7166053/priest-conducts-bizarre-faith-healing/


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



bellenuit said:


> *Priest conducts 'bizarre' faith healing*
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/7166053/priest-conducts-bizarre-faith-healing/




Indeed... and it says something about the quality of priests when there is a call for more to join the priesthood and hanging on to many existing ones that should go, although this one is not the worst by any means to not be kicked out.



> While the Church did not condone the bizarre service, he said it was standing by the priest in his time of need, though he would not be allowed to give mass until he was better.


----------



## overit (1 August 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Harry Potter??? 



> *Creationists hijack lessons and teach schoolkids man and dinosaurs walked together *
> 
> PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there is fossil evidence to prove it.
> 
> ...


----------



## overit (1 August 2010)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

How to win friends and influence people! 



> *Church to burn copies of Koran to mark 9/11 *
> 
> A FLORIDA church was yesterday promoting an event where it will burn copies of the Koran to mark the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the U.S.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean K (16 January 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Pakistan is going crazy!!

The Prophet was an illiterate skitzo desert warrior. 

That comment alone puts me in the clink at best in Pakistan. At worst I get to be burried up to my neck and stoned to death by a mob of skitzo illiterate unemployed cave dwellers.

Get in to the 21st Century you imbeciles!!!!




*Pakistani protesters warn pope over blasphemy laws*
By Reza Sayah, CNN
January 15, 2011 -- Updated 1124 GMT (1924 HKT)

Rawalpindi, Pakistan (CNN) -- At a frenzied Friday rally in this garrison city outside of Islamabad, thousands warned Pope Benedict XVI to keep his nose out of the debate over Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

The demonstration came days after the Vatican called for Pakistan to repeal the controversial laws that say anyone who defiles the name of the Muslim prophet Mohammed should face the death penalty or life imprisonment.

"If you challenge the prophet, we will take revenge. It doesn't matter who does it," shouted a cleric on loudspeakers to thousands of cheering onlookers.

Pakistan's blasphemy laws came into sharp focus when a security guard allegedly killed his boss Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, who criticize the laws.

Since the shooting, hardline religious groups have held demonstrations praising suspected killer Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri -- who Pakistan's Interior Minister says confessed to the killing -- calling him a hero and a defender of Islam.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/01/15/pakistan.protest/index.html?hpt=T2


----------



## Boognish (17 January 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

These imbeciles have nukes.


----------



## gav (23 January 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

A worthy addition to this thread...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...uslims-take-over/story-e6frg6nf-1225991362018


----------



## drsmith (23 January 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



gav said:


> A worthy addition to this thread...
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...uslims-take-over/story-e6frg6nf-1225991362018



The Australian that day must have been rather thin.


----------



## pixel (23 January 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> "If you challenge the prophet, we will take revenge. It doesn't matter  who does it," shouted a cleric on loudspeakers to thousands of cheering  onlookers.



Sounds familiar.
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" = "Do you want Total War?" shouted Goebbels into the microphone. And thousands of mesmerised believers roared back "Yes! Sieg Heil!"
Can you imagine what would have happened if Hitler had had the first atomic bomb?

If we can't stop radicals such as *Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon and** Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri* in their tracks right now, Auschwitz and Hiroshima will pale into insignificance compared to what lies ahead. Like boognish said: *"These imbeciles have nukes."*


----------



## Sean K (23 January 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



drsmith said:


> The Australian that day must have been rather thin.



Looks like relevant information to me. 

Aren't there some laws against what that guy is saying?


----------



## Happy (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Looks like another eyebrow rising information.

One religion is so keen in Australia that we have more than 60% of chicken here blessed and prepared certain way that 2% of our population have chicken suitable for their consumption.

(To be sarcastic: We are probably getting ready for change in population percentages and as usual Kosovo comes to mind)

To tell the truth I’d prefer MY food left alone out of that compulsory religionification.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Happy said:


> Looks like another eyebrow rising information.
> 
> One religion is so keen in Australia that we have more than 60% of chicken here blessed and prepared certain way that 2% of our population have chicken suitable for their consumption.
> 
> ...




Looks like you were watching TT (Today Tonight) the other day.

http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video#
The Halal Chicken video is in the list.

Story told below
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/7791186/general/halal-takeaway



Even the "Muslim KFC Worker goes nuts when asked for Bacon!" got a mention 

(_*Warning, there are swear words in this clip*_)






*Today Tonight 06.01.11 Clash of Cultures - Halal Fast Food *


----------



## pixel (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

How come nobody makes a fuss in a vegetarian or an unlicensed restaurant.
Go to Annalakshmi and ask for a steak, and the staff will politely reply "This is a vegetarian restaurant."
Go to an unlicensed cafe and ask for the wine list, and your misunderstanding will also be politely explained.
An idiot in a KFC going ballistic - set up or not - *that is the difference!* And it's got zip to do with civil liberties or the Law. 

If your religion turns you into a nut case, stay in the madhouse where such belief is the norm. But in a country, where the majority maintains and expects tolerance and an open mind, don't claim protection that is reserved for minorities, who can't help their minority status: the disabled, frail, or otherwise handicapped.
Remember: Some advocates for drug addicts also complain it's not their fault. But they at least agree that the victims need help and detox.


----------



## Ruby (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> How come nobody makes a fuss in a vegetarian or an unlicensed restaurant.
> Go to Annalakshmi and ask for a steak, and the staff will politely reply "This is a vegetarian restaurant."
> Go to an unlicensed cafe and ask for the wine list, and your misunderstanding will also be politely explained.
> An idiot in a KFC going ballistic - set up or not - *that is the difference!* And it's got zip to do with civil liberties or the Law.
> ...




Exactly!!   And what about people who ARE vegetarians who find themselves sharing food with meat eaters, at a barbeque, say.  Do they go ballistic and start throwing furniture around?   I think not.  Or non-drinkers at a gathering with people drinking alcohol.......... do they voice loud objections?  Not if they want to keep their friends.  Civilised people adhere to their beliefs quietly and allow others to indulge in theirs.

I don't suppose the KFC worker was sacked for his rude and voilent outburst.   I wonder what would happen to another (non muslim) employee who was so rude to a customer?

As Pixel says, this has nothing to do with civil liberties.   Terry O'Gorman with his bleatings does more harm than good, in my view.


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

This whole thing has gotten completely out of hand. If you wanted to be technical, it wouldn't be possible to call out "gods" name when you're slaughtering masses of animals - the muslim reply to this is they play a recording over loudspeaker, but still not the same.

Secondly, if i want to eat bacon on my KFC i expect the store to have it. I used to work with lots of muslim guys who would never stop preaching about their god and all things associated with it and talk down on the fact that pork was forbidden and dirty but these guys all smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine, injected steroids and slept with *****s behind their wives backs - just didn't like the bacon.


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> I used to work with lots of muslim guys who would never stop preaching about their god and all things associated with it and talk down on the fact that pork was forbidden and dirty but these guys all smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine, injected steroids and slept with *****s behind their wives backs - just didn't like the bacon.



I do wonder where the whole don't eat pork really came from originally. I mean, what did Mohammad have against pigs? Maybe he had some bad bacon as a child perhaps? Or, he was eating a Christmas roast one day, nibbling on the crackling, when he found some hair on it and realised 'holy Jesus, this is pig's skin!' and decided he didn't like it.


----------



## pixel (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Aren't there some laws against what that guy is saying?



 Dunno - I'm not a lawyer.
But  over here in WA discrimination/ vilification on sexual, racial, religious grounds is definitely _verboten_. 

See http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/01/3126539.htm

Maybe someone with better legal training can explain the difference, why the same law cannot be applied to any imam or sheikh who preaches hatred against "non-believers" and vilifies all of us who don't give a toss.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> I used to work with lots of muslim guys who would never stop preaching about their god and all things associated with it and talk down on the fact that pork was forbidden and dirty but these guys all smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine, injected steroids and slept with *****s behind their wives backs - just didn't like the bacon.




+1
I worked with a Muslim guy over the past 2 years who;

cheated on his wife with any female that even looked in his direction
visited the w**** house monthly
got pissed at least once a week (more like 3-4 nights a week)
treated his wife like absolute crap (that could be anyone, but it all added up in my eyes)
yet...didn't eat pork products 

I still remember when the Pope visited Sydney in '08 and l was watching it on the news on TV. He made a remark along the lines of,'....Oh, look at that fag...". Had l said that about Muhammad, l would have been fired for discrimination. Work that one out people.
I find some Muslim's to be very hypocritical, self centered and think that they are above others.


----------



## pixel (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I do wonder where the whole don't eat pork really came from originally. I mean, what did Mohammad have against pigs? Maybe he had some bad bacon as a child perhaps? Or, he was eating a Christmas roast one day, nibbling on the crackling, when he found some hair on it and realised 'holy Jesus, this is pig's skin!' and decided he didn't like it.



 Hi kennas,
there is a logical reason behind some of the dietary rules. It's all got to do with the environment, where those tribal rules originated: In a dry, arid coutry, mostly desert of dry scrub where water was scarce and refrigeration unknown.
Pork is quickly "going off" unless it's cured or boiled in water. Beef, mutton, and other red meat can be sun-dried and keeps edible for a long time.
Similar with mollusks: While fresh, crabs and oysters are delicious; but don't leave them even an hour in the sun, unless you like food poisoning.

Now, in the Dark Ages, you couldn't argue with the unwashed masses about science, germs, an hour or two. So, a "Holy Book" full of rules had to be invented that cloaked all those sensible hygiene messages into mumbo-jumbo and promised eternal damnation to all non-believers. Right down to ordering people to use one hand for "clean" things like eating and welcoming guests, while keeping the other unwashed, even after you wiped your bum with it; makes sense when neither toilet paper has yet been invented, nor soap water is sufficiently available.
btw, I believe the lack of water is also behind the barbaric practice of circumcision that originated in the same region. Western civilisation has adopted some sanitary rules of cleanliness that make smegma and the bacteria thriving in it a thing of the past. 
'nuff said, I reckon.


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> btw, I believe the lack of water is also behind the barbaric practice of circumcision that originated in the same region.



Yes, it's a strange thing to do. I think the good book says that it was an act of sacrifice in the beginning that started that trend. I'm sure all babies pop out and think 'to be more holy I must have my body mutilated'. Or, it was just good hygiene. 

Now, female circumcision......lets not go there.


----------



## tothemax6 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Not really a thread I want to join, but I thought I'd just leave my  here for what its worth, as someone who one upon a time was involved with this issue. 
There is no objective doubt that the statement "an increasing presence of muslims is detrimental to non-muslims" is correct. However, I'd like to point out that natives complaining about muslim immigrants to each other has been going on forever, as it did in the UK, as it did in France, as it is in Canada, the rest of Europe etc.

It is a complete waste of time and effort. No amount of anti-muslim noise made by the natives had any effect whatsoever on the expansion of the muslim communities. This stands to reason - what concern is it of muslims what non-muslims think? They will do what they wish regardless.
The issue should be 'for what reason is there now a muslim presence', and people should spend their energy confronting _that_ issue. And the reason is fairly straightforward to anyone who seeks it: non-muslim leftism, and nothing else.


----------



## pixel (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



DB008 said:


> I find some Muslim's to be very hypocritical, self centered and think that they are above others.



 Hi DB,
While I understand your attitude, I don't believe it's fair to judge an entire group - in this case: Muslims - by the lack of discipline of some or even many of its members.
I've met self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalists, who are convinced of their own virtue and who bring heartache and death to every "heathen" they can "save". All from the purest of motives of course.
I know devout Muslims - and Jews, for that matter, who share similar dietary and hygiene "Musaic Laws" - whom I respect very highly as civilised members of my circle of friends. Many of them have graduated out of the Dark Ages and know the dietary rules for what they are: Precautions to avoid food poisoning in arid areas. They enjoy a beer or a glass of wine, don't fret when we throw a pork chop or shrimp on the BBQ, and respect my agnostic views as a matter of my personal choice - like I respect theirs. 
Nor do they hide their wives in a one-man tent; they're self-assured enough to know nobody can "own" another person. They love their wives/ partners in the same sense that I love my wife: *where that other person's happiness and wellbeing is essential to their own.

PS: tothemax6,* I thought I understood most of what you said; if I knew what you mean by *"*non-muslim leftism", I might understand your contribution fully.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> Hi DB,
> While I understand your attitude, I don't believe it's fair to judge an entire group - in this case: Muslims - by the lack of discipline of some or even many of its members.




I agree with you 100%, maybe l've brain-washed myself somehow and hold people in this religious group differently after working with 1 Muslim for 2 years. I consciously know it's not the right thing to do and l always try to give the benefit of doubt to everyone.


----------



## easylikesunday (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I still cant get my head around how people can still believe in "higher powers" in this day and age, and worse throw all their money at it. 

Its the biggest *business* in the world (tax free mind you) and people still cant work it out


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



tothemax6 said:


> No amount of anti-muslim noise made by the natives had any effect whatsoever on the expansion of the muslim communities. This stands to reason - what concern is it of muslims what non-muslims think? They will do what they wish regardless.
> The issue should be 'for what reason is there now a muslim presence', and people should spend their energy confronting _that_ issue. And the reason is fairly straightforward to anyone who seeks it: non-muslim leftism, and nothing else.



I disagree and agree.

In the end logic will prevail. It might take 50 years. It might take 2000 years. But, humans will one day conclude that religion is crazy. Or, God will actually appear in person, do some scientifically proved miracles, and this thread will be toast.

Yes, we should confront the issue. Why the hell would anyone want to dogmatically follow the words of a book written 1500 years ago in Western Asia by the acquaintances of an illiterate who had an angel speak to him while meditating in a cave in the desert mountains. Why would anyone think these are the words of God?

My solution?

Give them a job.




And cull the human population by half. 

We just don't get on in confined spaces.


----------



## Good Vibes (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I disagree and agree.
> 
> In the end logic will prevail. It might take 50 years. It might take 2000 years. But, humans will one day conclude that religion is crazy. Or, God will actually appear in person, do some scientifically proved miracles, and this thread will be toast.




Kennas - Religion is one of human's first and most enduring inventions - it's certainly been around longer than the wheel.

But if God does appear - he most certainly would be an ET of some kind.


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I'm not concerned about Australia being taken over by muslims. I reckon in 20-30 years, their women won't bow down to their husbands orders. They're suppressed enough as it is and I have seen and heard enough already to prove it.

I also worked with a Syrian atheist (as unbelievable as it is) who said that when he was studying in Iran he used to sleep with a lot of the muslim wives when their husbands were away at work. They used to peer their heads out their door which was the signal for "its on".

Back here in Australia, this Lebanese muslim FOB was upset and angry at his wife for not wearing her head scarf. She refused to wear it - he was an excavator operator and his wife was an Australian born muslim and an accountant. Her mother refused to do what her husband told her (resulted in a divorce) and passed on her (good) attitudes to her daughter.

The best was the 20 something year old muslim girl in Arncliffe Sydney who told my married muslim mate that he could you know what in her freckle only because she had to stay a virgin.

I have so many stories, I work in construction and I am around these guys every day.....i used to work for a muslim guy for 3 years and there was only about 6 Aussies and Maori's out of about 15 muslims.


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Good Vibes said:


> Kennas - Religion is one of human's first and most enduring inventions.



And obviously still has a function. Because we don't know _everything_ about the universe we must assign the unknown to God. And to feel good about death. And, He's still an incredible control mechanism.


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Good Vibes said:


> Kennas - Religion is one of human's first and most enduring inventions - it's certainly been around longer than the wheel.
> 
> But if God does appear - he most certainly would be an ET of some kind.




I can never believe in god (which i don't) after you hear all the sick twisted stuff that goes on especially to little kids. 



Best doco I have ever seen


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> I can never believe in god (which i don't) after you hear all the sick twisted stuff that goes on especially to little kids.



Religion should be a choice. Not brainwashing.

Increase the age of brainwashing consent from 0 to 18 I propose!

Parents should at least be banned from taking their children to church until they understand that the Earth is round, we revolve around the Sun, and Eve was not a product of Adam's rib cage.


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



There's so much good stuff on youtube that everyone should be subjected to.

Heres one with Actual intelligence behind it:


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> Heres one with Actual intelligence behind it:



I disagree with Dawkins.

There is a very clear rationality for it.

Survival.

What we don't understand we must explain as best possible for our own mortality. 

An example is the human impulse to assign threat to a rustling in the bushes. It is best to assume that it is a predator, than a rabbit.

It actually WAS rational for some time, but now is absolute idiocy with what we have learnt over time.

(pending God turning up and handing us a cure for cancer - although I am sure some lunatic will claim it was God's will)


----------



## pixel (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Good Vibes said:


> Kennas - Religion is one of human's first and most enduring inventions - it's certainly been around longer than the wheel.
> 
> But if God does appear - he most certainly would be an ET of some kind.



 So true,
and if Jesus came back and showed His face on St Peter's in Rome, He'd be locked up for preaching without a license or some other misdemeanour.

And it would be an interesting spectacle indeed to watch Mohammed try and tell any of the different factions and sects who is boss. Would Ahmadinajad or Bin Laden nod assent if M. told them that "Isa bin Yusouf", aka "Isa bin Maryam", was indeed a Prophet, whose doctrine to "Love Thy Neighbour" was indeed valid?


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I disagree with Dawkins.
> 
> There is a very clear rationality for it.
> 
> ...




What was thought up and believed in the beginning is a lot different to what has blown out of proportion these days. I think it was merely just stories to scare people into behaving as a society so your neighbour wouldnt root your wife or steal and murder. These days there are laws for all this - only good thing to come out of religion is the public holidays


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> So true,
> and if Jesus came back and showed His face on St Peter's in Rome, He'd be locked up for preaching without a license or some other misdemeanour.
> 
> And it would be an interesting spectacle indeed to watch Mohammed try and tell any of the different factions and sects who is boss. Would Ahmadinajad or Bin Laden nod assent if M. told them that "Isa bin Yusouf", aka "Isa bin Maryam", was indeed a Prophet, whose doctrine to "Love Thy Neighbour" was indeed valid?




I wonder how many muslim fathers would allow another man to take his daughter at 6 years old and consummate their marriage when she turns 9 like Muhammed did. Stuff would've happened in those 3 years leading up to the marriage, and it wouldn't have been bedtime stories from the quran.


----------



## Good Vibes (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> I can never believe in god




 I used to be a crazy christian but an atheist now. 

"Religulous" looks very funny - must chase it up to view. Loved the ending:


BILL MAHER: God knows what could have been accomplished in this world....(interrupted)

VOICE OVER: *YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE! YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!*

DR NEWBERG: You weren't expecting that...

BILL MAHER: (looks to the heavens) Is that God?

DR NEWBERG: It's the voice of God......

Like the stock market - it's all in the timing.


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> only good thing to come out of religion is the public holidays



Love Christmas holidays!! I'm not sure if JC was really born on this day though. 

And Easter - The time JC was crucified and rose from the dead was according to the cycle of the moon?  LOL


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Love Christmas holidays!! I'm not sure if JC was really born on this day though.
> 
> And Easter - The time JC was crucified and rose from the dead was according to the cycle of the moon?  LOL




The catholics should've allowed jesus to marry that hooker mary magdeline when they were making up their religion - then we could've got another public holiday.

Sometime around July - September cos after the queens birthday, its pretty quiet up until labour day.


----------



## Good Vibes (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> I disagree with Dawkins.
> 
> There is a very clear rationality for it.
> 
> ...




Yep - Religion will eventually reach its USE BY date - but not yet!


----------



## Solly (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Good Vibes said:


> Yep - Religion will eventually reach its USE BY date - but not yet!




Maybe, just maybe...


----------



## Julia (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Religion should be a choice. Not brainwashing.
> 
> Increase the age of brainwashing consent from 0 to 18 I propose!
> 
> Parents should at least be banned from taking their children to church until they understand that the Earth is round, we revolve around the Sun, and Eve was not a product of Adam's rib cage.



I hope you're not holding our breath while you wait for this to occur.



kennas said:


> It actually WAS rational for some time, but now is absolute idiocy with what we have learnt over time.
> 
> (pending God turning up and handing us a cure for cancer - although I am sure some lunatic will claim it was God's will)



They already have:  viz Mary McKillop being made a saint for curing cancer.
Clearly she performed this, um, 'miracle' as an agent of God.

I don't believe religion will ever cease to exist.  Many people have an inherent need to believe in something and don't have the confidence to make that 'something' themselves.

Btw on the dietary stuff, Seventh Day Adventists are supposedly all vegans.  They will not touch any animal products.  This is based on the belief that they are unclean in the first place and then that the way they are killed and processed is also unclean.

It's just a belief.  Doesn't hurt anyone.  They don't go round insisting others should adhere to similar beliefs.  They might be right.  We might all be better off if we ate a bit less meat.


----------



## Good Vibes (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Solly said:


> Maybe, just maybe...




Now that's classic crazy:! All I can say is "Don't taze me, bro".


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> I hope you're not holding our breath while you wait for this to occur.
> 
> 
> They already have:  viz Mary McKillop being made a saint for curing cancer.
> ...




There are many among us who wish we all followed islam um, i mean their religion. They can't even get that story right between themselves.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



builder2818 said:


> There are many among us who wish we all followed islam um, i mean their religion. They can't even get that story right between themselves.



I'm not sure what you're saying here.
My comment was in regard to the Seventh Day Adventists.
I'm not getting into the discussion about muslims.


----------



## builder2818 (3 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Julia said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying here.
> My comment was in regard to the Seventh Day Adventists.
> I'm not getting into the discussion about muslims.




i know that.....the part of your post I bolded is ironic towards what I mentioned which you could relate to any religion which aims at getting people to believe in something or live their life a certain way because of some fictional books that were written a while ago. Some are more fanatical about it then others, just as I expressed.


----------



## Ruby (4 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Love Christmas holidays!! I'm not sure if JC was really born on this day though.
> 
> And Easter - The time JC was crucified and rose from the dead was according to the cycle of the moon?  LOL




Christmas is the ancient festival of Saturnalia - when the sun begins its journey back towards the equator after midwinter - the shortest day (northern hemisphere) and Easter, of course is the beginning of spring.


----------



## Chris45 (4 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

A few reasons for keeping an open mind on “higher powers”:

*1. Antimatter -* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
In particle physics, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, where antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron or e+) and an antiproton (p) can form an antihydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter can lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs.
There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether there exist other places that are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed. *At this time, the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.* The process by which this asymmetry between particles and antiparticles developed is called baryogenesis.

*2. Dark Matter -* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation. Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium. ... *dark matter constitutes 80% of the matter in the universe, while ordinary matter makes up only 20%.*

*3. Multiverse -* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

Since ‘intelligent life’ exists in our small matter-universe, and since many people believe there’s a high probability that life also exists elsewhere in our universe, why couldn’t ‘intelligent life’ (perhaps superior to ours) exist in a parallel antimatter- or dark matter-universe? And if that life is made of antimatter, how would it communicate with us since matter and antimatter mutually annihilate? The unknown unknowns are mind boggling and great stuff for science fiction writers! The simple fact is that the 20% of our universe that we’re aware of is far from simple and we know very little about it, and we know absolutely nothing about the other 80% of our universe, and any parallel universes if they exist. By all means be skeptical, but be open minded and don’t dismiss things you don’t understand as absolute rubbish.

As for our religions, and how we behave under them, the term ‘intelligent life’ is frequently very questionable, and I agree that many organized religions are simply a power grab and a tax dodge, but if a salesman is total rubbish, is the product he’s selling automatically total rubbish as well?


----------



## pixel (4 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Hi Chris45

No disagreement about "open mind on higher powers". The fact that none has stopped by and handed me his business card, doesn't mean such a Higher Power can't exist. That's why I classify myself, in line with many skeptics, as an *Agnostic* rather than an *Atheist*. I even presume our current Prime Minister won't deny the possibility of the existence of a Higher Power, which is the original meaning of a-theism. I find it more appropriate to say "*Dunno*!" because I *cannot *know.

Given the myriad of contenders for the throne, I find it highly unlikely that any hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator and Manager of the universe should have picked two feuding tribes of goat herds in a "godforsaken" corner of the Earth and revealed him/her/itself to those two tribes in similar, yet mutually exclusive personae to the extent that those two tribes have been at each others' throats ever since. I find it even less likely, that this being should have told the Nordic peoples a totally different story about Yggdrasil and Ragnarok, appeared to Australian Aborigines as a Rainbow Serpent, to Incas and Mayas and Aztecs in yet a variety of other shapes, sizes, and made-up rules. etc ad infinitum.
And then have a look at the way some of these idols are presented to their followers: Acting like petulant kids if they don't get the proper amount of adulation in this chant or that prayer offering. One projection has allegedly nine Billion names, the other forbids any name to be uttered at all?

Strikes me as a rather sloppy way to run a Multiverse.

But as you say, we can't know what's outside our space and time horizon. As a corollary to that truth, any "Being" outside our space and time horizon will then hardly be in a position to expect us to know, believe, and worship it according to rules that are unknowable.


----------



## Chris45 (5 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> That's why I classify myself, in line with many skeptics, as an *Agnostic* rather than an *Atheist*.



Hi Pixel, Yes I agree agnosticism rather than atheism is the better position to adopt. I empathise with “Doubting Thomas” myself. I’ve had experiences that I have difficulty explaining using logic, probability, etc. and which suggest the intervention of a higher power, so I’m more of a theist than an atheist. Many people gain comfort from the belief that a higher power is watching over them and I think that giving thanks to someone for what they have, rather than complaining and cursing about what they haven’t, makes them better people.

Atheists (as well as fundamentalists) remind me of flat-earthists – absolutely convinced that they’re right and unable to accept alternative possibilities. Life is the deepest mystery of all and will remain so until a scientist succeeds in creating life in the laboratory.


----------



## Sean K (9 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> *Treat Muslim Brotherhood with caution, Blair urges*
> By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
> February 7, 2011 -- Updated 1828 GMT (0228 HKT)
> 
> ...




I've always highly rated him as a statesman. Anyone who has listened to his off-the-cuff-speaches would be highly impressed.

A truly gifted orator.

History will rate him on his speech and decision making. 

But, I think he is wrong on true religion.

It can never, EVER, be democratic or credible because it requires dogmatic belief and suspension of logic. A leap of faith that is not supported by one ounce of evidence. 

Religious voice should only be taught in history classes. It is history after all. 

The paradigm of Democracy linked to Islam, is a true oxymoron, let alone being 'compatible' concepts. No religion of the book is democratic.


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

*Bangladeshi teen dies from sharia lashing after reportedly being raped*

http://www.usatoday.com/communities...g-after-reportedly-being-raped/1?csp=obinsite


----------



## Happy (9 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



> Kennas
> #316
> 
> "I've always believe that democracy and Islam are perfectly compatible concepts," he added.




Not sure if compatible, but they can use our democracy to beat our system.

Probably Kosovo would ring the bell, after all only majority is needed to do what you want in our system!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Quantum Gravity Rules

OK

god

gg


----------



## _fbb (10 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Pixel, Chris45

Agnosticism and atheism do not lie along the same continuum, in fact, the concepts are orthogonal to each other. What this means is that there are 4 positions:

1) agnostic atheist (unknowable, lack belief)
2) gnostic atheist (knowable, lack belief)
3) agnostic theist (unknowable, belief)
4) gnostic atheist (knowable, belief)

Although, I admit that the common use of the terms make them appear to be directly comparable ("I am an agnostic" vs "I am an atheist"), but this is not really correct, as you can be both (or neither) at the same time, for example.


----------



## Izabarack (10 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Question for the creationists, if your god made me, and my mummy and my cat and the world, who made god?

Iza


----------



## Sean K (10 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Izabarack said:


> Question for the creationists, if your god made me, and my mummy and my cat and the world, who made god?
> 
> Iza



No one; God is eternal, the unmoved prime mover, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and a very good cook I hear. 

And you need to read the book 'Where did I come from?' to rectify your knowledge of the birds and the bees.


----------



## Chris45 (10 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



_fbb said:


> Agnosticism and atheism do not lie along the same continuum, in fact, the concepts are orthogonal to each other. What this means is that there are 4 positions:
> 
> 1) agnostic atheist (unknowable, lack belief)
> 2) gnostic atheist (knowable, lack belief)
> ...



I assume 4) should be 'gnostic theist'. (Sounds a bit like Rumsfeld's famous 'known knowns, etc.' quote.)

I guess many people see it more as linear with gnostic atheist (knowing God denier) on the left and gnostic theist (knowing God believer) on the right, with agnostic atheist being to the left of agnostic theist and in between.


----------



## _fbb (11 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Chris45 said:


> I assume 4) should be 'gnostic theist'




Yes you're right, that was my typo. Thanks for picking it up.


----------



## Sean K (24 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Didn't think it would be long before something like this came about.

I suspected that it would be Christians saying that God had saved someone after they'd prayed for their life, or some such bollocks.

(after the Devil had caused the quake of course)

But no, it was lesbians that caused the quake.

Naturally.

'Despicable': website blames Christchurch quake on gay community
Megan Levy
February 24, 2011 - 11:34AM

http://www.theage.com.au/technology...ch-quake-on-gay-community-20110224-1b68y.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 February 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Didn't think it would be long before something like this came about.
> 
> I suspected that it would be Christians saying that God had saved someone after they'd prayed for their life, or some such bollocks.
> 
> ...




No its no time for jokes.
These "christians" need a few lions to sort them out.
Little pricks.

gg


----------



## Sean K (26 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Religion can never take the higher moral ground while they continue to be exposed as having no morals.


*Jesuits settle abuse claims for $163m*

IN one of the largest settlements in the Catholic church's sweeping sex abuse scandal, an order of priests has agreed to pay $US166.1 million ($163 million) to hundreds of Native Americans and Alaska Natives who were abused at the order's schools around the US Pacific Northwest.

The settlement between more than 450 victims and the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus also calls for a written apology to the victims and disclosure of documents to them, including their personal medical records.

"It's a day of reckoning and justice," said Clarita Vargas, who said she and her two sisters were abused by the head of St Mary's Mission and School, a former Jesuit-run Indian boarding school on the Colville Indian Reservation near Omak, Washington state, in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The abuse began when they were as young as six or seven, she said. "My spirit was wounded, and this makes it feel better."


----------



## explod (26 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> No its no time for jokes.
> These "christians" need a few lions to sort them out.
> Little pricks.
> 
> gg




Very sound point GG.  We could hold a few at the MCG and mabe our ole Pal (spellin?) could be in the first show.


----------



## Sean K (27 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Government gone crazy! 

*Backlash as God forced into schools*
Michael Bachelard
March 27, 2011

THE Victorian Education Department is forcing public primary schools to run Christian education classes taught by volunteers, angering parents and schools that do not want to host them.

An email exchange, obtained by The Sunday Age, reveals the department told one parent that his school ''must'' keep its Christian religious instructor whether it wanted to or not.


----------



## wayneL (27 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Izabarack said:


> Question for the creationists, if your god made me, and my mummy and my cat and the world, who made god?
> 
> Iza




This question presumes that we know what God is; and as we can't even agree whether he/she/it exists, the question is moot.

A better question is - "What is God?".... but this is likely to lead us back to the whether he/she/it exists argument.

Circular.


----------



## sails (27 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Government gone crazy!
> 
> *Backlash as God forced into schools*
> Michael Bachelard
> ...





Anything controversial should be a choice, IMO.  Religious beliefs vary considerably and I think there should be suitable alternatives for those who are not comfortable.

I also think school should stop ramming "Climate change" and "Global Warming" down the necks of our primary school kids.  Last year Yr 5 granddaughter had a whole term spent on this nonsense and appears it was taught as if were an exact science.  It is controversial and should be taught as such, IMO.


----------



## Sean K (27 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



sails said:


> Anything controversial should be a choice, IMO.  Religious beliefs vary considerably and I think there should be suitable alternatives for those who are not comfortable.
> 
> I also think school should stop ramming "Climate change" and "Global Warming" down the necks of our primary school kids.  Last year Yr 5 granddaughter had a whole term spent on this nonsense and appears it was taught as if were an exact science.  It is controversial and should be taught as such, IMO.



I'd be very happy if the 'facts' were taught. So, the 'history of religion' would be a fair subject I think.

Being taught that God created the world in 7 days, the Earth is the centre of the Universe, etc, etc, should NOT be implanted in the young. 

IMHO, religion should not be taught to children until they know right from wrong. And in our society that age is 18.


----------



## pixel (27 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> IMHO, religion should not be taught to children until they know right from wrong. And in our society that age is 18.



 Are you sure?
News are full of 19+ year-olds that still don't have a clue: Go on "joy rides" in other peoples' cars; do drugs; spray-paint the neighbourhood; assault easy targets like 90-yo grannies ...

Why can't schools teach Rights and Wrong without the mystical mumbo-jumbo? Explain the consequences of infringements on other people's right; by all means quote some religious examples as a backdrop; explain why inventors of religious books reinforced some Do's and Dont's in threats that even the dumbest member of their tribe could understand.
But stop insulting kids' natural intelligence by lying to them and expecting them to believe there's a difference between fairy tales written in Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, or English. Tell them the Grimm Brothers were the only bunch that were honest in that they did NOT claim their collection to be historic fact.


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Why can't schools teach Rights and Wrong without the mystical mumbo-jumbo?




That's what I reckon too. But when I ask why people 'believe' in religion, the usual answer is they need to believe in and belong to something.




> But stop* insulting kids' natural intelligence* by lying to them and expecting them to believe there's a difference between fairy tales written in Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, or English.




That's what happened to me!


----------



## awg (28 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

A method to deter godbotherers that knock on your door, or get in your face:

Tell them you worship Satan, and invite them to participate


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



wayneL said:


> A better question is - "What is God?".... but this is likely to lead us back to the whether he/she/it exists argument.
> 
> Circular.




I agree.  

I've read quite a bit on the topic (various religions) and the consensus seems to be that "God" is not actually a 'thing' but an experiential mode of being, or a higher level of consciousness.  To be more precise, God is something that happens, a realization of 'no self', or extinction of personal identity.  Whether that's actually the case or not I don't know because I have no personal experience, but that's what I've gleaned so far.  

Much of religion seems to have been perverted into dogma and doctrine, rituals, rules and regulations.  The other perversion of religion is the "group think" phenomenon, wherein people of similar thoughts gather to reinforce their beliefs - not good.  Going to church could be like signing up for Hotcopper, you either agree with everyone or you get booted!!!

If one is to start looking into religion (or God that exists outside of religion), one needs to be extremely discriminating, and to read very widely.   Finding the kernel of truth amongst all the rubbish and peripheral stuff could be a lifelong process, IF you choose to look in the first place.  And it could be a waste of time.  I suspect it's not, but it could be.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Here's a good analogy:

"I reject technical analysis, and I condemn it every chance I get and I started a thread on it for that reason.  Let's condemn it together and be happy in our communion!"

"But what do you mean by TA?  What did you try?"

"MACD cross.  I used it for a month and lost half my account.  I used stops and everything, just like the book said".

See where I'm going with this?

There are levels of understanding that are *way *beyond the "Man with a beard who decides whether I go to heaven or hell".  If you make up your mind at that point, you've given up at the "fairy tale Sunday school level" which may actually bear no resemblance to really what's going on.  Buddha even said that there is no God (not that I'm a buddhist or an anything-ist).  But what did he mean by that?  Do you really realllly know what he meant by that.... and why he said it? Did he mean it literally or was he using it as a teaching device?  The God topic is so tricky, you need to be extremely careful what you buy into, if anything at all.

The market is dead today so i thought I'd get philosophical.  Time to clean the house.


----------



## Whiskers (28 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Gringotts Bank said:


> wayneL said:
> 
> 
> > A better question is - "What is God?".... but this is likely to lead us back to the whether he/she/it exists argument.
> ...




That's my experience also. I prefer to relate to 'it' in terms of Nature or Life Spirit to get away from the association with past dogma.




> *...a realization of 'no self', or extinction of personal identity. *Whether that's actually the case or not I don't know because I have no personal experience, but that's what I've gleaned so far*.*



 

I would agree that the 'self' has been overdone in a lot of culture, religion and ego pumping generally, but doesn't one need to be aware of oneself to be able to find what your part is supposed to be in the 'Natural' evolution of things.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 March 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

whiskers, in some traditions they say that it is first important to have a strong sense of self in order to then transcend the self.  I like this idea, because it rings true in my experience.  If you want money, go and make money.  Want sex?  Go and do as many women as you can.  Power?  Climb that ladder!  One day, the desire to be free of all those attachments may occur, but I'm not sure that forcing the issue is ideal.  I still like all those things, so you can see I'm not particularly advanced in that sense.

Trying to transcend the self before you're ready seems to lead to problems.  Those attempting to jump ahead into the selfless state by using psychedelics can risk 'seeing too much' or 'knowing too much', before their nervous system can handle it.  They can end up in a very bad place.  Sometimes I think prolonged meditation can do that also, but I'm not against that as a practice.

I like the idea of a natural progression, as you suggest, but with a bit of intelligent tweaking thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Sean K (4 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Is burning a book symbolic enough to warrant death?

I don't think so.

Why do we put up with this insanity.

Both sides.

It's really scary stuff.

I can not imagine living back in the day of The Inquisition, etc, etc.


----------



## lindsayf (4 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> Is burning a book symbolic enough to warrant death?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...




no but its easy to see how the Inquisition insanity happened just now isnt it.  FFS it really is insane....but hasnt fundamentalist religious fervour and everything that comes out of ALWAYS been insane!

I like my quiet little corner of the universe.....


----------



## pixel (4 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Gringotts Bank said:


> I like the idea of a natural progression, as you suggest, but with a bit of intelligent tweaking thrown in for good measure.



 So do I, GB
Problem is: For every "intelligent" Self there is a crazy funda*MENTAL* one to pull the average IQ back to - well: average.

And morons like the "preacher" who burned the Q'ran will never accept that their actions are equally as bad as the reactions they cause. Worse actually, because they must have known what the reactions would be. And in any truly *civilised *society, he would be accused and convicted of murdering the UN staff in Afghanistan: "Murder by Proxy".


----------



## bellenuit (4 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



pixel said:


> And in any truly *civilised *society, he would be accused and convicted of murdering the UN staff in Afghanistan: "Murder by Proxy".




What he did was utterly stupid.  However, I disagree with your comment. IMO....

And in any truly civilised society, *they, the killers of the innocent UN staff,* would be accused and convicted of murder.

Lets put the blame squarely where it belongs. The UN staff had nothing to do with the burning. The Islamic clerics who incited the mob to kill the staff knew this but chose to kill the UN staff anyway. They, and the mob, are the murderers.

The preacher was stupid, intolerant and lots of other things, but he did not murder the UN staff.

Do we convict the publishers of the Mohammed cartoons of murder because intolerant Islamists killed people after their publication. What about historians who after studying the life of Mohammed publish works that suggest that Mohammed was a pedophile. They may be aware that the publication of such "truths" may cause innocents to be killed in one of the "stans". Are those historians also guilty of murder. Ditto Salmon Rushdie. 

Lets not destroy our freedoms because of the intolerance of others. With freedoms comes responsibility and the preacher was clearly irresponsible in doing what he did. But he was not the murderer of the UN staff. The clerics and the mob were the murderers and no excuses should be offered in their defence.


----------



## Glen48 (4 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

It has been going on since man stood upright so we can never win...we need to worry about the Muslims who will be able to vote in their people to govern soon and bring in Sharia law.


----------



## Glen48 (5 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

My wife and I fight about religion all the time ….you see she is an Atheist and I am Agnostic


----------



## noco (5 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

It is difficult for me to comprehend what is going on in child care centres and schools which are starting to be dictated to by other ethnic groups who migrate to Australia. If and when they are nautralised to become Australian citizens, I have always believed they sware to abid by Australian laws and our way of living. 
According to Cory Bernadi the Federal Government is about bring in new regulations forbidding this tradition just to appease some minority groups who say kids should not decorate Christmas trees. 
OMG what will Australia be like in 20 years time if this stupity is allowed to continue???


http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/04...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)


----------



## Sean K (6 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

I'm a little confused over this one.

Were these Priests (the high moral watermark of our society) prosecuted, or did they just lose their job?

Or, just transferred somewhere else to continue their devilish work



*Church removes guilty priests*
Barney Zwartz
April 6, 2011

TWO Melbourne Catholic priests guilty of sexual abuse have been removed from the priesthood, Melbourne Vicar-General Bishop Les Tomlinson confirmed yesterday.

The news was sent to Melbourne priests in the Vicar-General's newsletter, but victims - while welcoming the removals - said they were angry they had not been told.

One priest, Paul Pavlou, formerly of Healesville, was defrocked by the Vatican, while the other, Barry Whelan, was laicised - made a layman - at his own request, reportedly so he could get married.

In the Magistrates Court two years ago, Pavlou admitted indecent acts against a 14-year-old boy and possessing child pornography, and was given an 18-month suspended jail sentence.

In Whelan's case, the Melbourne Archdiocese has compensated at least three vulnerable women whom it agreed Whelan took advantage of or abused. One woman bore him a child.


----------



## Happy (6 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

Almost happy that by the time current minority will become majority I will be dead.

Definitely scary thought thou for all the loved ones left to live!


----------



## Sean K (8 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

State funding for forced religious instruction (oh, parents can 'opt out' apparently - as opposed to 'opt in') is surely State funded brain washing of our youth. Teaching them that the Earth is the centre of the universe, and Eve was made of an unnecessary rib of Adam's, is just plain dumb. 

The religious lobby is obviously very powerful to be able to swindle the average free thinking tax payer out of this hard earned cash. 

If there is to be religious education, let religion pay, and in their own time.

The 'moral values' that religion teaches can be done in other ways without threat of Hell. 

Here's some 'moral values' for you:



> 30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [1] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [2] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
> 
> *Genesis 19:30-38*




*State to increase funds for Christian classes*
Jewel Topsfield
April 8, 2011

THE state government will boost funding to Christian education classes in schools in the budget, with Education Minister Martin Dixon ruling out changes to the controversial program.

Mr Dixon said Christian education provider Access Ministries would receive an extra $200,000 a year from July 1 for training, administration and the supervision of volunteer instructors.

While other courses, including Baha'i, Greek Orthodox and Islamic, are also accredited, Access Ministries runs 96 per cent of special religious instruction classes in Victoria.

The funding boost comes as Access Ministries called on Christians to take urgent action, saying its very foundation was being challenged by a court case that questioned the Education Department's guidelines on the teaching of faith in schools.

The agency called on Christians to write a letter of support for special religious instruction to Mr Dixon, Premier Ted Baillieu and their local MP.

''For many children, [Christian religious education] is their only introduction to the values that underpin a biblical understanding of God, the world, themselves and others,'' the group says on its website.


----------



## Sean K (14 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*

How can we stand by and continue to let this cancer destroy our humanity?

At risk of being labelled 'Non free belief - free speech - anti-religious - whatever) I'm changing the title of this thread to: 'Religion IS crazy!'

Every piece of craziness should be posted here.


*Pakistan's blasphemy vigilantes kill exonerated man*
By Nick Paton Walsh, CNN

April 13, 2011 -- Updated 1826 GMT (0226 HKT)

Talahore, Pakistan (CNN) -- Mohamed Imran had been accused, jailed, tried and cleared: if anything, society owed him a debt as a man wrongfully accused.

But his crime was blasphemy. He was meant to have said something derogatory about the prophet Mohammed, so in Pakistan justice worked a little differently.
Two weeks after he returned to his small patch of farmland on the rustic outskirts of Islamabad, his alleged crime caught up with him.

Two gunmen burst into the shoe shop where he was sat talking to a friend. Imran tried to duck, to seek cover behind the man next to him -- terrified so greatly for his own life that he perhaps forgot about those around him.

But the gunmen found their target and Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws claimed another victim.

His brother Ikram told CNN: "When I saw him lying there, I felt the blood leave my body, and that I was now alone."


----------



## Logique (14 April 2011)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



kennas said:


> How can we stand by and continue to let this cancer destroy our humanity?..At risk of being labelled 'Non free belief - free speech - anti-religious - whatever..



Haven't read the whole thread, but would stop short of accusing you of some sort of bleak post-Nietzschian nihilism! On the whole, in a philosophical sense, Nietzsche probably offers us more than many established religions.

Nietzsche saw nihilism as the outcome of repeated frustrations in the search for meaning.  The religious worldview had in the 19th century already suffered a number of challenges from contrary perspectives grounded in philosophical skepticism, and in modern science's evolutionary and heliocentric theory.


----------



## Glen48 (14 April 2011)

Religion is a form of mental illness just like Gambling, OCD's replying to forum post's and can never be stopped I don't know what the answer but every thing has been tried, the next depression will change the outlook because most will be looking for food and won't have time to bomb or destroy things or others.
 Also when you live in a country with out any future what else is there to do to help pass the time??

Look at China and other countries they all want what we had designer clothes, car even if fuel is high and you sit in a jam for hours/days/ own a house, tv all the thing most people think show wealth. 

I live in the Philippine's the biggest Cattle tick population in the World every thing stops here over religion  for a week, jeepneys have _God With Us _stickers across the winscreen so they can't see traffic but _God with Us _will save then..
Any one here with Black hair is a potential scammer they go to church on Sunday Scam on Monday once they have been to church God has their sins so they can start afresh Monday.
 Do like the smart one's are doing find a foreign country and hide get medicine's , tin food, PM's etc and ride out the storm.
or live in a hotel on Ross Island
  I heard were some expert Muslim wants women to wear clothing which will allow them to see with one eye , how they will work out which eye I don't know but some one will find the answer in the good book.

And why stop at one eye why not a top half or bottom half  with logic like that there will be long way to go.  Christanity is based on Roman gods and like the Abo's a mixture of myths and dream time there is no evidence any where in the World to support any claim any religious mob make.
That is a known.


----------



## Happy (15 April 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Religion is a form of mental illness just like Gambling,
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





I would love to see Global Atheist's Organisation (Religion)
If some can have Government assistance to believe in something we should have also assistance to believe in nothing.

It might sound weird, but nothing is something too. Like number “0” it serves a purpose.

Then, with Government assistance for new type of worship, we could teach – convert believers to stop believing in hocus-pocus, but to believe in what up to date science achieved.

Sure in the future things might change and outdated Relativity Theory might be replaced with one that better describes the Universe, but at least we will have Government funds to fight old ways of crowd control.

We could also have funds to engage in Jehovah Witnesses style of spreading the knowledge by pestering neighbourhoods on regular basis.


----------



## noco (17 May 2011)

This must not be allowed under any circumstances. We have Austration laws and don't need Sharia. This will only cause tention and divisions within our community. We must say. NO,NO,NO,NO.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-push-for-sharia/story-fn59niix-1226057100331


----------



## Glen48 (17 May 2011)

We must say. NO,NO,NO,NO.
 Agree to ALL religion's


----------



## noco (17 May 2011)

Glen48 said:


> We must say. NO,NO,NO,NO.
> Agree to ALL religion's




Yes, I agree. There has been too much strife around the world and it goes back to religion.


----------



## Glen48 (19 May 2011)

Stupid part about religion is some Alien outa space force attacked Earth we would be shoulder to shoulder fight them with Muslims, Hindu and Himdonts.
 Then afer go back to hating each other ..


----------



## Ruby (20 May 2011)

Apparently the world is going to end tomorrow. 

Did anyone know this?  There has been a roadside billboard near us for some time, kindly advising passers-by of the fact.  I don't know which crackpot religious group is claiming to have the inside information, but it seems they are now promoting it quite heavily (with only one day to go).  I saw it on breakfast television this morning - so it *must *be correct.......... mustn't it????


----------



## pixel (20 May 2011)

Ruby said:


> Apparently the world is going to end tomorrow.
> 
> Did anyone know this?  There has been a roadside billboard near us for some time, kindly advising passers-by of the fact.  I don't know which crackpot religious group is claiming to have the inside information, but it seems they are now promoting it quite heavily (with only one day to go).  I saw it on breakfast television this morning - so it *must *be correct.......... mustn't it????



 Sure must, Ruby;
But you can avoid it by simply walking across the path of the nutter who put it up there. "Everybody knows" that a black cat crossing a Prophet's path will invalidate the Prophet's predictions. 

In the meantime, this here old tom will stay indoors under a strong kitchen table - just in case the sky does fall in. 

*meeeoww!*


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2011)

Yeah! Crazy like a fox. Predators are not crazy. Every person or  organisation that has ever got rich has done so at the expense of the more gullible. Religion is no exception.


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2011)

Women go to jail in Saudi Arabia for driving.

HUH? 




http://www.theage.com.au/world/saudi-women-arrested-over-driving-fatwa-20110610-1fwz7.html


----------



## medicowallet (11 June 2011)

kennas said:


> Women go to jail in Saudi Arabia for driving.
> 
> HUH?
> 
> ...




What if they are driving a minature car in the kitchen?


----------



## pixel (12 June 2011)

medicowallet said:


> What if they are driving a minature car in the kitchen?



 Stupid women: Why don't they wait till Saudi Arabia has run out of oil? Can't take that long.
And then they can smuggle in enough weapons and ammo under their one-person tents and clean out the rats nest of male dominance - and no Western Nation will prop up the bankrupt "Royals".


----------



## Glen48 (12 June 2011)

Do they still cut their toes off so they can stand closer to the sink?


----------



## Happy (12 June 2011)

pixel said:


> Stupid women: Why don't they ...




Yea, why don't they stop breeding males, then join the "western way of life" when it is OK to show face, drive car, get education, decide who to marry and how many children to have. 

Easy, really!


----------



## pixel (13 June 2011)

Happy said:


> Yea, why don't they stop breeding males, then join the "western way of life" when it is OK to show face, drive car, get education, decide who to marry and how many children to have.
> 
> Easy, really!



 Brilliant idea! 
All we need is ban religion - at least the three "Of The Book" - globally, and there won't be any more need for young men to blow themselves up in order to get into paradise. We'd have 'Paradise enow' on Earth.

Bliss!


----------



## trainspotter (18 June 2011)

*Court sentences dog to death by stoning *



> A JERUSALEM rabbinical court has condemned to death by stoning a dog it suspects is the reincarnation of a secular lawyer who insulted the court's judges 20 years ago.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ng/story-e6frfku0-1226077489097#ixzz0rANg6dv7


----------



## Glen48 (19 June 2011)

Man created God in his own Imagine.... Man created all the other tripe involving religion as well.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 June 2011)

One does miss the Romans.

gg


----------



## pixel (20 June 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> One does miss the Romans.
> 
> gg



 The Greeks were even better. Their Olympians had been invented to span the entire spread of human psychology and psychoses.
Just think of Zeus, who loved just about every body; Adonis, who loved himself; Oedipus, who loved his Mum; not to forget Athena, who was not just a pretty face, but had an intimidating brain to match.

You can immediately relate to those full-blooded super men and women, whose priests had no need to explain inexplicable nonsense like "If Adam and Eve were first created, who created their sons' wives?" or where had Jesus been hiding all the time before he was "sent" to Earth?


----------



## bellenuit (20 June 2011)

pixel said:


> The Greeks were even better. Their Olympians had been invented to span the entire spread of human psychology and psychoses.
> Just think of Zeus, who loved just about every body; Adonis, who loved himself; Oedipus, who loved his Mum; not to forget Athena, who was not just a pretty face, but had an intimidating brain to match.




I heard an interesting quote the other day, but can't remember who said it. It went something like.....

"The Greeks invented sex, but it was the Romans that allowed women to participate"


----------



## Glen48 (20 June 2011)

Why is some one in a white robe standing on a corner babbling on about Sodoame Tomorrow or what ever it is, can be  carted away by the police yet the same person can  stand up in a church say the same thing and all would listen.

My favorite quote is Robert  Duvall  " I love the smell of my palm in the morning"


----------



## Sean K (21 June 2011)

I think I have come to the conclusion that religion is based on the assignment of reason to the unknown (faith), that gives meaning to existence (our purpose in order to survive and achieve happiness). 

Or, it could be the original political party.

Or, did it just eventuate out of ignorance / craziness and when all is known (probably impossible) we will assign cause and effect to the actual, original unmoved mover?

Religious folk cop out by turning straight to the 'unmoved mover'. 

This will eventually make them look insane.


----------



## bellenuit (22 June 2011)

kennas said:


> I think I have come to the conclusion that religion is based on the assignment of reason to the unknown (faith), that gives meaning to existence (our purpose in order to survive and achieve happiness).
> 
> Or, it could be the original political party.
> 
> ...




*Author offers evolutionary explanation for religion*

http://www.statesman.com/life/faith...-for-religion-1546961.html#.Tfzilu6ZtbM;email


----------



## pavilion103 (22 June 2011)

I've never ventured off the trading forums but this is an interesting one. 

So many people put blind faith in religion. If you have reasons/evidence to back up your faith than that's ok, but I feel most people are ignorant. 

The funny thing is that it is no different to evolution, where kids sit in a class while a teacher reads from a book and they accept it as fact. It's funny because no one has actually ever seen anything evolve ever, it's simply a theory. And the big bang theory makes no sense because what was there that created the big bang? Something had to have existed e.g. gases. I think sometimes that takes even more faith to believe than a god when we stop and think how absurd it is. 

I think anything is a faith position in life, science cannot explain these questions. But to blindly follow a religion because your parents did or because you won't investigate the evidence is just pie in the sky stuff.


----------



## Glen48 (22 June 2011)

Science has work out we didn't decent from Apes as Darwin thought.
 Each species evolved from one source and went their own separates way's.
 Science is slowing proving religion id  con.


----------



## bellenuit (23 June 2011)

15 Bets Pics From Rapture 2011

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1RE7Jg/pophangover.com/2011/05/22/15-best-pics-from-rapture-2011/


----------



## pavilion103 (23 June 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Science has work out we didn't decent from Apes as Darwin thought.
> Each species evolved from one source and went their own separates way's.
> Science is slowing proving religion id  con.




I dunno man. Everyone believed the Ape thing as scientific fact. Now you're saying each species evolved from one source and when their own separate ways. There just isn't enough proof for me to believe that. No doubt new scientific findings will come out too prove that wrong too. 

Both evolution and religion are faith positions. No one has ever seen god. No one has ever seen anything evolve. I don't know why they call religion faith but don't call evolution faith. Baffling.


----------



## Glen48 (23 June 2011)

The latest research is all evolved from Fish and all animals have the same bone structure Chicken have the same amount of bones in the wings as we do in our arms, 
Giraffe has the same amount of bones in their neck as we do we are close to Apes but we can touch all fingers with out thumb. It all depends on which DNA is which on or off during gestation including teeth in chickens.

Only confirmed proof about God is the Roman pilot named Pontius who was a Governor.


----------



## Sean K (24 June 2011)

Is religion different to belief in God?

I think there has been some confusion in this thread between God and Religion. 

I think we have all provided enough examples that religion is CRAZY! 

Is the concept of God CRAZY?

Maybe that's another thread?


----------



## cynic (25 June 2011)

kennas said:


> Is religion different to belief in God?
> 
> I think there has been some confusion in this thread between God and Religion.
> 
> ...




Well I've met HER and I can assure you SHE's very switched on. To date I've not encountered a single financial planner, accountant or lawyer that could beat HER recommendations and foresight. 

And to think that SHE didn't even charge me a fee for HER advice! (So maybe SHE is just a little crazy.)

P.S. Any atheists reading this post may rest assured they have nothing to fear. SHE really digs you guys (and gals) and prefers you to those religious zealots that have gotten so caught up in religious politics that they can no longer differentiate between God and dogma. You may not happen to believe in HER, but SHE still believes in you and that's what really matters!


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2011)

Please enlighten us cynic on this startling revelation.

Who, what, when, where, why?

Who is SHE?
What advice did SHE give?
When did this occur?
Where were you when it happened?
Why did this happen to you?

Massively


----------



## pixel (25 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Please enlighten us cynic on this startling revelation.
> 
> Who, what, when, where, why?
> 
> ...



 TS,

Are you married? I took cynic's comment as a variation on the theme:
*"When God created man, She was only kidding."

*


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2011)

pixel said:


> TS,
> 
> Are you married? I took cynic's comment as a variation on the theme:
> *"When God created man, She was only kidding."*




OH !! I get it now ....... I think? 

So God is a woman and men are a joke?

And cynic has a direct line to HER? Is God his wife?

All very clear for me now.


----------



## noco (25 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> OH !! I get it now ....... I think?
> 
> So God is a woman and men are a joke?
> 
> ...




TS, I think I'm God, because my wife keeps telling me.

Oh God, why did you do that?

Oh God you should have seen that stupid driver on the road coming home from work.

Oh God, listen to that dog across the road barking.

Oh God you snored a lot last night.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 June 2011)

Listened to a few of dads Bill Cosby tapes growing up ...


----------



## spooly74 (14 July 2011)

Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity

Had to go here


----------



## Sean K (30 September 2011)

My deep theory is that religion is just based on evolution, politics, geography and culture.

Therefore, arranged marriages in Australia have no place. There is nothing in our space that means we need to arrange a marriage, and it NEVER should be in our culture. 

Unless we accept that we give up our cultural identity. 

Lets not let foreign cultures and religions change our idea of right and wrong. 

(disregard the fact that we white people are foreigners in this land)

http://www.theage.com.au/national/court-acts-to-stop-arranged-wedlock-20110929-1kzcw.html


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (30 September 2011)

pavilion103 said:


> I've never ventured off the trading forums but this is an interesting one.
> 
> So many people put blind faith in religion. If you have reasons/evidence to back up your faith than that's ok, but I feel most people are ignorant.
> 
> ...




Dude seriously, it's just a theory?  Viruses evolve on a visible timescale.  Go read a book called Virolution by Dr Frank Ryan - have fun.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## gav (25 October 2011)

Egyptian jailed for Facebook Islam insult

3 years hard labour! 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.076554f0f841174041014cbd3464a9be.831&show_article=1


----------



## kavla1970 (27 October 2011)

I have no problem with anyone believing what they like but when they:

1. Feel because of their beliefs they are superior to others and

2. Try to impose their beliefs on others....well then I think they have gone to far.


----------



## pixel (27 October 2011)

For a great insight, try and get a copy of Robert Heinlein's *'Stranger in a Strange Land'.*
It may be dated and has some quirky elements of the _zeitgeist _of the 1970's, but his analysis of the various aspects of organised religion is fascinating.


----------



## kavla1970 (28 October 2011)

pixel said:


> For a great insight, try and get a copy of Robert Heinlein's *'Stranger in a Strange Land'.*
> It may be dated and has some quirky elements of the _zeitgeist _of the 1970's, but his analysis of the various aspects of organised religion is fascinating.




Thanks, will do.


----------



## Spongle (31 October 2011)

Religion...

the whole concept is ridiculous imo...

We should have evolved past this by now but the majority of ppl in this world seem to have about five usuable neurons between them.

Religion is dangerous, tradition is dangerous, those in power (or WITH power rather) are dangerous.

As long as you have love in you're life (in any of it's forms) then you're sweet


----------



## Gringotts Bank (31 October 2011)

Spongle said:


> Religion...
> 
> As long as you have love in you're life (in any of it's forms) then you're sweet




"Religion is the opium of the people" said Marx, and I agree.

But now it could be said that "love is the opium of the people".

Love is just another way of attempting to feel safe in the World, fulfilling exactly the same role as religion once did.  Don't get me wrong, I know it feels good, but it's the very same process happening.  Avoiding the Abyss is man's constant full time job, unless he chooses to let go.

Who wants to go into the Void?


----------



## Sean K (2 December 2011)

Oh deary me. 

Although not sure if this is actually Islam or just an interpretation by an ancient culture.

*Rape victim may have to marry attacker*
BY: FROM CORRESPONDENTS IN KABUL 
From: AFP December 02, 2011 6:01AM

AFGHAN President Hamid Karzai has ordered the release of a woman who was jailed for adultery after being raped - but she now faces having to marry her attacker.

The move came after some 5000 people signed a petition for the release of the woman, named Gulnaz, who has served two years in prison after a relative raped her at her home.

She has been raising the child she had by her attacker in a prison cell in Kabul.


----------



## lindsayf (2 December 2011)

even JC would be weeping about that one


----------



## bellenuit (2 December 2011)

kennas said:


> Although not sure if this is actually Islam or just an interpretation by an ancient culture.




Many people will debate what Islam is exactly and it is true that in many, if not most, Islamic countries this situation would be a rarity. However, there is so little outcry from Islamic leaders against this and similar suppression of women, that one can only conclude that Islam considers women of so little importance that it is tolerant of such abuses. They may claim that Islam holds women in high esteem, just as they claim Islam the religion of peace, but their actions or lack of actions say otherwise.


----------



## pixel (2 December 2011)

kennas said:


> Oh deary me.
> 
> Although not sure if this is actually Islam or just an interpretation by an ancient culture.



 If we talk religious excesses, we shouldn't mention "culture" in the same context.
When I hear the word "culture", I associate it with something refined, advanced, civilised.
Maybe I'm wrong and should rather take images from perversion, sub-culture, or some pesky slimy bacteria "cultures" in a Petri dish. 

There ought to be two antonyms, describing the former as opposed to the latter. If we had those, we could properly distinguish between 
the "culture" of Islam as a philosophy that teaches us humility, respect for each other, and acceptance of a higher authority: "Insh' Allah",
versus 
the perversion of genital mutilation, hiding women in tents lest they tempt a guy who gets away with "she made me do it and I couldn't find a camel!"


----------



## Sean K (2 December 2011)

pixel said:


> If we talk religious excesses, we shouldn't mention "culture" in the same context.
> When I hear the word "culture", I associate it with something refined, advanced, civilised.



Does depend on a mindset I think pixel. I don't think of 'culture' as refined, moreso just the general attitudes and behaviours that are relevant for the day. Maybe 'society' has less positive connotations than 'culture'. Certainly, the 'society' that cultivates and supports such antisocial animalistic behaviour is significantly uncultured by todays world norms.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 December 2011)

I saw this picture on a T-shirt the other week and thought it summed up my opinion and reality perfectly.
~


----------



## DocK (9 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I saw this picture on a T-shirt the other week and thought it summed up my opinion and reality perfectly.
> ~




Oooh, I do like it - but probably wouldn't dare wear it for fear of being stoned in the street.  I find it hard to reconcile the words "religion" and "500 lashes for blasphemy".  (see link below)
 IMO religion should have no part in forming the laws of our country, education system etc. 
http://http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/saudis-sentence-australian-man-to-500-lashes-for-blasphemy/story-fn59nm2j-1226216008331


----------



## Gringotts Bank (9 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I saw this picture on a T-shirt the other week and thought it summed up my opinion and reality perfectly.
> ~




Not bad, but where would Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit in?  Nothing much more sciencey than an atomic bomb, which wiped clean whole cities in an instant.

Perhaps it's man that's crazy.  Science and religion can be used in both enlightening and horrendous ways.  Why pit one against the other, as though they're opposites?  Man _created _both religion and science in an attempt to live more happily.  Neither science nor religion occur in the natural world; both are man-made processes designed to uncover the way nature works and either profit from it or live in tune with it.

To date, science has been spectacularly successful at relieving pain and unhappiness, but hasn't worked out how to create happiness.  Religion has created a lot of unhappiness and suffering, yet probably created a handful of supremely happy beings.


----------



## Tink (9 December 2011)

Nice to read abit of balance GB : )

Must be time to bring up the ' Beauty in Religion' thread --  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15678&page=13 
with Christmas just around the corner, and that wonderful Christmas Spirit : )

_Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
*Peace on earth *........_
:wreath


----------



## Calliope (9 December 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> To date, science has been spectacularly successful at relieving pain and unhappiness, but hasn't worked out how to create happiness.  Religion has created a lot of unhappiness and suffering, yet probably created a handful of supremely happy beings.




"*The Science*" of AGW is now a fully fledged religion with its own high priests spreading fear and at war with the heretics, who are labelled Deniers and punished by ex-communication from the elite class. It has made the Alarmists "supremely happy beings." They are also well paid by the taxpayer for their advice to government.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (9 December 2011)

Tink said:


> Nice to read abit of balance GB : )
> 
> Must be time to bring up the ' Beauty in Religion' thread --
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15678&page=13
> ...




Cheers Tink 

Not really religious myself, but I'm happy for anyone that can use it to improve their own life.

I don't know anything much about AGW calliope.


----------



## ColB (12 December 2011)

*Islamic cleric reportedly warns Muslim woman not to handle cucumbers, bananas and carrots for fear of sexual thoughts *







http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/li...-women-to-handle/story-fn9k9n4t-1226219418323


----------



## Sean K (15 December 2011)

ColB said:


> *Islamic cleric reportedly warns Muslim woman not to handle cucumbers, bananas and carrots for fear of sexual thoughts *



I'm happy with women's minds being controlled, but it should definitely be aimed towards handling those pieces of equipment. 

Just as an aside, some Saudi women got beheaded for 'witchcraft' a couple of days ago.

Back in the times of the Inquisition we are.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/saudi-woman-beheaded-witchcraft/story?id=15145041#.TunN8Zjabw4


----------



## DB008 (15 December 2011)

*Pakistan children rescued from 'madrassa' chains
*



> Pakistani police said Tuesday they had rescued 53 students, including children as young as seven, who had been chained in the basement of a madrassa raided by security forces in the port city of Karachi.
> 
> Former students including an eight-year-old told AFP they were regularly beaten at the school, which was equipped with chains, hooks and a warren of basement rooms. The head of an education federation called it a "torture cell".
> 
> ...




...more on link above...


----------



## So_Cynical (15 December 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Not bad, but where would Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit in?  Nothing much more sciencey than an atomic bomb, which wiped clean whole cities in an instant.
> 
> Perhaps it's man that's crazy.  Science and religion can be used in both enlightening and horrendous ways.  Why pit one against the other, as though they're opposites?  Man _created _both religion and science in an attempt to live more happily.  Neither science nor religion occur in the natural world; both are man-made processes designed to uncover the way nature works and either profit from it or live in tune with it.
> 
> To date, science has been spectacularly successful at relieving pain and unhappiness, but hasn't worked out how to create happiness.  Religion has created a lot of unhappiness and suffering, yet probably created a handful of supremely happy beings.




Science and religion are both 2 edged swords...for me the t-shirt pic is a simple and poignant message, science builds rockets to fly to the moon and carry nuclear warheads..religion pilots planes to deliver disaster relief supply's and fly into buildings.

While there may well be people of religion flying rockets to the moon and building nuclear warheads...there were certainly no scientist's or atheists flying planes into buildings on Sept 11.... that's something only religion and madness can do.


----------



## Julia (15 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> While there may well be people of religion flying rockets to the moon and building nuclear warheads...there were certainly no scientist's or atheists flying planes into buildings on Sept 11.... that's something only religion and madness can do.




Great comment, SC.  Sums it up well.


----------



## noco (15 December 2011)

It has always been said, "Money is the root of all evil", but I am beginning to think fanatical religion is far worse.


----------



## Happy (17 December 2011)

How religion crazy is this? : FORCED ADULTERY

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/afghan-rape-victim-freed/3732046



> *Afghan rape victim freed after pardon*
> 
> An Afghan woman who was jailed for "forced adultery" after a relative raped her, then pardoned following an international outcry over the case, has been released nearly two weeks after a judicial panel said she could go free…


----------



## bellenuit (17 December 2011)

Happy said:


> How religion crazy is this? : FORCED ADULTERY
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/afghan-rape-victim-freed/3732046




A woman being forced to marry the man who raped her is not unique to Islam. 

Deuteronomy 22:28–29
28 q“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father rfifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.


----------



## DocK (17 December 2011)

To quote Tim Minchin:



> Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.


----------



## DB008 (18 December 2011)

Youtube vid. 
Christopher Hitchens 
Forward to 2:36 mark
Pretty much sums up religion in a nutshell.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 December 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Not bad, but where would Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit in?  Nothing much more sciencey than an atomic bomb, which wiped clean whole cities in an instant.
> 
> Perhaps it's man that's crazy.  Science and religion can be used in both enlightening and horrendous ways.  Why pit one against the other, as though they're opposites?  Man _created _both religion and science in an attempt to live more happily.  Neither science nor religion occur in the natural world; both are man-made processes designed to uncover the way nature works and either profit from it or live in tune with it.
> 
> To date, science has been spectacularly successful at relieving pain and unhappiness, but hasn't worked out how to create happiness.  Religion has created a lot of unhappiness and suffering, yet probably created a handful of supremely happy beings.




It is about time a voice of reason decided to rise up out of the ashes of intellect that ignorance and ego burnt long ago.

That picture with the T-shirt is a huge form of ignorance. I agree with Gringott when he asks where Nagasaki, or Hiroshima fit in. I'd also be asking where Unit 731 fits in; where treatment of Tibet, attrocity of Pol-Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin fit into the "religiously driven" catagory.

To believe that 9-11 was religiously motivated is to buy into the abundant crap thrown out by media all around the world.

Viewing Science as the savior of man and the keeper of absolute knowledge is stupid, and philosophically incorrect. The moment you seep into positivism is the moment you lose touch with reality.

Perhaps REligious ideals, if actually followed, may finally break man out of his crazyness. Perhaps if people finally acknowledged not to kill, steal, cheat or lie - life would be much easier, and pleasant.

Then again, it is thinking like this that is brough about by the new generation - the new atheists who are more ego driven than intellectual, closed minded than open and shut out philosophically rather than willing to contemplate.

The New Atheists ruined what was left of youtube after the 6 day creationists had their day.

Ignorance on both sides of the fence - both of which I could do without.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> It is about time a voice of reason decided to rise up out of the ashes of intellect that ignorance and ego burnt long ago.
> 
> That picture with the T-shirt is a huge form of ignorance. I agree with Gringott when he asks where Nagasaki, or Hiroshima fit in. I'd also be asking where Unit 731 fits in; where treatment of Tibet, atrocity of Pol-Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin fit into the "religiously driven" category.




Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved maybe 200000 US lives and maybe 3 million Japanese lives, without "the bomb" a mainland invasion would of been necessary dragging out the war for maybe another year or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

What Hitler and Pol pot etc did, they did not because they were atheists/non religious but because they were nuts and for other neo colonial, political and ethnic etc reasons. 

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



LostMyShirt said:


> To believe that 9-11 was religiously motivated is to buy into the abundant crap thrown out by media all around the world.




I believe there was religious motivation for the Muslims carrying out the attacks...like every one of the attackers weren't yelling Allāhu Akbar as the planes hit the buildings.

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



LostMyShirt said:


> Viewing Science as the savior of man and the keeper of absolute knowledge is stupid, and philosophically incorrect. The moment you seep into positivism is the moment you lose touch with reality.




Science is what it is, a from of pure truth... that's why religion hates science so much.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 December 2011)

I'm suprised, and yet not suprised by the response.

I'll keep it short and sweet.

Who is to say one life is better than another?

I did not suggest the opposite of the argument, that being put simply, "Religion is not crazy, Atheism is crazy". Meaning that belief and ideology is probably more-so a justification rather than a motivation. However, I will say that the idea of purity in race and biology is an ideal derived from Naturalism, but not stated by Naturalism, if you get what I mean.

Shouting "God is great"... I can't comment on 9-11 a great deal. I have no idea its true motivations and remain severely skeptical. The idea that this was an attack of religion is one that I am also extremely skeptical about. If one looks at the history of Americas involvement in the Middle East, one needs not look far for motivation. The religious argument for motivation is a spin, and an ignorant one at that. It appeals to the masses leaving the free thinker in isolation, as per usual.

Science is pure truth now, is it? I recommend you take a look at the philosophy in your statement.

Religon hates science, does it? I recommend you take the time to actually look into this claim. Long story short, there is no "battle" between religion and science, and there never was. I believe John Lennox argued that point quite beauitfuly.

Once again, new generational spin, one that I don't want anything to do with lest I be branded an idiot.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Science is pure truth now, is it? I recommend you take a look at the philosophy in your statement.
> 
> Religon hates science, does it? I recommend you take the time to actually look into this claim. Long story short, there is no "battle" between religion and science, and there never was.




Bollocks!

No one argues about maths 2 + 2 = 4 and no one should argue against science, not the basics anyway....organisms = evolution.

Its simple stuff...nothing philosophical about it, so no need to over think it, twist it to make yourself comfortable...it is what it is.


----------



## LostMyShirt (19 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Bollocks!
> 
> No one argues about maths 2 + 2 = 4 and no one should argue against science, not the basics anyway....organisms = evolution.
> 
> Its simple stuff...nothing philosophical about it, so no need to over think it, twist it to make yourself comfortable...it is what it is.




What's bollocks?

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical statement. Of-course, there is no scientific proof that 2+2 must equal 4. The proof is within the system of mathematics.

Yes, Organisms have been shows to abide by Darwins theory, but Natural selection is NOT Darwins theory. Natural selection is the result, as is multiverse theory, of Objectivist philosophy. 

"There is nothing philosophical about it" - this is an odd statement. Of-course there is philosophy in it - science relies on a strong foundation of philosophy and cannot operate without it. Lennox also stressed that point quite well.

Science is NOT pure truth. That is positivism and it is well known that positivism is a dead and broken philosophy. Positivism, in a nutshell, means that all knowledge is scientific. It quite clearly is not. There is so much that the scientific method cannot explain, especially when it comes to subjectivity. This is not to denote science from it's place in investigation, but rather it is to show that Science has its place in the realm of investigation, and is a very well developed method. It's place is but a node of knowledge in the realm of knowledge.


----------



## explod (19 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> What's bollocks?
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical statement. Of-course, there is no scientific proof that 2+2 must equal 4. The proof is within the system of mathematics.
> 
> ...




What a load of rubbish.

Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts.

Religion deals in realms of the mind on which nothing concrete can be made.

I was troubled with this as a young student 45 years ago when I studied metaphysics.  One simple discussion was "the potential of a rock" to prove the potential of the mind.  And that's okay in the concrete, a rock can become sand or soil to nurture life and of course it is said Peter placed his church on a rock.  But to stretch beyond that effect is where theology breaks down.

No truck here Pal


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Science is what it is, a from of pure truth... that's why religion hates science so much.




Paradoxically, a lot of purported science is religious faith.



> Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved




Hence the fervour and passion.

True science is dispassionate.

It is also un-vested.


----------



## explod (19 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Paradoxically, a lot of purported science is religious faith.




Very good ole Pal


----------



## LostMyShirt (19 December 2011)

explod said:


> What a load of rubbish.
> 
> Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts.
> 
> ...




"Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts."

Are you attempting to suggest that all facts are scientific?

Science, for the time being, deals mostly with the material, buy no will of its own. Until of-course when it comes down to attempting to discern the very fabric of reality. When it is deduced that the fundamental properties of all matter is indeed immaterial, then science will no longer have to constrict itself with the material.

There is no "Science Vs. Religion". As you said yourself that Science deals with the material (which is a generalization) and Religion, "matters of mind". What you are showing here (or at least what I'm hoping you are showing here) is merely the segregation of the objective and subjective, and not so much subjective and _material_. Without getting further into this - by your logic alone you have shown that there is an exclusivity between Science and Religion, and that they do not deal in aspects of one another.


----------



## explod (19 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> "Science deals in the observable and therefore in verfiable facts."
> 
> Are you attempting to suggest that all facts are scientific?
> 
> ...




Of course.

Religion is a figment of the imagination planted there by the world powers to control the sheeple.  It started many thousands of years with the villiage witch Doctor.

And they do it well.  Though I do not know how the Pope gets away with it, dripping in gold whilst the very poor put thier last cents on the plate on a Sunday.

Although it has good practical aspects, sport does the same thing.  Just have to observe some of the Collingwood supporters down here in Melbourne.


----------



## Sdajii (19 December 2011)

Nice demonstration of the truth of this thread's title, LostMyShirt


----------



## Glen48 (20 December 2011)

Geert Wilders,  .



I come to America with a mission.  All is not well in the old world.  There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic.  We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe.  This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West.  The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world.  It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen.  And if they are, they might regret it.  This goes for the police as well.  It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners.  The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe .  With larger congregations than there are in churches.  And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region.  Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden .  In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim.   Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils.  gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims.  Non-Muslim women routinely hear '*****, *****'.  Satellite dishes are pointed to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot;  Darwin .  The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught .

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves.  Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II.  French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel .  I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live.   San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.  Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers.  And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate.  But there are few signs of that.  The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France .  One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'.  And this is how we give them respect.  We have Muslim official state holidays.

attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority.  We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots.   Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus.  I call the perpetrators 'settlers'.  Because that is what they are.  They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam.  Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries.  Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet.  His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.  Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.  But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time.  Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed.  Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.  If it is good for Islam, it is good.  If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion.  Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins.  But in its essence Islam is a political ideology.  It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person.  Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life.  Islam means 'submission'.  Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.  If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.  The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor.  I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times.  I support Israel .  First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance.   Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia .   Israel is simply in the way.  The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel ..  It is a war against the West.  It is jihad.   Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us.  If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest.  Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities.  But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values.  On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam.  They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed.  The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning.  It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination.  If they can get Israel , they can get everything.  So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'.  In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II.  And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat.  Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing.  The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine.  An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs.  With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem ...

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts.  My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives.  All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.  My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians.  We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us.  We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams.  Future generations would never forgive us.  We cannot squander our liberties.  We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

.


----------



## bellenuit (20 December 2011)

Glen48 said:


> The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
> 
> This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.




Until the above quote, I would have accepted, to a certain extent, everything that had been written before. But Israel cannot be absolved of its subjugation of the Palestinians so whimsically as stated. Israel has no rights to Palestinian land just because some biblical text proclaims that they have been given it by god. Palestinians are people too. You cannot kick a Palestinian family out of the home they have lived in for years and say it is right because some scripture says it is so. 

Islam is an abhorrent religion, as are most. But so is Judaism, as practiced by the extremists. We must expose the wrongs perpetrated by both sides, if we want to see justice done.


----------



## Calliope (20 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Islam is an abhorrent religion, as are most. But so is Judaism, as practiced by the extremists. We must expose the wrongs perpetrated by both sides, if we want to see justice done.




We should be thankful that Israel exists. Israel is the only country that has the guts to to take action to try to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation and an inevitable nuclear holocaust. Israel is, of course, acting in its own interests, but these interests coincide with ours. 



> ISRAEL has announced the formation of an "Iran command" to control special forces operations inside Iran amid growing speculation that a military attack on the Islamic republic is coming.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rms-iran-command/story-fnb64oi6-1226225213418


----------



## bellenuit (20 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> We should be thankful that Israel exists. Israel is the only country that has the guts to to take action to try to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation and an inevitable nuclear holocaust. Israel is, of course, acting in its own interests, but these interests coincide with ours.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rms-iran-command/story-fnb64oi6-1226225213418




We should be thankful Israel exists just as we should be thankful the USA exists. But that doesn't mean they should be beyond criticism. There are many within Israel that are abhorred by their own government's treatment of Palestinians. Much of the wrongdoings are to placate or are at the behest of the far right, who are driven by religious zeal. It don't agree that it is in our interest to support those wrongdoings, but agree that it is in our interests to have a strong, but just, Israel.


----------



## Calliope (20 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> It don't agree that it is in our interest to support those wrongdoings, but agree that it is in our interests to have a strong, but just, Israel.




In the Middle East "strong and just " is an oxymoron. Some states are strong and unjust. Some are weak and unjust. They all oppose the Israeli state, and Israel has to play by their rules or be obliterated. We have seen how their rules operate in Iran, Syria and Egypt.


----------



## explod (20 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> In the Middle East "strong and just " is an oxymoron. Some states are strong and unjust. Some are weak and unjust. They all oppose the Israeli state, and Israel has to play by their rules or be obliterated. We have seen how their rules operate in Iran, Syria and Egypt.




The great problem of it all is that there is not fair and equal education.

I do not prescribe to labor but I will say what Gillard is doing for fair education in Australia is on the right track.

Children need to be able to make their own choices and to do that they need to be impartialy and properly educated first so that they can decide without coercion.  Religion if they chose it needs to be later in life.


----------



## Julia (20 December 2011)

explod said:


> I do not prescribe to labor but I will say what Gillard is doing for fair education in Australia is on the right track.



She has also renewed very considerable funding for the Chaplains in Schools program.
We should not imo be placing people in our schools who are proselytyzing religion.

It has less to do with any noble ideals and more to do with covering all the voter bases.  Everything is political.



> Children need to be able to make their own choices and to do that they need to be impartialy and properly educated first so that they can decide without coercion.  Religion if they chose it needs to be later in life.



I agree.  Do you still think Ms Gillard is on the right track?


----------



## LostMyShirt (21 December 2011)

Sdajii said:


> Nice demonstration of the truth of this thread's title, LostMyShirt




It would be quite interesting to see how you can see the truth of the thread title within my posts.

If you can refute my claims then all the best to you, but I'm confident you cannot.

The point here is Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge. 

This is widely accepted and would be crazy to oppose it. Not because it is consensus or an authoritarian position, but because it is philosophically sound.

There is no conflict between science and Religion. This is also philosophically sound, and a reasonable statement.

One thing I cannot handle is the pseudo-persuasive arguments of authority birthed from ignorance.

I dare say that if a new member came on these forums and bagged out the stock market in what-ever manner or form that person wishes to do so - and upon finding out they not only have never traded, but never even taken the time to look into the subject they are attempting to refute, then it would be safe to say a flurry of disgruntled members would pounce on such claims as arguments from ignorance.

The title of this thread should be "People ARE crazy!".

So if you can refute my position that not all knowledge is scientific, and that infering scientific knowledge as absolute is the only reasonable approach, then I would lay down my arms. I'm quite positive you can't - no one can. It is an already discussed and thrown away topic. Positivism is a failure of a philosophy, and many Atheistic philosophers would say the same.

It makes me chuckle that todays new atheistic movement consists of ignorant and binary outlooks;

1. If you are religious, you oppose science.
2. If you oppose a scientific claim, you are religious.

Both statements 1 and 2, are stupid. Absolutely stupid.

Once again, John Lennox made these points quite clear and sucessfully argued their truth.

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


----------



## bellenuit (21 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> There is no conflict between science and Religion. This is also philosophically sound, and a reasonable statement.




Lost. That is complete nonsense. The biblical account of creation conflicts with the scientific view of how the universe and planets were formed.

All miracles - changing water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc - conflict completely with scientific knowledge of what is possible. 

There may be areas - spirituality in particular - that science is only beginning to look at, and doesn't have explanations for (yet), that many religious people incorrectly regard as outside the realm of science, but where religion deals with the physical, the measurable, the observable, the testable, it is more often than not in conflict with science.


----------



## LostMyShirt (21 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Lost. That is complete nonsense. The biblical account of creation conflicts with the scientific view of how the universe and planets were formed.
> 
> All miracles - changing water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc - conflict completely with scientific knowledge of what is possible.
> 
> There may be areas - spirituality in particular - that science is only beginning to look at, and doesn't have explanations for (yet), that many religious people incorrectly regard as outside the realm of science, but where religion deals with the physical, the measurable, the observable, the testable, it is more often than not in conflict with science.




We don't know the motivations behind the texts, and they are subject to much study.

Put simply, Religion, much like philosophy attempts to explain "why", is most cases. Science directly deals with "how".

Science, or rather natural and material sciences cannot deal with spirituality. It IS outside the realm of science, as are many other aspects of life. To a subject more relevant - how does material science deal with immaterial mind? They can't, so they invoke that the mind is merely the sum of its parts, that being the brain. The mind, at the moment, is outside the realm of material sciences. They cannot deal with immateriality. Immateriality is not only an aspect of mind, but of the fundamental properties of the Universe.

1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
2. The Universe has a cause.

Simple philosophy.

The conflict is within the realm of philosophy not the verification of scientific method. For instance, with Naturalism, they contend chance to be the driving force of creation. However this chance, given the right amount of time becomes an inevidability. Can you see where I'm going with this? I am reffering to things such as Natural selection. If Natural selection be true, that being the driving force that "chooses" the best traits, then that in itself is a bigger miricle than walking on water.

Personaly, when it comes to the philosophy of creation and beginnings, I believe in evolutionary targets.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> All miracles - changing water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc - conflict completely with scientific knowledge of what is possible.




If you want to understand miracles better, some Carlos Castaneda reading is helpful.  It's not nearly so cut and dried as you'd imagine.

If you said "show me someone who can turn water to wine" I can't.  No one can.

But this reality that we all live in is (apparently) one of many possible.  If you were to watch a very accomplished meditator doing his thing, what you'd see is a man sitting still with his eyes closed.  But in _his _experience, he is flying through the universe, and turning water into wine.  The obvious retort is "well it's not real then, it's just imagination", but that's apparently not the case. _* It is just as real.*_  That's what these guys say - it's just as real.  Just like us they can use their imaginations, and they call that "imagination" - boring.  They can dream at night like we do, and they call that "a dream" - boring.  But these 'other worlds' they visit are by all accounts just as real as this particular one we inhabit.  That means that all the qualities that go into making this here-and-now a reality, are also present in their other worlds.

The other way to look at it is to say that what we call reality is pure imagination and nothing more.

If you then said, "well how did other normal people witness water changing into wine", the answer might be that these sort of dudes like Jesus and co. have a powerful field effect where they can draw people momentarily into their reality, their 'other world' where such things are possible.  A similar phenomenon is found with hypnosis, but on a much smaller scale obviously.

The way you're thinking about things is very restricted!


----------



## explod (21 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Science, or rather natural and material sciences cannot deal with spirituality. It IS outside the realm of science, as are many other aspects of life. To a subject more relevant - how does material science deal with immaterial mind? They can't, so they invoke that the mind is merely the sum of its parts, that being the brain. The mind, at the moment, is outside the realm of material sciences. They cannot deal with immateriality. Immateriality is not only an aspect of mind, but of the fundamental properties of the Universe.
> 
> 1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
> 2. The Universe has a cause.
> ...




It is not outsdie the realms of science at all.  Religion is a fairy tale and at sceince a psychosis.

Immateriality, as implied and defined, is nothing.

We do not know about beginnings, in my *belief* there was no begginning and there is no end.   Though the universe and beyond is expanding at the moment no one knows what was before.

Philosophy is reasoning on probabilties which often leads to new science and understanding. 

Sprituality is no more than belief.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2011)

Apologies for lowering the tone of this esoteric discussion but I was reminded of one of the great songs of musical theatre - Herod's Song from Jesus Christ Superstar.

This version is fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4VImbHxAc


----------



## explod (21 December 2011)

Julia said:


> She has also renewed very considerable funding for the Chaplains in Schools program.
> We should not imo be placing people in our schools who are proselytyzing religion.
> 
> It has less to do with any noble ideals and more to do with covering all the voter bases.  Everything is political.
> ...




See your point Julia but do think that all fields of study should be introduced at the school level.   From my experience religion is a good start to philosophical concepts or questioning outside the realms of the concrete/here and now.  You would think that the yays and nays would have some lively discusions in the school yard instead of suspicion and isolation as we had when I was a kid between the orange and the green.

A sadly lacking subject is economics at the general level, even if just about pocket money and how to make it work properly.  To my own chagrin I was very wet behind the ears in this area till I retired from my profession, which is too late.

No Gillard and Co in my view are a ship without a rudder and led by what they decipher as populist thinking.


----------



## LostMyShirt (21 December 2011)

explod said:


> It is not outsdie the realms of science at all.  Religion is a fairy tale and at sceince a psychosis.
> 
> Immateriality, as implied and defined, is nothing.
> 
> ...




And this is where you have failed.

1. We do not know in totality of beginnings, but we know of beginnings. It has already been established that our reality had a birth.

2. Immateriality is not nothing. "Nothing" is indefinable, as it is impossible. Immaterial simply means it is made up of non-matter. Example; The law of gravity is immaterial, as are laws of logic etc.

3. Your belief of a beginningless and endless Universe has already been toppled by modern science. If anything your "belief" IS indeed faith based due to your belief being contrary to consensus and evidence.

4. Spirituality is a concept that cannot be materially verified with the CURRENT scientific dogma. As is the mind, fundamental Universal properties, Laws of nature etc.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". There is no denying the beginning, and the creation.

Your belief of an eternal reality is not only contrary to evidence, consesnsus and science itself; it is also contrary to philosophy - and not even Modern philosophy.

I do not wish to devaluate your methodology of thought, but it would be benifitial to take a look at all things as a third person. You can see there are several points of reconsiliation, as well as points of conflict.

The bottom line of my original posts was to demonstrate that there is no war between Science and Religion. This is a myth, and Lennox does a good job at explaining it.


----------



## Sean K (21 December 2011)

explod said:


> See your point Julia but do think that all fields of study should be introduced at the school level.   From my experience religion is a good start to philosophical concepts or questioning outside the realms of the concrete/here and now.



As long as it's taught as philosophy and not hard facts I'd agree. Teaching kids Genesis as how the Universe was created and understanding right from wrong lacks some credibility these days.


----------



## bellenuit (21 December 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> We don't know the motivations behind the texts, and they are subject to much study.




That may be your religious viewpoint, but for many fundamental Christians, the bible is God's word and is to be taken literally. A literal interpretation of Genesis is thus in conflict with Science. You didn't confine your statement to "my religion", but religion in general. 



> Put simply, Religion, much like philosophy attempts to explain "why", is most cases. Science directly deals with "how".
> 
> Science, or rather natural and material sciences cannot deal with spirituality. It IS outside the realm of science, as are many other aspects of life. To a subject more relevant - how does material science deal with immaterial mind? They can't, so they invoke that the mind is merely the sum of its parts, that being the brain. The mind, at the moment, is outside the realm of material sciences. They cannot deal with immateriality.




A lot of what people regard as the mind is explainable today by Science. If the mind were immaterial, it would not require a physical dimension. Yet, we know that the mind doesn't exist outside a body and specifically without that part of the body called the brain. A lot of the psychology of the mind, dealing with what you would regard as immaterial things (emotions) are now being mapped to specific parts of the brain and to specific chemical reactions. 



> Immateriality is not only an aspect of mind, but of the fundamental properties of the Universe.




If you say so, but I haven't a clue what you mean by that.



> 1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
> 2. The Universe has a cause.




1. except for those things that had a beginning but didn't have a cause. 
2. there are scientists that dispute that, hence 1 is only a hypothesis.



> If Natural selection be true, that being the driving force that "chooses" the best traits, then that in itself is a bigger miricle than walking on water.




Natural selection is true. Natural selection doesn't "chose" the best traits. The fact that the best traits survive is what natural selection means. Completely provable and utterly logical. No miracle needed there.



> Personaly, when it comes to the philosophy of creation and beginnings, I believe in evolutionary targets.




I am not sure I understand what your implying, but evolution, as understood by Science, doesn't have targets. There is no intent to evolve into anything in particular. Evolution works through natural selection and what we end up with is what we end up with. Intent only comes into play when modern science, through its understanding of the evolutionary process, overrides natural selection, by changing the odds in favour of what would otherwise have been an unlikely outcome. For example, by selective breeding a particular species of plant or animal.


----------



## explod (21 December 2011)

> LostMyShirt;677205]And this is where you have failed.




Okay, we all fail all the time.



> 1. We do not know in totality of beginnings, but we know of beginnings. It has already been established that our reality had a birth.




We know that matter in particular circumstances created a cell that multipled.



> 2. Immateriality is not nothing. "Nothing" is indefinable, as it is impossible. Immaterial simply means it is made up of non-matter. Example; The law of gravity is immaterial, as are laws of logic etc.




Basically, if you look it up, "it bears no physical substance"  



> 3. Your belief of a beginningless and endless Universe has already been toppled by modern science. If anything your "belief" IS indeed faith based due to your belief being contrary to consensus and evidence.




See answer to 1. above.  And just a part of the endless shift of the total physical object.




> 4. Spirituality is a concept that cannot be materially verified with the CURRENT scientific dogma. As is the mind, fundamental Universal properties, Laws of nature etc.




To the first point agree.   Your second part is muddled, the mind is whatever it wants to think or believe.

"Fundamental Universal properties", on what basis?



> "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". There is no denying the beginning, and the creation.




Is that so, give me your description.



> Your belief of an eternal reality is not only contrary to evidence, consesnsus and science itself; it is also contrary to philosophy - and not even Modern philosophy.




It is not a belief but the only way that it can be seen till someone can prove otherwise.  What you see is what you get.




> I do not wish to devaluate your methodology of thought, but it would be benifitial to take a look at all things as a third person. You can see there are several points of reconsiliation, as well as points of conflict.




No conflict in my take, you have to convince me.



> The bottom line of my original posts was to demonstrate that there is no war between Science and Religion. This is a myth, and Lennox does a good job at explaining it.




Religion has always been at war with science, pull the other one.


----------



## cynic (22 December 2011)

I've been reading the recent posts on this thread with interest and have noticed a recurrent theme where posters describe science as being distinct from religion. 

Science happens to be one of my favourite religions. 

Anyone who cares to perform an objective investigation into the history and development of many of our modern day branches of science will almost certainly discover that many have religious origins (i.e. chemistry/alchemy, surgery/chirurgery. astronomy/astrology, mathematics/numerology etc.).

So those (myself included) whom choose to subscribe to scientific viewpoints might want to be just a little more appreciative of the true pioneers (i.e. those religious zealots throughout history whom were "faithful" enough to make explorations/investigations into the unknown). After all these were the true pioneers of one of our most popular modern day religions, that religion that we call science.


----------



## bellenuit (22 December 2011)

cynic said:


> I've been reading the recent posts on this thread with interest and have noticed a recurrent theme where posters describe science as being distinct from religion.
> 
> Science happens to be one of my favourite religions.
> 
> ...




As Neil deGrassi Tyson (sp.) aptly put it, Science is more a verb than a noun. It is a methodology for doing things and knowing things. The complete opposite of the methodology used by religion.

Do not confuse bad science, which there is some of, with science as it is meant to be.

Also, because some religious people are scientists and some scientists are religious, doesn't make science a religion.


----------



## LostMyShirt (22 December 2011)

Lol.

Can someone give me an example of a causless beginning? Eternality seems to be the pet peeve of anyone wishing to disprove the Genesis account of the absolute beginning to reality.

Sorry there is way too much fodder to go through from the former two posts. Causless beginnings, and a compelte misunderstanding of Cogito Ergo Sum. The worst of all is the dogmatic materialism displayed by saying that is something is NOT comprised of matter, it is nothing ie. non-existant.

Well anyway, I find solice in being able to reconsile my metaphysical belief to modern day knowledge. Although this does not mean I can reconsile the abundant claims made in Religious texts, but I don't pretend to understand them. I focus on the base of it all; the creator, the intelligence, the beginning and inevidable end.

I'll finish with a quesion;

Why is there something, rather than nothing? You can invoke the Anthropic principle if you like, but personaly I believe it is another objectivist copout. Feel free to answer, or don't. I'm not expecting to be enlightened.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> It is a methodology for doing things and knowing things. The complete opposite of the methodology used by religion.
> 
> Do not confuse bad science, which there is some of, with science as it is meant to be.




This is key^^  You're actually doing the same.  Not that I'm defending religion, but it's very easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Spirituality, properly applied is also a process, a practice, involves *no beliefs*, no statues, no dogma, no holy books, no robes and no sermons.  *In fact beliefs are the biggest obstacle to revealing the one Truth.*  They all have to go.  Every single belief has to be let go of.

"If you see Buddha on the path, kill him".  Don't hold up buddha or jesus or mohammed as idols; they are people just like you and me.  Forget all that.

Religion 99.99% misapplication and perversion.  You have to do a lot of research to discover what it's really about.  And then practice.


----------



## noco (17 January 2012)

I found it hard to believe how much of taxpayers money is being spent by this inept Green/Labor socialist left government in promoting Islam in this country,

Why ain't they promoting intergration in lieu of division?

Next thing we will hear the government is building mosques for these people. 

We cannot and should not allow this happen. Maybe Gillard is deperate for the Islamic vote and don't forget at least 90% of the illegal refugees (boat people) are Moslam.

is this for real?


 Before you "copy-paste" or click on the website below, read the story first, then watch it.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/10406568/spreading-the-word 

On Wednesday 5th of October, on Channel 7, in the "TodayTonight" program, it was revealed how some councils from Melbourne, like Darebin Council in Melbourne's North (and soon other councils will follow suit) is doing the hiring, using a grant from the Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland's Counter Violent Extremism Fund.

So far the Gillard government spent more than 9.7 million dollars to promote the Islam religion in Australia, also"developing and implementing activities that assist the Islamic Society of Victoria to dispel mythsand misconceptions about Islam and Muslims"
 The government also is funding overseas religious workers paying them a salary of $66,000 dollars per year to spread Islam in this country. My greatest concern is that the government wants the Islamisation of Australia.
The following Muslim communities were helped with huge amounts of taxpayers' money:
- Auburn Community Development Network
- Australian Somali Community Association Inc. (ASCA).
- Bali Peace Park Association
- Burwood Council
- Centre for Multicultural Youth
- City of Darebin
- Federation of Ethnic Communities
- Council of Australia (FECCA)
- Football United - Fairfield
- Footscray Football Club
- Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations
- Horn of Africa Development Agency (HARDA)
- InterAction Multifaith Youth Network
- Islamic Council of Queensland
- Islamic Council of Victoria
- La Trobe University
- Lebanese Muslim Association
- North Melbourne Football Club
- Pace e Bene Australia
- University of Melbourne
- Victorian Arabic Social Services
- The Youth Centre
- Youth Development Australia
$45,000 pool curtain installed by the Monash Council to shield Muslim women from public view while they swim.
 NO program like this, for any other religious group has ever been run before, and NO other religion has ever received a penny from the government, so the question that remain unanswered is: "why now", and "why only to Muslims"?????
THIS IS DISCRIMINATION ALL OVER THE COUNTRY !!!
This means the rest of us, who are not Muslims, are going to be "second class citizens" of Australia.
If you are a Muslim in this country ONLY you will benefit, To see the whole story, please click on the link or "copy-paste" the website below:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/10406568/spreading-the-word 
I hope Channel 7 will not take this story off air...it is pretty scary to watch, believe me !!! 
WHAT AN INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT, WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS !!!
RAISE YOUR VOICE AGAINST THIS MINDLESS SPENDING, ...BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE !!!
AND DON'T FORGET TO PASS IT ON – AND THANK YOU !!! 

Bronwen Tudor

bronwen@multimediadesign.com.au

Ph: 07 3822 2511

Mob:  0404 294 792












--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4715 - Release Date: 12/31/11

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4741 - Release Date: 01/13/12

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/10406568/spreading-the-word


----------



## Bill M (20 January 2012)

Religion is crazy, I'm an Atheist and fully agree with what this bloke said in Indonesia. Thankfully here in Australia you won't be arrested for expressing an opinion.
---
AN Indonesian civil servant who declared himself an atheist on Facebook was arrested and is now facing jail for blasphemy after being attacked by an angry mob, police said today.

*"The man told police investigators that if God really exists and has absolute power, why didn't he prevent bad things from happening in this world."*

Link: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/atheist-faces-jail-after-facebook-remark/story-e6freuyi-1226249817335
---


----------



## bellenuit (3 February 2012)

*Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe*

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644807-muslims-declare-jihad-on-dogs-in-europe


----------



## noco (3 February 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe*
> 
> http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644807-muslims-declare-jihad-on-dogs-in-europe




What?????? Are they going to start eating them?


----------



## pixel (3 February 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe*
> 
> http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644807-muslims-declare-jihad-on-dogs-in-europe



 I seem to recall reading about a plan to "safeguard" against suicide bombers by tethering dogs at the entrance to potential targets. If dogs are so unclean, being splattered with a mutt's bits on their way to those personal virgins would be a sure deterrent and send the terrorist quickly in the other direction. Which is where they belong anyway


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2012)

Pork chop on the door lock should work as well???


----------



## young-gun (3 February 2012)

cynic said:


> I've been reading the recent posts on this thread with interest and have noticed a recurrent theme where posters describe science as being distinct from religion.
> 
> Science happens to be one of my favourite religions.
> 
> ...




many scientists and theoretical physicists these days acknowledge a higher force/energy/power/being, although they cant explain it nor do they try to.

religion is a plague on society, causes more harm than good, and is only limited by ones imagination. but everyone has to believe in something, i know i do, and by no means do i think im right. a belief is simply that, until proven without any uncertainty to be fact.

it would seem that most religions were created a long time ago when there wasnt the science to disprove them. hopefully jesus comes back soon so we can run some tests.

in saying that scientology was established in 1953, and they have managed quite the following

my hat goes off to those that selflessly help others in need through religious channels. it should simply be about being a good person.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2012)

young-gun said:


> everyone has to believe in something, i know i do, and by no means do i think im right.



Do you feel like telling us about what you believe in, young-gun?


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2012)

When you watch any religious ceremony some one one day must have sat down and worked out what to do , what capes, format, movements,accessories were needed, where to place the candles, do we need holy water yes or no all thought out and passed down through time.
 Who told the stone mason what dimensions a statue has to be and were did this info come from .
Unless some one has a copy of the manual or CD it is all man made.
 And religion has to be taught it is not some thing you can learn by trial and error. 
  Is is based on we have parents to  look up to so therefore we carry it on further to some higher thingo.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 February 2012)

Known as the smartest man in America (with an off-the-chart IQ score), Michael Langan has an interesting website.

http://www.ctmu.org/

Or if you want something more simple, just let go of all thought, all concepts, philosophies, ideas, beliefs.  If you let go of all of them, _all the way down to the belief that you are a person with a body and a mind, sitting at your PC_, then you get a glimpse of it.


----------



## young-gun (4 February 2012)

Julia said:


> Do you feel like telling us about what you believe in, young-gun?




if you feel like listening....?

what we're apart of is bigger and more unbelievably magnificent than anyone could ever imagine or comprehend(naturally myself included). i believe that everyone has a soul, that can be negatively or positively influenced. i am a huge believer in positive thinking and the affects that it has on people and your surroundings, not to mention your path in life, and believe this is tied into a universal energy that everyone is tapped in to. the label attached to such a higher 'energy' or 'being' isnt important. but i think recognising that there is something so much bigger than us at work is important.

i have noticed many times throughout my short life so far that when things are going bad for me it is purely due to my attitude and my process and nature of thoughts at that particular point in time. ruts are easily filled in with a simple step back, and a change in actions and thought.

by being happy and positive you are able to change your environment. dr masaru emoto has executed experiments on water after being subjected to different stimuli. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWAuc9GIvFo
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/ephoto.html

his findings are truly amazing.

now whether or not everything is suddenly made clear upon death is up for debate, i personally dont believe in an after life, instead would probably lean more towards reincarnation. naturally the mind does not travel into new vessels, it is simply the soul or an energy so to speak.

i think that it is criminal to scare people into believing what you believe with talks of the devil and hell etc etc. if there were a heaven i think that being a honest, decent person should see you through the gates, and should the almighty 'god' turn you away after such a life then he can cram it. i had a preacher tell me that my very honest, loving, caring grandfather who passed away from cancer wasn't going to heaven as he wasnt catholic. the fact that people can honestly think like this, and then have the nerve to say it to someone absolutely infuriates me.

9/11 was a religous war. the americans represent everything that the koran and muslims stand so strongly to eradicate. things of this nature are primitive and need to be STOPPED. please no one reply with conspiracy theories.

if you removed religion, and had a generic "be a good person" moto, the world would be a vastly better place. it doesnt bother me what people believe(except when such beliefs lead to death, pain and suffering, or when these beliefs are forced upon others). i think having your own beliefs and opinions is very important, as it stimulates debate and thought and new views. i personally enjoy hearing peoples views that are established outside the box that is religion. i think the most pure religion of all is buddhism.

anyway im sure alot of people will disagree, and i look forward to it

PS my fiance just walked through the door after being to her very first psychic party. ill save it for a different discussion but her experience is very interesting!


----------



## Julia (4 February 2012)

Thank you, young-gun, for the interesting explanation of your beliefs which sound to me like a pretty good basis for a decent life.

I don't totally agree that one's attitude can completely influence life's events:  plenty of very decent, positive, contributing people have had awful stuff happen to them, but know what you're getting at.  We can indeed attract good stuff toward us by our attitude and vice versa.

Look forward to hearing about your fiancee's psychic meeting if you feel disposed to discuss it.  So much that we don't understand.


----------



## pixel (5 February 2012)

I like the way this discussion has turned.
From rejection as "crazy" of especially the three "Religions of the Book", to a humane set of suggestions how to "be a good person". Maybe a new Topic altogether?

Thanks Julia, for eliciting a very interesting reply.
But far more so, thanks to Young-Gun, for presenting a mature view. Have you, by any chance, read Seneca's "De Vita Beata"? A first quick search suggests there may be some useful translations available; first cab off the rank looks like a condensed version; rather well translated too:
http://www.amareway.org/holisticliving/02/seneca-de-vita-beata-quotes/

Hopefully, this discussion can continue.


----------



## young-gun (5 February 2012)

Julia said:


> Thank you, young-gun, for the interesting explanation of your beliefs which sound to me like a pretty good basis for a decent life.
> 
> I don't totally agree that one's attitude can completely influence life's events:  plenty of very decent, positive, contributing people have had awful stuff happen to them, but know what you're getting at.  We can indeed attract good stuff toward us by our attitude and vice versa.
> 
> Look forward to hearing about your fiancee's psychic meeting if you feel disposed to discuss it.  So much that we don't understand.




thanks for pointing that out julia, positive thinking is by no means going to achieve absolutely miraculous results. your environment, where you were born, the people that surround you all have an affect. but one thing i would like to point out, if a positive person has had something bad happen to them, it was probably due to a far more negative type person entering there lives in some way. eg abusive husband, drunk driver, murderers etc. i know i havent covered everything but we could go on for hours.

"so much that we don't understand". couldnt agree with you more, and it is for this reason that i find religion to be so flawed. people have devoted their lives to researching exactly this discussion, and havent even scratched the tip of the ice berg in my opinion, nor will anyone in the next few thousand years. at the end of the day everything might be as it is because it just *is *. perhaps there is no reason, no higher being, no good or bad, everything simply exists for the sake of existing. 

i think the vast majority of people wouldnt believe this, but there are some that do. the thing with religion is that majority of people NEED to believe something, they NEED to feel apart of something, and have a need to justify why bad things happen, and also need to justify why we are here and how we were created. its this need that has caused us to arrive where we are. all cultures and races have this need, so all cultures and races have filled the void with their own view on how it came about. this has evidently caused division and wars and suffering due to conflicts in beliefs.

why didnt jesus make a quick stop over in all other countries to allow everyone to meet him and develop their own opinion? and see the son of christ first hand so there was no doubt? i know if there was no doubt, then there would be no one(or far less people) sinning, perhaps this defeats the purpose of creating a world full of sinners and seeing what happens.


----------



## young-gun (5 February 2012)

pixel said:


> I like the way this discussion has turned.
> From rejection as "crazy" of especially the three "Religions of the Book", to a humane set of suggestions how to "be a good person". Maybe a new Topic altogether?
> 
> Thanks Julia, for eliciting a very interesting reply.
> ...




i havent actually read too much on the topic. i will have a look into it later on today though.


----------



## pixel (5 February 2012)

young-gun said:


> why didnt jesus make a quick stop over in all other countries to allow everyone to meet him and develop their own opinion? [...] i know if there was no doubt, then there would be no one(or far less people) sinning, perhaps this defeats the purpose of creating a world full of sinners and seeing what happens.



 Good point, y-g; and the key reason why I fail to reconcile the claim of an all-powerful, benevolent, and most of all *just* divine being, with the assurance that he/she should play favourites, elevating a chosen few that happen to have lived around one little patch of dirt, yet condemn all others to rot in hell because they're heathens, infidels, subhumans.
Fictions like that may have made sense in those pre-historic times when the defense of the central dung heap or grass paddock was essential to the tribe's survival; hence every aspect of life had to be ruled by the "Us vs Them" maxim.
IMHO one significant reason why people resort to one specific variety of Divine Truth even today is their *need to belong*, to differentiate themselves from every other group. Hence the proliferation of sects, especially in underprivileged community sectors: "We are struggling here and now against the Big Bad World out there. But Brother (or "bro!") you just wait for the Rapture! We'll be the good ones, and everybody else be damned!"

Could it be that Buddhism is more peace-oriented because soil, climate, hence "survival", were easier in the region? Maybe worth checking out.


----------



## Glen48 (5 February 2012)




----------



## Julia (5 February 2012)

young-gun said:


> thanks for pointing that out julia, positive thinking is by no means going to achieve absolutely miraculous results. your environment, where you were born, the people that surround you all have an affect. but one thing i would like to point out, if a positive person has had something bad happen to them, it was probably due to a far more negative type person entering there lives in some way. eg abusive husband, drunk driver, murderers etc. i know i havent covered everything but we could go on for hours.



What I was originally thinking of was life threatening illnesses happening to people who have lived an apparently healthy and reasonably happy life.  But you may be right, and there may be stressors in people's lives that are not outwardly visible but which have an adverse effect on physical health.

I had a good friend die from a brain tumour two years ago.  She existed in an immensely stressful marriage.  I've often wondered if that accumulated stress was a factor in her illness.

I do agree about the unwelcome presence of negative people in our lives.   
It's not uncommon for us to blame ourselves for unpleasantness in a relationship when what we need to do is dismiss that negative person from our environment.


> i think the vast majority of people wouldnt believe this, but there are some that do. the thing with religion is that majority of people NEED to believe something, they NEED to feel apart of something, and have a need to justify why bad things happen, and also need to justify why we are here and how we were created.



Agree.  Hence the perennial question "what is the meaning of life?" and other similar unanswerable questions.



pixel said:


> IMHO one significant reason why people resort to one specific variety of Divine Truth even today is their *need to belong*,



Yes, some people will turn to religion purely out of loneliness.   It's the one aspect of religion that I quite like, i.e. that the Salvos etc provide a place of support and friendship for people who are for whatever reason alienated from society at large.



> to differentiate themselves from every other group. Hence the proliferation of sects, especially in underprivileged community sectors: "We are struggling here and now against the Big Bad World out there. But Brother (or "bro!") you just wait for the Rapture! We'll be the good ones, and everybody else be damned!"



There are some quite astonishing examples of this amongst highly intelligent, well educated people.  I usually go along with the suggestion that the more education someone has the less disposed they will be to believe in religious stuff.
But I know a couple of Seventh Day Adventists, nicest people you could ever meet, both employed in high level academic positions, who absolutely believe the Seventh Day Adventists will be 'saved' and everyone else will go to Hell.  I just do not get this.
We are only able to remain friends by never discussing religion at all.


----------



## pixel (5 February 2012)

Julia said:


> I know a couple of Seventh Day Adventists,....



 Funny you should say that, Julia;
I have a similar couple of friends, who even among themselves aren't sure who is going to be saved; only one partner has this utter conviction, the other is pretty much open-minded. For the sake of blissful coexistence, they don't discuss the finer points even with each other.

However, I had more the small congregations in Southern USA and - until 1989 - the former "Democratic Germany" in mind. Especially in the latter, the religious congregation was the only place where people could feel safe and "speak up" without fearing the knock at the door after midnight. If you were a dissident in that situation, your only hope of salvation was in the hereafter - until some less fearful youngsters jumped onto the Wall and knocked it down. And since then, some of the mulish "conviction" has leveled off and even the previously "fundamentalist" Christians are beginning to open up to others again...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (5 February 2012)

Instead of all this speculation, how bout making an effort to find out if God is real for yourself?

The common paths are:

*Meditation *- there are two broad types of meditation, one which leads to altered states of consciousness, the other to Truth realization (or God/Unity consciousness).  If you're a Christian, substitute the words "contemplative prayer" - same thing.  
*Drugs *- hallucinogens/dissociatives such as DMT, psilocybin, LSD

Both meditation and drugs have risks attached to them.  Few know about the risks of meditation, but they certainly exist.  Drugs are the 'fast and dirty route', and even then, you only get a glimpse of the 'other' ..(you could also end up in a psychiatric ward if you're not careful).  When the altered states of consciousness get boring, one can turn ones attention to the end goal of meditation which is ego death, or no-self realization.  

Just like with trading, if you go looking for information on the web about meditation or God or whatever, be prepared for any search to yield 99% bullsh1t.  You have to find the 1%.


Some of the 1% can be found on this list, including a few Aussies:

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/ratings.htm
for drug experiences, try www.erowid.org


----------



## DB008 (7 February 2012)

Interesting video. I don't know which side it came from, but it's still scary what they are trying to shove down the throats of high-schoolers in the USA.....

http://bcove.me/07uefz8c


----------



## DB008 (7 February 2012)

DB008 said:


> Interesting video. I don't know which side it came from, but it's still scary what they are trying to shove down the throats of high-schoolers in the USA.....
> 
> http://bcove.me/07uefz8c




I have been advised that the link doesn't work.

Here is another attempt.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid949801312001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAACEco_Vk~,9bOat4XcfB_88ri1a3UMdKnLpH9aM8Fv&bctid=1271237687001


----------



## Glen48 (7 February 2012)

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/9312.html
 Christians at work


----------



## noco (8 February 2012)

I believe I have mentioned twice on this forum how Muslims are infiltrating into the Western World in droves and it is also one's belief that 90% of illegal boat people entering Australia are Muslim thanks to are cuurent government.

Whilst the source of the following is unknown, I believe to be true and I will ASF readers judge for themselves.  

PART : (1)


CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD Australians?    This is certainly 'food-for-thought' .

This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish.  And send it on to everyone.  Maybe this is why our Australian Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.



         Can a good Muslim be a good Australian?



This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia  for 20 years.



The following is his reply:



Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia .


----------



## noco (8 February 2012)

PART(2)


Religiously - no.. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam .  (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)


Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.


Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.


Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews .


Politically - no.. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America the great Satan, Australia and the rest of the free world.


Domestically - no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )


Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the Australian Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.


Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.


Spiritually - no.. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.


Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Australians [or good Englishmen or good Americans!].  Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country [ and yours] and our future.


The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. .....


Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.   SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.


THE AUSSIE DIGGERS WANT THIS TO ROLL OUT ALL OVER AUSTRALIA .


Please don't delete this until you send it on.


----------



## young-gun (8 February 2012)

Julia said:


> What I was originally thinking of was life threatening illnesses happening to people who have lived an apparently healthy and reasonably happy life.  But you may be right, and there may be stressors in people's lives that are not outwardly visible but which have an adverse effect on physical health.




sorry illness completely slipped my mind. i can't explain nor do i have an argument or logical reasoning as to why good people contract such illnesses/diseases etc. nor am i sure if positive or negative thinking has an affect on ones ability to contract  or fight off such things.

the reason i say scrap religion and bring in a broad motto is simple. those who are religious are not necessarily good people. there is so many things wrong with the world that it angers me just thinking about it, and i cant even think where to begin.

thanks to noco for that informative post. this is one dam scary religion. their beliefs are so primitive and so dangerous! if the world were to adopt such views as a whole we would be taking 100 steps backwards IMO. i am absolutely not racist by any interpretation of the term, but if a religion involves beating women, eradicating those who dont serve under it, killing in the name of, and extremist behaviour, then to me it is not ok. I cant comment too much on it as i don't personally know any muslims, and am unaware just how many of them actually live and breath their religion, and follow it 'religiously'. but isnt one too many when views and beliefs of this nature are involved?

i dont mean to single out just this one in particular, but it is the only religion i am familiar with the i consider to be a worry.

@ gringotts bank - i think its debatable as to whether drugs merely give the illusion of being apart of something bigger, or whether they actually alter the mind and body to different frequencies(call it what you will) which put you more in-tune so to speak. they most definitely evoke some very deep thoughts and an apparent higher state of consciousness. 

back on topic - religion is most definitely crazy, and it has the potential to do some serious, serious damage. 

this topic does my head in.


----------



## AbrasiveCamel (9 February 2012)

noco said:


> PART(2)
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Please don't delete this until you send it on.




You should probably read this and then self-reflect...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html


----------



## wayneL (9 February 2012)

AbrasiveCamel said:


> You should probably read this and then self-reflect...
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html




You should probably investigate proper scientific method and then self-reflect.

From the comments:



> As a scientist, I was interested in this conclusion and went back and read the original article - it's free online, if you're interested*. Cognitive abilities were measured in individual*s as pre-teens and attitudes about social conservati*sm and race were measured in the same individual*s when they were 30 or older. Social conservati*sm was measured with 7 questions about respect for authority. Racism was measured with 5 questions. The authors go on to create a mathematic*al model of the relationsh*ip between intelligen*ce, socio-econ*omic status, conservati*ve ideology and racial attitudes. This is, in my opinion, over-inter*pretation of the data, especially given the simplistic instrument used to measure attitudes about race.
> 
> Another way to test this theory would be to see how many "unintelli*gent" children chose, as adults, to commit hate crimes or to join racist organizati*ons. If lack of intelligen*ce is a causal factor for racism (as the authors suggest), then this effect should be seen in many different measures.
> 
> As a mathematic*al modeler myself, I am highly skeptical of most models. The study is fairly large - over 3000 men and 3000 women. Nonetheles*s, I wonder if it might have been better for the authors to note a correlatio*n between intelligen*ce measured as a child and attitudes towards conservati*sm and race as an adult and ask what else could contribute to these factors. Indeed, an exploratio*n of the counterfac*tual was sorely lacking in this paper.


----------



## Glen48 (9 February 2012)

I would say most  on this forum are against any form of religion but Muslims are to be feared the most.


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2012)

At last some light at the end of the tunnel.

*Canadian imams issue fatwa against honour killings*

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644881-canadian-imams-issue-fatwa-against-honor-killings


----------



## zwiiyt (9 February 2012)

Religion isn't relevant to anything. The people who ought not believe in it because of conflict of interest (scientist), cannot believe in it by definition of a scientist (someone who is smart, educated). 

For the everyday person, I see no reason why a belief in god is going to be detrimental to their parenting, commerce, everyday life skills...


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2012)

zwiiyt said:


> For the everyday person, I see no reason why a belief in god is going to be detrimental to their parenting, commerce, everyday life skills...




It's not so much the belief in God that is detrimental, but the literal belief in certain texts attributed to that God. There are just too many examples that could be used, so I will offer just one......

Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of blood transfusion is certainly detrimental to the well being of many of its followers.


----------



## pixel (9 February 2012)

zwiiyt said:


> For the everyday person, I see no reason why a belief in god is going to be detrimental to their parenting, commerce, everyday life skills...



 In a sense I agree with you there:
A child may not understand the concept of "conscience" and "self-respect"; therefore, a divine being that can see everything a kid does, even invade his/her thoughts, may serve some initial educational purpose. But just as with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, we should come clean and explain to an adolescent, probably as early as age 7 or 8,* 

"You are the only person that has to live with yourself, your dreams, pride, and self-respect."*

Of course, there are some other concepts that can be similarly helpful; e.g. the Islamic concept of submission of self to the will of Allah. That, too, can help a kid understand that not everything goes the way you wish; get over it, learn to accept disappointment, and maintain a healthy level of humility. But again, once they're mature enough to understand ethical concepts, kids ought to be taught the values within, rather than project everything to an invisible Bogeyman.

Having said that, however, I don't have any illusions about such a degree of honesty entering mainstream education. The Clerics of all persuasions will not voluntarily give up their "God-given" (i.e. in reality "self-arrogated") power and control over their "sheeple". Apart from that, a large proportion of the general populace may even lack the intellectual capacity and "moral fibre" to understand and accept personal pride and responsibility for Self. As evidence, one only needs to consider, how an entire generation seems to have replaced one "Superior Being" by a new target of adulation: Good riddance Jesus, Mohammed, Moses. Welcome Madonna, Britney, Justin Bieber.


----------



## young-gun (9 February 2012)

zwiiyt said:


> For the everyday person, I see no reason why a belief in god is going to be detrimental to their parenting, commerce, everyday life skills...




i dont think there has been anyone on here that has suggested otherwise.


----------



## DB008 (14 February 2012)

Religious nut released from prison in England. Labeled as OBL's 'right hand man in Europe'.

The Poms should grow some balls and send this nut job back to Jordan, ASAP.

I am afraid that Australia will soon follow in England's footsteps in the not to distant future and become a spineless victim of a 'looking back at it, we should have got rid of this guy ages ago terrorist attack saga'. 



> *Abu Qatada release from Long Lartin jail sparks furore*
> 
> 
> Abu Qatada, accused of being one of the UK's most dangerous extremist preachers, has been released from Long Lartin top-security jail in Evesham.
> ...




More on link above...


----------



## pixel (15 February 2012)

DB008 said:


> Religious nut released from prison in England. Labeled as OBL's 'right hand man in Europe'.
> 
> The Poms should grow some balls and send this nut job back to Jordan, ASAP.
> 
> I am afraid that Australia will soon follow in England's footsteps in the not to distant future and become a spineless victim of a 'looking back at it, we should have got rid of this guy ages ago terrorist attack saga'.



 While the Poms have a lot of quirky, even "crazy" politicians, in this instance they cannot be burdened with all of the blame. They would have loved to buy him a one-way ticket to Jordan, where he'd probably have been dealt with securely by now. It was the European Court of Human Rights that overruled common sense. Thereby proving that craziness isn't restricted to religious nuts, but has spread through entire levels of superimposed bureaucracy.
Those so-called liberal democracies pride themselves in how oh-so humane and tolerant they are, but fail to see that their very uncritical tolerance opens the door to every intolerant assassin and gives their enemies a free stab at their jugular.

What happened to the old principle that every right had to be earned by commensurate responsibility and loyalty? Separating the two and allowing a minority to enjoy such rights, even if they spit the guarantors in the face, is the hallmark of a suicidal society.


----------



## noco (9 April 2012)

The following is what I have been saying for a long time.
The Muslims are infiltrating into the Western world big time and 90% of the illegal immigrants coming by boat are Muslims.
STOP THE BOATS NOW OR ELSE AUSTRALIA WILL BE IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT.



with any sort of luck, by 2031, I’ll be dead.......and you who are left??????????GOOD LUCK

Subject: FW: This incident happened in London .

I liked this, because it actually is a True story that wisely debates an extremely twisted concept that even Islam has failed to note. See what you think - fear factors aside. We all must find a way to get along on this globe.


With Muslims establishing their own schools, one wonders how their kids will acquire our values and be able to successfully integrate into our society.

This incident happened in London .

The Uncomfortable Definition of an Infidel....

FACT: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK

Last month I attended my annual training session for maintaining my security clearance in the prison service.

There was a presentation by three speakers from the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained their beliefs.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say about the basics of Islam, complete with video.

After the presentations, question time. I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a Holy War against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?'

There was no disagreement with my statement and, without hesitation he replied, 'Non-believers!'

I responded, 'So let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not a follower of Allah, so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?'

The expression on his face changed from one of authority to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the biscuit tin.'

He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'

I then stated, 'Well, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope Benedict commanding all Catholics to kill Muslims, or the Archbishop of Canterbury ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!'

The Imam was speechless!

I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your 'friend' when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because He will take me to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam remained speechless.

Needless to say, the organizers of the Diversification seminar were not happy with this way of exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.

Within twenty years, ie. 2031, there will be enough Muslim voters in the UK to elect a government of their choice, complete with Sharia law.

Everyone in the WORLD. should be required to read this, but with the current political paralysis, tolerant justice system, liberal media and P.C. madness, there is no way this will be widely publicised.

Please pass this on to all your e-mail contacts.

John Harrison MBE. MIDSc

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Glen48 (9 April 2012)

Proof god wasn't watching:

A Brazilian actor playing Judas was seriously injured Saturday when he accidently hanged himself during a Bible scene in which his character commits suicide after betraying Jesus, a report said.

The actor, identified as Tiago Klimeck, apparently confused which cord he should use, and remained hanging for several minutes during a performance of "The Passion of Christ" in the city of Itarare, police told news website G1.

The man's colleagues did not react immediately while he hung unconscious, believing the actor was still playing the role of Judas.

Klimeck was rushed to a hospital, where he remains in serious condition, the news site reported.


----------



## motorway (9 April 2012)

noco said:


> The following is what I have been saying for a long time.
> The Muslims are infiltrating into the Western world big time and 90% of the illegal immigrants coming by boat are Muslims.
> STOP THE BOATS NOW OR ELSE AUSTRALIA WILL BE IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT.
> 
> ...




Please read this==>  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

*Hoaxes and Urban Legends: "Allah or the Lord Jesus Christ?"*

Motorway


----------



## motorway (9 April 2012)

17 mar 2012 New Scientist had an interesting series of articles on Religion and Religious belief.

*The God Issue- The Surprising new Science of Religion.
*
Why our minds have a god-shaped space.

The idea that launched a thousand civilizations.

God's existence put to the test.

Reclaiming the best bits of Religion for atheists

Why Religion may outlast Science and also interestingly _why  atheists are everywhere distrusted._

Motorway


----------



## bellenuit (9 April 2012)

motorway said:


> Please read this==>  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp
> 
> *Hoaxes and Urban Legends: "Allah or the Lord Jesus Christ?"*
> 
> Motorway




I have invariably found that any e-mail I receive that contains statements like "Please pass this on to all your e-mail contacts" is a hoax.


----------



## Julia (9 April 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I have invariably found that any e-mail I receive that contains statements like "Please pass this on to all your e-mail contacts" is a hoax.



+1.  I even received one recently which detailed some of the more well known scams and then at the end said:


> However, this is the one email that you really will want to pass on to all your friends because a lot of people don't actually know about the scams described above.




And people will do it.  It was sent to me by someone I'd have thought would have known better, along with the exhortation "You must read this"!


----------



## pixel (9 April 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I have invariably found that any e-mail I receive that contains statements like "Please pass this on to all your e-mail contacts" is a hoax.



 +100%
...and I keep telling people so, whenever I receive a "warning"
Stops some of them including me in their distribution list (which I consider a partial success), but doesn't stop most of them from persisting. 
Because, as one serial forwarder told me, "it's better to be 99 times wrong than missing the one that's really true."


----------



## Glen48 (9 April 2012)

I have had a Vision.

Truth has descended upon me.

Carbon.

gg


----------



## paulyy (9 April 2012)

Dawkins Vs Pell on ABC1


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2012)

paulyy said:


> Dawkins Vs Pell on ABC1



Very poor choice of words by Pell at one point.


----------



## lindsayf (10 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> Very poor choice of words by Pell at one point.




...only one?


----------



## pixel (10 April 2012)

lindsayf said:


> ...only one?



 ... and not a single question about all the other gods and myths created/ believed in by other non-Jewish tribes 
The Greek Pantheon, so convincingly depicted by poets and playwrights from Homer to Euripides?
The Norse gods of Wagnerian proportions?
Indian, Japanese, North American, Mayan ... explanations of the Universe and Purpose of Life.

Why couldn't Dawkins think of raising this question, rather than tying himself into knots when he attempted to talk in Layman's terms about Science he himself didn't understand.

A sad spectacle, seeing these two gentlemen attempt to belittle each other's ignorance in order to win over a mostly superficial audience.


----------



## dutchie (10 April 2012)

pixel said:


> ... and not a single question about all the other gods and myths created/ believed in by other non-Jewish tribes
> The Greek Pantheon, so convincingly depicted by poets and playwrights from Homer to Euripides?
> The Norse gods of Wagnerian proportions?
> Indian, Japanese, North American, Mayan ... explanations of the Universe and Purpose of Life.
> ...




I agree pixel. The debate never rose to any great heights and ended up a dull draw.

Although one interesting point that we may all ponder is where did it all start?
If the universe was started from the big bang what was there before it?
If it was all started by god where did god come from?

As the venerable Professor Julius Sumner Miller often said "why is it so?"


----------



## young-gun (10 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> I agree pixel. The debate never rose to any great heights and ended up a dull draw.
> 
> Although one interesting point that we may all ponder is where did it all start?
> If the universe was started from the big bang what was there before it?
> ...





chicken or the egg ey dutchie? i find its best to not even speculate on the above, or it will simply result in a couple of nurofen. its not in our nature to be able to come to terms with "it simply just is". IMO we are hundreds if not thousands of years off even skimming the top.


----------



## VSntchr (10 April 2012)

As Joe Rogan has said "We are just people stuck on a space ship, travelling through space and time at a million miles an hour...and no-one knows what the f** we are really doing here"!


----------



## pixel (10 April 2012)

young-gun said:


> chicken or the egg ey dutchie?_* i find its best to not even speculate on the above, or it will simply result in a couple of nurofen. its not in our nature to be able to come to terms with "it simply just is"*_. IMO we are hundreds if not thousands of years off even skimming the top.



 speak for yourself, young-gun 

I feel quite comfortable accepting something that "simply just is". My life doesn't need any other "purpose" than the one I give it. As a species, humankind may indeed be a few steps away from accepting responsibility for "Self"; and that may well be the reason why, in the mist of awakening self-awareness, early humans had to invent gods and demons in their own image - just more powerful and smarter - in order to hold the tribe together and encourage the thinking individuals to put family before self. And even then, it is quite likely that these rules of cooperative, civilised behaviour did not come about by intelligent design/ planning, but it is far more likely that tribes, who adopted the most civilised "commandments", had a better chance of survival than others, who let bullies and despots run riot.

In that sense, Cardinal Pell does have a point when he said the Jews were "The Chosen People" because they were more intelligent - in spite of being mere shepherds  

But apart from missing the hilarity of that rationale, he also has the logic R's about:
The god, whom their ancestors invented and whom they equipped with superhuman powers of strength and wisdom, did not "choose" them, but they happened to equip their mythical leader with ideas that worked out for them. Never mind the barbaric customs and legends about sacrificing children, offering one's virgin daughters in exchange for a good night's rest, or having bears tear kids to bits because they poked fun at a bald old coot. It's the main rules, specifically the Ten Commandments, and the carrot-and-stick legends reinforcing their adherence, that gave the "intelligent shepherds" an edge over their more barbaric neighbours.
By the time a larger, more belligerent world power came around, that edge was blunted, and the Romans kicked the shepherds' butt. But just in time, a new set of "ideas" was hatched: Love Thy Neighbour and don't fight him. Lie low, support friends in need, and offer passive resistance where you can't fight the Powers that be.

None of the above requires the pretense of an Intelligent Design. Simply accept the Laws of Evolution in action: With increasing numbers, different groups of humans came up with randomly distributed rules of social interaction; some worked for a limited time, others remained successful for longer. The successful ones aren't necessarily more "ethical" or more "divinely inspired" - they simply turn out to work a little better under the living conditions at the time. Just like those animals, whose scales changed to body hair, could survive better in cold climate, so they survived the global temperature plunge, when the dinosaurs felt the big chill.


----------



## bellenuit (11 April 2012)

I just watched a recording of the Q & A.  Dawkins certainly was far from his best. I thought Pell got himself into a lot of difficulty which unfortunately the host didn't allow to be pursued. It was raised a few times, but he never got to answer the question of where Original Sin sits, if there was no Adam & Eve.  in my understanding, the whole basis of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, but he dying for our sins, presupposes Original Sin.  I also thought Pell was threading on thin ice when he tried to suggest that the body and blood of JC is in the wafer and wine at the mass, but again was not pursued as to what he meant by body and blood. Dawkins directly asked if he was talking about the biological body, but that question got lost in the toing and froing. 

I think Dawkins got into a bit of a fix trying to explain nothing. It was not so much that he couldn't explain it, but the concept as understood by modern physics is almost impossible to explain in lay terms. I have watched a few interviews of Lawrence Kraus (whom Dawkins cited as the expert in that area) and even though I have a good understanding of science, I still find his explanations of something from nothing difficult. I can grasp that 0 can produce -1 + 1, which are two somethings from nothing, but that is just my trivial understanding. There is also the concept of why we should assume that there ever was a nothing. What dictates that there couldn't always have been a something? Those who invoke God are assuming that there always was a something - that something being God.


----------



## noco (15 April 2012)

The Root of What is Happening to America.

Is this also happening in Australia ?















 Very scary but informative. It is well worth your time.
This is a very telling lecture. It hits at the root of what is happening in American Universities, and what is happening to our culture. 
This fight is as real and costly as any combat this nation has been through in the past. The battlefield is non-conventional, but so are the methods of our enemies. 
Please take the time to listen.

Click here: Article


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 April 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I just watched a recording of the Q & A.  Dawkins certainly was far from his best. I thought Pell got himself into a lot of difficulty which unfortunately the host didn't allow to be pursued. It was raised a few times, but he never got to answer the question of where Original Sin sits, if there was no Adam & Eve.  in my understanding, the whole basis of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, but he dying for our sins, presupposes Original Sin.  I also thought Pell was threading on thin ice when he tried to suggest that the body and blood of JC is in the wafer and wine at the mass, but again was not pursued as to what he meant by body and blood. Dawkins directly asked if he was talking about the biological body, but that question got lost in the toing and froing.
> 
> I think Dawkins got into a bit of a fix trying to explain nothing. It was not so much that he couldn't explain it, but the concept as understood by modern physics is almost impossible to explain in lay terms. I have watched a few interviews of Lawrence Kraus (whom Dawkins cited as the expert in that area) and even though I have a good understanding of science, I still find his explanations of something from nothing difficult. I can grasp that 0 can produce -1 + 1, which are two somethings from nothing, but that is just my trivial understanding. There is also the concept of why we should assume that there ever was a nothing. What dictates that there couldn't always have been a something? Those who invoke God are assuming that there always was a something - that something being God.




The fact that the two of them couldn't agree on anything just means that neither has a good grasp of their field.  They both appeared totally pathetic to me.  There are far, far wiser men who can see numerous similarities between the core aspects of modern physics and the real core of religions (which were killed many centuries ago).  eg. Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism".

Having said that, neither science nor religion will get you to "God".  Both disciplines are rooted in concepts that appeal to the mind.  The best they can do is "point towards the moon".  And as the saying goes, most people "mistake the finger for the moon".

Nothingness is indeed where everything springs from.  Nothingness however will never be understood by the mind, and since both science and religion are rooted in the mental concepts and experiences, the best you will ever achieve is confusion and argument.

Ditch both.  

God is not a thing (obviously).
God is not an experience (not even the experience of Love or Truth or ecstasy).
God is not anything that can be known by you; the thought that you exist is the falsehood that keeps you from knowing "It".
The only way God can know itself in everything, is by you seeing through the illusion of the "I" thought.

Descartes said "Je pense donc je suis" - which means "I think, therefore I am".  If I'm not thinking, the "I am" must disappear.  Then God is.  God is the "AM".


----------



## Knobby22 (17 April 2012)

They are having an atheists convention in Melbourne at present.

I heard an atheist (who was forced by his parents to go to Church twice a week as a boy) on the radio saying why he wasn't going to someone trying to drum up support to the convention:-

"So I sit in a room with people who have the same beliefs and we discuss those beliefs and how to spread them - sounds too much like church to me"


----------



## Sean K (17 April 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> "So I sit in a room with people who have the same beliefs and we discuss those beliefs and how to spread them - sounds too much like church to me"



One of the things the atheist 'movement' is missing. A sense of community. Less the fairy tales to encourage moral behaviour.


----------



## Glen48 (20 April 2012)

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2012 (AFP) - The Philippines leads the world in the number of people who believe in God, while the elderly across all countries tend to be the most religious, according to a US study out Wednesday. 

Belief in God tends to be strongest in the United States and Catholic countries and lowest in Scandinavia and former Soviet states, according to the survey carried out by the NORC research group at the University of Chicago.

The study was based on data from 30 countries -- nearly all with Christian majorities -- in which surveys about belief in God have been taken since 1991.

It found that 94 percent of people in the Philippines said they had always believed in God, followed by Chile, with 88 percent, and the United States with 81 percent.

Belief was lowest in the former east Germany (13 percent) and in the Czech Republic (20 percent).

The surveys found atheism was most widespread in Scandinavia and the former Soviet Union -- with the exception of Poland -- and that belief in God was generally declining worldwide, but not in Russia, Slovenia or Israel.

The report found that senior citizens tend to believe more strongly in God. On average, 43 percent of respondents 68 and older are certain that God exists, compared to just 23 percent of those 27 and younger, the report said.

"Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older," said Tom Smith, who wrote the report, entitled "Belief About God Across Time and Countries."

"This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality," Smith said.

In the United States, 54 percent of those younger than 28 said they were certain of God's existence, compared to 66 percent of those 68 and older, while in France eight percent of young people said they believed in God, compared to 26 percent of older citizens.

The surveys, taken in 1991, 1998 and 2008, were mainly carried out in European countries, in addition to Chile, Japan, New Zealand and Australia.


----------



## young-gun (20 April 2012)

pixel said:


> speak for yourself, young-gun
> 
> I feel quite comfortable accepting something that "simply just is". My life doesn't need any other "purpose" than the one I give it. As a species, humankind may indeed be a few steps away from accepting responsibility for "Self"; and that may well be the reason why, in the mist of awakening self-awareness, early humans had to invent gods and demons in their own image - just more powerful and smarter - in order to hold the tribe together and encourage the thinking individuals to put family before self. And even then, it is quite likely that these rules of cooperative, civilised behaviour did not come about by intelligent design/ planning, but it is far more likely that tribes, who adopted the most civilised "commandments", had a better chance of survival than others, who let bullies and despots run riot.




I was referring more to the vast majority I too can accept that everything may simply 'just be'. But i prefer not to, as I enjoy speculating about what could be, no matter how ridiculous. I have expressed my views previously on this thread, and although I don't stand by them religiously, I enjoy having my own opinion/theory on everything. I guess at the end of the day I would like to believe that there may be a reason or an explanation for it all, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I would hate to think you havent allowed your mind to explore(or humor) every possibility?

Perhaps the only point to life is to be able to observe what has been created, after all, if no one, or no thing is able to observe it, does anything actually exist?


----------



## noco (21 April 2012)

If this happeneing in Brittain, no doubt we will see it soon in Australia.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKEd6rzbeg


----------



## So_Cynical (21 April 2012)

I uncounted a local example of "Religion IS crazy!" this morning.

I live in a Sydney suburb that has a high Islamic population....on my way to do some shopping today i noticed 3 large Advertising Posters next to the train station (at near ground level) had been vandalised in a very selective way...the legs of all the women had been painted over with a roller using white paint, also a bear chested man and a woman in a swimsuit totally painted over.

Not Graffiti but seeming done because pictures of those body parts had offended people/s in some way... that's the only explanation i can think of.

Religion IS crazy!


----------



## pixel (22 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I uncounted a local example of "Religion IS crazy!" this morning.
> 
> I live in a Sydney suburb that has a high Islamic population....on my way to do some shopping today i noticed 3 large Advertising Posters next to the train station (at near ground level) had been vandalised in a very selective way...the legs of all the women had been painted over with a roller using white paint, also a bear chested man and a woman in a swimsuit totally painted over.
> 
> ...



 Of course it's graffiti, and the full force of the law should bear down on the vandals who defaced other people's property. In addition to laws dealing with property damage, Australia has outlawed discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion... Claims that one religion outranks all others is in no way different to claims that one race is superior over all others.

Note that even Cardinal Pell has recognised that Gays and Lesbians can go to Heaven. About time the laws that deal with inciting to racial hatred be applied to clerics across all "faiths" that claim inequality.


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2012)

pixel said:


> Note that even Cardinal Pell has recognised that Gays and Lesbians can go to Heaven. About time the laws that deal with inciting to racial hatred be applied to clerics across all "faiths" that claim inequality.



Is this correct pixel? I thought this type of decision needed to come from the Vatican.


----------



## pixel (22 April 2012)

kennas said:


> Is this correct pixel? I thought this type of decision needed to come from the Vatican.



 He said so in the recent Q&A  debate with Dawkins on April 9th. Dull as dishwater, but if you hurry, you may still watch it on http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/index/q-z
Expires tomorrow.


----------



## young-gun (22 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I uncounted a local example of "Religion IS crazy!" this morning.
> 
> I live in a Sydney suburb that has a high Islamic population....on my way to do some shopping today i noticed 3 large Advertising Posters next to the train station (at near ground level) had been vandalised in a very selective way...the legs of all the women had been painted over with a roller using white paint, also a bear chested man and a woman in a swimsuit totally painted over.
> 
> ...




perhaps someone should go over there and draw a body over the burqas, what ever punishment is dealt for that, the same should be applied to those doing the same here.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 April 2012)

I came across this poem today which talks about Nothingness as the source of everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That which can be perceived is not the timeless That.
That which can be named is not the nameless One.

The source of heaven and earth is without form or substance.
Naming creates the ten thousand things.

When desire is absent, the mystery is obvious.
When desire occurs, creation unfolds.

Mystery and creation arise from the same source.
The source is emptiness.
Void within void.
The realm of Tao.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All religions point to the same source.  I only like Taoism, Zen and Advaita because they are slightly less corrupted and perverted than most other religions.  They also sit quite nicely with the findings of (some) modern physicists who feel that  consciousness == source.


----------



## Glen48 (5 May 2012)

http://www.yolohub.com/featured/the-fastest-growing-religion-in-america-is


----------



## noco (19 May 2012)

Back in 1956, the Jehovah Witness said the world was going to end that year.

Now I read where man's self rule is about end  27/05/2012. Hey, that is tomorrow week.

I know things are bad around the world ATM but geez, it is getting close again. 



http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/?gclid=CNbD-7rRi7ACFcVMpgodJg2brQ


----------



## rumpole (19 May 2012)

:goodnight


----------



## young-gun (19 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> :goodnight




My younger brothers girlfriend i discovered is quite religious. she was absolutely horrified at my opinion that we are a product of evolution. she's a very smart girl, her parents are religious nutters. she was completely closed off to suggestions of anything other than jesus

it's a shame people aren't given the chance to establish their own views and opinions of exactly what it's all about, without their parents drumming **** into them from the word go.


----------



## noco (19 May 2012)

noco said:


> Back in 1956, the Jehovah Witness said the world was going to end that year.
> 
> Now I read where man's self rule is about end  27/05/2012. Hey, that is tomorrow week.
> 
> ...



Perhaps we might see some of Bob Brown's aliens arriving to take us over.
Did he leave the Greens to join up with his aliens to become the World's supreme leader.
Maybe he might be one of the advanced crew.LOL.


----------



## cynic (20 May 2012)

noco said:


> Perhaps we might see some of Bob Brown's aliens arriving to take us over.
> Did he leave the Greens to join up with his aliens to become the World's supreme leader.
> Maybe he might be one of the advanced crew.LOL.




Don't be so silly noco! 

We all know that the aliens are way too intelligent to align themselves with pretentious primitives.


----------



## bellenuit (24 May 2012)

*Local Pastor Calls For Death of 'Queers & Homosexuals'*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU&feature=b-mv


----------



## johenmo (24 May 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Local Pastor Calls For Death of 'Queers & Homosexuals'*




This pastor obviously sees "Queers" as being a distinctly different group of people than "homosexuals".  Hmmm.... The pastor probably doesn't see them as people.  *shakes head*.  I just can't understand how a person can be like this, no matter how hard I try.  As I get older, having hatred for someone who has done no harm to others seems more & more absurd.


----------



## DB008 (2 June 2012)

*Jehovah's Witness nutjobs*

How about this one????



> *Judge forces Jehovah's Witness parents to allow transfusion for daughter with cancer*
> 
> 
> Girls parents refused transfusion on religious grounds
> ...




Link


----------



## Glen48 (2 June 2012)

The JW's should be made to present their factual evidence along with psychical exhibits in court to substantiate their claims,just like any other individual  has to other wise it is just hearsay..  
The next problem will be the loving parents shunning the daughter if she survives and she will wonder what religion is all about..


----------



## bellenuit (2 June 2012)

*Why I watched a snake-handling pastor die for his faith*

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646096-why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith


----------



## Glen48 (2 June 2012)

Hope they donated his body to science and see how much vacuum he pulled between his ears.
Here in the Philippines 98 % believe in God yet still believe in Faith healers as the TV show said people are crazy


----------



## Joules MM1 (2 June 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Why I watched a snake-handling pastor die for his faith*
> 
> http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646096-why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith




pity the guy threw away his life just to be right.......at the last moment he realised the simple dumb logic of what he'd done but no cigar

worse still, the voyeuristic LAUREN POND 







> was.... a professional loss for me.



 a person just died and you had the opportunity to stop that, what's your profession got to do with it?

and 



> I have been staying at a friend’s house close to.....gradually allowing myself to feel some of the raw emotion that has been percolating for days.



 right, had to build up to it, did you or do you mean soaking up the atmosphere of sadness? 

amazing


----------



## hja (2 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Hope they donated his body to science and see how much vacuum he pulled between his ears.
> Here in the Philippines 98 % believe in God yet still believe in Faith healers as the TV show said people are crazy




Didn't Benny Hinn recently go there to regrow an amputee's limb?


----------



## DB008 (6 June 2012)

*South Korea surrenders to creationist demands*

Wonder if this will happen here one day....

*South Korea surrenders to creationist demands*



> Mention creationism, and many scientists think of the United States, where efforts to limit the teaching of evolution have made headway in a couple of states1. But the successes are modest compared with those in South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science.
> 
> A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.
> The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website. The society says that its members include professors of biology and high-school science teachers.
> ...




Link here


----------



## DB008 (13 June 2012)

Just saw this, interesting...


*Police bar 3 veiled women from entering France*



> PARIS (AP) -- A police union says three Saudi women who refused to remove their face veils at Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport have been barred entry to France.
> 
> A 2011 French law bans people from wearing Islamic face-covering veils anywhere in public.
> 
> ...




Link


----------



## Boggo (13 June 2012)

Can't even have a coffee nowadays without becoming a supporter of some form of devil dodger !

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/...-to-abuse-claims/story-e6frfkp9-1111115815321

and 

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8529/Your-coffee-funds-Wallaces-rants.htm


----------



## DB008 (17 June 2012)

*Man jailed in Indonesia for atheist Facebook posts*

Indonesian Insanity – Non-believer jailed for 2.5 years after writing “God doesn’t exist” on his Facebook page



> An Indonesian man arrested after writing “God doesn’t exist” on his Facebook page was jailed for 30 months Thursday for sharing explicit material about the Prophet Mohammed online.
> Alexander Aan, 30, was found guilty of “deliberately spreading information inciting religious hatred and animosity,” presiding judge Eka Prasetya Budi Dharma told the Muaro Sijunjung district court in western Sumatra.





...and here...

Man jailed in Indonesia for atheist Facebook posts


----------



## Glen48 (17 June 2012)

So how did the court prove he/she does exist????


----------



## DB008 (17 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> So how did the court prove he/she does exist????




I guess it's a muslim country. To ask a question like that, you'd also get locked up?


----------



## young-gun (18 June 2012)

DB008 said:


> I guess it's a muslim country. To ask a question like that, you'd also get locked up?




more likely beheaded


----------



## DB008 (20 June 2012)

You can't make this stuff up.

From Saudi Barbaria, oops, l mean Saudi Arabia. What year is it? 




> *Saudi man executed for 'witchcraft and sorcery'*
> 
> *A Saudi man has been beheaded on charges of sorcery and witchcraft, the state news agency SPA says.
> *
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18503550


----------



## DB008 (21 June 2012)

*Debate: Islam is a Religion of Peace*

Debate: Islam is a Religion of Peace - University of New York

October 6, 2010

Is the rise of terrorism and violence justifiably traced to the teachings of Islam, or is this call to war a twisted interpretation of the true Muslim faith? Most of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are moderates who see Islamic terrorism as a violation of their sacred texts. Is it wrong to let a radical minority represent authentic Islam? Has fear blinded us to its lessons of tolerance and peace?



Long


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 June 2012)

Good to have some balance in this thread.  This is from http://www.medicalobserver.com.au

GPs and other doctors have been revealed to be some of the most generous philanthropists in Australia, with new research showing four medical specialities ranked in the top ten occupations by average charitable giving.

USING Australian Tax Office data for the 2009–10 financial year, researchers at the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies have ranked various professions according to the average and total amounts, as well as percentage of income, donated to charity.

GPs ranked eighth on the list of professions by annual donation, claiming an average of $1719 in charitable tax deductions, ahead of surgeons (ninth, $1706) but behind anaesthetists (second, $2181) and internal medicine specialists ($2133).

Overall 8200 GPs, or almost 46% of the profession, claimed more than $14 million in donations and gave an average of 0.58% of their annual income to charity.

Just over 44% of pharmacists claimed an average charitable deduction of $560, or 0.37% of their annual income for total donation of more than $4 million.

Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie said the medical professions “should be very proud” of the figures.

“These figures suggest there are a lot of altruistic people in the health system and the medical professions,” Mr Crosbie said.

“Those professions have always tended to attract that type of individual and this just shows that is still very much the case, which I think is a very good thing.”

CEOs and managing directors were first on the list in terms of the average donations claimed ($3923) and also led the way in terms of the greatest total amount of donations for the year with more than $162 million claimed.

Registered nurses were fourth on the list of total donations (more than $37.5 million) and practice managers were ranked eighth (more than $24.7 million).

But it was ministers of religion who set the best example for helping their fellow Australians by giving almost 2% of their annual income to charity, more than double CEOs and managing directors who ranked fourth with 0.95%.

The rankings were published in a working paper by Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes and Emma Pelling, who found the total national donations claimed in 2009–10 had dropped to $1.96 billion; down $128 million (or 6%) from the previous year.

The overall percentage of taxpayers who claimed a charitable donation also fell from 37.83% to 35.55%, while the percentage of taxable income donated dropped from 0.42% to 0.34%.

McGregor-Lowndes, Myles and Pelling, Emma (2012) An examination of tax deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2009–10.


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2012)

Hot off news.com.au



> SCOTLAND'S Loch Ness monster exists. She's a plesiosaur, a living dinosaur, and her existence shows God created the Earth and evolution is bunkum.
> That’s what Australian homeschool kids can learn from a US curriculum being distributed here.
> 
> Families are using the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum, which has sparked controversy worldwide for using magical imaginary beasts like Nessie to argue that God created the world quite recently and that the Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/hom...al/story-e6frfkvr-1226411722331#ixzz1z9AIHv2z


----------



## Glen48 (29 June 2012)

If King James was allowed to print his own version of the bible why can't an individual print his own tax laws?
Sad this is some thing we will have to put up with for ever, even if Evolution is proven to be 110% correct  all this creation thinking does is slow down world progress and create wars, hatred etc all the things religion is suppose to  prevent..

_My old man can play dominoes 
better than your old man.

like hell he can 
_
 Catholic priest chat...


----------



## Calliope (29 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> If King James was allowed to print his own version of the bible why can't an individual print his own tax laws?
> Sad this is some thing we will have to put up with for ever, even if Evolution is proven to be 110% correct  all this creation thinking does is slow down world progress and create wars, hatred etc all the things religion is suppose to  prevent..
> 
> _My old man can play dominoes
> ...




Yes it doesn't take much for weird beliefs to start a war as Swift showed with the Lilliputians.



> Similarly shallow is the difference between the Big-Endians and the Little-Endians. The story goes that, apparently, when this Emperor's grandfather was a child, he cut himself when he cracked a boiled egg on its big, rounded end. Following this accident, the current Emperor's great-grandfather laid down the law: no more cracking eggs at the big end. Now, the entire island of Lilliput can only crack eggs at the little end. This change completely outrages some Lilliputians, who raise rebellions and flee to the neighboring island of tiny people, Blefuscu, a haven for Big-Endians.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 July 2012)

He writes so well.  Make sure you understand it!

*Blues for Buddha -*

_by the mythical Jed McKenna_


Being critical of Buddhism isn't easy.

Buddhism is the most likable of the major religions, and Buddhists are the perennial good guys of modern spirituality. Beautiful traditions, lovely architecture, inspiring statuary, ancient history, the Dalai Lama - what's not to like?

Everything about Buddhsim is just so... nice. No fatwahs or jihads, no inquisitions or crusades, no terrorists or pederasts, just nice people being nice. In fact, Buddhism means niceness. Nice-ism.

At least, it should.

Buddha means Awakened One, so Buddhism can be taken to mean Awake-ism. Awakism. It would therefore be natural to think that if you were looking to wake up, then Buddhism, i.e., Awakism, would be the place to look.

::: The Light is Better Over Here

Such thinking, however, would reveal a dangerous lack of respect for the opposition. Maya, goddess of delusion, has been doing her job with supreme mastery since the first spark of self-awareness flickered in some chimp's noggin, and the idea that the neophyte truth-seeker can just sign up with the Buddhists, read some books, embrace some new concepts and slam her to the mat might be a bit on the naive side.

On the other hand, why not? How'd this get so turned around? It's just truth. Shouldn't truth be, like, the simplest thing? Shouldn't someone who wants to find something as ubiquitous as truth be able to do so? And here's this venerable organization supposedly dedicated to just that very thing, even named for it, so what's the problem?

::: Why doesn't Buddhism produce Buddhas?

The problem arises from the fact that Buddhists, like everyone else, insist on reconciling the irreconcilable. They don't just want to awaken to the true, they also want to make sense of the untrue. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so they end up with nonsensical theories, divergent schools, sagacious doubletalk, and zero Buddhas.

Typical of Buddhist insistence on reconciling the irreconcilable is the concept of Two Truths, a poignant two-word joke they don't seem to get, and yet this sort of perversely irrational thinking is at the very heart of the failed search for truth. We don't want truth, we want a particular truth; one that doesn't threaten ego, one that doesn't exist. We insist on a truth that makes sense given what we know, not knowing that we don't know anything.

Nothing about Buddhism is more revealing than the Four Noble Truths which, not being true, are of pretty dubious nobility. They form the basis of Buddhism, so it's clear from the outset that the Buddhists have whipped up a proprietary version of truth shaped more by market forces than any particular concern for the less consumer-friendly, albeit true, truth.

Yes, Buddhism may be spiritually filling, even nourishing, but insofar as truth is concerned, it's junkfood. You can eat it every day of your life and die exactly as Awakened as the day you signed up.

::: Bait & Switch

Buddhism is a classic bait-and-switch operation. We're attracted by the enlightenment in the window, but as soon as we're in the door they start steering us over to the compassion aisle. Buddhists could be honest and change their name to Compassionism, but who wants that?

There's the rub. They can't sell compassion and they can't deliver enlightenment.

This untruth-in-advertising is the kind of game you have to play if you want to stay successful in a business where the customer is always wrong. You can either go out of business honestly, or thrive by giving the people what they want. What they say they want and what they really want, though, are two very different things.

::: Me Me Me

To the outside observer, much of Buddhist knowledge and practice seems focused on spiritual self-improvement. This, too, is hard to speak against... except within the context of awakening from delusion. Then it's easy.

There is no such thing as true self, so any pursuit geared toward its aggrandizement, betterment, upliftment, elevation, evolution, glorification, salvation, etc, is utter folly. How much more so any endeavor undertaken merely to increase one's own happiness or contentment or, I'm embarrassed to even say it, bliss?

Self is ego and ego is the realm of the dreamstate. If you want to break free of the dreamstate, you must break free of self, not stroke it to make it purr or groom it for some imagined brighter future.

::: Maya's House of Enlightenment

The trick with being critical of so esteemed and beloved an institution is not to get dragged down into the morass of details and debate. It's very simple: If Buddhism is about enlightenment, people should be getting enlightened. If it's not about enlightenment, they should change the sign.

Of course, Buddhism isn't completely unique in its survival tactics. This same gulf between promise and performance is found in all systems of human spirituality. We're looking at it in Buddhism because that's where it's most pronounced. No disrespect to the Buddha is intended. If there was a Buddha and he was enlightened, then it's Buddhism that insults his memory, not healthy skepticism. Blame the naked emperor's retinue of tailors and lickspittles, not the boy who merely states the obvious.

Buddhism is arguably the most elevated of man's great belief systems. If you want to enjoy the many valuable benefits it has to offer, then I wouldn't presume to utter a syllable against it. But if you want to escape from the clutches of Maya, then I suggest you take a very close look at the serene face on all those golden statues to see if it isn't really hers.



The Mythical Jed McKenna


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 July 2012)

another good article from http://www.theendofseeking.net/

*Is there a 'Doer'?*

It is true that "We are Lived", "Life Lives Us" and "We are an expression of the One Life".

Does this mean that we are not the 'Doer' of anything?

Actions arise, things get done - there is no doubt about that.

_The question remains - Who or what is the 'Doer'?_

We only have two candidates nominated as the 'doer'.

   1. Awareness / Aliveness / Consciousness / Presence-Awareness / Intelligience-Energy / God.

    2.  The 'me', the ego, the reference point.


Looking in more detail

    1.  Awareness / Consciousness / Aliveness.


    Awareness / Intelligence-Energy is Omnipresent - which means that it is Present in every possibly location in the Universe, without being 'more Present' in some places and 'less Present' in others.

    There is no possible separation that can exist - and all apparent separation is an illusion. One is All. There is no room for a separate 'god' and no room for a separate 'you' or a separate 'me'.

    There cannot be a separate 'doer'.

    Some hold that "Consciousness is the 'ultimate doer' ", but that is Dualistic. There is no separation between Consciousness and anything else, even an 'ultimate 'doer'. The 'ultimate doer' is just a concept, a label, an abstraction. The actuality is there is only DO-ing but no separate 'Doer' except in the mind as a thought.

    Everything arises in Consciousness in the immediacy of the Present Moment. It does not arise from a 'separate Doer' or a 'separate Source'.

    Consciousness is non-personal - there is no entity that can be a 'Doer' or a 'Source'.

    Everything just arises. That is it.

    There is only Consciousness / Awareness / Intelligence - Energy. God.

    2. The 'me', the ego

    The ego is just a thought. The 'me' is just a thought. It has no power at all in it's own right.

    The 'me' cannot be the 'doer' but it certainly claims to be.

    Awareness sees and the 'me' says "I see". Awareness hears and the 'me' comes in and says "I hear".

    The seeing and the hearing have already occurred before the thoughts "I see" and "I hear" arise.

    These thoughts are 'after thoughts' - occurring after the event to which they refer.

    Thoughts have no power of themselves.

    Thoughts cannot be the 'doer'.

The understanding is that there IS NO DOER AT ALL. Everything just arises in consciousness.

We are Lived. Life Lives us.

But what then of the statement 'I am not the doer'?

This statement is flawed for two reasons - the assumptions on which it is based.

    There is an assumption that a 'me' or an 'I' actually exists as a separate entity. So there is a belief in a non-existent 'me' which denies being the 'doer'.


    That entity, when investigated is found not to exist, at which point the issue of 'who is the doer' is no longer an issue.

    The 'doer' actually does not exist anywhere else other than thought. It is an abstraction. What happens is DO-ing, which is a Movement of Consciousness in the immediacy of the Present Moment.

    The mind (which likes to divide and separate) latches onto this and describes it in terms of a DOER and something that is DONE - but in fact there is only DO-ing.

    So the statement "I am not the doer" is correct except that there is no 'I' and there is no 'doer'.

How about "there is no doer and people should not be blamed for what they apparently 'do' and nor should you blame yourself either ".

This statement is seriously flawed as well, in addition to the reasons above, which equally apply to this statement

    In blaming yourself there is an implicit belief in the 'me' that is doing the blaming and the same 'me' that is being blamed. So it is the Ego blaming the Ego. Total mind stuff. None of this exists except in the imagination.

    Whether there is blaming or not is not the issue - the issue is the solid and steadfast belief in the existence of the 'me' in the first person. There is a similar belief in the separate entity of others (their 'me'). All are illusions. None actually exist.

    If there is no 'me' here - how possibily could there be a 'me' over there?

    When the 'me' is seen through - seen for the fiction that it is - the subject of blaming does not arise. It is a red herring.

Written by Mike Graham, 25 Jan 2008, last edited 13 Jun 2008


----------



## DB008 (10 July 2012)

Interesting....



> *Higgs boson physicist shunned in Pakistan*
> 
> *Man whose work made discovery of elusive particle possible scorned in homeland because of his religious affiliation*
> 
> ...




Link


----------



## Glen48 (10 July 2012)

Easy to fix call it Allah's Particles case closed.
 Same stupidity, wonder how much harm has been done to science by religion.


----------



## DB008 (19 July 2012)

*Girls denied cervical cancer jab*

Christianity rears it's ugly head...



> *Girls denied cervical cancer jab*
> 
> Some schools in England have opted out of the HPV vaccination programme because their pupils "follow strict Christian principles" and "do not practise sex outside marriage".
> 
> ...




Link - The Guardian


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 July 2012)

Jill Bolte Taylor is a neuro-anatomist brain scientist.  She gets a bit soppy in parts, but try not to miss the essential elements.  There's many ways to interpret this.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html


----------



## pixel (20 July 2012)

*Re: Girls denied cervical cancer jab*



DB008 said:


> Christianity rears it's ugly head...
> Link - The Guardian




Why pick only on Christian schools? Name one Islamic school that teaches girls about contraception.

oh, I forgot - there aren't many Islamic schools that teach girls...


----------



## DB008 (20 July 2012)

pixel said:


> Why pick only on Christian schools? Name one Islamic school that teaches girls about contraception.
> 
> oh, I forgot - there aren't many Islamic schools that teach girls...




l don't only pick on Christians, all religions open to criticism in my eyes.

There has been a lot of talk in Germany regarding boys circumcision lately because one religious person botched a young boys circumcision, and he had to be taken to hospital because of bleeding. Courts ruled that it should be banned. Jews and Muslims united.

In Germany - female circumcision is prohibited, but young males, it's ok. 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/19/uk-germany-circumcision-idUKBRE86I15820120719
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/17/german-circumcision-affront-jewish-muslim-identity
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0717/German-circumcision-ban-incites-new-religious-controversy-in-Europe
http://news.yahoo.com/german-circumcision-ban-incites-religious-controversy-europe-203229066.html


----------



## DB008 (6 August 2012)

*Re: Girls denied cervical cancer jab*



pixel said:


> Why pick only on Christian schools? Name one Islamic school that teaches girls about contraception.
> 
> oh, I forgot - there aren't many Islamic schools that teach girls...




Lets have a look at Islam v Science? (Short vid)


----------



## Glen48 (6 August 2012)

that's it no more maccas for me.


----------



## pixel (7 August 2012)

*Re: Girls denied cervical cancer jab*



DB008 said:


> Lets have a look at Islam v Science? (Short vid)




good grief!
What has he been smoking?


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2012)

*Safe sex? Indonesia would rather its sex workers got Aids*

*Katherine Butler reports from Jakarta, where religious intolerance is undermining the fight against Asia's fastest-growing HIV epidemic*



> In Tenda Biru, free condoms are available from a shack operated by an NGO which receives funding from the Global Fund to combat Aids, TB and Malaria. The charity also provides three-monthly HIV testing via a mobile clinic.  But culturally, condoms are a problem. Men won’t use them and women are typically too powerless to demand that they do. Three quarters of HIV infections in Indonesia come from unprotected sex. According to one estimate 19 million Indonesians could be at risk of contracting the disease because of unsafe sexual conduct.
> 
> If ignorance or reckless sexual behaviour weren’t problematic enough, the country is now also in the grip of a moral battle over condoms led by Islamic pressure groups arguing that they encourage  promiscuity. Their stance mirrors the Catholic church’s preaching against condom use among the faithful in Aids-ravaged parts of Africa, complete with arguments over whether the virus is too small to be stopped by the pores in the latex.
> 
> Dr Mboi, former head of the National Aids Commission was plunged into a firestorm on joining government in June, after launching a campaign to promote safe sex among 15 to 24 year olds. The former paediatrician was denounced as “obscene” by the Islamic Defenders Front or FPI, the group that led protests forcing Lady Gaga to cancel her Jakarta concerts in the spring, and excoriated in a Twitter campaign.




The Independent
Link


----------



## DB008 (10 August 2012)

Happened in Melbourne

Atheists chant at Muslim protesters - 2012 Atheist Convention

(side note-there are 1 or 2 swear words)


----------



## young-gun (10 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> Happened in Melbourne
> 
> Atheists chant at Muslim protesters - 2012 Atheist Convention
> 
> (side note-there are 1 or 2 swear words)





I wonder what would happen if the atheists protested outside a Muslim convention in an Islamic dominated nation Primitive bull****..


----------



## DB008 (10 August 2012)

young-gun said:


> I wonder what would happen if the atheists protested outside a Muslim convention in an Islamic dominated nation Primitive bull****..




It would not end nicely.
Any insult to the profit Mohammed is viewed, well, in rather harsh terms...

OT - It seems like it's ok for Muslims to criticise the Catholics, but not the other way round (Mohammed and Pope). I have seen it happen before me. I have seen a Muslim take full aim at the Pope, but l'm sure if l'd said something, the outcome would have been very different.


----------



## DB008 (12 August 2012)

*No man’s land: Women-only city planned for Saudi Arabia*








> Saudi Arabia is to build a new city exclusively for women. The Gulf kingdom is working on the narrow junction between strict Sharia law and the aspirations of active females who wish to pursue their own careers.
> The new plan is to combine women’s desire to work in the modern age and provide a job environment that would go hand-in-hand with the country’s Sharia law. The Saudi Industrial Property Authority (Modon) has been charged to lead the country into a new era.
> 
> The ambitious mono-city is now being designed with construction to begin next year. The municipality in the Eastern city of Hafuf is expected to attract 500 million riyals (US$133 million) in investments and it will create around 5,000 jobs in the textiles, pharmaceuticals and food processing industries. There will be women-run firms and production lines for women.
> ...




Link RT News


----------



## lindsayf (12 August 2012)

*science and religion*



DB008 said:


> Lets have a look at Islam v Science? (Short vid)





Thats hilarious!  Is that the islamic version of 'intelligent design' ?  Such a great example of how the net effect of fundamentalist religions is 'the great dumbing down' of the masses.


----------



## DB008 (15 August 2012)

Wasn't sure where to post this one....but here goes...

*Tunisian Olympians targeted by Islamist radicals for behavior and dress deemed un-Islamic*



> (AP) TUNIS, Tunisia - Islamist extremists have targeted two Tunisian Olympic medalists for behavior and dress seen as un-Islamic, as debate grows over the role of religion and women in the country that unleashed the Arab Spring uprisings.
> 
> Radicals on social media networks called on the government to strip Habiba Ghribi, the first Tunisian woman to win an Olympic medal, of her nationality because her running gear was too revealing. She won the silver in the 3,000-meter steeplechase.
> 
> ...




Link - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33747_162-57492866/tunisian-olympians-targeted-by-islamist-radicals-for-behavior-and-dress-deemed-un-islamic


----------



## Happy (15 August 2012)

2012 London Olympic games were proclaimed as success that all participating countries had female representative.

Well all good, but should Islamic country win to host games, isn’t it precursor of what all females will be expected to wear?

Would rather not see then see what I saw.

2028 might be the first one over there, if they put their hand up and win.


----------



## pixel (15 August 2012)

Happy said:


> 2012 London Olympic games were proclaimed as success that all participating countries had female representative.
> 
> Well all good, but should Islamic country win to host games, isn’t it precursor of what all females will be expected to wear?
> 
> ...




It'll never happen.
Just imagine what they'd do with someone like Usain Bolt: Did you see him draw a cross and have a quiet chat with his Boss "up there"? Some Security guard would shoot him on sight!

That aside, all lengthy competitions (Marathon, Ironman, ...) would have to be interrupted because it's time to stick bum into air for prayers.
Forget Beach Volleyball too - who'd want to play in 40 degree heat fully covered in a burqa; coming to think of it, who'd want to watch?


----------



## DB008 (15 August 2012)

All female track and field, swimming, diving and synchronised swimming would be a no-no too....


----------



## DB008 (17 August 2012)

pixel said:


> It'll never happen.
> Just imagine what they'd do with someone like Usain Bolt: Did you see him draw a cross and have a quiet chat with his Boss "up there"? Some Security guard would shoot him on sight!
> 
> That aside, all lengthy competitions (Marathon, Ironman, ...) would have to be interrupted because it's time to stick bum into air for prayers.
> Forget Beach Volleyball too - who'd want to play in 40 degree heat fully covered in a burqa; coming to think of it, who'd want to watch?




Well, the are making an effort, maybe in a 1000 years time they might be able to host an Olympic games.


*Saudi Arabia's female Olympians face cold return home*



> Wodjan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani returns to Saudi Arabia as the first woman to represent the Kingdom in judo, but while her participation has been celebrated globally the domestic reaction to her accomplishment has ranged from lukewarm to openly hostile. *Her father, a judo referee who said he wanted his daughter to make "new history for Saudi's women," is reportedly incensed at conservative Saudis who showered her with racial slurs on Twitter and called her a “prostitute” for participating.*




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/the-daily-beast/9457770/Saudi-Arabias-female-Olympians-face-cold-return-home.html


----------



## pixel (18 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> Well, the are making an effort, maybe in a 1000 years time they might be able to host an Olympic games.



Well, I doubt it;
In the past 13 centuries, Islamic countries have gone backwards from initially being the leaders in science, arts, liberal thinking, education, commerce... to the exact opposite, where radicals blow up and suppress everything from century-old monuments, statues, women's schooling, and fair trade.
If that trend continues - and as a Chartist, I can't see any indication of a reversal  - the moron fundamentalists will outbreed the moderate Islamists and Westerners alike, dragging humanity back to poverty and desert life. That may even take much less than 1000 years.


----------



## young-gun (18 August 2012)

pixel said:


> the moron fundamentalists will outbreed the moderate Islamists and Westerners alike, dragging humanity back to poverty and desert life. That may even take much less than 1000 years.




Religion of all forms is most certainly holding back the huge amounts of potential the human race has at it's fingertips. Can't see it changing any time soon. One step forward 4 steps back.

If 'god' didn't want certain things to be achieved, then they would not be able to be achieved.


----------



## dutchie (20 August 2012)

What Century is this from??

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-20/pakistani-girl-with-down-syndrome-accused-of-blasphemy/4209160


----------



## DB008 (24 August 2012)

I don't even....


----------



## Sean K (24 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> I don't even....



Arab Muslims seem to need strict rules to protect their women, from themselves. At some point in history the Arab culture decided that enough was enough and they had to cover up their women because they couldn't keep their willies in their pocket. From the age of 6 it seems. We have customary laws and a culture that doesn't permit us to even think like that until girls well pass puberty. Legal age is 16 isn't it? Although, it seems 14 year olds are not uncommon. Anyone checking out a six year old in our culture is seriously warped and needs incarceration. The history of women covering up in Arabia is not about Islam, it's about culture foremost. Islam as a religion simply implemented rules into the Koran that were the laws of the day. They were relevant in the year 500s. Since Arabia is living in the 500s, it's still relevant. They will still be living in the 500s once the oil runs out. Troubling.


----------



## DB008 (6 September 2012)

Exclusive Brethren GP banned for prescribing gay 'cure'



> A SYDNEY doctor who is a member of the Exclusive Brethren Christian sect has been banned from practising as a GP after he prescribed chemical castration to a young man who sought a ''cure'' for homosexuality.
> 
> Mark Christopher James Craddock, 75, wrote the 18-year-old patient a script for the anti-androgen therapy cyproterone acetate (Cyprostat) during a 10-minute consultation in his home in February 2008.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (11 September 2012)

Here we go...(sorry, blog only)

This is an ‘Islamic’ republic: You can’t sit next to your wife!
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13812/this-is-an-islamic-republic-you-cant-sit-next-to-your-wife/


----------



## MrBurns (12 September 2012)

This is scary stuff, really, if these elements ever infiltrated our society it would be the end of life as we know it.



> US diplomats targeted amid fury over 'anti-Islam' film
> 
> Libyan militiamen reportedly launched a deadly attack on a US consulate building in Benghazi this morning, just hours after thousands of Egyptian protesters attacked the US embassy in Cairo in anger over a film deemed to insult the Prophet Mohammed.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/egyptian-protesters-tear-down-us-flag/4256040


----------



## DB008 (12 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> This is scary stuff, really, if these elements ever infiltrated our society it would be the end of life as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/egyptian-protesters-tear-down-us-flag/4256040




Religion of peace hey?
Who are they kidding?

US ambassador, consul among 4 killed in militia attack on Benghazi consulate



> *The White House confirmed the killing of the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in an attack by local militia on the American consulate in Benghazi. President Obama has condemned the attack.*
> 
> Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other consulate employees were reportedly killed on Tuesday during clashes between armed militia members and army soldiers, as a mob stormed the compound.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 September 2012)

I think it's quite obvious that, by and large, religions have failed.  There's 73 million posts on the failures in this thread!

But what about those (very few) religious individuals who have "seen the light"?  And what of the others throughout history who have also "seen the light", using their own non-religious methods?  There's quite a few in the non-religious category, you know.

This is a short video on what "seeing the light" actually means (aka en*light*enment in eastern traditions).  It takes Plato's famous "Allegory of the Cave" and animates it, with quite a good description.  The voice over guy does have a bit of a spooky voice, so if spooky voices and music frighten you, you should definitely not watch this.  

If you were to take all the classical religious texts, sift out all the horse **** (heaps of it), then condense it down, this is what you'd be left with.  Something close to this...

http://www.objectivistfilmbulletin.com/platoscave.html


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2012)

This is just sheer madness, I cant see anyway the West and the Muslim comunity can live together if these atitudes underly their thinking - 



> The bodies of four Americans killed in anti-US protests have returned to US soil as violent demonstrations continue to rage across the Muslim world.
> 
> The protests broke out after Friday prayers, when Muslims emerged from mosques to voice their anger at the film made in the United States that ridicules the Prophet Mohammed and belittles the religion he founded.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/at-least-six-dead-as-anti-us-rage-spreads/4263020



> Protesters broke in to the US embassy in Yemen's capital overnight as anger over a low-budget US film which mocks Islam and the Prophet Mohammed swept the Muslim world.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-13/anti-us-protests-spread-across-the-middle-east/4260242


----------



## DB008 (15 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> This is just sheer madness, I can't see anyway the West and the Muslim community can live together if these atitudes underly their thinking




MrBurns, it won't change. Not allowed to.

*Insulting Islam*


> *Question:*
> Does Islam command that those who insult the religion should be put to death?
> *Summary Answer:*
> Under Sharia, those who insult Muhammad or Allah are to be put to death.  So are those who desecrate the Qur'an, or commit other acts of blasphemy.  This tradition began with Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith and by his biographers.  There is also a Qur'anic basis for it.





> The Qur'an:
> 
> Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?"  (Apparently not the adulterer or others for whom death is proscribed).
> Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"
> Qur'an (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."




*Democracy*


> *Question:*
> Is Islam compatible with democracy?
> *Summary Answer:*
> Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy.  It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head.  Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics.  There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.





> The Qur'an:
> Qur'an (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."
> Qur'an (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make."  Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims.  This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law.
> Qur'an (39:9) - "Are those who know equal to those who know not?"
> ...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 September 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> http://www.objectivistfilmbulletin.com/platoscave.html




I just watched that video again and cringed!  It's too open to misinterpretation and has an unfortunate superior, nose-in-the-air feel to it.

Here's my interpretation of Plato's cave:

--Reality as we take it is nothing more than a projection of the mind.
--The "prisoner" _is where we are_, us ordinary people.
--We take the projections (the shadows) to be real.
--The shadows are the objects and experiences in our lives, eg. this keyboard, this house, this body, this sensation, this mood, those clouds... everything.
--Certain people throughout history have taken the backwards step and looked at *the thing that is looking*. 
--The *thing that is looking* is consciousness itself (analogy = 'the light', or the 'light of consciousness')
--Knowing consciousness itself transforms the way you perceive the world... completely.  Everything is seen as one thing.  There is no 'other'.  There is no God.  There is no 'you'.  'You' dies (aka ego death), while the body continues to live...and so there is no suffering.  If you want to call that heaven, you can, but it's not a place.   All these things - heaven, hell, good and bad - are projections of the mind and have no intrinsic reality.
--The cave is not a place.  There is no heaven to climb into.
--You don't become enlightened by being 'good'.  Goodness is _not _a prerequisite.  'Sinning' does not prevent enlightenment.  It's just that 'sinning' happens more frequently in people who are heavily chained... so people have confused cause and effect there.
--Enlightenment happens gradually as attention is turned from the shadows (what we call reality) back on itself, ie. consciousness watching consciousness.  Then it starts to know itself.  This is meditation (or contemplative prayer in christianity).
--There are myriad stages and symptoms of this transformation, one of them being seeing lights, hearing angels sing and so on.  People undergoing this transformation often take these things to be real, but they are just remnants of mind trying to trick you once again.  Angels, demons and elephant goddesses are just as real as the shadows, which is why people are so goddamned convinced when they have seen something 'real' and special...but it's just another slide on the projector.  It's a slide most people wouldn't see unless they took acid, but it's still just a slide.

Anyway.... Plato's cave.  Good stuff.


----------



## DB008 (15 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> This is just sheer madness, I cant see anyway the West and the Muslim comunity can live together if these atitudes underly their thinking




Today in Sydney


*Protest over 'insulting film' turns ugly

Police use pepper spray on protesters in Sydney at the US consulate*



> *POLICE have fired pepper spray at protesters in the Sydney CBD during a violent anti-US rally spurred by an internet video mocking Islam.*
> 
> Officers - who have been showered with projectiles, including rocks, water bottles and scraps of wood gathered from nearby work sites - have already made several arrests and at least one person has been taken to hospital with a head injury.
> 
> Police said they were expecting the protest, which has clogged traffic through the city, to continue throughout the night.




http://www.news.com.au/national/police-use-pepper-spray-on-protesters-in-sydney-at-the-us-consulate/story-fndo4bst-1226474744811



I think that this sums it up...



> "People were murdered and many were killed in riots all over the world because of a joke... about someone's imaginary friend" - Jimmy Carr.


----------



## McLovin (15 September 2012)

Great. Just what we need. A bunch of misguided idiots running around saying anyone who doesn't agree with their pre-Cupernican view of the world should be beheaded.

This is a secular society, if they don't like it, leave.


----------



## DB008 (15 September 2012)

*W...T...F...?????*



> *Sydney protesters call for beheadings*
> 
> In Sydney, shoppers looked on in surprise as protesters, including children, shouted "Down, down USA" and waved banners such as "Behead all those who insult the prophet".
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sydney-protesters-call-for-beheadings/story-e6frg6nf-1226474756501




Umm....if l walked around with a 'Behead those who insult Bugs Bunny', banner/placard , l'd get arrested and thrown in the nut house. Aren't these people inciting terrorism one way or another?

This is crazy.


----------



## McLovin (15 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> This is crazy.




Exactly. I'm pretty fed up that we are allowed to criticise Christianity no end but for some reason Islam remains some sort of protected species. And we need to be tolerant.


----------



## DB008 (15 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Exactly. I'm pretty fed up that we are allowed to criticise Christianity no end but for some reason Islam remains some sort of protected species. And we need to be tolerant.




Shish....way to go mum....


----------



## lindsayf (15 September 2012)

I wonder how the law would treat a group of citzens who wore swastikas and chanted about the wish for the death of a particular race of people.  Is the law going to really hold these imbeciles to account?  I really hope so...and if not I want to know exactly why.    I, like many others, am completely sick of the ridiclulously tolerant attitude to behaviours like this from this religious sect.  They were welcomed into this country and they abuse the privelige. They can be equally welcome to leave.


----------



## JTLP (15 September 2012)

It's kinda scary that people who joke that the boat people are just a master plan to spread Islam and make it dominate may actually be on to something...

Maybe torpedoing some of the boats would slow the arrivals...

FYI that is just an extreme joke in the same vain as the above wishing execution on others.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2012)

Yep it's come to Australia, thats it for me, we need to do something NOW before we end up like Paris or London, 

They will take over in the end if nothing is done, they want Shaira law and they're populating cities towards that end.


----------



## Sean K (15 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Shish....way to go mum....



I was just about to post the same picture.

I am gobsmacked at this behaviour. 

Muslims should be very embarrassed.

(has that little kid, or his mum, or any of these imbeciles, even seen this film? )


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2012)

kennas said:


> I was just about to post the same picture.
> 
> I am gobsmacked at this behaviour.
> 
> Muslims should be very embarrassed.




They're not the least bit embarrassed they're deadly serious.

We need to enact a law that prevents violent or exrtremist people coming here , building numbers and then trying to change the way our society works.

To protest in such a way about an ally of Australia is treason, they need to be removed from our midst.


----------



## JTLP (15 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> They're not the least bit embarrassed they're deadly serious.
> 
> We need to enact a law that prevents violent or exrtremist people coming here , building numbers and then trying to change the way our society works.
> 
> To protest in such a way about an ally of Australia is treason, they need to be removed from our midst.




Better yet...just withdraw all funding to these countries. The US should put it towards its debt rather than helping those who want to burn their flag.

I just heard that Muslims want the filmmakers punished by the US for making the film. What would the punishment be exactly?


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2012)

JTLP said:


> Better yet...just withdraw all funding to these countries. The US should put it towards its debt rather than helping those who want to burn their flag.
> 
> I just heard that Muslims want the filmmakers punished by the US for making the film. What would the punishment be exactly?




It's irrational it's stupid, it's extremely dangerous and now we find it's in our own backyard.
Bring back Pauline Hanson


----------



## DB008 (15 September 2012)

No political party will touch on this issue, it's too much of a hot potato...


----------



## banco (15 September 2012)

Funny I can't recall the last time our Vietnamese, Chinese or Korean immigrant groups engaged in a mini riot.


----------



## Calliope (15 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> No political party will touch on this issue, it's too much of a hot potato...




The irony is that everyone knows we would be better of without these crazies we saw on the streets of Sydney tonight, but to admit this and say we we should be more selective in who we let into Australia, and you will be denounced as a racist by the left.


----------



## Sean K (15 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> They're not the least bit embarrassed they're deadly serious.



I hope the majority would be embarrassed, at least.

Those protesting, and injuring our police trying to maintain our laws, should be made accountable.


----------



## Julia (15 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Great. Just what we need. A bunch of misguided idiots running around saying anyone who doesn't agree with their pre-Cupernican view of the world should be beheaded.
> 
> This is a secular society, if they don't like it, leave.



+1.   As others have pointed out, the level of tolerance for this extraordinary behaviour only applies to Muslims.
Why does political correctness dictate that they should not be treated as a secular or Christian person in Australia engaging in such troublemaking?

How on earth has it come to this?


----------



## sptrawler (15 September 2012)

Hang on guys, aren't these people coming here to escape this sort of crap. Yeh
I can see why Bob wants them here, adds a bit of excitment to Tasmania, shame they don't all go there.IMO
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sydney-protesters-20120915-25yrb.html


----------



## Sean K (15 September 2012)

Julia said:


> How on earth has it come to this?



We need to stop this in a smart fashion. Multiculturalism worked with some cultures. I'm vexed.


----------



## sptrawler (15 September 2012)

No Kennas, apparently you are some sort of weirdo. 
Apparently the way to go is, riot if there is something bad written about the bible in England by an Islamic person.
Sounds like they want the whole world in chaos. Funny they are either running away from chaos or running away to cause chaos elsewhere.


----------



## DB008 (16 September 2012)

Calliope, you are right.


Article on this topic;

*Why is the Muslim world so easily offended?*



> Modernity requires the willingness to be offended. And as anti-American violence across the Middle East and beyond shows, that willingness is something the Arab world, the heartland of Islam, still lacks.
> 
> Time and again in recent years, as the outside world has battered the walls of Muslim lands and as Muslims have left their places of birth in search of greater opportunities in the Western world, modernity ”” with its sometimes distasteful but ultimately benign criticism of Islam ”” has sparked fatal protests. To understand why violence keeps erupting and to seek to prevent it, we must discern what fuels this sense of grievance.






> If Islam’s rise was spectacular, its fall was swift and unsparing. This is the world that the great historian Bernard Lewis explored in his 2002 book “What Went Wrong?” The blessing of God, seen at work in the ascent of the Muslims, now appeared to desert them. The ruling caliphate, with its base in Baghdad, was torn asunder by a Mongol invasion in the 13th century. Soldiers of fortune from the Turkic Steppes sacked cities and left a legacy of military seizures of power that is still the bane of the Arabs. Little remained of their philosophy and literature, and after the Ottoman Turks overran Arab countries to their south in the 16th century, the Arabs seemed to exit history; they were now subjects of others.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-arab-world-why-a-movie-trailer-can-lead-to-violencewhy-cant-the-arab-world-accept-offenses-without-violence/2012/09/14/d2b65d2e-fdc8-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html


----------



## DB008 (16 September 2012)

Sorry, what did you say???

Freedom of speech???

Oh, only for you, but not the rest of the non-Islamic world, I see...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/hyde-park-protesters-speak-out/4263412

I don't even....


----------



## shag (16 September 2012)

kennas said:


> I hope the majority would be embarrassed, at least.
> 
> Those protesting, and injuring our police trying to maintain our laws, should be made accountable.




no they arnt kennas, last arvo the leaders that be were not condeming the actions of the rioters, rather attacking the vauge makers of an equally vauge potential nutters film/utube clip.

this was *before *they could see how the tide was flowing, ie that no-one wants this in this region.

its sad at how constrained the coppers felt that they needed to be. anyone else would be concerned that the firearms would comeout of the holsters.

they likely choose hyde park as the area is very safe from retribution like say the cronulla episodes.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Sorry, what did you say???
> 
> Freedom of speech???
> 
> ...




Great. Some bloke who's just arrived in Australia is telling us the limits of freedom of speech in Australia. 

I'm a pretty tolerant person, I don't care where you have come from or what you chose to believe in but when you start telling me that I can't criticise your interpretation of the tooth-fairy then I say, ship him out.


----------



## dutchie (16 September 2012)

Don't worry everyone. This will be the last time anything like this happens again in Australia.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2012)

dutchie said:


> Don't worry everyone. This will be the last time anything like this happens again in Australia.



What's your basis for that?
It seems that at least some Muslims, perhaps largely due to lack of education and having only experienced violent cultures, are in the normal course of events just managing to contain their urge to create hell.  So we have some silly video, made by some obscure American - something most reasonable people would simply dismiss as nonsense - causing this global craziness and overt hatred toward all Americans, maybe all of the West.

Imo it's time for the police and governments to stop being so tolerant and 'respectful'.


----------



## Lantern (16 September 2012)

Why can't we revoke the visas for all who were there, that weren't born here in Australia.

According to this I'm a racist.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/an-open-letter-20120915-25ziq.html

Didn't know until today!!!


----------



## DB008 (16 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> I'm a pretty tolerant person, I don't care where you have come from or what you chose to believe in but when you start telling me that I can't criticise your interpretation of the tooth-fairy then I say, ship him out.




+1
Spot on McLovin, spot on.

"Open letter to the Islamic community - SMH"
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/an-open-letter-20120915-25ziq.html

(When was the last time you saw someone from the Hillsong Church threaten to behead someone criticising Jesus?)

Placard left over from yesterday. Old mate in white rob has this in his hand.








Now, I really, really wonder what the Jews will think about this?



> *Iranian film depicts Jews as money-hungry Arab-killers‘Saturday Hunter,’ screened on Iranian TV, tells the story of a boy and his grandfather as they steal land from Arabs and execute civilians*




http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-film-depicts-jews-as-money-hungry-arab-killers/

Substitue 'Jews' to 'Muslims' and l'm sure there would be more protests.


Tweets hit the nail on the head...


----------



## young-gun (16 September 2012)

Julia said:


> What's your basis for that?
> It seems that at least some Muslims, perhaps largely due to lack of education and having only experienced violent cultures, are in the normal course of events just managing to contain their urge to create hell.  So we have some silly video, made by some obscure American - something most reasonable people would simply dismiss as nonsense - causing this global craziness and overt hatred toward all Americans, maybe all of the West.
> 
> Imo it's time for the police and governments to stop being so tolerant and 'respectful'.




+1.

I for one am glad he produced the video(although it is both a shame and unacceptable it results in damaged property and or harm to fellow 'normal' human beings). It just goes to show how moronic, stupid, and primitive these people are. Bring out the battens, let the police do their thing, then put them on a plane. I don't see why we have to be tolerant of these people, I am personally totally against this crap(the qu'ran and whatever else is linked to this behaviour), and tired of having to pretend I'm not.


Even the 'level-headed' muslims, as you say Julia are simply containing a very strong urge to cause hell. It's simply a matter of how far they need to be pushed before the take to the streets with a machete.


----------



## DB008 (16 September 2012)

Australian Citizenship
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/_pdf/australian-citizenship-aug2012.pdf

Page 18



> *Our freedoms*
> 
> Freedom of speech and freedom of expression
> 
> ...






*Australian sedition law*



> *Recent cases*
> 
> The Australian government in 2006 investigated Islamist books found in Lakemba and Auburn in Sydney promoting suicide bombings, anti-Australian conspiracies and racism, but the Australian Federal Police found in 2006 they did not breach Commonwealth Criminal Code or NSW Crimes Acts 1900.[3]



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

Lantern, l tried to edit my post to include you with the SMH 'Open Letter', but l timed out. My bad.


----------



## McLovin (16 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Now, I really, really wonder what the Jews will think about this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Exactly. If you don't like living in a liberal, secular society, then there's plenty of places in the world where Islamic fundamentalism is the norm.

Is it just me or is this wave of idiocy confined to the relatively recent migrants? The Turks, for example, have been in Australia for decades and they have been a great addition to Australia, IMO. I'm sure they cringe.


----------



## MrBurns (16 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Exactly. If you don't like living in a liberal, secular society, then there's plenty of places in the world where Islamic fundamentalism is the norm.




They intend to populate and covert Australia to Sharia law, people laughed, they're not laughing in Paris or London any more.


----------



## MrBurns (16 September 2012)

and Amsterdam and Sweden. I dont want thids to turn into a hate Islam thread but this is serious and is happening now. You dont have to Google far to be alarmed.


----------



## dutchie (16 September 2012)

dutchie said:


> Don't worry everyone. This will be the last time anything like this happens again in Australia.




I was being an extremist.

Extremely sarcastic!


This sort of stuff will only get worse and Australia will suffer.


----------



## sptrawler (16 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Is it just me or is this wave of idiocy confined to the relatively recent migrants? The Turks, for example, have been in Australia for decades and they have been a great addition to Australia, IMO. I'm sure they cringe.




I think you have something there, I don't remember this sort of reaction in Australia, when Salman Rushdie published the 'Satanic Verses'.
They caused all hell to break out in the U.K and U.S.A, I don't recall a murmer here. It reflects badly on the current asylum seeker debate.


----------



## DB008 (16 September 2012)

Well, well, well...what do we have here...????

"Check and mate" my Muslim friends!



*Achtiname of Muhammad*



> The Achtiname of Muhammad, also known as the Covenant or (Holy) Testament (Testamentum) of Muhammad, is a document or ahdname which purports to be a charter or writ ratified by the Prophet Muhammad granting protection and other privileges to the monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai. It is sealed with an imprint representing Muhammad's hand.
> 
> *History*
> 
> ...












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

Washington Post article on this
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/12/prophet_muhammads_promise_to_christians.html


----------



## Calliope (16 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> They intend to populate and covert Australia to Sharia law, people laughed, they're not laughing in Paris or London any more.




Well it's too late now. Especially when Hilary Clinton apologises to the rioters because some braindead called Terry Jones exercises his rights under the First Amemdment to criticise anyone he likes.

Will Clinton now apologise to our police who were injured, and the Australian public for being the recipients of all this religious thuggery.

It is strange that the apologists for these thugs are always from the left. The same applies to union thuggery.   

Labor sees Tony Abbott as a bigger threat to the to our society than the street thugs. You will see this on the Insiders.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...otally-protected-by-the-1st-amendment/262324/


----------



## Julia (16 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Well it's too late now. Especially when Hilary Clinton apologises to the rioters because some braindead called Terry Jones exercises his rights under the First Amemdment to criticise anyone he likes.



I was similarly astonished at her apologetic stance.  I can't now remember exactly what she said but it was along the lines of "a few tarnishing what is a great religion".
Why could she not just condemn the violence and especially the killing of the American ambassador, without the apologetic note.
I have absolutely no idea why the West in general seems to feel obliged to kow tow to Muslims.


----------



## DB008 (17 September 2012)

Lantern said:


> Why can't we revoke the visas for all who were there, that weren't born here in Australia.
> 
> According to this I'm a racist.
> 
> ...




You are not racist Lantern. Which race were you offending?

From the article - 


> In this country you are free to worship whatever god you damn well please. Others are free to worship their gods.
> 
> And I am free to say it is all nonsense over imaginary friends.


----------



## breaker (17 September 2012)

Wait till the bombings start then it will be to late


----------



## DB008 (17 September 2012)

Back to the stone-age we go...



> AN IRANIAN foundation has reportedly increased a bounty for the death of Salman Rushdie, saying that if the British writer had previously been killed for blasphemy an anti-Islam film currently enraging Muslims would never have been made.
> 
> Iranian media quoted Hassan Sane'i, a cleric heading the 15 of Khordad Foundation, as saying in a statement that he was "adding another $US500,000 ($474,000) to the reward for killing Rushdie."




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/bounty-increased-for-salman-rushdies-head/story-fnddckzi-1226475224763


----------



## Miss Hale (17 September 2012)

Julia said:


> I was similarly astonished at her apologetic stance.  I can't now remember exactly what she said but it was along the lines of "a few tarnishing what is a great religion".
> Why could she not just condemn the violence and especially the killing of the American ambassador, without the apologetic note.
> I have absolutely no idea why the West in general seems to feel obliged to kow tow to Muslims.




I think it boils down to being that 'the powers that be' are too scared not to kow tow for fear of more attacks.

I also think that this attack on the West is very sneaky in that the Muslim world has no leaders as such so that there is no one that the west can go to and say, "OK guys, this is not on".  It also means that whenever there are these violent outbreaks a whole lot of muslims can say "these people do not represent us, or Islam in general". 

Like everyone else I am completely fed up with what is going and agree there is no need for anyone to apologise for that video. It may have been offensive to some people but that doesn't excuse violence and why do we even have people in Australia that believe all who offend the prophet should be beheaded


----------



## Calliope (17 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Like everyone else I am completely fed up with what is going and agree there is no need for anyone to apologise for that video. It may have been offensive to some people but that doesn't excuse violence and why do we even have people in Australia that believe all who offend the prophet should be beheaded




The facts behind the actions of these murderous thugs. It's no wonder Ms Clinton gets it so cravenly wrong when she is advised by an idiot like General Dempsey.



> The day after the murderous assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, and in the face of an ongoing mob assault on the US embassy in Cairo, and on US embassies in Yemen and Tunis, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called pastor Terry Jones in Florida and asked him to withdraw his support for a film that depicts Mohammed negatively.* Dempsey's belief that a third-rate riff on Mohammed supported by a marginal figure in Florida is the cause of the terrorist attacks on US embassies is not simply shocking. It is devastating.*
> 
> *It means that the senior officer in the US military is of the opinion that the party to blame for the assaults on US government installations overseas was an American pastor. To prevent the recurrence of such incidents, freedom of speech must be constrained.*
> 
> A word about the much mentioned film about Mohammed is in order. The film apparently was released about a year ago. It received little notice until last month when a Salafi television station in Egypt broadcast it to incite anti-American violence.* If the film had never been created, they would have found another - equally ridiculous - pretext. And here we come to the nature of the attacks against America that occurred on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 jihadist attacks.*



 (my bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-embassy-murders/story-e6frgd0x-1226475186128


----------



## dutchie (17 September 2012)

Why should the police have to put up with this?


----------



## Calliope (17 September 2012)

dutchie said:


> Why should the police have to put up with this?




There is a certain way to appease the Muslim community attacking our police. All they are asking is that we renounce our freedom of speech to criticise what we don't agree with. Conroy and Gillard agree with this.


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

And no way to treat an animal under any circumstances.  Needless to say, I feel physically sick.  I tried to upload the picture, but can't.  Maybe for the best as it is very disturbing.

Muslim Youths In Nigeria Crucify A Cat On The Cross To Protest Anti-Islam Film


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2012)

sails said:


> And no way to treat an animal under any circumstances.  Needless to say, I feel physically sick.  I tried to upload the picture, but can't.  Maybe for the best as it is very disturbing.
> 
> Muslim Youths In Nigeria Crucify A Cat On The Cross To Protest Anti-Islam Film




Unfortunately, I think that has more to do with the backwardness of Nigeria and less about the particular religion involved. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html


----------



## DB008 (17 September 2012)

One of the girls in my TAFE class happen to be driving through the city when Saturday's Muslim Movie protest happened.
She was in her car next to Hyde Park when the "violence" broke out, and was stuck in traffic for 40 minutes. She was scarred sh!tle$$.


----------



## lindsayf (17 September 2012)

'Backwardness' doesnt quite describe that...I was thinking more moral and cultural depravity.  It is horrific what that country has endured and that is the kind of thing that produces that kind of sick behaviour.  It is also the kind of community that might latch onto religions selling distorted and corrupt values


----------



## MrBurns (17 September 2012)

sails said:


> And no way to treat an animal under any circumstances.  Needless to say, I feel physically sick.  I tried to upload the picture, but can't.  Maybe for the best as it is very disturbing.
> 
> Muslim Youths In Nigeria Crucify A Cat On The Cross To Protest Anti-Islam Film




I wont even look t it, some people are just sub human, no other word for it.


----------



## bellenuit (17 September 2012)

I'm surprised no one has commented on the photo from last Saturday's protest of two (maybe three, I can't remember now) teen muslim girls holding a poster that showed a photo of someone (head only) being flushed down a toilet bowl. I couldn't identify the person in the photo as it was too small. The caption on the poster read: "Coptic - Cop This".

Not sure exactly what it was about, but it seemed to be blaming the entire Coptic Church for the action of (possibly) one of its members. The girls were in their mid teens and one would have assumed were schooled here. I'll see if I can locate the photo again if I am the only one who saw it.

Also, the first reports of the protest that I saw were from SBS. The lady SBS reporter stated that the police caused the violence by attacking peaceful protesters.  I am not sure whether she genuinely didn't see any violence initiated by the demonstrators or whether she was playing to her predominantly ethnic audience.


----------



## Joules MM1 (17 September 2012)

am i right in thinking this chap, the Tonesta, is inclined to all things church?


----------



## Miss Hale (17 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I wont even look t it, some people are just sub human, no other word for it.




I'm glad you weren't able to post the picture Sails, I won't look either - simply can't handle that sort of thing at all and can't bear to think there are people that would do such things.


----------



## Miss Hale (17 September 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> am i right in thinking this chap, the Tonesta, is inclined to all things church?
> 
> View attachment 49000




Perfect example of what people have been arguing on this thread.  Many Christians would find what you just posted offensive.  Are any of them likely to request that people be beheaded as as result of their offence?  No! Are our leaders going to come out and say that that mock up should not have been published? No!


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> am i right in thinking this chap, the Tonesta, is inclined to all things church?
> 
> View attachment 49000



Does that really help the debate on this thread?
In poor taste imo.



Miss Hale said:


> I'm glad you weren't able to post the picture Sails, I won't look either - simply can't handle that sort of thing at all and can't bear to think there are people that would do such things.



I can't believe you would have even tried to post such a picture, Sails.  Please do not ever put up depictions of animal cruelty.  If you must, then provide a link, so that most of us can avoid it.


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Perfect example of what people have been arguing on this thread.  Many Christians would find what you just posted offensive.  Are any of them likely to request that people be beheaded as as result of their offence?  No! Are our leaders going to come out and say that that mock up should not have been published? No!





Agree that most peoples put up with offensive stuff and don't want to lop people's heads off in retaliation.  However, any extreme religion (or politics) can cause bizarre behaviour.  




Miss Hale said:


> I'm glad you weren't able to post the picture Sails, I won't look either - simply can't handle that sort of thing at all and can't bear to think there are people that would do such things.





Yes, I wouldn't have looked at it either, but the picture was posted elsewhere where I stumbled across it. It's horrible.


----------



## bellenuit (17 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I'm surprised no one has commented on the photo from last Saturday's protest of two (maybe three, I can't remember now) teen muslim girls holding a poster that showed a photo of someone (head only) being flushed down a toilet bowl. I couldn't identify the person in the photo as it was too small. The caption on the poster read: "Coptic - Cop This".
> 
> Not sure exactly what it was about, but it seemed to be blaming the entire Coptic Church for the action of (possibly) one of its members. The girls were in their mid teens and one would have assumed were schooled here. I'll see if I can locate the photo again if I am the only one who saw it.




Located the photo......


----------



## Joules MM1 (17 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Located the photo......




http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/upload/2012/03/PopeShenoudaIII.jpg

possibly this person ......


----------



## IFocus (17 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Great. Some bloke who's just arrived in Australia is telling us the limits of freedom of speech in Australia.
> 
> I'm a pretty tolerant person, I don't care where you have come from or what you chose to believe in but when you start telling me that I can't criticise your interpretation of the tooth-fairy then I say, ship him out.




+1........


----------



## DB008 (18 September 2012)

*This clip should be shown to all Muslims around the world, especially the thugs in Sydney!*


#Muhammad - When They Insult Our Prophet (PBUH)


----------



## Tink (18 September 2012)

I feel sorry for the police having to put up with all this.
The destruction is on the level of the G-20.
I wonder if its alot more than just that video that they havent even seen -- the war? 
Still doesnt make it right.
Violence achieves nothing.


----------



## DB008 (18 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Located the photo......
> 
> View attachment 49003





Seems like it's ok for Muslims to criticise other religions, but not the other way around.

Imagine if someone turned up on Saturday (when the protest took place in Sydney's CBD) with a placard, with Mohammed's head in the toilet bowl. I'm sure that you would get arrested, but it's ok for them to 'behead those who criticise the prophet' and that 'our dead are in paradise, yours are in hell' posters. 

Or, try to do that in a Muslim country? You'd get shot or be lynched by the crowd.

The West is too tolerant.


----------



## Calliope (18 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Seems like it's ok for Muslims to criticise other religions, but not the other way around.
> 
> Imagine if someone turned up on Saturday (when the protest took place in Sydney's CBD) with a placard, with Mohammed's head in the toilet bowl. I'm sure that you would get arrested, but it's ok for them to 'behead those who criticise the prophet' and that 'our dead are in paradise, yours are in hell' posters.
> 
> ...




Our Labor/Green migration policies favour Muslims.

"*For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind*."


----------



## Calliope (19 September 2012)

It doesn't take much to turn a bunch of muslims into rampaging mob. A pork chop will do it.


----------



## bellenuit (19 September 2012)

This is in Britain

*Child 'Marriage' and Sharia Courts: It Must End Now*

http://richarddawkins.net/news_arti...nd-sharia-courts-it-must-end-now#.UFljMkIz18x


----------



## DB008 (19 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> This is in Britain
> 
> *Child 'Marriage' and Sharia Courts: It Must End Now*
> 
> http://richarddawkins.net/news_arti...nd-sharia-courts-it-must-end-now#.UFljMkIz18x




I just googled for Sharia Courts in Sydney, and didn't get any hits, but l'm sure there was something on the TV last week relating to this.

I guess we have this to look forward too...



> *Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors*
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lamic-justice-closed-doors.html#ixzz26tUx5HAB




and..



> The forced marriage of under-age girls is prevalent in many countries, with an estimated 25,000 young girls forced into marriage each day. The issue is becoming an increasing concern in the U.K., and in the London Borough of Islington.
> 
> Girls as young as nine-years-old are being forced into marriage in the London Borough of Islington, with marriages carried out by back street Imans. Although child marriage is illegal in Britain, families circumvent the law by conducting marriages in shariah courts attached to mosques.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (19 September 2012)

Get ready, here it comes again....

*French mag to publish new Prophet cartoons*


> Fears that a wave of anger in the Islamic world could spread to Europe mounted as it emerged a French magazine was planning to publish cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed.
> 
> Satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo confirmed that its latest edition contains several cartoons featuring Mohammed that the publication's editor said would "shock those who will want to be shocked."
> 
> The magazine is due to hit the streets later today against a background of protests across the Islamic world over a crude US-made film that mocks Mohammed and portrays Muslims as gratuitously violent.




http://www.nzherald.co.nz/internet/news/article.cfm?c_id=137&objectid=10835018


----------



## DB008 (19 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Back to the stone-age we go...
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/bounty-increased-for-salman-rushdies-head/story-fnddckzi-1226475224763





Salman Rushdie, you have some new friends.



*Fatwa issued against 'Innocence of Muslims' film producer*



> The terrorism monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group said Ahmad Fouad Ashoush issued his fatwa, or religious edict, against the cast and crew of "Innocence of Muslims" via jihadist internet forums over the weekend.
> 
> "I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film," the cleric said.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/lebanon/9549664/Fatwa-issued-against-Innocence-of-Muslims-film-producer.html

This is just turning into craziness....


----------



## Julia (19 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Get ready, here it comes again....
> 
> *French mag to publish new Prophet cartoons*



That seems unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative.


----------



## DB008 (19 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That seems unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative.




Yep, more fuel to the fire.

French weekly fuels Mohammad row with cartoons
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-protests-france-idUSBRE88I0BU20120919

Pictures are already up on the web.


----------



## moXJO (20 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That seems unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative.




Yes trust the french to stir the pot. But I don't like the idea that we must tip toe around Islam. Its time to stop making excuses for the violence as the SMH seems to do at every chance.


----------



## McLovin (20 September 2012)

moXJO said:


> Yes trust the french to stir the pot. But I don't like the idea that we must tip toe around Islam. Its time to stop making excuses for the violence as the SMH seems to do at every chance.




I agree. Although, I thought the SMH did a pretty good job of covering the protest.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That seems unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative.




It's like the ratty insane kid at school.  There would always be some immature dick who would think it was funny to poke him until he went 'postal'.  Then of course the provocateur would stand back afterwards, with feigned shock, and say "whoah man, I didn't know he would do that!!".... and walk away merrily.

When this gets out and there's been property destruction and a few deaths, the publishers of this cartoon can go and pick up the pieces.  How about that?  They can go and console the families of those who have been blown up.

There are much more mature ways of dealing with ratty insane kids (read Muslim extremists).


----------



## McLovin (20 September 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> When this gets out and there's been property destruction and a few deaths, the publishers of this cartoon can go and pick up the pieces.  How about that?  They can go and console the families of those who have been blown up.
> 
> There are much more mature ways of dealing with ratty insane kids (read Muslim extremists).




But then we end up with speech being held to ransom; "if you say something I disagree with I will do this..."


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> But then we end up with speech being held to ransom; "if you say something I disagree with I will do this..."




We have plenty of laws against free speech already.  You are _not free _to say what you want in this forum or in public anywhere.

If I want to make a joke about a black homosexual man... according to inner-eastern suburban Melbourne group-think, that's not ok.  

If I want to make a joke about Islam... that's ok?  

You can't have it both ways, though society always wants that!

It's either open slather, or it's not.

Personally I don't want to make a joke about a black homosexual or Mohammed, but if I did, I think I should be free to do so.


----------



## McLovin (20 September 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> We have plenty of laws already against free speech already.  You are not free to say what you want in this forum or in public anywhere.
> 
> If I want to make a joke about a black homosexual man... according to inner-eastern suburban Melbourne group-think, that's not ok.
> 
> ...




Last time I checked, "inner-eastern suburban Melbourne group think" was not law.

If you want to make a joke about a black homosexual man there is nothing stopping you from doing that, it's not illegal. Ditto a joke about Muslims. If you want to make that joke in a public forums then it would depend on the context. For instance, a comedian would probably not fall under the Racial Discrimination Act, however if you were publishing a blog, for example, that sought to compare blacks to monkeys and made comments that homosexuals should have long ago been burnt at the stake then the context of your joke changes. 

Do I agree with it, no. I think offending someone should not be a crime. If sunshine is the best disinfectant, then those sort of views are better kept in the public forum rather than pushed into the soft underbelly of the internet.

No country has free speech, I think Australia is a little too tough.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Last time I checked, "inner-eastern suburban Melbourne group think" was not law.




A 'societal law', in the sense that you will be excluded, pilloried and shamed by anyone and everyone.  This is as powerful, perhaps more so than court law.  Shame is probably the most powerful negative motivator of human behaviour that exists.  Just look at how shamed AFL stars break down when they've been found breaking team rules.... there's the press conference, tears, sadness, the whole bit!  You'd think someone had died!

I think I basically agree with you, anyway.


----------



## McLovin (20 September 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> A 'societal law', in the sense that you will be excluded, pilloried and shamed by anyone and everyone.  This is as powerful, perhaps more so than court law.  Shame is probably the most powerful negative motivator of human behaviour that exists.  Just look at how shamed AFL stars break down when they've been found breaking team rules.... there's the press conference, tears, sadness, the whole bit!  You'd think someone had died!




Umm...but hang on, if you choose to express an opinion in public you can't just expect everyone to not say anything because you might feel "shamed". It cuts both ways. Inner city trendies may disagree with you but mortgage belt battlers may love whatever it is your saying.



Gringotts Bank said:


> I think I basically agree with you, anyway.




I think so. Speech as expression should, more or less, not be restrained. Speech as conduct can and should be.


----------



## DB008 (20 September 2012)

Lets see how many Christians take up a call for arms over this comment...




> Kim Kardashian: I'd like to be Jesus for a day



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/kim-kardashian-id-like-to-be-jesus-for-a-day/story-fnbk7kwa-1226477966636


But...if we say....




> Kim Kardashian: I'd like to be Muhammed for a day



 - would the outcome be different?


----------



## Julia (20 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> No country has free speech, I think Australia is a little too tough.



I'd probably say "too precious" rather than "too tough".

What I detest is the implied moral superiority of the progressive Left.  An example is the accusation that anyone failing to wholeheartedly support the gay marriage bill is discriminatory and homophobic.

Take Cory Bernardi yesterday being fired from his parliamentary secretary position by Tony Abbott:  Mr Abbott's quick and decisive action surely made it clear that he didn't approve of Mr Bernardi's extrapolation on sexual relationships with animals.  Yet he has been criticised for an inadequate response.  This is just silly

The terms 'bullying', 'offensive' et al are applied to way too much imo.  As a society we are encouraging a culture of wussy, easily offended people quick to adopt the victim mentality.


----------



## DB008 (20 September 2012)

Drifting onto freedom of speech...

*Islamic states to reopen quest for global blasphemy law*



> (Reuters) - A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.
> 
> The bid follows uproar across the Muslim world over a crude Internet video clip filmed in the United States and cartoons in a French satirical magazine that lampoon the Prophet Mohammad.
> 
> But it appears unlikely to win acceptance from Western countries determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and already concerned about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-protests-religions-blasphemy-idUSBRE88I1EG20120919


----------



## Julia (20 September 2012)

Shows how out of touch with reality they are if they imagine any such international agreement could occur.

Meantime, according to '7.30' this evening, a pretty big white Australia backlash riot  (yes they used that word) is planned for Melbourne at the weekend.   The intending participants promise that it will make Cronulla look like nothing (paraphrasing).
Fantastic!  Just what we need.  What on earth is it about educationally-challenged, testosterone filled youth?
They seem to suffer from perpetual barely suppressed rage which needs only the faintest of excuses to explode.


----------



## DB008 (20 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Meantime, according to '7.30' this evening, a pretty big white Australia backlash riot  (yes they used that word) is planned for Melbourne at the weekend. The intending participants promise that it will make Cronulla look like nothing (paraphrasing).




Thanks for the tip Julia. I missed tonights 7:30 Report.

Here is that video - http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3594837.htm


----------



## Happy (21 September 2012)

Julia said:


> ...
> a pretty big white Australia backlash riot  (yes they used that word) is planned for Melbourne at the weekend.
> ...




Suppose others will not take part in it, but I spoke with some Asians and they are fed up with antics made by violent opponents of film.

Suppose comment using "White" was planted there just to make further division of opposition.


----------



## MrBurns (21 September 2012)

If they want to try that in my town (Melbourne) I really fell like attending with a baesball bat.


----------



## DB008 (21 September 2012)

From Reuters.



> *Danish Mohammad cartoonist rejects censorship*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy (21 September 2012)

Came past another piece of information that I might pay at the Supermarket fee for certification, that animal was killed in certain (more barbaric than necessary) way, or that food was prepared in certain way.

Suppose I might not worry about it, but cost of such a certification surely is passed on to me, so in effect I donate tax free money to cause that I would not donate if asked.
Not to mention that I have no control on what money are used for.

Anybody can feel free to read about it in:

“Fair Dinkum Food Choices”

On web page:

http://qsociety.org.au/


----------



## DB008 (22 September 2012)

...unbelievable...



> *19 Reported Dead as Pakistanis Protest Muhammad Video*
> 
> ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ”” Violent crowds furious over an anti-Islamic video made in the United States convulsed Pakistan’s largest cities on Friday, leaving up to 19 people dead and more than 160 injured in a day of government-sanctioned protests.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?_r=2smid=tw-nytimes&


----------



## Julia (22 September 2012)

Apparently the Pakistan government gave the populace the day off to attend a 'peaceful protest'.
Yeah, right.  That is effectively sanctioning violence.


----------



## MrBurns (22 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> ...unbelievable...




This can't be about the movie, these people are plainly insane and/or the hatred against the west must be absolutely huge

In which case they should be kept out of our society


----------



## sails (22 September 2012)

> A Monash University study, revealed today by The Weekend Australian, has found that experts believe dozens of Muslim extremists are living in Australia, and it may only be the absence of a religious leader ready to sanction the use of violence that has prevented a terrorist attack here.




And it seems they want to invade the west, but don't want the west on their turf:







The bitter fruits of multiculturalism


----------



## Lantern (23 September 2012)

Now here is a guy who tells it like it is. Should be more like him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg&feature=g-all-u


----------



## DB008 (23 September 2012)

Lantern said:


> Now here is a guy who tells it like it is. Should be more like him.




Lantern, that guy will get added to the 'list' no doubt...


Looks like Salman Rushdie isn't the only one with a bounty on his head...



> *Federal minister announces $100,000 bounty on anti-Islam filmmaker*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Cartoon circulating the net...


----------



## Lantern (23 September 2012)

Up to date figures and news.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/


----------



## DB008 (24 September 2012)

Crazy...


*Push to call blasphemy a crime*


> THE divide in world opinion over what constitutes free speech will be on display again this week at the United Nations, where arguments over a proposed blasphemy law were an annual feature for a decade.
> 
> This time it is the global reaction to a YouTube video that disparages Islam's prophet Muhammad that is sure to roil the meeting of the UN General Assembly.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (25 September 2012)

Our money is endless ........just line up...........



> Grants to reduce extremist violence 'missing their target'
> 
> The Government has given community groups millions of dollars to try and reduce extremist violence, but some Muslim community members say the grants are not working.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-...tremist-violence-missing-their-target/4280202


----------



## Happy (27 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Our money is endless ........just line up...........




Money could be rather spent helping these guys and girls :

http://www.liveleak.com/c/patcondell

http://qsociety.org.au/

After bumping into few  'h a l a l'  products at Woolworths I didn't think much of it
But this page points out how I contribute to tax free income for certification and annual license fees, as it is part of product’s price. ( Not happy … )

http://qsociety.org.au/fair_food_choice.pdf


----------



## saiter (27 September 2012)

Happy said:


> Money could be rather spent helping these guys and girls :
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/c/patcondell
> 
> ...




I am sure that your tax dollars are also diverted towards other religious groups and their traditions. 

I do agree that halal foods should be labelled so that consumers can have the option to purchase/not purchase said product.


----------



## DB008 (27 September 2012)

Do you see Christians going ape-s**t over this? 

Urinating on the Qur'an or tearing it up would incite more hatred towards the West, but it's ok for other people to do this...



> *Egypt refers man who tore Bible to trial*
> 
> CAIRO (AP) ”” Egyptian prosecutors referred to trial Tuesday a well-known radical Islamist who *tore up an English copy of the Bible* during a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo against an anti-Islam film produced in the United States.
> 
> ...




http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-25/egypt-refers-man-who-tore-bible-to-trial



Lets have a look at one of Muhammed's wives, Aisha. 

She was ~9 years old when she got married to Muhammed. 

Enough said!



> According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated.[6][8][9] Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.[6][8][9][10][11][12] However, al-Tabari records that she was ten.




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


----------



## Happy (27 September 2012)

saiter said:


> I am sure that your tax dollars are also diverted towards other religious groups and their traditions.
> 
> I do agree that halal foods should be labelled so that consumers can have the option to purchase/not purchase said product.




I did not see any Wollworths products certified by Christians, unless I missed it.

And doubt it too, that any money goes to Church for sold Cross Buns or Christmas Cards and Christmas decorations.


----------



## Happy (28 September 2012)

saiter said:


> ...
> I do agree that halal foods should be labelled so that consumers can have the option to purchase/not purchase said product.




I will be actually looking and asking about it, especially after watching this video.

Why is it still allowed in 21 century in Australia is beyond me.
What about our cultural sensitivity, does it stand for something? 

Only shows that we haven't got enough back bone so to speak.

Video made me very emotional, so big warning it is grusome and so wrong.

http://www.stop-barbaric-slaughter.webs.com/video-1.htm

Edit: I know that video is from UK, but it must be exactly the same here, just no local video, or maybe there is one


----------



## DB008 (2 October 2012)

More riots on the horizon.......or not???




> *Government won't block visa for anti-immigration Dutch politician*
> 
> 
> A DUTCH politician who has compared Islam to fascism and called for an end to non-Western immigration in his country will not be stopped from visiting Australia.
> ...




Sorry Mr Bowen, l myself find it offensive anyone who holds a 'Behead those who insult Muhammed' or 'Kill non believers' placards!!!
It seems that you can say almost say anything offensive, as long as it falls under religious circumstances defending your 'god'.


----------



## bellenuit (2 October 2012)

IKEA's Saudi Arabia catalog erases women

http://richarddawkins.net/news_arti...audi-arabia-catalog-erases-women#.UGpOEbRK7pR


----------



## DB008 (2 October 2012)

Now this is absurd! 



> *Islamic hackers deface emergency web pages*
> 
> Web pages of the NSW State Emergency Service were hacked and defaced in an apparent Islamic protest against the controversial YouTube video that insults the prophet Muhammad.
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy (2 October 2012)

> Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said he would not block the bid by Mr Wilders, despite condemning his views as "offensive".




Interesting if Chris Bowen did see what this ‘offender’ says :

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1702



First comment is taking bit of pi... out of the airbrushed catalogue, hope comment not enough to have nasty be – head posters with angry owners attached to them.

http://richarddawkins.net/news_arti...audi-arabia-catalog-erases-women#.UGpOEbRK7pR



> Clearly they can't show women in Saudi, unless they are properly wrapped in black, labelled and flat-packed ready for delivery to their new husbands! Male order???


----------



## Ruby (2 October 2012)

DB008 said:


> More riots on the horizon.......or not???
> Government won't block visa for anti-immigration Dutch politician
> 
> 
> ...




I wonder which cave Chris Bowen lives in?   Perhaps he is quite happy to sit back an watch the Islamification of Europe - which will inevitably be followed by that of Australia.  To whom are Geert Wilders' writings offensive?  I have read a number of his speeches and there is nothing offensive in them - except perhaps to the radical Muslims who would seek to impose their narrow views on the whole world.  On the contrary, Mr Wilders speaks rationally, with vision and a lot of common sense.  We should listen to him.  It is Bowen who is ignorant, not Geert Wilders!

For some twisted reason we are expected to accept that the preaching of hatred by some radical muslims  is *not *offensive; but to speak out against that very thing, is.


----------



## DB008 (2 October 2012)

Ruby said:


> I wonder which cave Chris Bowen lives in?   Perhaps he is quite happy to sit back an watch the Islamification of Europe - which will inevitably be followed by that of Australia.  To whom are Geert Wilders' writings offensive?  I have read a number of his speeches and there is nothing offensive in them - except perhaps to the radical Muslims who would seek to impose their narrow views on the whole world.  On the contrary, Mr Wilders speaks rationally, with vision and a lot of common sense.  We should listen to him.  It is Bowen who is ignorant, not Geert Wilders!
> 
> For some twisted reason we are expected to accept that the preaching of hatred by some radical muslims  is *not *offensive; but to speak out against that very thing, is.




+1

Looks like he has postponed his visit
Anti-Islam Dutch MP postpones visit on the day Australian Government says it won't block visa


From that article...


> Writing in The Australian, Mr Bowen said that "to read his writings is to be struck by their ignorance and their wrongheaded views of other people's beliefs".
> 
> But this was not a reason to stop Mr Wilders from speaking, Mr Bowen said.
> 
> "The way to deal with extremist commentators such as Wilders is to defeat his ideas with the force of our arguments and experiences, not the blunt instrument of denying him entry into Australia," he writes.




Hold on, who is the extremist here????


----------



## DB008 (5 October 2012)

Hmm....

Senator Avella "offended" at Muslim Parade NYC, walks off stage...





After watching that, l really hope that speeches like this don't appear here in Australia. Martyr's and what-not....


----------



## lindsayf (6 October 2012)

The disappointing thing about the guy who left the stage was that he did not feel free to say exactly what offended him.  This is a creeping phenomena in official circles on this topic...that has been highlighted in this thread.  NOt only do government leaders not feel free to speak up publicly about concerns..they dont want any one else to either...like this dutch guy....it is frightening to think that our government considered barring HIS entry to the country...ffs!


----------



## Trademyshoes (7 October 2012)

kennas said:


> There's some strange things that religion makes people do.
> 
> Like praying, for example.
> 
> ...




Yet another narrow Religious thread...

Rather than get into this wholeheartedly, I'd like to say that Religion is not crazy, people are crazy... In the early days Religion was left to be interpreted by select wise men. Just like trading, if you give everyone the freedom to reason the scripts without guidance you will get the oddest and most rediculous theories.

Grain of salt...

the question for me remains - Why is it so hard to deny a higher power? Being absolutely rebelious and non-conformist would lead me to go against consensus, but not this time.


----------



## Sean K (7 October 2012)

Trademyshoes said:


> the question for me remains - Why is it so hard to deny a higher power?



It's actually not that hard, shoes. Just turn your brain on.


----------



## Trademyshoes (7 October 2012)

kennas said:


> It's actually not that hard, shoes. Just turn your brain on.




That's the issue though...

If it is that easy, Kannas, I'd say yours is offline... It is not an easy concept to tackle.


----------



## Julia (7 October 2012)

Trademyshoes said:


> That's the issue though...
> 
> If it is that easy, Kannas, I'd say yours is offline... It is not an easy concept to tackle.




Of course it's not.  Because it defies logic.
(and it's Kennas above.)

Plenty of threads on religion.  Most of the ground has been well and truly covered.
Perhaps do a search for the other threads.


----------



## Trademyshoes (7 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Of course it's not.  Because it defies logic.
> (and it's Kennas above.)
> 
> Plenty of threads on religion.  Most of the ground has been well and truly covered.
> Perhaps do a search for the other threads.




Sorry; _what_ defies logic exactly?


----------



## McLovin (7 October 2012)

Trademyshoes said:


> In the early days Religion was left to be interpreted by select wise men.




That's a mighty big assumption. I'd say it was left to be interpreted to suit the ends of those in power at the time.



Trademyshoes said:


> Why is it so hard to deny a higher power?




Pascal's wager?


----------



## Trademyshoes (7 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> That's a mighty big assumption. I'd say it was left to be interpreted to suit the ends of those in power at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Pascal's wager?





Pascals Wager? No chance. Don't buy into that one.

Those in power at the time, depending on where you refer to, were religious figures.


----------



## McLovin (7 October 2012)

Trademyshoes said:


> Those in power at the time, depending on where you refer to, were religious figures.




And?


----------



## Trademyshoes (7 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> And?




Just refining your position on the matter. Though I do agree to some extent; not all of the wise were men of power.


----------



## shag (9 October 2012)

Trademyshoes said:


> Sorry; _what_ defies logic exactly?




kennas continuing support for some dodgy oval ball playing team...
that defies logic imo, esp. as he seems pretty dead straight on everything else.

maybe u could make them win something, then we might listen after that miracle of miracles....that would defy logic n turn science on its head.


----------



## pixel (9 October 2012)

Trademyshoes said:


> Just refining your position on the matter. Though I do agree to some extent; not all of the wise were men of power.




That's still the case - well ... sort of:
I'd put it like this, "*Hardly any of today's men in power are wise.*"

Need proof? Just ask the Pope's private secretary; not to mention the Taliban, Saudis, et al - right down to sci-fi enthusiasts like Tom Cruise.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (9 October 2012)

from Yahoo News (yeh i know!)...   brackets [ ] are mine 
*
Top neurosurgeon ‘spent six days in heaven’ during a coma*

A top neurosurgeon claims to have ‘Proof of heaven’ after making a full recovery from a seven day coma that saw his neocortex inactivated.

Dr Eben Alexander, who teaches neuroscience at Harvard University among others, fell seriously ill after contracting a rare form of bacterial meningitis in 2008.

Within hours of developing a severe headache, Dr Alexander’s entire cortex””the section of the brain that controls thought and emotion ””had shut down. [which you can do with very deep meditation]

Though his chances of survival were low, he awoke from the coma seven days later and began describing an ‘other worldly experience’.

"I was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply against the deep blue-black sky," he wrote in an article for Newsweek.

He also goes on to describe "Flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamer-like lines behind them." [as thousands of experienced meditators before him have also experienced]

While Dr Alexander admits his scientific expertise has made him skeptical of afterlife experiences, he claims the loss of function to his cortex makes his experiences unique. [unique to him]

"I’m not the first person to have discovered evidence that consciousness exists beyond the body," he said. [no jokes?!]

"I know full well how extraordinary, how frankly unbelievable, all this sounds."

"But as far as I know, no one before me has ever traveled to this dimension (a) while their cortex was completely shut down, and (b) while their body was under minute medical observation, as mine was for the full seven days of my coma."

Dr Alexander admits many still struggle to accept his story, particularly his medical colleagues [surprise, surprise] 

His forthcoming book, "Proof of Heaven, A Neurosurgeon journey into the Afterlife" that aims to dispel the skepticism will be published by Simon & Schuster later this month. [should be a cracking read...NOT]
"I’m still a doctor, and still a man of science every bit as much as I was before I had my experience,” he said. “But on a deep level I’m very different from the person I was before, because I’ve caught a glimpse of this emerging picture of reality."

----------------------------------

He's basically come out as a Harvard-trained neurosurgeon, and told everyone he knows not even the basics of consciousness.


----------



## explod (9 October 2012)

> Top neurosurgeon ‘spent six days in heaven’ during a coma





No struggle with the story at all, 

dreams are just like that;

and often ponder fairy tales just like this so as the mind can cope with the stress of it all.


----------



## bellenuit (10 October 2012)

*Taliban Gun Down Girl Who Spoke Up for Rights*

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/w...rvives-hit-by-pakistani-taliban.html?hp&_r=1&


----------



## bellenuit (10 October 2012)

*Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution and Big Bang Are “Lies Straight From the Pit Of Hell.” Why Yes, He Serves On the House Science Committee With Todd Akin*

http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/10...n-the-house-science-committee-with-todd-akin/


----------



## spooly74 (10 October 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution and Big Bang Are “Lies Straight From the Pit Of Hell.” Why Yes, He Serves On the House Science Committee With Todd Akin*
> 
> http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/10...n-the-house-science-committee-with-todd-akin/




I find it really hard to swallow that he truly believes the Earth is 6000 years old.
As a doctor, he simply can't be that ignorant.
As a politician, he might allow it.

He shouldn't even be entitled to that publicly air that opinion.



bellenuit said:


> *Taliban Gun Down Girl Who Spoke Up for Rights*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/w...rvives-hit-by-pakistani-taliban.html?hp&_r=1&




Heard this story earlier today and I felt ill.

Barbaric Pigs!


----------



## DB008 (11 October 2012)

Islam, religion of peace...(or so we are told)




> *French police 'find bomb material'*
> 
> French police found bomb-making materials during an investigation into radical Islamist suspects arrested at the weekend, a prosecutor says.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lantern (11 October 2012)

Snopes claims this is true

http://www.snopes.co...box/wichman.asp 




Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim
> students to leave the country.
> Status: True.
> The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical
> engineering professor named Indred Wichman.
>
> Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
> The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish
> cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
> The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
> ============

> Enter Professor Wichman.
> ==========================================

> In his e-mail, he said the following:
> ===============================

> Dear Muslim Association,
> As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to
> protest your protest.
> I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like
> beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide
> murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings
> of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians
> in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of
> Scandinavian girls and women (called '*****s' in your culture), the
> murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in
> Paris France.
> This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many,
> many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal,
> and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you
> proceed with your infantile 'protests.'
> If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment -
> you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose
> that option.
> Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves
> instead of troubling Americans.
> Cordially,
> I. S. Wichman
> Professor of Mechanical Engineering
> =============================
> As you can imagine,
> The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
> They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university
> impose mandatory diversity training for faculty,
> And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
> Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
> CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't
> believe that the good professor
> Had the right to express his opinion.
> ==========
> For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of
> Professor Wichman,
> Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly
> condemn his remarks.
> ============================================================
> Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
> Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
> We are in a war.
> This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
> ==================


----------



## Lantern (11 October 2012)

Got this the other day, makes sense

Islam in a Nutshell
This was received from a Southern Baptist missionary who is working in Ethiopia. . Read and take notes. Please heed the message at the bottom of the email.

This, not the Chinese or the Russians, represent the greatest threat to the world and might be the fulfillment of the book of Revelation in the Holy Bible.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.' -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates are higher than the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, today we are letting the fox guard the hen house. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make the United States much safer, huh!!

Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings only 10 years ago?
We must never forget this.. Was it not a Devout Muslim man who killed 13 at Fort Hood ? (He killed "from within" -don't forget that).

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia

Religiously- no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally- no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically- no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially- no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically- no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically- no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically- no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually- no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a Muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.


----------



## pixel (11 October 2012)

Lantern said:


> Snopes claims this is true
> > This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.




your link doesn't work. I hope this one does:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp

but the story is six years old. It's still pertinent, but I wouldn't start a new e-mail campaign about it.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (11 October 2012)

What can turn an otherwise intelligent Guy into a complete bat Sh@T crazy idiot.

Religion


----------



## DB008 (11 October 2012)

Tysonboss1 said:


> What can turn an otherwise intelligent Guy into a complete bat Sh@T crazy idiot.
> 
> Religion






WOW.

Brainwashing at it's finest......


----------



## DB008 (11 October 2012)

7:30 Report did a very good report on the 10th Anniversary of the Bali bombings.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3609004.htm


Another reason why these nut jobs should be banned from this country....


----------



## Lantern (12 October 2012)

Sorry wrong info


----------



## MrBurns (12 October 2012)

DB008 said:


> 7:30 Report did a very good report on the 10th Anniversary of the Bali bombings.
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3609004.htm
> Another reason why these nut jobs should be banned from this country....




Politicians would rather see us blown up a few times than face the truth and deal with it, too much political correctness not enough dealing with the world as it is not as we'd like it to be.

Case in point Julia Gillard wastes our time and money trying to tell us all week that Abbott who has a wife and daughters hates women.


----------



## DB008 (13 October 2012)

DB008 said:


> Islam, religion of peace...(or so we are told)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





More to this story.



> *France 'uncovers biggest bomb plot in years'*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Will car bombings happen here? Anyone?

(Recent bombings....can anyone spot a trend?)

Bali
London
Madrid
Paris


----------



## dutchie (13 October 2012)

DB008 said:


> More to this story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Only a matter of time.


----------



## DB008 (13 October 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Taliban Gun Down Girl Who Spoke Up for Rights*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/w...rvives-hit-by-pakistani-taliban.html?hp&_r=1&





*World: Class Dismissed in Swat Valley - nytimes.com/video*

WARNING: NSFW/NSFL!!!

There is some graphic scenes (about 20 seconds in total)


----------



## dutchie (13 October 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Taliban Gun Down Girl Who Spoke Up for Rights*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/w...rvives-hit-by-pakistani-taliban.html?hp&_r=1&




Taliban Reiterate Vow to Kill Pakistani Girl
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/asia/malala-yousafzai-faces-new-taliban-threat.html

Charming people.


----------



## DB008 (13 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> Charming people.




Religion of Peace?


----------



## DB008 (15 October 2012)

Really....



> Yakub (sometimes spelled Yacub or Yakob) is, according to the Nation of Islam, a black scientist who lived "6,600 years ago" and was responsible for creating the white race to be a "race of devils". The Nation of Islam theology claims that Yakub is the biblical Jacob.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_%28Nation_of_Islam%29


----------



## DB008 (15 October 2012)

l'm really over this....London, right now...



> *Muslims protest 'age of mockery' as thousands descend on Google HQ*
> 
> *Thousands of Muslims have pledged a series of protests against Google HQ for a "hateful and offensive" anti-Islam video, saying they now live in an "age of mockery".*
> 
> ...





*POT.KETTLE.BLACK*

























Quote off the net, which l think applies...


> Even if you do live by islamic principles, there's an armed group somewhere that believes it's justifiable to kill you for not living by the real islamic priciples... Tragedy.



 And those of us that don't believe/live by any Islamic principles....are even cast worse off. Sad really.


----------



## DB008 (26 October 2012)

Looks like some in France have had enough with the issues/problems that Islam is bringing to their country, and have started to take matters into their own hands...




> *French Muslims demand group ban after mosque attack*
> 
> (Reuters) - The French Muslim Council (CFCM) urged the government on Monday to ban a far-right group that occupied a mosque on Saturday and issued a "declaration of war" against what it called the Islamization of France.




http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/us-france-muslim-attack-idUSBRE89L15S20121022


----------



## bellenuit (27 October 2012)

*Mali: no rhythm or reason as militants declare war on music*

http://richarddawkins.net/news_arti...s-militants-declare-war-on-music#.UItX47RK7pR


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 October 2012)

This article could go under the topic of religion or drugs, or both.  Enjoy it (the article, that is).

Frequent use could be harmful to your health.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg&page=1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agony and Ecstasy of God's path
Nicholas Saunders



A Benedictine monk explained to me that "Ecstasy opens up a direct link between myself and God". He had only taken Ecstasy with a small group of like-minded people in pursuit of prayer. "Ecstasy has the capacity to put one on the right path to divine union... It should not be used unless one is really searching for God."

Prayer, he said, is communication with God, but tends to be blocked by the internal dialogue, distractions and losing faith in oneself. Using Ecstasy while trying to pray removes these obstacles and, although he only uses Ecstasy two or three times a year, the experience makes prayer easier at other times and has provided him with valuable insights such as "a very deep comprehension of divine passion".

Most religious leaders are strongly opposed to the use of drugs, preaching that drugs can be misleading or damage the psyche, destroying the benefits of years of meditation or prayer. However, besides the Benedictine I also interviewed a rabbi and two monks from different Zen disciplines who believe that Ecstasy is a valid tool for teaching and mystical experience. All four have written religious works, three teach their religion and two are abbots, but none has revealed their use of Ecstasy in public.

The Rinzai Zen monk felt that Ecstasy had genuinely helped him on his rise to becoming an abbot. He had experimented over the years, and concluded that it was most effective on the second day of a seven-day meditation, as there was a danger of becoming distracted by blissful sensations.

The Soto Zen monk also maintains that drugs like Ecstasy can help with meditation: "Being still when taking MDMA helps you to know how to sit, as it provides you with experiential knowledge", he said, adding that the great majority of his students had sought his teaching as a result of a drug induced experience, and he was sure that the same was true of most schools of meditation in the West.

But is it a good way to learn? "It is like a medicine, a wonderful tool for teaching. For example, I had a very keen student who never succeeded in meditation until Ecstasy removed the block caused by his own effort when trying to meditate. That one experience helped him to make fast progress, and he has since been ordained a monk."

Learning to meditate can be difficult, he explained, because the student only occasionally has glimpses of the goal, and it is easy to lose faith and doubt whether the goal actually exists -- or if it is possible to achieve: "It is like a climber walking in the mountains", he said, "lost in the fog and unable to see the peak he has set out to climb. All of a sudden the fog clears and he experiences the reality of the peak, and gains a sense of direction. Even though the fog moves in again and it's still a long, hard climb, this glimpse is usually an enormous help and encouragement."

The rabbi had positive views about youth drug use. "Traditional religions have lost the ability to provide their followers with mystical experiences. Instead, young people are far more likely to have such experiences while on LSD or Ecstasy."

Most religious leaders, he said, were against the use of drugs because of their own ignorance. "If priests really want to understand young people", he said, "they should take drugs themselves. Then they would learn that certain drugs can produce the same quality and potential value as other mystical experiences."

Some people use Ecstasy for religious rituals. A group of eight graduating seniors from Harvard Divinity School held a non-sectarian ritual earlier this year using Ecstasy which they called 'The Harvard Agape'.

"The hymn done and the bell rung, the liturgy was open to the group... Indeed it was am amazing grace, that grace that passes all understanding. I was moved; I was in communion with everyone else in the room. It was as if, at that moment, all barriers had come down, all suffering had ended, all pain had been relieved, all joys had been known. I forgave the offences I had suffered and was forgiven for my sins. I was healed. I was strengthened. I was redeemed..."

As I was interviewing the monks I could not help but be impressed how different was their experience of Ecstasy to my own, even though I had gone out of my way to try to explore every aspect of the drug. They were so focused towards the divine as to appear slightly naive, and indeed the Benedictine simply could not comprehend the mood experienced by party goers on Ecstasy. He could only see it as sacriligious. My interviews confirmed a quality of Ecstasy that is seldom acknowledged: it enables the user to have deeper and more wholehearted experiences, but the type of experience depends on their underlying concerns. As one who has experienced sensuous delights, exhilaration, insights into relationships and glimpsed my deep-seated neurosis under the influence of the drug -- but never mystical enlightenment -- these men's accounts were testimony to their single minded devotion -- and my own lack of it.


Article by Nicholas Saunders published in The Guardian, 29/7/95, edited from the book Ecstasy and the Dance Culture.


----------



## DB008 (28 October 2012)

Crazy

Nothings changed, has it?

Who are we kidding???

This is going to be a *MAJOR* problem/issue for Australia in the coming years.




And what did some of the protestors receive? Community service....what a joke.


I wonder when the first Sharia Law Courts in Sydney will become official?

http://www.news.com.au/national-old/sharia-law-applied-secretly-in-sydney/story-e6frfkvr-1226057896078



> The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils also asked the Government to fund halal and kosher meat outlets and even Muslim schools and for state schools to have special sports uniforms for female Muslim students.
> 
> "If the Government and politicians cannot recognise this as essential, it should no longer accuse the Australian Muslim community of intentionally living in enclaves," the submission said.






Next rally, will we see some of these placards, like they have in the U.K. ????


----------



## Boggo (28 October 2012)

Dear Religion,

Take note

This week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school.

Regards

Science


----------



## dutchie (28 October 2012)

Boggo said:


> Dear Religion,
> 
> Take note
> 
> ...




Nice one Boggo


----------



## DB008 (28 October 2012)

POT.KETTLE.BLACK. ???????


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i-U3kL69gamwc1wTJ1EBnEBOWDeQ?docId=CNG.f40ca48464c5bfc97dc0dc3143e7f485.d1

*Saudi king urges UN action against religious insults*



> "The interconfessional dialogue centre which we had announced in Mecca does not necessarily mean reaching agreements on the matters of belief, but it aims at reaching solutions to divisions and implementing co-existance among sects," he added.




_Translation_: Don't worry about us arguing amongst ourselves (Muslims can't agree/unite), you are still not allowed to judge us but we are allowed to impose our view onto you.

Crazy.


----------



## DB008 (1 November 2012)

Violence....again....

*Mohamed Hammami, Radical Tunisian Imam, Expelled From France*



> PARIS -- France says it has deported a radical Muslim preacher known for his anti-Semitic speeches and calls for violent holy war.
> 
> Mohamed Hammami, who preached at the Omar Mosque in Paris, was expelled to his home country of Tunisia on Wednesday.
> 
> ...




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/mohamed-hammami-expelled_n_2051923.html


----------



## MrBurns (1 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Violence....again....
> 
> *Mohamed Hammami, Radical Tunisian Imam, Expelled From France*
> 
> ...




Good on them, all countries should follow this path including us.


----------



## Lantern (2 November 2012)

Speechless, just speechless!!! 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/girl-15-killed-with-acid-for-talking-to-boy-20121102-28nnz.html

A mother and father in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have killed their 15-year-old daughter by dousing her with acid after seeing her talking to a young man, police say.


----------



## MrBurns (2 November 2012)

Lantern said:


> Speechless, just speechless!!!
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/girl-15-killed-with-acid-for-talking-to-boy-20121102-28nnz.html
> 
> A mother and father in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have killed their 15-year-old daughter by dousing her with acid after seeing her talking to a young man, police say.




I fret over cruelty to animals bur cruelty to humans is just as bad.

Frighteningly there are sections of the "human" race that aren't human at all.

It's has nothing to do with ecucation, if you can do that to someone there's something in you thats missing, the human gene.


----------



## DB008 (2 November 2012)

Whaaaaaat.................and the nutters come out in blazing glory

Didn't know where to put this one, in this thread or the 'frankenstorm' thread.....



> Muslims claim that hurricane sandy formed the Arabic word Allah. SUBHANALLAH SUBHANALLAH SUBHANALLAH!!


----------



## bellenuit (4 November 2012)

*Religion kills again.*

http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/3/religion-kills-again#.UJVCG7RK7pR


----------



## DB008 (4 November 2012)

Lantern said:


> Speechless, just speechless!!!
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/girl-15-killed-with-acid-for-talking-to-boy-20121102-28nnz.html
> 
> A mother and father in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have killed their 15-year-old daughter by dousing her with acid after seeing her talking to a young man, police say.




Yeah, seems like a rabbit hole....

As much as a I whinge and b!tch about our country (mainly leadership issues), we truly live in the best country in the world!



> *Pakistani Taliban target female students with acid attack*
> 
> Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- It's the latest cruel tactic in the Pakistani Taliban's battle to stop girls and women from getting an education: acid thrown in their faces to scar them for life and deter others from following in their footsteps.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (4 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> As much as a I whinge and b!tch about our country (mainly leadership issues), we truly live in the best country in the world!




I agree.


----------



## pixel (5 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Quote Originally Posted by DB008 View Post
> As much as a I whinge and b!tch about our country (mainly leadership issues), we truly live in the best country in the world!
> I agree.




So do I;

but for that status to continue, it is essential that our leadership keeps the nutters out.


----------



## MrBurns (5 November 2012)

Boggo said:


> Dear Religion,
> 
> Take note
> 
> ...




Epic


----------



## MrBurns (5 November 2012)

pixel said:


> So do I;
> 
> but for that status to continue, it is essential that our leadership keeps the nutters out.




Once again......I agree.

Whats more when a leader appears that can do this without appearing to be a nutter themselves the'll have my vote, this issue is probably more important than anything else as without it ...everything else is ruined.


----------



## explod (5 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I fret over cruelty to animals bur cruelty to humans is just as bad.
> 
> Frighteningly there are sections of the "human" race that aren't human at all.
> 
> It's has nothing to do with ecucation, if you can do that to someone there's something in you thats missing, the human gene.




Have to disagree here, it has everything to do with education.

the only education these poor bugg rs do receive is religion.  Which is "belief" as in fairy tales and a far cry from any informed education.


----------



## pixel (5 November 2012)

explod said:


> Have to disagree here, it has everything to do with education.
> 
> the only education these poor bugg rs do receive is religion.  Which is "belief" as in fairy tales and a far cry from any informed education.




Which is precisely the reason why the Taliban MCP's pour acid over girls that want to learn more than regurgitated "fairy tales".
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but is apparently no match for acid spraying perverts.


----------



## Izabarack (5 November 2012)

The immaculate conception - the greatest scam ever sold.

Iza


----------



## DB008 (5 November 2012)

> *Jordan Islamists blast Halloween party as 'Satanic'*
> 
> (AFP) – 1 day ago
> 
> ...




http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i9iCHeytNR0WzEl5aTY1oK4k3a4w?docId=CNG.33b25e68ec1c209c13813d8d6b6a817f.d1


----------



## MrBurns (5 November 2012)

explod said:


> Have to disagree here, it has everything to do with education.
> 
> the only education these poor bugg rs do receive is religion.  Which is "belief" as in fairy tales and a far cry from any informed education.




Lack of education does not prevent empathy, if you can do that to a young girl or treat an animal so badly it screams (Indonesia) withut feeling anything you are sub human.


----------



## Sean K (6 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Lack of education does not prevent empathy, if you can do that to a young girl or treat an animal so badly it screams (Indonesia) withut feeling anything you are sub human.



Education and empathy are very important, but culture has a bit to do with it too I think. And it doesn't necessarily mean a culture is sub human, just a different culture within the species. Some cultures may be less developed perhaps.


----------



## MrBurns (6 November 2012)

kennas said:


> Education and empathy are very important, but culture has a bit to do with it too I think. And it doesn't necessarily mean a culture is sub human, just a different culture within the species. Some cultures may be less developed perhaps.




Sub human could be a bit emotive, perhaps the definition of human could include attitudes that exclude empathy.

Some cultures dont believe animals feel pain......the human is a diverse and weird species.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Sub human could be a bit emotive, perhaps the definition of human could include attitudes that exclude empathy.



That's being pretty generous.



> Some cultures dont believe animals feel pain



This goes to Explod's point about education.  Any creature which has a nervous system feels pain, very much including all animals.


----------



## MrBurns (6 November 2012)

Julia said:


> This goes to Explod's point about education.  Any creature which has a nervous system feels pain, very much including all animals.




I was trying to be diplomatic but the fact is if you can inflict extreme pain on other living things you lack what I consider to be an essential element of what I consider to be humanity.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2012)

I agree entirely, Mr Burns.


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2012)

I know ordinary old atheists are capable of this, but geesh!



> *Brothers 'pack raped' boys*
> November 9, 2012
> 
> Rory Callinan
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/national/brothers-pack-raped-boys-20121108-2917p.html


----------



## Julia (9 November 2012)

Cover ups over extensive sexual abuse in the Catholic Church
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3629020.htm



> A senior serving police officer, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox, claims the Catholic church covered up crimes of paedophile priests, silenced investigations and destroyed crucial evidence to avoid prosecutions in the Newcastle-Hunter area of New South Wales.
> Transcript
> TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Tonight a senior serving police officer alleges the Catholic Church covers up crimes of paedophile priests, silences investigations and destroys crucial evidence to avoid prosecutions.
> 
> ...




More at the link above.


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2012)

The Christian Lobby not happy with the internet filter decision.

Do they have any moral credibility to comment? 

Or, maybe it's what their problem is. Access to pr0n makes their priests abuse children? Hm, maybe not.


----------



## dutchie (11 November 2012)

Ear bitten off in priest v priest fight

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/...la/story-e6frfkp9-1226514219093#ixzz2BrWBIJ3s


----------



## dutchie (11 November 2012)

At just 15, Malala Yousafzai could earn a Nobel Prize

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/...el/story-e6frfkp9-1226514158639#ixzz2BrWcQXZb

What a brave girl she is.


----------



## MrBurns (12 November 2012)

Had to happen didnt it, CRAZY.:screwy:



> Male terrorist dons Burka to escape Indonesian jail




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/disguise-escape/4366166


----------



## DB008 (12 November 2012)

*Prominent Saudi preacher tortures five-year-old daughter to death*




> A five-year old Saudi girl has died after she was tortured by her father, described as a “prominent” religious scholar who often preaches on numerous satellite television channels.
> 
> Lamaa breathed her last in an intensive care unit of a hospital in the Saudi capital Riyadh a few days ago after weeks of suffering from broken arms, skull fracture and head bruises, her mother told Al Arabiya.
> 
> “He used all sorts of torture and abuse against Lamaa,” said the girl’s mother, now divorced from her brutal husband.




Link - http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/11/249009.html


----------



## DB008 (12 November 2012)

Ramadan Reminder Day 16 - Islam vs Evolution - Yasir Qadhi | August 2012



Same guy (This guy is an idiot!)


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Ramadan Reminder Day 16 - Islam vs Evolution - Yasir Qadhi | August 2012



The singular problem with religion is that it claims we are not another animal. It tries to raise us above the other critters, with very good historical reason, which has been well covered. If religious folk can accept just one thing: that we created God in our own image, then we'd see some sanity prevail.


----------



## DB008 (12 November 2012)

kennas said:


> The singular problem with religion is that it claims we are not another animal. It tries to raise us above the other critters, with very good historical reason, which has been well covered. If religious folk can accept just one thing: that we created God in our own image, then we'd see some sanity prevail.




I agree kennas.


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2012)

This Royal Commission is going to be very, very untidy, imo. Necessary, but untidy. Going to embarrass the nation I think. Probably well deserved. Going to open a can of worms. Will probably cost significant positions of authority, and reputations. Sounds like it could be very wide ranging (in order too appease the Catholics) which means we may not get a report for years. Let's hope the TOR is tight, so it gets actioned in a timely fashion. Not sure if the general public will think it's good or bad for us to be in the international frame on this one. I think good. Someone taking action!


----------



## Julia (12 November 2012)

kennas said:


> This Royal Commission is going to be very, very untidy, imo. Necessary, but untidy. Going to embarrass the nation I think. Probably well deserved. Going to open a can of worms. Will probably cost significant positions of authority, and reputations. Sounds like it could be very wide ranging (in order too appease the Catholics) which means we may not get a report for years. Let's hope the TOR is tight, so it gets actioned in a timely fashion. Not sure if the general public will think it's good or bad for us to be in the international frame on this one. I think good. Someone taking action!



+1.  It is so overdue.  Hopefully some of the perpetrators are now beginning to feel some of the terror they inspired in their victims.


----------



## DB008 (13 November 2012)

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/science-on-the-brink-of-death


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

kennas said:


> This Royal Commission is going to be very, very untidy, imo. Necessary, but untidy. Going to embarrass the nation I think. Probably well deserved. Going to open a can of worms. Will probably cost significant positions of authority, and reputations. Sounds like it could be very wide ranging (in order too appease the Catholics) which means we may not get a report for years. Let's hope the TOR is tight, so it gets actioned in a timely fashion. Not sure if the general public will think it's good or bad for us to be in the international frame on this one. I think good. Someone taking action!





At the end of the day, it will be interesting to see if the full findings are made public.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pixel (14 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> At the end of the day, it will be interesting to see if the full findings are made public.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Don't bet on it. If you heard Pell's press convo today, he will claim Confessional Privilege. If any one of the criminals (aka "Priests") has confessed his sins, repented, and obtained absolution, he must be presumed innocent; and the priest, who accepted the confession, can't be giving evidence.
The game is rigged!

I found it also sickening that he waved the handbook over his head, implying that was proof that the church had a good handle on the situation. Even worse were his repeated statements that these atrocities hadn't only happened in the Catholic church, and the Press were just singling them out in an exaggerated witch hunt.

Surely, the facts must have been known all the way up the hierarchy; hiding behind the "sacrament" of a confession doesn't diminish their responsibility and complicity. But just as Howard blocked the Royal Commission in 2005 (I believe it was), it will be hard to find a Politician or Court with the guts to bite the bullet and bring the entire bunch of co-conspirators to justice.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2012)

That interview with Pell suggests that he still just doesn't get the utter criminality and vileness that constitutes what happened to so many young people at the hands of these messengers of God.
He seemed to regard it all as a bit of an irritation.


----------



## pixel (14 November 2012)

Julia said:


> He seemed to regard it all as a bit of an irritation.




On that aspect he was right, Julia. *
He irritated the Hell out of me*


----------



## bellenuit (14 November 2012)

If Pell wants to maintain the secrecy of confession, then he could go half way to helping stamp out pedophelia by insisting the clergy hearing confessions of pedophelia give by way of penance a demand to the offending priest that he report his offence to the police.  Three Hail Marys is not sufficient.  One would assume that the offending priest goes to confession because he believes he will be forgiven. If forgiveness is dependent on also confessing to the police, the priest will either have to chose to die with mortal sin on his soul or get forgiveness by facing a criminal trial and resultant punishment. 

If one were to argue that priests would not confess if that were the case, then you would also have to accept that priests would also not confess if they knew their confession would be reported by the priest that hears it.


----------



## Tink (15 November 2012)

Howard refused to look at any of the atrocities, remember Rudd came in and said the official sorry with Malcolm Turnbull.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2012)

Tink said:


> Howard refused to look at any of the atrocities, remember Rudd came in and said the official sorry with Malcolm Turnbull.




Rudd's apology - as I remember it - wasn't with Malcolm Turnbull.  It was very much Rudd on his own, and it was to the Aboriginal people for their being taken away from the parents.


----------



## dutchie (15 November 2012)

Woman denied an abortion dies in Irish hospital

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...n-irish-hospital/story-e6frf7jo-1226517004260

 A WOMAN has died of blood poisoning from a miscarriage, after an Irish hospital denied her an abortion telling her "this is a Catholic country". 

Wonder what the Pope has to say about this.


You have to die because we are all Catholics


----------



## MrBurns (15 November 2012)

Tink said:


> Howard refused to look at any of the atrocities, remember Rudd came in and said the official sorry with Malcolm Turnbull.




I think Howard was advised that an applogy would trigger massive legal action.


----------



## MrBurns (15 November 2012)

dutchie said:


> Woman denied an abortion dies in Irish hospital
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...n-irish-hospital/story-e6frf7jo-1226517004260
> A WOMAN has died of blood poisoning from a miscarriage, after an Irish hospital denied her an abortion telling her "this is a Catholic country".
> Wonder what the Pope has to say about this.
> You have to die because we are all Catholics




I think this RC into the Catholic Church has the potential to do it enormous damage, the cover ups go all the way to the top including Pell no doubt, so great influence will be brought to bear to get them off the hook.
The Catholic Church are very powerful make no mistake about it.


----------



## MrBurns (15 November 2012)

On the other hand..........

Click here: Sistine Chapel - move around with your mouse, zoom in with tools at the bottom left.

http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html


----------



## pixel (15 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> On the other hand..........
> 
> Click here: Sistine Chapel - move around with your mouse, zoom in with tools at the bottom left.
> 
> http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html




No doubt, Mr Burns, that artists have created great master pieces. Some of them happened to be contracted by the Church. Others by a rich nobleman, merchant, or even off their own inspiration.
Listen to JSB's Brandenburg Concertos; they're just as passionate and beautiful as his Christmas Oratorio, St John's Passion, or cantatas. Sculptures by Praxiteles, Rodin, Eriksen are non-religious, but just as awe-inspiring as any Pieta or David.

I'm not insinuating that your reference was intended to defend the criminal acts by Pell's minions or mass murder by believers in houris and blessed afterlife. But I do contend that great art will project great emotions, be they passion, awe, peace, or terror. The intensity of such emotions doesn't depend on the subject, but purely on the artist's capability - and, maybe, to an extent on the observer's capability to appreciate art. The vandals that blasted the magnificent Buddha statues in the name of Islam are a prime example of the lack of any human emotions necessary for the latter.


----------



## MrBurns (15 November 2012)

pixel said:


> I'm not insinuating that your reference was intended to defend the criminal acts by Pell's minions or mass murder by believers in houris and blessed afterlife. .




Not at all pixel, that was just sent to me and I was fascinated, you zoom in and it's a clear as if you were there.

Your knowledge of the arts is impressive.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2012)

pixel said:


> No doubt, Mr Burns, that artists have created great master pieces. Some of them happened to be contracted by the Church. Others by a rich nobleman, merchant, or even off their own inspiration.
> Listen to JSB's Brandenburg Concertos; they're just as passionate and beautiful as his Christmas Oratorio, St John's Passion, or cantatas. Sculptures by Praxiteles, Rodin, Eriksen are non-religious, but just as awe-inspiring as any Pieta or David.



\
Yes, but somehow that combination of visual beauty and glorious singing creates a sense of the truly awesome.
I'm opposed to religion but allowing the succumbing of the mind to the sound and sense of place allowed me a small glimmer of understanding of how people can be persuaded to the notion of a heavenly presence.

But then I feel similarly listening to the Bruch Violin Concerto No. 1 or the Brahms symphonies, so your point is well made.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2012)

I remember when I was 13 yrs old, I was living in Dampier in the N/W of W.A. My parents were from a christian background being U.K immigrants. The year was 1968.
There was no T.V, no radio so you had to make your own entertainment. As a 13yr old that meant a lot of sport and running around the bush barefoot, trying to catch a joey for a pet.
Then a new reverend arrived in town, caught all the kids attention.
He started a youth club up, where we could all go and he would encourage us all to try new things, like table tennis, grass court tennis, carpet bowls.
He wasn't pushy at all, just encouraged us all to be open minded about christianity and decide for yourself.
It was a terrific period in my life, he started a church group in Roeburne with the aboriginals and we all went away on camping trips, to Cossack. Fabulous times.
During that period, I decided no it's not for me, don't believe it, it's a fairy tale.
But I can tell you that guy gave a lot of young people, indigenous and whites a great deal of inspiration.
Terrible things have been done, I just hope people like the guy I mentioned above, aren't tarnished by the fallout.


----------



## pixel (16 November 2012)

Julia said:


> \
> Yes, but somehow that combination of visual beauty and glorious singing creates a sense of the truly awesome.
> I'm opposed to religion but allowing the succumbing of the mind to the sound and sense of place allowed me a small glimmer of understanding of how people can be persuaded to the notion of a heavenly presence.
> 
> But then I feel similarly listening to the Bruch Violin Concerto No. 1 or the Brahms symphonies, so your point is well made.




You too make some good points, Julia;
The slow movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto does it for me; but you realise that those feelings are all "in the mind", and it has now been proven that high-quality music tends to stimulate brain activity to unequaled levels. I would contend that such stimulation may have the potential to "lead a soul to god", but only if the mind has previously been indoctrinated to seek such an external source of wonderment. Given a different pre-conditioning, the stimulation can just as easily be channeled towards science or other more creative endeavours. Evidence for that is the high correlation of musical and scientific talent that has been widely observed and documented. Most famous example is of course the quite accomplished violinist Albert Einstein. Before becoming the famous Doctor of Lambarene, Albert Schweitzer was known for rediscovering J.S. Bach; in my younger years, I listened to him playing the organ in St John's Church in my home town - and came close enough to being "called" as well. Happy to report that Science ended up winning me over.

So, not every aspect of religion is all bad; just like a mind-altering drug, it can intensify one's experience and channel one's mental processes towards great achievements. Depending on one's predisposition, the result can be very beneficial for oneself and society, or it can be a disaster. Genius and paranoia are but two sides of the same coin: they're both deviations from an "average" state of mind.


----------



## Tink (16 November 2012)

Julia said:


> Rudd's apology - as I remember it - wasn't with Malcolm Turnbull.  It was very much Rudd on his own, and it was to the Aboriginal people for their being taken away from the parents.




Thanks Julia, I am sure I read it had to do with the institutions and care in government as well, I could be wrong.
Sadly there are bad apples in all organisations that destroy it for the honest ones, and I hope they are all cleared out.


----------



## DB008 (16 November 2012)

Religion....crazy.....LOL.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html



> The barbers, who are all Muslim, told her their religion didn't allow them to cut the hair of a woman who is not a member of their family.





As I said some time ago, 'it's just too easy to take the piss out of these nut-jobs (including all Christian dominations) and should really leave this thread'...time to walk the talk....


----------



## noco (20 November 2012)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

 I liked this, because it actually is a True story that wisely debates an extremely twisted concept that even Islam has failed to note.  See what you think - fear factors aside.  We all gotta find a way to get along on this globe. 

 With Muslims establishing their own schools, one wonders how their kids will acquire our values and be able to successfully integrate into our society. 

This incident happened in London .

The Uncomfortable Definition of an Infidel.... 

FACT:  Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK  

Last month I attended my annual training session for maintaining my security clearance as a Chaplain in the UK prison service. 
There was a presentation by three speakers from the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained their beliefs. 

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say about the basics of Islam, complete with video. 

After the presentations, question time.  I directed my question to the Imam and asked:  'Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a Holy War against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven.  If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?' 

There was no disagreement with my statement and, without hesitation he replied, 'Non-believers!' 

I responded, 'So let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not a follower of Allah, so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?' 
The expression on his face changed from one of authority to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the biscuit tin.' 

He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.' 

I then stated, 'Well, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope Benedict commanding all Catholics to kill Muslims, or the Archbishop of Canterbury ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!' 

The Imam was speechless! 

I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your 'friend' when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because He will take me to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?' 

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam remained speechless. 

Needless to say, the organizers of the Diversification seminar were not happy with this way of  exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.   
Within twenty years, ie. 2032, there will be enough Muslim voters in the UK to elect a government of their choice, complete with Sharia law. 

Everyone in the WORLD. should be required to read this, but with the current political paralysis, an incompetent justice system, Left Wing media and P.C...madness, there is no way this will be widely publicised. 

Please pass this on to all your e-mail contacts. 

John Harrison MBE. MIDSc 
http://au.linkedin.com/in/josemoniz1964


----------



## derty (22 November 2012)

noco said:


> FOOD FOR THOUGHT
> 
> I liked this, because it actually is a True story that wisely debates an extremely twisted concept that even Islam has failed to note.




No, not True. A 2 second google search would have shown you that. What you have posted up is a re-hash of something from 2003! http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

The extremely twisted concept is also debunked.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (23 November 2012)

Tilopa's Six Words of Advice.  Good for trading.


1 	Don’t recall...........       	Let go of what has passed ..........	            mi mno
2 	Don’t imagine........... 	Let go of what may come .............	            mi bsam
3 	Don’t think ............ 	Let go of what is happening now.......... 	    mi shes
4 	Don’t examine............. 	Don’t try to figure anything out..........	    mi dpyod
5 	Don’t control ............	Don’t try to make anything happen .............	    mi sgom
6 	Rest 	.......................              Relax, right now, and rest .............	            rang sar bzhag


Dzogchen.  Mahamudra.  Worth a look.


----------



## DB008 (24 November 2012)

Interesting article in 'The Economist'.


No God, not even Allah


----------



## Sean K (24 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Interesting article in 'The Economist'.
> 
> 
> No God, not even Allah



Not having a religion in Indonesia is bad, bad, bad. You just have to choose one, any one, and you're OK. Not many people know but half a million Commies were purged in Indonesia in around 1965/66. Anyone who didn't have a religion was a suspect and at least imprisoned. It was best that you choose a religion, any religion, to make sure you were safe. Since the ruling elite were Muslims it was the go-to religion of the day and thus - we have practically a religious state on our door step.


----------



## MrBurns (24 November 2012)

and so it arrives in Australia - 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-24/pro-palestinian-rallies-in-sydney-canberra/4390258


----------



## sptrawler (24 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> and so it arrives in Australia -
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-24/pro-palestinian-rallies-in-sydney-canberra/4390258




Spot on Mr Burns, our lifestyle is going to take a huge shift, if Labor get in again.
The one thing you can take heart from is, union membership is dropping to insignificant levels. 
Therefore it would follow the Labor support is only looking strong because of union biased reporting.
Mainstream voters are over it.LOL
30,000 boat people in 5 years, jeez that impressive.
Actually it won't take long with the current ramp up of arrivals, for them to make up 1% of the population approx 200,000.
Magic, way to go.LOL


----------



## MrBurns (24 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Spot on Mr Burns, our lifestyle is going to take a huge shift, if Labor get in again.
> The one thing you can take heart from is, union membership is dropping to insignificant levels.
> Therefore it would follow the Labor support is only looking strong because of union biased reporting.
> Mainstream voters are over it.LOL
> 30,000 boat people in 5 years, jeez that impressive.




Yes the boat people situation is out of control but all Gillard is concerned about is Slater and Gordon.

There are now enough Arabs in Australia to mount a protest against the Jews, take your freekin problems to another country please


----------



## MrBurns (25 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Interesting article in 'The Economist'.
> 
> 
> No God, not even Allah




Did you send me an email DB008 ?

I thought it must be a hoax/spam and deleted it, never received an email from anyone here before, just private messages.


----------



## DB008 (25 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Did you send me an email DB008 ?
> 
> I thought it must be a hoax/spam and deleted it, never received an email from anyone here before, just private messages.




Yes I did, by accident. It was meant to be a PM but I hit the wrong button.

Dan


----------



## MrBurns (25 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Yes I did, by accident. It was meant to be a PM but I hit the wrong button.
> 
> Dan




Ok got it no reason not to post it in the thread though


----------



## DB008 (25 November 2012)

Two arrested after mosque incident
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-25/two-arrested-after-mosque-incident/4391186


----------



## DB008 (25 November 2012)

Hmm....



> *Jesus wept … oh, it's bad plumbing. Indian rationalist targets 'miracles'*
> 
> _Sanal Edamaruku faces jail for revealing 'tears' trickling down a Mumbai church statue came from clogged drainage pipes_
> 
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (26 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Hmm....




LOL

That story rang a bell....


----------



## Lantern (26 November 2012)

Pat, tells it like it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNNhG0zDtA8&feature=g-all-u


----------



## AntN (29 November 2012)

*Re: Unreason IS crazy!*

I think you'll find your objection is really to '*unreason*'.

_You can never anticipate the danger of unreason. When your mode of interacting with others and the universe is affirm truths your in no position to affirm, the liabilities of that are potentially infinite._

Theism like other unreasoned positions eg. racism, bigotry, homophobia, atheophobia etc etc are just that 'unreasoned' opinions.

I've always wondered about 'circumcision'... 
I mean just imagine (I have no kids yet) that your lovely wife or yourself (woman) have just given birth to your pride and joy. 
Now what would posses someone to them hack away at the little babies genitals? 

Crazy!...


----------



## DB008 (30 November 2012)

Spot on for this thread. Off Reddit somewhere....


----------



## Sean K (30 November 2012)

*Re: Unreason IS crazy!*



AntN said:


> I've always wondered about 'circumcision'...
> I mean just imagine (I have no kids yet) that your lovely wife or yourself (woman) have just given birth to your pride and joy.
> Now what would posses someone to them hack away at the little babies genitals?
> 
> Crazy!...



Nice first post AntN. 

The Western World is going crazy about female circumcision in the Middle East and Nth Africa right now, but...HUH? 

Chopping off the little boys bits is just fine.


----------



## cynic (1 December 2012)

AntN said:


> I think you'll find your objection is really to '*unreason*'.
> 
> _You can never anticipate the danger of unreason. When your mode of interacting with others and the universe is affirm truths your in no position to affirm, the liabilities of that are potentially infinite._
> 
> Theism like other unreasoned positions eg. racism, bigotry, homophobia, atheophobia etc etc are just that 'unreasoned' opinions...





Unless you are able to affirm the truth of your statement regarding "unreasoned positions" then your very own assertions in this regard could be deemed to meet your expressed criteria for an "unreasoned position". This is in effect tantamount to making a logically illogical statement of fictitious non-fiction and untrue facts! (If you get my drift).

Having said all that, your statement is not truly "unreason"-able because you and I both know that you had one or more "reasons" for posting it.



> "Just look down the road and tell me if you can see either of them."
> "I see nobody on the road." said Alice.
> "I only wish I had such eyes,"the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at such a distance too!”
> ― Lewis Carroll





Allow me to elaborate on my "reasons" for disputing the existence of these "unreasoned positions".
As you've probably deduced by now, I am a firm believer in the divine nature of existence. My "reason" for this is quite straight forward - I've actually met god and can assure those reading this post that She's as real as you and I! 

During my lifetime I've met numerous bigots, racists, theists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, simpletons, phobics, psychopaths, politicians, criminals, lunatics, academics, addicts, economists, financial advisers and even one or two humans. Whilst many are at times observed acting in a manner that could "reason"-ably be described as flawed, inimical and inappropriate, I've yet to encounter a single instance where a complete absence of "reason" for these behaviours was evident. 
I don't currently consider myself to be omniscient, so I willingly accept that there are occurences within nature that are beyond my comprehension. However, my incapacity to explain observable phenoma has rarely (if ever) resulted in the extinction of said phenomena. 

Furthermore, I've never been witness to anyone actually proving absence of "reason" in relation to any event within the range of human observation (but I am happy for you to try - provided you respect the distinctions between proof, supposition and opinionation when doing so). In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I am of the opinion that "unreason" is most likely an abstract concept which dwells only within the realm of fiction.
Given that fiction and non-fiction (i.e. fact) are considered to be mutually exclusive within our multiverse, I fail to understand how an intelligent and articulate person such as yourself (along with numerous other posters to this thread) could class such a wide range of observable (and readily explicable!) human beliefs/behaviours as "unreasoned positions".

P.S. Welcome to ASF! As you'll have already noticed you've chosen a wonderful forum with a magnificently diverse community of members from all walks of life whom happily (and at times heatedly) debate a wide spectrum of topics. Occasionally there'll be a clashing of antlers and ruffling of feathers (e.g. my current post) so it's important to remember that those whom take the time to read and abut/debate your post are usually tacitly showing respect for your intelligent contribution. Keep up the good work! I look forward to reading your future contributions.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 December 2012)

cynic said:


> I've actually met god and can assure those reading this post that She's as real as you and I!




Needs elaborating, imo.  Care to go there?


----------



## cynic (1 December 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Needs elaborating, imo.  Care to go there?




I think I've already stretched my credibility beyond the dictates of wisdom for the present. 
For now many readers of my various postings will only believe that I'm just plain crazy, so I consider it best not to obliterate the tattered remnants of my credibility for the moment.

As time goes forward I will consider making further allusions to some of my brief encounters within the metaphysical realm, alongside my interpretation/understanding of same. 

P.S. Whenever reading your postings to this thread I get the distinct impression that we actually met approximately one decade ago. Would you care to share some of your experiences during the Spring of 2002?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 December 2012)

cynic said:


> I think I've already stretched my credibility beyond the dictates of wisdom for the present.
> For now many readers of my various postings will only believe that I'm just plain crazy, so I consider it best not to obliterate the tattered remnants of my credibility for the moment.
> 
> As time goes forward I will consider making further allusions to some of my brief encounters within the metaphysical realm, alongside my interpretation/understanding of same.
> ...




Sarah, is that you?  My God, you were wonderful that night... I'll never forget what we did in the car... so naughty.

Oh hang on, sorry.... you said Spring didn't you...  that was um....  

[serious hat]  Can't remember back that far.  Perhaps you could twig my memory?


----------



## cynic (2 December 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sarah, is that you?  My God, you were wonderful that night... I'll never forget what we did in the car... so naughty.
> 
> Oh hang on, sorry.... you said Spring didn't you...  that was um....
> 
> [serious hat]  Can't remember back that far.  Perhaps you could twig my memory?




Sarah?!! Was that the name I went by back then? (And here I was thinking that you'd forgotten me for all these years).

Yes - we did have quite a time! 

I can still recall your comments about my lingerie! 

You always were such a devil! (Ooops! Sorry! I meant to say such a deva!)

Here are a few of my other recollections from that time:

Electrical system failures  
The devil and the chipmunks
Chocolate coated peanuts
Bleeding gums 
Contemplations of mortality
The laughter of a shadow creature (a.k.a. the giggling bogie)
A dragon goes into the light
A stolen trifle
A confrontational barn guardian

Do any of these ring a bell? Or are have I discovered Deva's Double?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 December 2012)

cynic said:


> Sarah?!! Was that the name I went by back then? (And here I was thinking that you'd forgotten me for all these years).
> 
> Yes - we did have quite a time!
> 
> ...




No bells ringing, sorry.  Sounds like you and deva had a blast!


----------



## cynic (3 December 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> No bells ringing, sorry.  Sounds like you and deva had a blast!




No bells eh! I might need to yank your chain a little harder next time.

Times certainly were interesting whenever deva was around.

Your posts sound so much like him. The resemblance is uncanny. Perhaps you're one of his multiversal doubles from a parallel dimension, either way one never can have too much of deva!


----------



## DB008 (3 December 2012)

cynic said:


> My "reason" for this is quite straight forward - I've actually met god and can assure those reading this post that She's as real as you and I!




Don't know if your serious, or just having a laugh....

Having a dream/near death experience with some sort of hallucination does not count.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Hard evidence must be shown.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (3 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> Don't know if your serious, or just having a laugh....
> 
> Having a dream/near death experience with some sort of hallucination does not count.
> 
> As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Hard evidence must be shown.




I'm not answering for cynic here, but consider the following:

You end your day of 'reality', consisting of work, meals, talking, internet, tv, playing with kids (whatever a normal day might consist of for you).  Normally when you go to sleep your dreams have a dream-like quality that you assess as being *less real* than the waking state.  When you wake up you can look back at the dream or nightmare and say "oh, that was just a dream.  It wasn't real".  We all do this.  We all *correctly *assess waking as being more real than dreaming.  But what if next time you went to sleep, your dream had the same level of realness as the waking state?  Or even better, what if as you slept, the dream state had more realness than the waking state?  If that happened, you'd wake up and think you're dreaming.  The waking state would become the sleep/dream state.  Being awake would be akin to being lost in a dreamscape.

When people say they visited other realms "and it was real", don't mistake this for a normal dream that you have where you're flying around in a space ship - everyone has had that and it mans nothing at all.... just a bunch of weird images floating across a screen, and you're not really too aware of it as it's happening.  These 'other realms' don't necessarily appear only when asleep either.  You can be fully awake.  The key criterion is the level of realness, which anyone can easily assess.  How do you know you're not dreaming right now?  How can you prove it?


----------



## DB008 (3 December 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> How do you know you're not dreaming right now?  How can you prove it?




...Inception...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (3 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> ...Inception...




Exactly right.  Multiple realities, and maybe a common source of all of these. We're so accustomed to think this particular reality is the only one, and yet all the greats from the past say otherwise.   Pretty much every religion on the planet has been perverted beyond recognition, to the point of being almost the opposite of what was initially intended.... so it makes sense that we have this thread called "religion is crazy", because it really is.

Aside from Inception, there's also The Matrix, The Fight Club, The Truman Show and a bunch of others.  Good movie script writers are all well aware of the perennial philosophy.


----------



## AntN (4 December 2012)

Hi,

Thanks for your insights. 
I would elaborate on *'unreason'* and *'reason'*.
The Word 'reason' as I was trying to use really means 'logically sound' or 'without assertion'.


So... a 'reason' to do something should be based on sound logic and not superstition.

When people 'act' on superstitions, the consequence are potentially damaging and infinite...



To declare my position: I'm currently

- Adeist (rejection the assertion the metaphysical as a cognition) or reject the assertion of the existence of deity/ies

-Anti-theist I acknowledge there is a solid argument can be made that people 'believing' and 'acting' that a deity (metaphysical cognition) requires them (and others) to live a certain way, is the most damaging concept homo-sapiens have created.





You mention you have met a deity (via revelation?)...
How do you/anyone/everyone validate a revelation authenticity? 


Also, please accept my appologies should my post reveal any cognitive dissonance. Please feel free to place me on 'ignore'.


----------



## AntN (4 December 2012)

"How do you know you're not dreaming right now? How can you prove it?"

The text I'm typing on an internet blog right now, that can be verified by others.... 

If your reading this, your proving I'm not dreaming...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 December 2012)

AntN said:


> "How do you know you're not dreaming right now? How can you prove it?"
> 
> The text I'm typing on an internet blog right now, that can be verified by others....
> 
> If your reading this, your proving I'm not dreaming...




You can write a blog in a dream and get other dream characters to 'verify' it.  Even if I say I've read your blog on this forum, you don't know I'm real.  I could be a figment of your dream scape.  Nothing has been verified.  The same goes for my perspective.  You might just be a figment of my dream.  Your move!


----------



## AntN (4 December 2012)

If I'm a figurement of 'your' dream... you _could_ be 'schizophrenic'?
and I _could _be the 'real' you, and your the dream...

think 'FightClub'

lol

If your claim is 'your not real' and 'this is a dream' those are quiet the extraordinary claims that would require extraordinary evidences.

Oh and if 'this' is a dream, where's Miranda Kerr?

lol


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 December 2012)

AntN said:


> If your claim is 'your not real' and 'this is a dream' those are quiet the extraordinary claims that would require extraordinary evidences.
> 
> Oh and if 'this' is a dream, where's Miranda Kerr?
> 
> lol




An extraordinary claim for which i have no evidence.  Still, that's the gist of most religions when pared back to their roots - *neither you nor I exist*.  That we think we exist is what creates all the problems.... so they say.  

If you can conjure up a Miranda in a second, you're either in a normal dream or you have supernatural powers in 'consensual reality' .  If it takes 10 years or 10 lifetimes to do it, then you're in consensual reality (also a dream apparently - just a different style).

I think that's enough philosophizing from me for the moment.  Probably driving everyone nutso.


----------



## AntN (5 December 2012)

No worries, I must look quite the knob with my 1st few post...

I'll just continue without the assumption of my 'non-existance', seems to be working out fine so far...


----------



## cynic (7 December 2012)

AntN said:


> No worries, I must look quite the knob with my 1st few post...
> 
> I'll just continue without the assumption of my 'non-existance', seems to be working out fine so far...




I believe we are a lot more alike in this regard than you may realise! We've each formulated an approach to living based upon our individual experiences to date. Some of our recollected experiences are a little different, hence our different beliefs regarding the extent and limitations of our respective realities. 

As time progresses I'll try and post a few more of my reminiscences and, hopefully, this will shed a little more light upon how I've arrived at my current conception of our unreal reality!


----------



## noco (8 December 2012)

The results of a poll conducted in Germany have revealed the anxiety that the majority of Germans fear the expansion of the Musklim world.

I have quoted quite a few times, there is a stratergy by the Muslim community to infiltrate the Western World where ever possible and it is not only happening in Europian Countries. It is happening right on our own very door step to the north where almost 100% of illegal boat people entering through Christmas Island from Indonesia are Muslims.

The bigger the numbers the louder the voice. They want world domination and are pretending they are all moderate but the Koran is being preached to their chidren at school five times per day. Those kids are being told if you are not a Muslim you are either and infidel or a Christian and there no room in this world for non-Muslims so they must be eliminated. That is the teaching and if push comes to shove those kids in the next geneartion will have to carry out what they have been brainwashed with from the KORAN.

It troubles me no end to note several Labor Ministers voted to abstain  in the UN from supporting Israel against the Muslim dominated Lebanon all in the name of capturing the Muslim vote in and around Sydney.

Australia, be afraid, be very afarid it is already happening here.

I would like see a similar poll taken in Australia.  


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/germans_fear_muslims/


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2012)

It's funny noco...

I have several Muslim friends, my best friend in Oz was a Muslim (though fairly secular in outlook)... and some of the most interesting casual one off conversations I had are with Muslims; the most memorable being with an Iraqi lass dress in full hajib in a shoe shop in London... she was so beautiful in spirit I almost fell in love with her on the spot. And missus understood why too and empathised.

But the thought of a Muslim dominated and/or influensed "western society" is just unacceptable.

Despite the self loathing from many of the left, western society has a good thing going and we should damn well be proud and protective of it.

Tolerant, Yes. Subservient - Like blinkin' hell! Bring on Christmas, Easter and bikinis and they can tolerate OUR society which they CHOSE to live in. :


----------



## noco (8 December 2012)

wayneL said:


> It's funny noco...
> 
> I have several Muslim friends, my best friend in Oz was a Muslim (though fairly secular in outlook)... and some of the most interesting casual one off conversations I had are with Muslims; the most memorable being with an Iraqi lass dress in full hajib in a shoe shop in London... she was so beautiful in spirit I almost fell in love with her on the spot. And missus understood why too and empathised.
> 
> ...




You freinds are probably the so called moderate ones who are the minority at the moment and mostly likely will not voice their objectives until they have larger support.

There are a few already who will not accept the Australian way of life and are starting exert their influence in the introduction of Sharia law. If they are not prepared to integrate and accept Australian laws, then they should be asked to leave. 

It is all about infiltration by Muslims. I witnessed the infiltartion of communism in the 50's and 60's and they almost ruied this great country of ours through domination in the trade unions.

So my friend think hard about what is happening. I won't be around to witness the influence of Islam in the next 20 years but I fear for my chidren, my grand children and my great grand children.


----------



## Sean K (9 December 2012)

noco said:


> You freinds are probably the so called moderate ones *who are the minority* at the moment and mostly likely will not voice their objectives until they have larger support.



I'd like to see some more evidence about the claims that it is a general trend in Muslim culture and not just the few whackos we see rioting in central Sydney or kicking sand on bikini clad Aussie girls at the beach. We do need to be careful tarring all Muslims with the broad brush of radicalism. Having said that, I am leaning towards certain types of Islam being incompatible with our way of life. Like there are some forms of Christianity that is too radical in our world also.


----------



## AntN (12 December 2012)

I have many friends that would be labelled 'Muslims' however they are completely Atheist. 
I think we only have about 2 or 3 generations before religion cohort replaced.

It is important, to be honest on the Census. Many people still record their 'family religion' when if fact they have no attachment to said religion. I for instance, my family religion is Presbyterian, I don't even know what that means lol.

So if people were honest on the Census and a 'true' refection of religion in Australian was to show >%70 non-religious, then 'new religious immigrants' wouldn't have a 'right' to enforce their religious belief as Australia’s mass secularity wouldn't allow it, as 'freedom of religion' would be obsolete, as the 'age of unreason' comes to a close.


----------



## AntN (12 December 2012)

One has to ask ones self a question when there is a perceived encounter with the 'supernatural'.


Have I just witnessed the laws of nature be violated for my benefit, or am I under misapprehension?

That question is for one self when 'supernatural' encounter has occurred. So if you hear a claim of supernatural encounter you still ask the same question.

Has this person witnessed the laws of nature be violated or are they under misapprehension?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


----------



## pixel (12 December 2012)

> Go-kart operator fined over headscarf death
> ABC Updated December 12, 2012, 9:22 am
> The former owner of a Port Stephens go-kart business has been ordered to pay $50,000 after WorkCover uncovered safety failings.
> 
> ...




... and had he asked her to remove the scarf, he'd be accused of discrimination.
No wonder small business is dying. Can't win a trick. 
You can be as stupid as you like - just find someone else to blame for the result.


----------



## DB008 (12 December 2012)

pixel said:


> ... and had he asked her to remove the scarf, he'd be accused of discrimination.
> No wonder small business is dying. Can't win a trick.
> You can be as stupid as you like - just find someone else to blame for the result.




+1
What a joke.

I am 100% certain that if he stated 'You need to take that head-scarf off before l permit you to ride ', this story would have been about someone getting sued for discrimination.

Can't win ether way.

Damned if you do
Damned if you don't


----------



## DB008 (16 December 2012)

Religion is crazy?

Yes....




> *Debate on Islam and evolution has to be called off after revolt by student societies*
> 
> Muslim opposition highlights growing influence of creationism and literalist interpretations of the Koran
> Organisers behind a British conference on Islam and evolution say they nearly had to cancel the event after receiving a torrent of opposition from Muslim students at one of the country’s top scientific universities, The Independent has leanred.
> ...




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/debate-on-islam-and-evolution-has-to-be-called-off-after-revolt-by-student-societies-8418022.html


----------



## Lantern (16 December 2012)

Latest rave from Pat on Islamophobia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


----------



## pixel (16 December 2012)

> "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
> -- Lynn Lavner



In the Dark Ages, homosexuality was probably a waste of time and potential genetic variety; but in today's Age of Overpopulation, it should be appreciated as a means of population control. Problem is: the fundamental d**kheads (of all three book-based persuasions) are still stuck in the Dark Ages and undermine all the Gays' good efforts.


----------



## DB008 (26 December 2012)

Hmm...



> *Christmas message written in sky above Lakemba Mosque in response to fatwa claims*
> 
> The sky message comes after an Imam at Australia's biggest mosque reportedly issued a fatwa against Christmas, warning followers it is a ''sin'' to even wish people a Merry Christmas.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/lakemba-mosque-imam-issues-fatwa-against-christmas-report/story-fndo4eg9-1226542519830





and


Special Programme - Dawkins on religion


----------



## noco (26 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> Hmm...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





What a great debate. I watched it from beginning to end and also the Q&A program.

It makes one think strong and hard about religion and the suffering of many as a result of it.


----------



## DB008 (27 December 2012)

Lantern said:


> Here's how it works:
> 
> As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
> 
> ...




Now this is interesting.


Welsh population3,006,400 (2010)Muslim population in U.K.2,869,000 (2010)



4.6% of U.K. population (link)


----------



## sptrawler (27 December 2012)

Try Belgium.

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


----------



## DB008 (31 December 2012)

> *Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays, rules judge*
> 
> Judges have been accused of diluting the rights of Christians after a key judgment on whether they can refuse to work on Sundays.
> 
> ...




Does this mean, in the UK, when they try to bring in Sharia Law.....


----------



## McLovin (31 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> Does this mean, in the UK, when they try to bring in Sharia Law.....




Sharia law will only affect civil law, specifically, divorce law, where both parties consent. The UK has allowed Rabbinic (Jewish) law for at least 100 years when settling divorce.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. Women's rights are oppressed in many Islamic societies so it's hard to see how a woman's consent can be guaranteed to be free from coersion.


----------



## noco (1 January 2013)

What a barbaric lot of Islamist there are in Syria.

An 11 year old boy cutting off the head of a Christian and another Christian killed, his body cut in to peices and fed to the dogs.

This sort of teaching has started in Muslim schools in Australia whereby Muslem kids are being brianwashed with the Koran 5 times per day. 

The teachings clearly spell out if you are not a Muslim then you must be a Christian or an infidel and there is no room in the world for the latter and the latter must be eliminated.

What a cruel world we live in today.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-fed-him-to-dogs/story-fnb64oi6-1226545322022


----------



## Pager (1 January 2013)

The late great George Carlin, one of the best comedians of all time really summed up Religion.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 January 2013)

I often wonder what the world would be like without organised religion???  Would we have avoided some of the wars through history?  Maybe, but we humans are an invesntive lot so even without the "my god is bigger than your god" (purposefully with a g not G since people who makes those kinds of statement don't represent God) I expect we would have come up with other reasons to justify our ways.

I have far more respect for the person who follows their moral compass and does the odd small good dead in their daily life, than the pious prattlers who stand up and tell the world about the good they are doing in the name of their lord.

These days the ultra religious remind me of a t shirt I saw "Everyone's entitle to MY opinion"


----------



## burglar (4 January 2013)

Can I have a "D" and can I buy a vowel?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

burglar said:


> View attachment 50264
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have a "D" and can I buy a vowel?




It is said that "He" was wrongly translated as "D" , and "D" can walk upon water.

So I see no reason why you cannot buy a vowel.

I shall set up a derivative for godbothers who cannot spell.

Well picked burglar.

gg


----------



## cynic (5 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is said that "He" was wrongly translated as "D" , and "D" can walk upon water.
> 
> So I see no reason why you cannot buy a vowel.
> 
> ...




Will that derivative also cover godbothererbotherers?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Will that derivative also cover godbothererbotherers?




They don't exist.

The godbotherers crucify them.

gg


----------



## noco (14 January 2013)

The French kill 60 Muslim terrorist in Mali and now it is pay back time for local Muslims in Paris, France being their  adopted country. What an ungreatful lot.

With all the numbers building up with illegal Muslim boat people arriving in Australia, it is bound to happen here some day.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...i-backlash-fears/story-e6freoo6-1226553193203


----------



## DB008 (14 January 2013)

Plot Twist - it was her teenage daughter in the videos (with multiple men) + she was also having sex with her too - Incestual Lesbian?


----------



## sails (14 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> ...Plot Twist - it was her teenage daughter in the videos (with multiple men) + she was also having sex with her too - Incestual Lesbian?





Trouble is some people call themselves "Christian" and yet live totally against Christian values.  It's  all pretence and it is called hypocrisy and, if this is true, this woman is totally sick, imo.

Some people like this try to use the Christian thing so their evil ways go unnoticed and they also play on the fact that decent Christian people will forgive.  I know something about it as I was married to a paedophile (until I found out!) and he was right into the "Christian" thing - it seems using it as a cover and to get access to kids.  Shameful and sickening.


----------



## MrBurns (14 January 2013)

sails said:


> I was married to a paedophile (until I found out!) and he was right into the "Christian" thing - it seems using it as a cover and to get access to kids.  Shameful and sickening.




Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.



+1.   
They cover themselves so cunningly.  Awful for you, sails.


----------



## sails (14 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.




Thanks Mr Burns and Julia - yes it was awful but a long time ago now so much of that pain has passed with time and a happy marriage to a very decent man for almost 25 years now.  However, seeing that post brought it back  and the sickening hypocrisy of how these people use religion as a cover for their depraved (imo) activities.  I found the deception of it all unbelievable.

Sadly, this sort of thing happens more than we realise.

It's the kids I feel for most - not just my own who also took it pretty hard but their friends to whom he helped himself.  I still wonder if they managed to put it behind them or has it affected them for the rest of their lives.  So very sad.

Perhaps this is why I still have a heart for children and why I keep sticking up for  kids  who are probably doing it tough.  I learned to see more through the eyes of kids because of my experience and so that's been a positive, imo.


----------



## pixel (15 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry sails, that must have been devestatiing, we're with you.




I echo Mr B's and Julia's sentiments, and feel saddened for you keeping those memories.

Question though: Is your ex's behaviour evidence of a sick religion? Or is it mainly his inability to control himself *in spite of his religion*? I'd say it's his un-Christian behaviour that's crazy. The result is sickening regardless; so the distinction may be a moot point.


----------



## DB008 (15 January 2013)

noco said:


> The French kill 60 Muslim terrorist in Mali and now it is pay back time for local Muslims in Paris, France being their  adopted country. What an ungreatful lot.
> 
> With all the numbers building up with illegal Muslim boat people arriving in Australia, it is bound to happen here some day.
> 
> ...




Germany has also come to the party...



> The German government on Monday unexpectedly offered Paris concrete support as French troops battle Islamist extremists in Mali. Though ruling out a combat role, Germany's military will provide transport and medical assistance.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-offers-support-to-france-in-mali-as-commentators-warn-of-risk-a-877401.html




And possibly Denmark too


> Denmark may be preparing to help France in its operation to quash Islamic rebels in the West African state of Mali.
> 
> The Danish foreign ministry has announced an extraordinary meeting of the parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee later today which is expected to sanction sending a Hercules transport aircraft and aircraft support personnel to Mali.
> 
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (15 January 2013)

What about the belief of efficient markets, and rational consumers?

A lot of economics and the finance industry are built around beliefs that are beyond crazy to me.

Then we have so many people who know they should be saving for their future, but hope she'll be right mate when the time comes.

Personally, I blame:

* the protozoa that just had to double in size, and it's still super sizing itself in the USA

* meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs

* the Romans - but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Right, it's off the stoning for me.


----------



## DB008 (17 January 2013)

Well, it has started.....



> Muslims Enforcing Sharia Law on the streets of London
> 
> Happened in White Chapel, London. Mainstream media are silent as usual Spread this video far and wide, First location identified as the Maedah Grill Restaurant, Fieldgate Street in WhiteChapel.
> 
> [video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=beb_1358359911[/video]




(sorry, wont let me embed liveleak)


----------



## Sean K (20 January 2013)

The Catholic Church is on a roll! 



> *Predator priest returns to duty*
> 
> January 20, 2013
> Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker
> ...




Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.


----------



## Sean K (20 January 2013)

kennas said:


> The Catholic Church is on a roll!
> 
> Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.



Interesting Andrew Bolt is defending the church on this one. I've noticed that when he comments on religious issues he tends to sway to the church's side. He must be Catholic. 



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/horror_two_adults_have_sex_for_years/


----------



## Ruby (20 January 2013)

kennas said:


> The Catholic Church is on a roll!
> 
> 
> Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.




While I loathe and abhor the catholic church for it's apalling hypocrisy in dealing with paedaphile priests, I have to say I tend to agree with Andrew Bolt on this one.  The woman was not a minor - she must be regarded as a consenting adult.   (Please do not read this as my condoning the priest's behaviour - I don't.)

She is not the first young woman who has found herself compromised by a man who wields some sort of authority over her - both inside and outside the church.    

Hmm! Anyone remember the 1960's when male bosses used to touch up their young female staff with impunity????


----------



## bellenuit (20 January 2013)

Ruby said:


> The woman was not a minor - she must be regarded as a consenting adult.




I haven't listened to Bolt or heard anything about the case other than what was given above. But it appears to me that anyone classed as "_a disabled and vulnerable woman_" could not be a consenting adult.


----------



## Ruby (20 January 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I haven't listened to Bolt or heard anything about the case other than what was given above. But it appears to me that anyone classed as "_a disabled and vulnerable woman_" could not be a consenting adult.




According to the report she has a physical disability which causes her to walk with an abnormal gait.  She is a high school teacher and doesn't have a mental disability.  I don't know why she was classified as 'vulnerable' or by whom.  Why could she not be a consenting adult?  (Once again, I stress that I don't condone the priest's behaviour, but surely a 22 year old woman of sound mind must take responsibility for her actions too?)

We don't know what the real circumstances were.  Perhaps they fell in love - two adults, only 8 years apart in age - quite a normal occurrence.....   and then perhaps at a later date it went sour/ she changed her mind/he changed his mind..... all sorts of things may have happened.   If that was the case it puts the whole issue in a different light.


----------



## DB008 (20 January 2013)

kennas said:


> The Catholic Church is on a roll!
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming any moral authority in our society takes at least some common sense.




Terrible.


----------



## Julia (20 January 2013)

I'm with Ruby on her being a consenting adult.  She allowed it to go on for fourteen years.
Don't see how her physical disability made her psychologically incapable of rejecting his advances.

That doesn't mean the church should allow him to be still functioning in a pastoral role imo.


----------



## Sean K (20 January 2013)

In regard to the above, yes, the facts are a little bare. I don't think we know enough. It could be deemed she had her full faculties and wasn't in fact groomed and taken advantage of by an authority figure. 

However, the church paid her out $100k accepting responsibility for her suffering due to the relationship. An acceptance that it was inappropriate. 

Even disregarding the age difference, people in authority relationships in any sense such as teacher-student, doctor-patient, parishioner-priest, must not engage in sexual relationships. 

The church sets themselves up as the moral guardians of society and expects to have a say in what is morally right and wrong. In fact, they demand it. Catholicism also demands that there is no sex before marriage, for a start. The fact a celibate priest is having it off with a partitioner and is allowed back into the fold to continue preaching right and wrong, sets the bar of their moral authority.


----------



## Julia (20 January 2013)

All you say is right, kennas.  I just think there are two separate issues here.
1.  the utterly inappropriate behaviour of the priest.
2.  the reality that, at 22, the woman had the capacity, surely, to reject him.  Instead she allowed the relationship to persist for 14 years.


----------



## DB008 (20 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> Well, it has started.....
> 
> (sorry, wont let me embed liveleak)





Update on this story.....




> *'Muslim Patrol' vigilantes force London women to cover up*
> 
> 
> LODON: An Islamic vigilante group has been confronting people in a London suburb asking women to cover up and to give up alcohol claiming they were living an 'unclean life', prompting authorities to clamp down.
> ...


----------



## Ruby (20 January 2013)

Julia said:


> All you say is right, kennas.  I just think there are two separate issues here.
> 1.  the utterly inappropriate behaviour of the priest.
> 2.  the reality that, at 22, the woman had the capacity, surely, to reject him.  Instead she allowed the relationship to persist for 14 years.




Thank you Julia, you have summed it up very succintly, as always.


----------



## pixel (20 January 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I haven't listened to Bolt or heard anything about the case other than what was given above. But it appears to me that anyone classed as "_a disabled and vulnerable woman_" could not be a consenting adult.




Her disability appears to have been physical (hip dysplasia (sp?)) and she can hardly claim mental disability, having worked as a high school teacher. Having said that, I find that any person, who has been brought up in a strict Catholic environment, ought to be considered "mentally disabled" at least to the extent it takes to resist an ordained church authority. It is part and parcel of "Faith" that clerics are figures of authority and in direct connection with God. Indoctrination from earliest childhood is definitely blunting mental facilities when it comes to recognising the difference between good and evil in a relationship of trust and faith.

PS: That relationship of trust and faith is not limited to Catholic priests. Lutheran teachers of religion are just as susceptible to "hormonal urges", as are young pastors, who have to prepare a class of 14 and 15 year-old girls for their upcoming confirmation.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 January 2013)

pixel said:


> Her disability appears to have been physical (hip dysplasia (sp?)) and she can hardly claim mental disability, having worked as a high school teacher. Having said that, I find that any person, who has been brought up in a strict Catholic environment, ought to be considered "mentally disabled" at least to the extent it takes to resist an ordained church authority. It is part and parcel of "Faith" that clerics are figures of authority and in direct connection with God. Indoctrination from earliest childhood is definitely blunting mental facilities when it comes to recognising the difference between good and evil in a relationship of trust and faith.
> 
> PS: That relationship of trust and faith is not limited to Catholic priests. Lutheran teachers of religion are just as susceptible to "hormonal urges", as are young pastors, who have to prepare a class of 14 and 15 year-old girls for their upcoming confirmation.




I knew a few ex Edmund Rice College boys and the stories they told of the behaviour of the male staff there was shocking.  Quite  few devoutly Catholic Italian families sent their boys there, so when ever things got reported the families were basically brow beaten into silence.

I cannot understand how a parent could let someone else tell them what to do when their child's safety is at risk.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 January 2013)

A bit off the current topic.  Is there any value at all in religion?  Or is the whole thing perverted?

If you can grok with the following passage, try the wikipedia page on self-enquiry.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry#Not_.E2.80.98I_am_Brahman.E2.80.99


*What is the "I AM"?*

418. The only true and full Awareness is
Awareness of Awareness.
Until Awareness is Awareness of itself,
it knows no peace at all.

432. Is it not because you are yourself Awareness,
that you now perceive this universe?
If you observe Awareness steadily,
this Awareness as Teacher, will reveal the Truth.

52. If mind turned towards Awareness and concentrating on Awareness,
seeks the Self, the world made up of ether and other elements is real, as all things are Awareness,
the one sole substance of true Being.

435. True natural Awareness, which does not go after alien objects, is the Heart.
Since actionless Awareness shines as real Being,
its joy consists in concentration on itself.

742. In the Self, he stands firm fixed who dwells
and truly meditates on himself as pure awareness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> A bit off the current topic.  Is there any value at all in religion?



Yes, absolutely. It has been an extremely important part of human development. It had kept law and order in check for much of the past 3000 years. And, for a very, very large proportion of the population still is a crux. But now we know that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe, God/s are myth to explain the unexplainable and praying to Saints is sheer craziness, we should now move on.

I think your quote is more New Age Philosophy than religion...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I knew a few ex Edmund Rice College boys and the stories they told of the behaviour of the male staff there was shocking.  Quite  few devoutly Catholic Italian families sent their boys there, so when ever things got reported the families were basically brow beaten into silence.
> 
> I cannot understand how a parent could let someone else tell them what to do when their child's safety is at risk.




+1

gg


----------



## pixel (21 January 2013)

kennas said:


> Yes, absolutely. *It has been an extremely important part of human development. It had kept law and order in check for much of the past 3000 years. And, for a very, very large proportion of the population still is a crux.* But now we know that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe, God/s are myth to explain the unexplainable and praying to Saints is sheer craziness, we should now move on.
> 
> I think your quote is more New Age Philosophy than religion...




You make an important point, kennas:
Belief in god/s has enabled an increasingly dense population to live together, by and large, without too much friction. Religion has supported the status quo, kept priests and rulers in relatively safe business, and acted as a lubricant inside tribal societies. Indications are for belief in ficticious "Overlords" to be much older than 3000 years; I would add at least another zero, and if you consider our very own Rainbow Serpent, you'll probably agree.

I also agree that "we should move on" - but who are "We"? The contributors to this thread may be enlightened enough not to need that crutch. But even in "civilised" societies, you will find large population groups, who lack such kind of enlightenment and self-discipline: they definitely benefit from a firm belief, implanted into their brains at early childhood, that there is an omniscient Big Bozo out there, who, like Santa, makes notes of their every deed and misdeed, and ensures "what goes around, comes around."

The rot set in when a few tribes in the Middle East developed an alphabet and started to write down their version, claiming all kind of BS allegedly revealed from Highest Authority. Even that wouldn't matter much, had these "Religions of The Book" not also included strict orders to adhere to The One Faith and fight to the death everybody with different ideas. One of those three has grown up and added tolerance of other faiths to its catechism. The problem is: Tolerance works only, if both sides adhere to the principle of tolerance. There can be no tolerant relationship where one side is all-forgiving; the other, all-destroying.


----------



## DB008 (23 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> Update on this story.....




Update again....



> 'Muslim patrol' investigation leads to double arrest
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/22/muslim-patrol-london-police-arrests


----------



## noco (25 January 2013)

I have been saying now for many months, the Muslims want World domination and they are doing it by infiltration of the Western World and the use of terrorism in third world countries by acts of genocide.

The illegal boat people landing on our shores are almost 100% Muslim. They are setting up their own Muslim schools and are brainwashing their kids with the Quran 5 tiimes per day.Those children are having it instilled into their brains that if you are not a Muslim you must be a Christian or an infidel and the latter two must be eliminated.

What will Australia be like in 20 to 30 years time if we don't stop this infiltration?  



Unbelievable!  

What you see and learn here, you will never see in the official medias...Read and pass on!! 

                 Statement by Father Juan Carlos Martos cmf 
                     Secretariat of PV Clarettiani Missionaries


"This is a brutal example of how far the struggle between muslims and catholics in Nigeria has reached. 
Muslims are determined to impose their 'religion' all over Africa as well as in other continents and countries 
of the world. Islam has but one goal: rule the world at any cost!" 

"And where are the International Human Rights Organizations? 
Christians are burnt alive in Nigeria: a horrific Holocaust right in front of International indifference! 
As denounced by Father Juan Carlos Martos, on behalf of the Missionari Clarettiani, via del Sacro Cuore 
di Maria, Rome, Italy." 

"By publishing this graphic document on Facebook, I have intended to make the world aware of certain 
terrible events totally ignored or minimized by the mainstream media; an authentic genocide so cruel and 
inhuman only comparable with the most hateful and vile acts in the nazi extermination camps." 

"To my great surprise, Facebook has criticized me for the publication of this graphic document as a proof 
of the Holocaust that Christians have been suffering in Nigeria in the last ten years. According to Facebook's 
Security policy of the 'social' Network, this photo has been classified as 'pornographic', 'violent' or 'inappropriate' 
and hence I was disallowed to publish any picture for a week. And I was threatened drastic measures if I insist 
publishing any document that prove the terrible violations of Human Rights in Nigeria. 
This attitude by the (Spanish) Facebook Management is an attack to the freedom of expression as much as a 
shameful insult to the 500 victims (only in this horrible episode) slaughtered by islamic terror only for being christian." 

"I thought that this social network, originated in the United States, would not bend its knees in front of terror. 
Especially, when still healing their wounds suffered in the gruesome 9/11 attack, just as our own 3/11 at Madrid railway 
station, all innocent victims of the wild fury and insanity of islamic terror." 

"This seems even more unacceptable in Spain, a Democratic state, where the rights of opinion, expression and religion 
are guaranteed by the Constitution (Art. 16 and 20), if there is an attempt to limit such rights, let alone through threats and 
coercion thus weakening their freedom of expression by condemning as "inappropriate" a graphic document 
(not a photomontage) which reflects a brutal reality in all its crudeness." 

"Contrarily, the Administrators of Facebook Spain should welcome this public protest advocating that such a barbarian 
act will never be replicated and that its perpetrators will be brought to justice. This is a right and duty of every citizen: 
a service to society, ultimate goal, I feel, of any network that defines itself as 'social'." 

"Regrettably, if the murders continue, this is greatly because truth is always hidden to the sovereign people, so that they 
may not be aware and 'disdained' by it: complicit silence by the mainstream media leads to the indifference of the 
international political community facing this unspeakable Holocaust! Let alone the cowardice already rooted in the western 
world facing the islamic terror. A consequence of the stupid "Alliance of civilizations": another regrettable incident of our former Prime Minister Rodriguez Zapatero." 

"Can you imagine the reaction of the islamic terrorist organization in the (impossible) case of a massacre of muslims in 
a mosque, by the hands of christian terrorists? And how widely would our media cover and condemn the crime and the 
criminals??" 

"Therefore, from this modest blog, I ask a favor from all people who are reading me: please distribute this photo and its comments 
using all the media you have. If only for commemorating these martyrs since, unfortunately, Facebook seems to be on the side of 
the executioners by preventing the publication of such tragic events." 

  Juan Carlos Martos cmf Segretariato di PVMissionari ClarettianiVia Sacro Cuore Ã  Maria-500197-Rome 





MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN OR
SHOULD IT BE ISLAM'S INHUMANITY TO INFIDELS? (ANY OTHER HUMANS)


----------



## DB008 (30 January 2013)

Viva La France!




> *France to deport 'radical foreign imams' *
> 
> 
> French Interior Minister Manuel Valls has said that Paris is set to deport a string of radical religious imams as part of a fight against "global jihadism".
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (30 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> Viva La France!




I salute France for taking a stance for common sense, they can see the writing on the wall and are acting

Yes - Viva La France


----------



## noco (30 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I salute France for taking a stance for common sense, they can see the writing on the wall and are acting
> 
> Yes - Viva La France




+1. I agree and it is time for Australia to do the same.


----------



## pixel (31 January 2013)

noco said:


> Viva La France!
> +1. I agree and it is time for Australia to do the same.




Apart from the minor issue that it's "*Vive *La France", I agree with the sentiment too.
Strange that Australia hasn't done so a long time ago. Wasn't there a clause in the visa conditions about the person having to be "of good character"? 
And new citizens have to swear allegiance to the Commonwealth of Australia before they're granted the privilege. If there isn't a clause covering "obtaining citizenship by deceit" or perjury, there definitely should be.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2013)

Sickening....

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/63885.aspx



> *Saudi preacher gets off light for raping, killing daughter*
> 
> *A Saudi preacher who raped his five-year-old daughter and tortured her to death has been sentenced to pay "blood money" to the mother after having served a short jail term, activists said on Saturday.
> Lamia al-Ghamdi was admitted to hospital on December 25, 2011 with multiple injuries, including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm, extensive bruising and burns, the activists said. She died last October 22.*
> ...




See that last one. Islamic Law. What a load of BS. Saudi Arabia = Stone Age Idiots

Some other Links
BBC
AFP


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> Sickening....




Thats probably too shocking to post here, women and all, it's a sick world out there and sometimes it's traumatising just to hear about it.
I hope they take an interest in nuclear bombs over there and connect the wrong wires and blow the place completely off the map.


----------



## CanOz (3 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Thats probably too shocking to post here, women and all, it's a sick world out there and sometimes it's traumatising just to hear about it.
> I hope they take an interest in nuclear bombs over there and connect the wrong wires and blow the place completely off the map.




99% of the world will not put up with this....

Its probably been happening for centuries. Now with the world a smaller place, due to the internet and global communication, they cannot keep their sick and bent religious beliefs a secret anymore...

*May they all burn in hell*.

CanOz


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2013)

CanOz said:


> 99% of the world will not put up with this....
> 
> Its probably been happening for centuries. Now with the world a smaller place, due to the internet and global communication, they cannot keep their sick and bent religious beliefs a secret anymore...
> 
> ...





Makes you wish this was true - 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell,1445/


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Thats probably too shocking to post here, women and all, it's a sick world out there and sometimes it's traumatising just to hear about it.
> I hope they take an interest in nuclear bombs over there and connect the wrong wires and blow the place completely off the map.




Maybe.

But we live in the real world and should know what is happening out there.

Worst part. USA are major allies with the Saudis.


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> Maybe.
> 
> But we live in the real world and should know what is happening out there.
> 
> Worst part. USA are major allies with the Saudis.




It's hard to understand world politics and sometimes you just shake your head and walk away.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> It's hard to understand world politics and sometimes you just shake your head and walk away.




Very true.


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> Sickening....



Where are the Islamic 'moderates' criticising this?

You know, the ones who say Islam is all good and loving and peaceful, etc, etc, 

Where are they?

Why aren't they taking control of this?





If the general populace of our Muslim society does not rise up against this, they will be included with them. 

Stand up 'moderate' Islam!

Before you're caught up with the psychos.


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2013)

kennas said:


> Where are the Islamic 'moderates' criticising this?




Are they moderate or just pretend so they appear to fit in ?


----------



## Sean K (3 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Are they moderate or just pretend so they appear to fit in ?



I suppose we've all been moderate or extremist at certain times to suite our own strategic objectives.


----------



## DB008 (4 February 2013)

*“Burkas for babies”: Saudi cleric’s new fatwa causes controversy*



> A Saudi cleric has called for all female babies to be fully covered by wearing the face veil, commonly known as the burka, citing reports of little girls being sexually molested.
> 
> In a TV interview on the Islamic al-Majd TV, which seems to date back to mid-last year, Sheikh Abdullah Daoud, stressed that wearing the veil will protect baby girls. The Sheikh tried to back his assertion with claims of sexual molestation against babies in the kingdom, quoting unnamed medical and security sources.





http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/02/03/264031.html


----------



## DB008 (5 February 2013)

*The road to renewal*

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21570677-after-centuries-stagnation-science-making-comeback-islamic-world-road?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

What a great article. Brilliant!

A must read.

Scroll down to the "By the book" heading.



> *By the book*
> 
> Science of the kind practised at SESAME throws up few challenges to Muslim doctrine (and in many cases is so abstruse that religious censors would struggle to understand it). But biology””especially with an evolutionary angle””is different. Many Muslims are troubled by the notion that humans share a common ancestor with apes. Research published in 2008 by Salman Hameed of Hampshire College in Massachusetts, a Pakistani astronomer who now studies Muslim attitudes to science, found that fewer than 20% in Indonesia, Malaysia or Pakistan believed in Darwin’s theories. In Egypt it was just 8%.
> 
> Yasir Qadhi, an American chemical engineer turned cleric (who has studied in both the United States and Saudi Arabia), wrestled with this issue at a London conference on Islam and evolution this month. He had no objection to applying evolutionary theory to other lifeforms. But he insisted that Adam and Eve did not have parents and did not evolve from other species. Any alternative argument is “scripturally indefensible,” he said. Some, especially in the diaspora, conflate human evolution with atheism: rejecting it becomes a defining part of being a Muslim. (Some Christians take a similar approach to the Bible.)






> Other parts of the life sciences, often tricky for Christians, have proved unproblematic for Muslims. In America researchers wanting to use embryonic stem cells (which, as their name suggests, must be taken from human embryos, usually spares left over from fertility treatments) have had to battle pro-life Christian conservatives and a federal ban on funding for their field. But according to Islam, the soul does not enter the fetus until between 40 and 120 days after conception””so scientists at the Royan Institute in Iran are able to carry out stem-cell research without attracting censure.


----------



## Sean K (5 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> What a great article. Brilliant!
> 
> A must read.
> 
> Scroll down to the "By the book" heading.



I didn't get to any 'by the book' heading but the stats regarding evolution should be condemning to Muslims. Unless the 8% in Egypt responded to a different question. But, geesh.


----------



## DB008 (8 February 2013)

Crazy. And people do listen when preachers talk....



> *Raping women in Tahrir NOT ‘red line’: Egyptian preacher Abu Islam*
> 
> An Egyptian Salafi preacher said raping and sexually harassing women protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square is justified, calling them “crusaders” who “have no shame, no fear and not even feminism.”
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (8 February 2013)




----------



## DB008 (10 February 2013)

Can't remember if l've posted this.

View attachment CS_ch02.pdf


Last few pages.


----------



## sails (10 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> Can't remember if l've posted this.
> 
> View attachment 50923
> 
> ...




Danny, I didn't read the whole thing, but these sort of sickos use religion as a cover.  Genuine religious people are usually both trusting and forgiving.  Both of these traits are just what an offender wants - the trust part allows him/her to carry on longer until detected and the forgiveness is useful to him/her in hoping they won't take it to the police.

Sadly, these creeps tend to tar everyone with the same brush even though the majority of religious people are not that way inclined.


----------



## Boggo (12 February 2013)

Is this a form of religious discrimination, what next ?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...jab-or-face-sack/story-e6frea83-1226575723406


----------



## Sean K (12 February 2013)

A rousing conclusion to a troubling article related to the now ex-Pope:

And now behold the harvest of this long campaign of obfuscation. The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil – a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice – and speedily at that.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...lic-coverup-20130212-2e9jb.html#ixzz2KfUWXWFI


----------



## DB008 (12 February 2013)

Boggo said:


> Is this a form of religious discrimination, what next ?
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...jab-or-face-sack/story-e6frea83-1226575723406




That's crazy.

This quote    <<HITS.THE.NAIL.ON.THE.HEAD>>



> "If a female Muslim teacher working at a non-Muslim school was ordered to stop wearing her hijab at school functions and outings then that school board and principal would be before the Anti-Discrimination Commission before you could say 'hypocrisy'," wrote "Sir Loin of Lamb".


----------



## Sean K (16 February 2013)

I enjoyed the movie The Omen, and I watched The Exorcist, although, both scared the crap out of me. The scene when Linda Blair's head did the full 360 was truly amazing cinema. Yes, it was cinema. No one in their modern right mind believes in 'possession', nor Satan incarnate. These people have mental disorders. We modern humans understand this. Don't we?    




> *Vatican's chief exorcist thanks the Pope*
> From: AAP
> February 16, 2013 9:48PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Tink (17 February 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Knobby22 said:


> Good point, it doesn't need religion to be crazy.
> 
> Goths, 4WD, present house prices, people who buy dogs to fight, cockfighting, Big Brother, media shows that just talk about celebrities, President Bush being re-elected, guns being sold in Walmart in the USA, Australians trying to save the whale while we have the highest yearly extinction rate of any country, artists saying that there should be a special tax because art drives the country, most people believing we never landed on the moon, St Kilda council hiring a clairvoyant, every second article you read in the newspaper, Woody Allen, highest suicide rate in history at present, high drug taking by youth, government of Burma refusing aid, Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge, tribal warfare in Africa, people who blame everything on religion...the list is endless.




Great post Knobby, hope you dont mind me bringing it forward
I could add a few more to that list.........


----------



## noco (17 February 2013)

No doubt the Muslim extremist would love to assassinate this Wilders fellow.

I hope he gets his message through to the Australian people on the infiltration of Muslims into the Wesetern World.

I have mentioned on several occassions, the illegal boat people are almost 100 % Muslim.

Wake up Australia!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...an-speaking-tour/story-fncynkc6-1226579445521


----------



## DB008 (18 February 2013)

noco said:


> No doubt the Muslim extremist would love to assassinate this Wilders fellow.
> 
> I hope he gets his message through to the Australian people on the infiltration of Muslims into the Wesetern World.
> 
> ...





Hmm...



> *Muslim preacher urges followers to claim 'Jihad Seeker's Allowance' - UK*
> 
> A Muslim preacher is secretly filmed urging followers to take benefits from the state to fund a holy war.
> 
> ...


----------



## dutchie (22 February 2013)

Its just a matter of time before police are too late.

Three UK men found guilty of terror plot


http://www.theage.com.au/world/thre...terror-plot-20130222-2eus9.html#ixzz2LZwClglR


----------



## dutchie (22 February 2013)

Wilders is bad , multiculturalism is good.

Head in the sand is good too.


----------



## Sean K (22 February 2013)

dutchie said:


> Its just a matter of time before police are too late.
> 
> Three UK men found guilty of terror plot
> 
> ...



Yes dutchie, troubling. I'm concerned where all this is going. I think it's a minority of Muslims that are really nuts with the majority just less nuts, but eventually, if the attacks keep coming, we will probably hold them all to account for not stopping their really nuts. Good Muslims need to stop all this.


----------



## DB008 (22 February 2013)

As sad as it is to say, it'll happen here, just a matter of time. And the kicker, they might even get away with it.


----------



## noco (22 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> As sad as it is to say, it'll happen here, just a matter of time. And the kicker, they might even get away with it.




I have been saying it for months and months, it is a world wide plot to infitrate the Western World and the illegal boat people are 100% Muslim. We will be in for hell in the next 20 to 30 years. They want world domination and this is the way they will do it.

They are already creating havic in poor third world countries by genecide cleansing. If you are a Christian or a infidel, you must be illiminated and this what they are teaching the Muslim kids 5 times a day in their own schools in Australia, so work it out for your selves.

Thank God I won't be around to see it happen. BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!!!!!


----------



## noco (22 February 2013)

noco said:


> I have been saying it for months and months, it is a world wide plot to infitrate the Western World and the illegal boat people are 100% Muslim. We will be in for hell in the next 20 to 30 years. They want world domination and this is the way they will do it.
> 
> They are already creating havic in poor third world countries by genecide cleansing. If you are a Christian or a infidel, you must be illiminated and this what they are teaching the Muslim kids 5 times a day in their own schools in Australia, so work it out for your selves.
> 
> Thank God I won't be around to see it happen. BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!!!!!




A massive Muslim bomb plot bigger than the underground rail disaster is uncovered in London.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/not_the_way_to_prove_wilders_wrong/


----------



## DB008 (22 February 2013)

noco said:


> A massive Muslim bomb plot bigger than the underground rail disaster is uncovered in London.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/not_the_way_to_prove_wilders_wrong/




Post 895 noco.


----------



## DB008 (22 February 2013)

dutchie said:


> Its just a matter of time before police are too late.
> 
> Three UK men found guilty of terror plot
> 
> ...




Dealing with nutters...



> In his video, Naseer gave his reasons for the plot. "You people think that by making these cartoons of the Prophet that you are going to deface him. No, you will never achieve this, only thing you will achieve is suicide bombers on your streets spilling so much blood that you'll have nightmares for the rest of your miserable lives."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/21/suicide-bombers-four-lions


----------



## CanOz (22 February 2013)

Even trying to trade up the funds...



> Ahmed was given the task of investing the money to increase the returns but his financial prowess proved questionable. Trading on the internet, he went out to make a cup of tea in the kitchen and in the space of two minutes while the kettle boiled managed to lose £3,000 – while police and the security services were listening in. In two weeks he lost £9,000 of the group's haul, and he was dropped as chief fundraiser soon after.




Sounds like a movie script.

CanOz


----------



## pixel (25 February 2013)

In the interest of balance: Some non-Muslims can also become paranoid.

http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-02-22...chools-because-it-promotes-eastern-religions/



> Sometimes I do not have anything deeper to say other than “Shut up.”
> 
> And those are my choice words for the California parents who are suing their children’s school district over yoga classes being taught in a class.  That’s not very Zen, is it?


----------



## Happy (26 February 2013)

pixel said:


> In the interest of balance: Some non-Muslims can also become paranoid.
> 
> ...





At least they don't smash and burn half the city to show their feelings.


----------



## DB008 (26 February 2013)

Happy said:


> At least they don't smash and burn half the city to show their feelings.




I can't remember the last time that - 

A Christian beheaded someone over entering their land (like in Iraq/Afghanistan)?
Killed someone over a Youtube video mocking Jesus?
Went on massive global riots over a satirical Jesus video?
Christians went on a rampage in Sydney and had run-ins with the police over a stupid video?

Muslims on the other hand....


----------



## DB008 (4 March 2013)

Looks like Egypt is heading back to the dark ages...


*Egypt unleashes Islamic morality police force*



> Cairo - A new informal police force has been launched in Cairo, to ensure Islamic morals are adhered to. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice denies it is linked to Saudi's dreaded morality police, which share the same name.
> 
> Islamic Cleric Hisham el-Ashri, founder of Egypt's newly launched Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, stated the morality police will only use "non-violent methods" to implement the moral principles of Islam, the IB Times reported.
> 
> ...




http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/344710#tab=comments&sc=0#ixzz2MYrDGSXm


----------



## chops_a_must (4 March 2013)

Ah well.

They voted for it!


----------



## DB008 (4 March 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Ah well.
> 
> They voted for it!




I thought that the only other person who read what I post (in this thread) was pixel?


----------



## Sean K (5 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> I thought that the only other person who read what I post (in this thread) was pixel?



+1

It's all amazing stuff really. Just astonishing that humans still deal in and peddle this trollop as moral guidance.


----------



## FxTrader (7 March 2013)

To this I add, force them to watch the Fox News channel every day and don't allow unsupervised internet access and no access to youtube.


----------



## DB008 (10 March 2013)

*Alleged blasphemy: Mob burns scores of Christian homes in Lahore*



> LAHORE: A highly-charged mob of thousands burnt more than 40 Christian houses in Badami Bagh area of Lahore on Saturday to “take revenge of the blasphemy” allegedly committed by a Christian two days earlier.
> 
> Express News had earlier reported that around 100 houses were burnt by the mob.
> 
> ...




http://tribune.com.pk/story/518244/alleged-blasphemy-mob-burns-100-christian-homes-in-lahore/


----------



## CanOz (10 March 2013)

FxTrader said:


> View attachment 51228
> 
> 
> To this I add, force them to watch the Fox News channel every day and don't allow unsupervised internet access and no access to youtube.





Great post ,thanks for that!


CanOz


----------



## CanOz (10 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> I thought that the only other person who read what I post (in this thread) was pixel?




Are you kidding? This is my favorite off topic thread!


----------



## pixel (10 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> *Alleged blasphemy: Mob burns scores of Christian homes in Lahore*
> http://tribune.com.pk/story/518244/alleged-blasphemy-mob-burns-100-christian-homes-in-lahore/




"Sanaullah added that all those whose property had been damaged will be compensated within five days."

yeah, that'll make them happier and love their Muslim neighbours again. After all, Love and Forgiveness are Christian virtues - right? *WRONG!* Offering the other cheek is only effective where your antagonist's character still maintains a modicum of civility and decency. As I've said before: Tolerance stops being effective when your enemy is using it against you. 

Mind you, I can't offer a solution how to deal with mob violence, which is supported by corrupt regimes in most "Islamic" countries. They're not interested in joining civilised humanity: their religious leaders want global power and their political leaders want personal wealth, so they can live in luxury and not have to wait till the afterlife for their 100 virgins. Confrontation with other countries doesn't scare them because their Dollars will make them welcome anywhere.


----------



## DB008 (10 March 2013)

CanOz said:


> Are you kidding? This is my favorite off topic thread!




Cheers CanOz.

I'll keep posting (even though l've said l'll stop numerous times).


----------



## bellenuit (10 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> Cheers CanOz.
> 
> I'll keep posting (even though l've said l'll stop numerous times).




I also like this thread. It provides great ammunition for my frequent late night arguments with friends while enjoying a few reds.


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2013)

Seems to be more and more anti Islam sentiment in the general community now. Although I definitely do not support any alternative religious point of view, I think a stronger nationalistic approach is appropriate right now. Lets hope we do not allow our country to go down the UK and French path where English people are afraid to walk around their own streets or be stuck in an area wanting to install foreign religious based laws. 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/of-race-religion-and-politics-20130309-2fsje.html


----------



## DB008 (10 March 2013)

kennas said:


> Seems to be more and more anti Islam sentiment in the general community now. Although I definitely do not support any alternative religious point of view, I think a stronger nationalistic approach is appropriate right now. Lets hope we do not allow our country to go down the UK and French path where English people are afraid to walk around their own streets or be stuck in an area wanting to install foreign religious based laws.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/of-race-religion-and-politics-20130309-2fsje.html




I think you are right kennas.

The biggest line I hear is;

a) You are a racist
b) You are bigot

Neither of which I am.


----------



## explod (10 March 2013)

Religion grows from poverty and by support from Regimes wanting control.

The Muslim problem is gaining strength because most are living in abject poverty.  If *proper* education was encouraged and financed by western nations, to the tune of defense spending, much of today's problems would go away.

Most will know I think of myself as an atheist.  However I believe in a collective spirit and that the fundamental ethics from good religion is needed for the peace of the overall community.  Human habit is not something we can just change like that and succeed.  In framing an objective I was taught that "it has to be achievable"

So what we do need to focus on is education more than any other thing or subject.  The truth of science taken up by the young is the answer.  I have so much to say on this topic but not the time right now.


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2013)

explod said:


> Religion grows from poverty and by support from Regimes wanting control.
> 
> The Muslim problem is gaining strength because most are living in abject poverty.  If *proper* education was encouraged and financed by western nations, to the tune of defense spending, much of today's problems would go away.
> 
> ...



yes, but Islam has halted education and we can't make it happen because we'd be deemed to be interfering with their internal politics. At one point they were the most advanced society on the planet but for some reason resorted to dogmatic following of the text. Their downfall.


----------



## explod (10 March 2013)

kennas said:


> yes, but Islam has halted education and we can't make it happen because we'd be deemed to be interfering with their internal politics. At one point they were the most advanced society on the planet but for some reason resorted to dogmatic following of the text. Their downfall.




Depends, in a lot of Africa rape and aids is reducing because aid agencies are providing educational opportunities for women.

If as much effort as bombing/military action to hold resource tenements was put into education, things would gradually turn around.

Like the women of India currently revolting, if there was a way (support) for the Islamic women to stand up for equality they too would gradually take that road.


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2013)

explod said:


> Depends, in a lot of Africa rape and aids is reducing because aid agencies are providing educational opportunities for women.
> 
> If as much effort as bombing/military action to hold resource tenements was put into education, things would gradually turn around.
> 
> Like the women of India currently revolting, if there was a way (support) for the Islamic women to stand up for equality they too would gradually take that road.



It's a fine line governments and NGOs tread in influencing foreign regimes in their policy and politics to be more in alignment with our own values. Step over the mark and it can set a course of action back decades. Fiji is a classic example of finely tuned and nuanced Gov policy on trying to influence a society without stepping over the mark. We've been failing here.


----------



## pixel (11 March 2013)

kennas said:


> yes, but Islam has halted education and we can't make it happen because we'd be deemed to be interfering with their internal politics. At one point they were the most advanced society on the planet but for some reason resorted to dogmatic following of the text. Their downfall.




+1

Think of the Pakistani teenage girl, who was shot for promoting study.
Think of the acid attacks on schoolkids.

The Islamofascists *want* their peoples to remain poor and uneducated, in order to outbreed the rest of the world and by sheer weight of numbers infiltrate every place on Earth. And we oh so tolerant and humane Westerners let it all happen and take all those "poor refugees" in. 

I'm not denying the abject poverty, nor their understandable desperation to get out of there. But the least we ought to do is demand they leave their baggage at the border. Maybe, instead of locking them up for years in Vanuatu etc with nothing to do, teach them "the Western ways".
I know, that'll never happen. All the bleeding hearts will demand "our government" grant all comers full rights to keep their "culture" and "enrich" ours. And if they choose to keep indoctrinating their kids, give them understanding and the baby bonus and the Dole.


----------



## Tink (11 March 2013)

kennas said:


> Seems to be more and more anti Islam sentiment in the general community now. Although I definitely do not support any alternative religious point of view, I think a stronger nationalistic approach is appropriate right now. Lets hope we do not allow our country to go down the UK and French path where English people are afraid to walk around their own streets or be stuck in an area wanting to install foreign religious based laws.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/of-race-religion-and-politics-20130309-2fsje.html




this is abit of a worry Kennas, is this how Hitler started?
we dont want history repeating..
I feel for any that may be nothing like these posts, you seem to be hitting on the extremists.


----------



## FxTrader (11 March 2013)

explod said:


> Religion grows from poverty and by support from Regimes wanting control.




The regimes that want control are the competing major religions themselves, Islam, Christianity and their derivatives.  It's earthly power they crave by claiming heavenly authority.  Poverty plays a role but the indoctrination of children in religious mythology and the cultural pressure placed on them to conform is the key growth engine for religion. 



> The Muslim problem is gaining strength because most are living in abject poverty.  If *proper* education was encouraged and financed by western nations, to the tune of defense spending, much of today's problems would go away.




I use to think this way but education and literacy alone do not override religious programming.  The U.S. is a good example of this.  I have met many very intelligent, well educated Muslims and Christians who totally suspend their intellect when discussing their faith.

The only education most religious people want for their children is one that does not interfere in any way with their particular blind faith.  Hence the proliferation of religious schools, the demonization of evolution theory and the attack on science and the scientific method in general.  Better education alone is not the answer, debunking religious mythology and curbing the religious indoctrination of children are equally important.  I totally support the likes of Chris Hitchens (sadly departed) and Sam Harris in their efforts to unmask religion as the fraud it is.


----------



## DB008 (11 March 2013)

*Sunni Council issues fatwa against attack on minorities*



> LAHORE – Thirty scholars from the Sunni Ittehad Council have decreed a joint fatwa against attack on minorities, declaring that onslaught on life and property of Christians is against Islam.
> 
> According to a press statement on Sunday, the muftis said Islam protects lives and properties of minorities who are treated as equal citizens in an Islamic state.
> 
> ...




http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/lahore/11-Mar-2013/sunni-council-issues-fatwa-against-attack-on-minorities


----------



## Ruby (12 March 2013)

FxTrader said:


> The regimes that want control are the competing major religions themselves, Islam, Christianity and their derivatives.  It's earthly power they crave by claiming heavenly authority.  Poverty plays a role but the indoctrination of children in religious mythology and the cultural pressure placed on them to conform is the key growth engine for religion.
> 
> I use to think this way but education and literacy alone do not override religious programming.  The U.S. is a good example of this.  I have met many very intelligent, well educated Muslims and Christians who totally suspend their intellect when discussing their faith.
> 
> The only education most religious people want for their children is one that does not interfere in any way with their particular blind faith.  Hence the proliferation of religious schools, the demonization of evolution theory and the attack on science and the scientific method in general.  Better education alone is not the answer, debunking religious mythology and curbing the religious indoctrination of children are equally important.  I totally support the likes of Chris Hitchens (sadly departed) and Sam Harris in their efforts to unmask religion as the fraud it is.




Great post FXTrader - you've explained it very succintly.  I have been watching the charade presently happening in Rome - otherwise intelligent, well-educated, normal people kissing cardinals' rings, waiting to grovel at the feet of their new leader........


----------



## explod (12 March 2013)

FxTrader said:


> The only education most religious people want for their children is one that does not interfere in any way with their particular blind faith.  Hence the proliferation of religious schools, the demonization of evolution theory and the attack on science and the scientific method in general.  Better education alone is not the answer, debunking religious mythology and curbing the religious indoctrination of children are equally important.  I totally support the likes of Chris Hitchens (sadly departed) and Sam Harris in their efforts to unmask religion as the fraud it is.




Very well put. 

However the debunking and curbing of indoctrination in my view is still part of an overall educational plan too.


----------



## Julia (12 March 2013)

explod said:


> However the debunking and curbing of indoctrination in my view is still part of an overall educational plan too.



Whose educational plan?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Whose educational plan?




touche!


----------



## explod (12 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Whose educational plan?




He hee, got me, 

the best well said of the night. 


Hypothetical in my own defence "an educational plan"


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 March 2013)

Best of the thread I'd say.

If anyone was to educate children along the lines of "God doesn't exist.  Don't read the Koran/Upanishads/Bible/Pali Canon/Baghavad Gita...", that's just as controlling and manipulative and closed-minded as the behaviours of those who are (rightly IMO) criticized on this thread.


----------



## Julia (12 March 2013)

explod said:


> He hee, got me,
> 
> the best well said of the night.
> 
> ...



I wasn't trying to 'get you'.
I thought perhaps I'd missed out on some absolute gem of policy the Greens have dreamed up.
Or that perhaps you were planning to favour us with your own ideas about how we should be indoctrinated into or out of religion.


----------



## explod (12 March 2013)

Julia said:


> I wasn't trying to 'get you'.
> I thought perhaps I'd missed out on some absolute gem of policy the Greens have dreamed up.
> Or that perhaps you were planning to favour us with your own ideas about how we should be indoctrinated into or out of religion.




Proper free education is not indoctrination.  It is the means for a person to grow up making their own informed decisions.

I try not to impose ideas but present facts on which together we may build better ways.  Or "an ageing man who is dreaming" perhaps


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 March 2013)

explod said:


> I try not to impose ideas but present facts on which together we may build better ways.  Or "an ageing man who is dreaming" perhaps




I know you're addressing Jules, but how do you know what a fact is?  I ask this because the most insightful authors I have ever read say that there is no such thing as a fact.  

Would you present the 'facts' of modern science only?  Science has its very own dogmatic ways.

I know people who proudly say that "I only believe things I can see", to which I reply "you don't believe in love?  You've never felt love?  How many scientists know what love is?  And what about microwaves and radio waves - can you see them?".


----------



## chops_a_must (12 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I know you're addressing Jules, but how do you know what a fact is?  I ask this because the most insightful authors I have ever read say that there is no such thing as a fact.
> .




Obviously have never read Wittgenstein.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 March 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Obviously have never read Wittgenstein.




I don't know what that comment means.  If you want to say something, say it.


----------



## FxTrader (13 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> If anyone was to educate children along the lines of "God doesn't exist.  Don't read the Koran/Upanishads/Bible/Pali Canon/Baghavad Gita...", that's just as controlling and manipulative and closed-minded as the behaviours of those who are (rightly IMO) criticized on this thread.




There is an all to common misconception among the religious and their apologists that atheism or non-belief is in fact a form of faith itself (non-faith = faith) and that athiests assert a God does not exist.  In fact, atheists simply express a view that there is no credible evidence to support the existence of any man-made God concept yet concocted by human imagination.  Atheists I know are very "open-minded" on the question of origins, they simply don't assign any credibility to the metaphysical nonsense dreamed up by the religious to claim immortality of the soul and Godly origins.

People should devote some time to reading selected religious texts to discover for themselves just how extraordinary claims by delusional people can engender such strong faith in supernatural imaginings among deceived believers.


----------



## explod (13 March 2013)

> Gringotts Bank;759974]I know you're addressing Jules, but how do you know what a fact is?  I ask this because the most insightful authors I have ever read say that there is no such thing as a fact.




The sun comes up in the morning, it is a fact because we can see and feel it warm our skin.  God appeared to Abraham, but it is a myth and to some a belief, so is Santa Clause.



> Would you present the 'facts' of modern science only?  Science has its very own dogmatic ways.




Modern science, old science where is the difference, *it is science* what else can prove a tangible thing that can be seen, felt, tasted or heard.  And having studied Metaphysics in Theology I do know the demarcation lines.




> I know people who proudly say that "I only believe things I can see", to which I reply "you don't believe in love?  You've never felt love?  How many scientists know what love is?  And what about microwaves and radio waves - can you see them?".




Love comes from direct experience with a person, sound, speech, personality, looks, compatibility time together and one could go on.  Love in the religious sense, of God is created in the mind by repetition so that it becomes imprinted on the sub-conscious.  Very powerful forces, but subconscious feelings/beliefs are not facts per Se.  It is often this type of imprinting that causes a lot of psychosis in many individuals.


----------



## explod (13 March 2013)

FxTrader said:


> People should devote some time to reading selected religious texts to discover for themselves just how extraordinary claims by delusional people can engender such strong faith in supernatural imaginings among deceived believers.




Sorry I should have read your very good post before putting up my last.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (13 March 2013)

explod, and FX, it depends entirely what you mean when you say 'God'.  I use the word and you put *your *meaning onto *my *use of the word...but what did *I* mean?  

When you use the word, you have your meaning, and I'm doing my best to understand what you mean by the word.  It looks like you mean an imaginary being.  I agree a lot of people use their mind to imagine a being, and this is pretty useless.... not necessarily harmful, but certainly useless.  If that's what you mean, then that's altogether removed from what I mean.  My meaning can only be described by negation:  non-personal, non-being, non-material, not an experience, not even the much vaunted not love Agape, not human love, not separate, not this, not that and certainly not a figure in the sky wearing robes.  You can't achieve it, you can't gain access, because the "you" (or self) lies at the threshold of what might otherwise be called unity consciousness, and there's no way you're going to entertain letting go of you, if even for a second.  Why?  It's terrifying.  But I'm pretty sure you don't know what I mean by that, because all you have is what you've read in the newspapers and seen on TV.

If one was to read any of the texts or commentaries I posted, you need to know how to read them.  That in itself is a skill - parsing the rubbish (and yes, there's plenty) from the useful stuff.  

If I was a caveman living in the stone age, I would have scoffed at such things as atoms and molecules.  How ridiculous!  I only believe in woolly mammoths and a flat earth.

If you want to approach this from a scientific angle, fine.  Think of an "event horizon".


----------



## FxTrader (13 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> explod, and FX, it depends entirely what you mean when you say 'God'.  I use the word and you put *your *meaning onto *my *use of the word...but what did *I* mean?
> 
> When you use the word, you have your meaning, and I'm doing my best to understand what you mean by the word.  It looks like you mean an imaginary being.  I agree a lot of people use their mind to imagine a being, and this is pretty useless.... not necessarily harmful, but certainly useless.  If that's what you mean, then that's altogether removed from what I mean.  My meaning can only be described by negation:  non-personal, non-being, non-material, not an experience, not even the much vaunted not love Agape, not human love, not separate, not this, not that and certainly not a figure in the sky wearing robes.  You can't achieve it, you can't gain access, because the "you" (or self) lies at the threshold of what might otherwise be called unity consciousness, and there's no way you're going to entertain letting go of you, if even for a second.  Why?  It's terrifying.  But I'm pretty sure you don't know what I mean by that, because all you have is what you've read in the newspapers and seen on TV.




While you seek to descend into a somewhat pointless semantic argument about what your particular use of the term God is not, I prefer the more common meaning assigned by the religious.  Unity consciousness is yet another expression of vivid human imaginations masquerading as wisdom and is steeped in Hindu mysticism.  While you may wish to engage in the mental gymnastics required to make sense of nonsensical metaphysical ramblings, I for one do not.  Spare us the petty insults and Hindu evangelism please.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (13 March 2013)

FxTrader said:


> While you seek to descend into a somewhat pointless semantic argument about what your particular use of the term God is not, I prefer the more common meaning used by the religious.  Unity consciousness is yet another expression of vivid human imaginations masquerading as wisdom and is steeped in Hindu mysticism.  While you may wish to engage in the mental gymnastics required to make sense of nonsensical metaphysical ramblings but I for one do not.  Spare us the petty insults and Hindu evangelism please.




It's like talking to a petulant child.  100 Hail Mary's should fix you right up, lol.

You wouldn't even know the difference between a mystical experience and insight experience, would you?  To you, that would be more "semantics".  I guess this is why maths professors don't teach trigonometry to primary school kids.  The gulf is too large.

I have no absolutely attachment to, nor investment in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or any religion, so feel free to criticize if you want.


----------



## explod (13 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> explod, and FX, it depends entirely what you mean when you say 'God'.  I use the word and you put *your *meaning onto *my *use of the word...but what did *I* mean?




God is very real in the minds of most people of religion.  They can see his image in their minds and are reminded of that image when they see a crucifix (an icon) or a church, (again constructed as an icon)

Others feel a presence of others they are close to who have since departed and relate this to God.

As a youngster I did study the bible and for all points and purposes was preparing myself to be a Catholic Priest, hence my early studies of general metaphysics.  In later life I attended uni and read the Greek and Roman philosophers then the Middle Ages and the Renaissance through to Modernism and Post Modernity.  I understand the psychological aesthetics of religion and why it is made that way to shape and control the minds of people.  The ceremonial backup is all part of the same.

So to crack a meaning of "God" the tenets are limitless, and again I would argue made that way in order to remain mysterious, allusive and beyond explanation.

Mentioned this on ASF some months back but a good example is "the Holy Trinity" which is made up of God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Ghost equals in sum total "God".  As youngsters we were made to understand that the Holy Trinity was one and the same person yet the Holy Son was sent down to earth to save us.  Now for all the indoctrination that I had suffered I could never get my head around this one and looking back now was the beginning of my questioning the whole deal.

Now G/B you should have no problems in explaining to me your succinct idea of God or your god after which we can deal with the merits of it/him so to speak.  I can assure that I will and can understand you.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (13 March 2013)

explod said:


> God is very real in the minds of most people of religion.  They can see his image in their minds and are reminded of that image when they see a crucifix (an icon) or a church, (again constructed as an icon)
> 
> Others feel a presence of others they are close to who have since departed and relate this to God.
> 
> ...




Well, thanks for your intelligent response, firstly.

I tend to shy away from jargon, but I'll bring it out if i need to explain a point.  When you say Holy Trinity, rather than Father Son and Holy Ghost, (to me that's too open to misunderstanding), I'd go with something like *Observer *(true Self), *Process of Observation *(mind which creates 'self') and *the Observed *(material world), where the self (ego) lies at the "event horizon", and the process of observation is the only way to know the Observer....if that's one's aim.  Having studied the different religions, this seems to be the aim of all of them, even though modern religion seems to have become perverted beyond all recognition.  On this point I guess I agree with what a lot of people are saying on this thread.

So in that last paragraph, the Observer (or even the light behind the observer) is what some might call God.  That's not to say it's a "thing" watching your every move and judging....but instead pure conscious.  By pure consciousness, I mean consciousness without mind.  Since the mind rarely gets to switch off outside of sleep, we don't get to cross the threshold.  The sort of interventions (and accidents) that have caused such a stopping of the mind historically are drugs, meditation, prayer (certain types only), dance, exhaustion and fasting, febrile illness, child birth, sex, stroke, sport, running.... and so on.

The most common experience is just that, an experience - The self is still present, and it experiences expansion, bliss, ecstasy, oneness with everything.  The other type of experience is actually a non-experience, or "the end of all experience" because there's no-one left to experience it.  The body and its senses are still alive and functioning, but there's no "owner".  That's enlightenment, or christ consciousness or whatever the heck people want to call it.

The experience of oneness is relatively common.  The end of 'self' is apparently very uncommon.  When the self ends, you don't meet God, but instead God experiences itself in you.  "You" never existed, except as an illusion of mind created by the senses.


----------



## FxTrader (13 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> It's like talking to a petulant child.  100 Hail Mary's should fix you right up, lol.
> 
> You wouldn't even know the difference between a mystical experience and insight experience, would you?  To you, that would be more "semantics".  I guess this is why maths professors don't teach trigonometry to primary school kids.  The gulf is too large.
> 
> I have no absolutely attachment to, nor investment in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or any religion, so feel free to criticize if you want.




More petty insults, I will let others judge who is being childish here.  You quote Hindu teaching but have no attachment to it?  Clearly you do else why reference it.  Why not debate the subject instead of engaging in personal attack?  Whatever the case I will not oblige your desire to trade insults.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (13 March 2013)

FxTrader said:


> More petty insults, I will let others judge who is being childish here.  You quote Hindu teaching but have no attachment to it?  Clearly you do else why reference it.  Why not debate the subject instead of engaging in personal attack?  Whatever the case I will not obligle your desire to trade insults.




Look: I understand why you're critical of religion because I am too...all of them.  It seems like 99% of people who practise something are doing it the wrong way, particularly the Muslims, Catholic Christians and Hindus. Sometimes I think Buddhism is on the right path but I've seen so much rubbish there that I doubt its future also. 

All I'm saying is, rather than focus on the 99%, look at the 1%.  The only reason I started up is because everyone in the world already knows Islamic terrorists are nutcases... why go on with it? It's so boring after a while.


----------



## explod (13 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> All I'm saying is, rather than focus on the 99%, look at the 1%.  The only reason I started up is because everyone in the world already knows Islamic terrorists are nutcases... why go on with it? It's so boring after a while.




Okay, so down to 1%, must be near to where you are coming from now.

Have you read up on Theosophy, this is the direction I took as a result of studying crowd behavior as part of a research project in my profession back about 1982.   I was at the time in charge of keeping an eye on investigations into Scientology which was against the law back in those times too.  It also released me from the guilt of turning my back on religion.

At the heart of such branches we find that there is a mental connection between beings, call it telepathy if you like but a very good study is a book called the "Intuitive Edge".

My point is that there is scientific physical evidence to back what some describe as a spiritual connection.  This fact is why some, not conversant with the science are convinced of higher beings and miracles.


----------



## bunyip (14 March 2013)

Ruby said:


> I have been watching the charade presently happening in Rome - otherwise intelligent, well-educated, normal people kissing cardinals' rings, waiting to grovel at the feet of their new leader........




Yes, it’s pretty damn silly alright. Religions cling to pomp and ceremony and ridiculous rituals because without them  they’d have very little else. 
All those millions of people whose eyes virtually glaze over with adoration for the pope - I wonder if they’ve ever stopped to ask themselves if he’s ever done anything truly worthwhile for his fellow human beings.
Has he ever done the sort of thing that Mother Theresa did, or Fred Hollows or anyone else whose gone above and beyond the call of duty to help people? Has he ever got his hands dirty during a natural disaster, as did the 20 thousand or more volunteers who helped clean up Brisbane after the floods in January 2011? Do you ever see a pope on the front line helping people in areas devastated by earthquakes or cyclones?
Why the heck do so many people put religious leaders up on a pedestal and worship them as role models?  If they were truly great men, then OK. But they’re usually not – so why the hero worship for some old bloke who, underneath the silly costume and the ridiculous rituals, is just another person like the rest of us?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 March 2013)

explod said:


> Okay, so down to 1%, must be near to where you are coming from now.
> 
> Have you read up on Theosophy, this is the direction I took as a result of studying crowd behavior as part of a research project in my profession back about 1982.   I was at the time in charge of keeping an eye on investigations into Scientology which was against the law back in those times too.  It also released me from the guilt of turning my back on religion.
> 
> ...




"The Intuitive Edge" sounds interesting, but there's not a single review on Amazon.  Makes it a bit hard to get the gist of it.
I could do with an intuitive edge right about now.   $$$$


----------



## bellenuit (14 March 2013)

I was somewhat amused and bemused to read that all the cardinals entering the conclave to elect the pope had to swear a vow of secrecy and THEN had their mobile phones taken from them.

It sorted reminded me of the scene from the movie A Few Good Men when Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is questioning Col Jessup (Jack Nicholson) about Santiago being moved off the base and says something like - _If you gave orders that Santiago was not to be touched and your men ALWAYS obey your orders, then why did you think it necessary that Santiago be moved off the base for his own safety?_


----------



## CanOz (14 March 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I was somewhat amused and bemused to read that all the cardinals entering the conclave to elect the pope had to swear a vow of secrecy and THEN had their mobile phones taken from them.
> 
> It sorted reminded me of the scene from the movie A Few Good Men when Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is questioning Col Jessup (Jack Nicholson) about Santiago being moved off the base and says something like - _If you gave orders that Santiago was not to be touched and your men ALWAYS obey your orders, then why did you think it necessary that Santiago be moved off the base for his own safety?_




hehe, that's quite funny Bellenuit!


----------



## burglar (14 March 2013)

bunyip said:


> ... , is just another person like the rest of us?



Speak for yourself!
He is not like the rest of me.


----------



## McLovin (14 March 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I was somewhat amused and bemused to read that all the cardinals entering the conclave to elect the pope had to swear a vow of secrecy and THEN had their mobile phones taken from them.




They also took a vow of celibacy and yet seem unable to keep their hands off children. I guess one can understand their concern that the vow of secrecy may not be followed either.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 March 2013)

bunyip said:


> I wonder if they’ve ever stopped to ask themselves if he’s ever done anything truly worthwhile for his fellow human beings. Has he ever got his hands dirty during a natural disaster, as did the 20 thousand or more volunteers who helped clean up Brisbane after the floods in January 2011?




Are you serious bunyip? Are you honestly asking that question? This has to be my nomination for the most absurd comment on ASF so far in 2013.

You are comparing the life work of the current pope to a weekend of shoveling and hosing by some volunteers swept up in a feel good moment. 

Duckman


----------



## Ruby (14 March 2013)

McLovin said:


> They also took a vow of celibacy and yet seem unable to keep their hands off children. I guess one can understand their concern that the vow of secrecy may not be followed either.




They also took a vow of poverty, and look at the opulent luxury the pope lives in .


----------



## explod (14 March 2013)

Ruby said:


> They also took a vow of poverty, and look at the opulent luxury the pope lives in .




Well fed,  very big around the girth I noted.


----------



## Julia (14 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> Are you serious bunyip? Are you honestly asking that question? This has to be my nomination for the most absurd comment on ASF so far in 2013.
> 
> You are comparing the life work of the current pope to a weekend of shoveling and hosing by some volunteers swept up in a feel good moment.
> 
> Duckman



Hello Duckman, it's not for me to interpret Bunyip's meaning, but I didn't take it as a simple comparison between the life's work of the new pope and a single collective action to help a community in a time of great need.

I'd have thought, and Bunyip you might like to clarify this, he was more thinking about actual 'hands on' giving to his community on an ongoing basis, as distinct from existing in the rarified atmosphere of the upper echelon of the Catholic church.  Apparently Pope Francis  has caught the bus a few times and has cooked his own food.  I'm not sure how that renders him of service to his flock.

But then, my musings are bound to be tainted by my distaste for religion, and especially all the pomp, pageantry and ceremony of the extremely wealthy Catholic church which seems to maintain their outdated traditions whilst closing their eyes to the hideous abuse of children by so many of their members.


----------



## Duckman#72 (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Hello Duckman, it's not for me to interpret Bunyip's meaning, but I didn't take it as a simple comparison between the life's work of the new pope and a single collective action to help a community in a time of great need.
> 
> I'd have thought, and Bunyip you might like to clarify this, he was more thinking about actual 'hands on' giving to his community on an ongoing basis, as distinct from existing in the rarified atmosphere of the upper echelon of the Catholic church.  Apparently Pope Francis  has caught the bus a few times and has cooked his own food.  I'm not sure how that renders him of service to his flock.
> 
> But then, my musings are bound to be tainted by my distaste for religion, and especially all the pomp, pageantry and ceremony of the extremely wealthy Catholic church which seems to maintain their outdated traditions whilst closing their eyes to the hideous abuse of children by so many of their members.




Hi Julia

I can understand people looking on at this process in bewilderment. However, in a world that is increasingly superficial and shallow, what is wrong with maintaining time-honoured and established traditions?

As far as Bunyips comments are concerned, I think it is quite clear what he meant - he asked if "he had ever done anything truely worthwhile for his fellow human beings?". He then went on to suggest that the contribution made by volunteers cleaning up after the floods are more worthy than what the Pope has ever achieved.

The Catholic Church will never win. It is interesting to note that even on this forum there are people that are more than happy to ask for and accept the prayers of others in times of despair and trouble, only to scoff and sneer at those same beliefs when the storm has passed.

Cheers
Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Hello Duckman, it's not for me to interpret Bunyip's meaning, but I didn't take it as a simple comparison between the life's work of the new pope and a single collective action to help a community in a time of great need.
> 
> I'd have thought, and Bunyip you might like to clarify this, he was more thinking about actual 'hands on' giving to his community on an ongoing basis, as distinct from existing in the rarified atmosphere of the upper echelon of the Catholic church.  Apparently Pope Francis  has caught the bus a few times and has cooked his own food.  I'm not sure how that renders him of service to his flock.
> 
> But then, my musings are bound to be tainted by my distaste for religion, and especially all the pomp, pageantry and ceremony of the extremely wealthy Catholic church which seems to maintain their outdated traditions whilst closing their eyes to the hideous abuse of children by so many of their members.




Hi Julia

I can understand people looking on at this process in bewilderment. However, in a world that is increasingly superficial and shallow, what is wrong with maintaining time-honoured and established traditions?

As far as Bunyips comments are concerned, I think it is quite clear what he meant - he asked if "he had ever done anything truely worthwhile for his fellow human beings?". He then went on to suggest that the contribution made by volunteers cleaning up after the floods are more worthy than what the Pope has ever achieved.

The Catholic Church will never win. It is interesting to note that even on this forum there are people that are more than happy to ask for and accept the prayers of others in times of despair and trouble, only to scoff and sneer at those same beliefs when the storm has passed.

Cheers
Duckman


----------



## bellenuit (15 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> The Catholic Church will never win. It is interesting to note that even on this forum there are people that are more than happy to ask for and accept the prayers of others in times of despair and trouble, only to scoff and sneer at those same beliefs when the storm has passed.




Examples? I sort of know the religious beliefs of some of the frequent contributors to ASF and don't recall any who deny religious beliefs and at the same time ask for prayers to comfort them in times of despair.

Personally, as an atheist, I am happy to accept the prayers of those who believe, but this is not hypocrisy on my behalf. I look beyond their belief in prayer and see their good intentions of wishing me well. On my frequent trips to Thailand, I often gladly accept the blessings of Buddhist monks, but whereas I do not hold in any regard the religious underpinnings of those blessings, I do appreciate the intent behind them.


----------



## Tink (15 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> I can understand people looking on at this process in bewilderment. However, in a world that is increasingly superficial and shallow, what is wrong with maintaining time-honoured and established traditions?
> 
> ...




Wonderful post Duckman
Says it all.......


----------



## explod (15 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> The Catholic Church will never win. It is interesting to note that even on this forum there are people that are more than happy to ask for and accept the prayers of others in times of despair and trouble, only to scoff and sneer at those same beliefs when the storm has passed.
> 
> Cheers
> Duckman




Your interpretation is narrow, disappointing and takes no account of the discussions on the collective human spirit, in that there is prayer.

There is a saying "blind faith" and another that one should never talk religion and politics.

There is no place for me here.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> Are you serious bunyip?
> 
> You are comparing the life work of the current pope to a weekend of shoveling and hosing by some volunteers swept up in a feel good moment.
> 
> Duckman




No Duckman – that’s not what I’m doing, as you well know.
Interesting to note that you pulled just one comment from my post, and focused your criticism on that. I mentioned a couple of other examples of people who have made it their life's work to help people, but you ignored those comments.

My point is that if someone is worthy of worship and adoration by millions of people worldwide, then you’d expect him or her to be really someone worth looking up to, someone who has done great service to humanity. 
I didn’t say the pope hasn’t done anything, I simply wondered if Catholics who worship and admire him have ever questioned whether he’s ever done anything that truly justifies that level of worship and admiration. 
In other words, what exactly do they see in him that justifies the completely ‘over the top’, fawning attitude that the pope evokes in millions of people who don’t know him from a bar of soap, and had never even heard of him before he became pope?

I note that you haven’t addressed the question I posed, preferring instead to criticize me for asking it.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> I can understand people looking on at this process in bewilderment. However, in a world that is increasingly superficial and shallow, what is wrong with maintaining time-honoured and established traditions?



Yes, the word is increasingly superficial and shallow.
The pomp and ceremony, the silly costumes, the ridiculous rituals of the Catholic church are also superficial and shallow.



Duckman#72 said:


> As far as Bunyips comments are concerned, I think it is quite clear what he meant - he asked if "he had ever done anything truely worthwhile for his fellow human beings?". He then went on to suggest that the contribution made by volunteers cleaning up after the floods are more worthy than what the Pope has ever achieved.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Duckman



Bull***** – I simply gave some hands on examples of people helping their fellow human beings, and wondered if the pope has ever done any of that sort of thing.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2013)

Duckman and Tink

Since you two seem so keen to champion the pope and the catholic church in general, I have a couple of questions for you that you may or may not wish to give me your views on.

Why does the catholic church persist in electing frail, elderly men as pope?

Do you think, as I do, that a younger man with more modern ideas, who’s healthy and vital and progressive, would be better suited to the job?

The new pope is 76 years old, (and an old looking 76 at that), and has only one lung. You’d have to question whether someone who’s pushing 80 can withstand the rigors of the job, the pressure, the international travel, the responsibility of decision-making, or even if he has the clarity of mind to handle it. 
When they elected the last pope he already looked like he had one foot in the big happy hunting ground. And within a few years he was too frail and sick for the job.
The one before him was so frail and sick that it was almost painful to watch the poor old bloke on TV having to be propped up by his colleagues so he didn’t collapse while making a public address.

Surely a man in his late fifties or early sixties would bring a more suitable mix of physical vitality and progressive thinking to the job, without deserting the core values of the church?
I’d be interested in your thoughts if you’re willing to give them.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Hello Duckman, it's not for me to interpret Bunyip's meaning, but I didn't take it as a simple comparison between the life's work of the new pope and a single collective action to help a community in a time of great need.
> 
> I'd have thought, and Bunyip you might like to clarify this, he was more thinking about actual 'hands on' giving to his community on an ongoing basis, as distinct from existing in the rarified atmosphere of the upper echelon of the Catholic church.




Thank you Julia - you've summed it up well.



Julia said:


> Apparently Pope Francis  has caught the bus a few times and has cooked his own food.  I'm not sure how that renders him of service to his flock.




Neither can I. But the media, caught up in the ridiculous frenzy of this papal election, seem to think it's pretty special that someone catches a bus and cooks himself a meal once in a while. 



Julia said:


> But then, my musings are bound to be tainted by my distaste for religion, and especially all the pomp, pageantry and ceremony of the extremely wealthy Catholic church which seems to maintain their outdated traditions whilst closing their eyes to the hideous abuse of children by so many of their members.




Exactly - the pomp and ceremony, the outdated rituals and customs, the silly costumes - these things are obviously more important to the hierarchy of the catholic church than stamping out the sexual abuse of innocent children by priests.
I seriously think that the catholic church would lose its followers by the hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, and may eventually fold up, if they were to get rid of the pomp and ceremony and outdated rituals and silly costumes.
The same can probably be said of a number of other religions. But it’s the catholic religion above all others that has so much of the ceremony, rituals, costumes etc.


----------



## McLovin (15 March 2013)

bunyip said:


> Do you think, as I do, that a younger man with more modern ideas, who’s healthy and vital and progressive, would be better suited to the job?




Isn't what you describe anathema to the Church? Just look at the way they have behaved about the sexual abuse that they allowed to fester inside their institution, and some of the lunatic statements they have made regarding the use of condoms in Africa, to mention a couple. One day, they'll be dragged into the 19th century, but progressivism has no place in the RCC.


----------



## Julia (15 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> The Catholic Church will never win. It is interesting to note that even on this forum there are people that are more than happy to ask for and accept the prayers of others in times of despair and trouble, only to scoff and sneer at those same beliefs when the storm has passed.



 I cannot actually think of any ASF member who eschews religion and then asks people to pray for him/her, myself very much included.    Bellenuit puts it well below.

My best friend died last week after a short but dreadful illness.  I went to her funeral yesterday.  It was a simple testimony to how much we would miss her and our memories of the role she had played in our lives.  No b/s about her now being in a better place etc or other banal utterings so beloved of the believers.  No priests or ministers with their mumbo jumbo.

As far as your belief that 'the Catholic church will never win', no I don't suppose it will, as long as it refuses to adequately address its hideous assaults against so many children, whilst carrying on with virtually deifying some old man as being infallible.




bellenuit said:


> Examples? I sort of know the religious beliefs of some of the frequent contributors to ASF and don't recall any who deny religious beliefs and at the same time ask for prayers to comfort them in times of despair.
> 
> Personally, as an atheist, I am happy to accept the prayers of those who believe, but this is not hypocrisy on my behalf. I look beyond their belief in prayer and see their good intentions of wishing me well. On my frequent trips to Thailand, I often gladly accept the blessings of Buddhist monks, but whereas I do not hold in any regard the religious underpinnings of those blessings, I do appreciate the intent behind them.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2013)

McLovin said:


> Isn't what you describe anathema to the Church? Just look at the way they have behaved about the sexual abuse that they allowed to fester inside their institution, and some of the lunatic statements they have made regarding the use of condoms in Africa, to mention a couple. One day, they'll be dragged into the 19th century, but progressivism has no place in the RCC.




I think you've summed it up pretty well......the last thing they want is to put a younger man in charge, someone with progressive ideas and clear thinking who will drag them kicking and screaming into the modern age.
The ancient customs and queer rituals are what keeps many of those priests in a job. Without all the pomp and ceremony and rituals, many of them would no longer be needed.

As an example of the outdated rituals and customs of the catholic church, I cite the example of priests at funerals when they walk around the coffin, dressed in a silly costume of course, and mumble some words as they swing a little container back and forth while it exudes smoke.

This is akin to what I’ve seen African witchdoctors do......they adorn themselves with clay and feathers and other regalia to make themselves look important, and mumble words as they prance around a fire and wave a smoking stick in the air to signify something or other, I don’t know what, probably to ward off imaginary evil spirits or something.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> As far as your belief that 'the Catholic church will never win', no I don't suppose it will, as long as it refuses to adequately address its hideous assaults against so many children, whilst carrying on with virtually deifying some old man as being infallible.




It’s interesting to observe this deifying of the pope by the Catholic church.
Particularly when you consider what the Bible quotes as God’s warning about worshipping other gods apart from himself.

Now, it’s a heck of a long time since my mother rammed religion down my throat and forced me to go to Bible study. So my memory is a little haze here, but I’m pretty sure I recall that God’s word was supposedly along the lines of..... ‘*You shall worship no god but me’.* (or words to that effect).

And I do hope that nobody is going to come on here and claim that the pope is not being worshipped as a god-like figure........of course he is.


----------



## DB008 (15 March 2013)

Religion is crazy? Do people go bonkers? Probably...

*Islamist plot to assassinate far-right German politician foiled*



> Cologne - Police in Germany have foiled an assassination plot by Islamic extremists to kill Markus Beisicht, leader of the far-right Pro NRW party.
> Markus Beisicht's anti-Islamic political stance landed him on a fatwa with unknown enemies determined to murder him. As Digital Journal reported last May a German Islamist urged fellow Salafists to collect personal details of Pro NRW members for the purpose of attacking them, an act the Interior Minister took seriously.
> According to the Local four members of a radical Salafist group were arrested on Wednesday before their plot came to fruition. Explosives and weapons were found with the intended assassins.




http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345653#ixzz2Nagw3HIJ


----------



## pixel (15 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> Religion is crazy? Do people go bonkers? Probably...
> 
> *Islamist plot to assassinate far-right German politician foiled*
> 
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345653#ixzz2Nagw3HIJ




While I don't feel particularly drawn in sympathy to any right-wing German group - too many bad precedents  - I find it even more repulsive to try and settle the score by assassination. "Even if the intended victim is an ass, the assassin adds just another ass in."

Puns aside, I've always seen Salafists, Taliban, and similar nut jobs as right-wing extremists. Hence I consider the term Islamofascists an apt description for them. Their monomania differs in no way from the madness of any of the nationalist Leaders, Duces, Fuehrers of years past... or from the presumption of infallibility of one geriatric figurehead voted into the job by a group of similar self-important geriatrics...
But I guess that goes with the job: If you want to maintain power over your subjects, it's a good idea to dazzle them with the presumption of being ordained from highest authority, no discussion will be entered into.


----------



## explod (15 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> Religion is crazy? Do people go bonkers? Probably...
> 
> *Islamist plot to assassinate far-right German politician foiled*
> 
> ...




There is logic and psycho*logic*  there is cha*otic* and pshych*otic*

Facts or Beliefs


----------



## pixel (15 March 2013)

meanwhile, on a lighter side:





more at http://www.oddee.com/item_98520.aspx


----------



## Ves (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> I'd have thought, and Bunyip you might like to clarify this, he was more thinking about actual 'hands on' giving to his community on an ongoing basis, as distinct from existing in the rarified atmosphere of the upper echelon of the Catholic church.  Apparently Pope Francis  has caught the bus a few times and has cooked his own food.  I'm not sure how that renders him of service to his flock.



Two things to keep in mind:

(Pope) Benedict XVI is 85 years old.   I don't know what you mean by 'hands on', but your example of him helping to something as similar as the floods, is a bit rich.   How many 85 years old do you know out there shovelling? The chance of someone his age experiencing a stroke from strenuous labour is a serious threat.

The second is his safety.   He's a well known figure, in a world that has become increasingly hostile (terrorism) and unsafe for someone of his stature.  Can you imagine the poor old guy getting assassinated when he is out and about trying to be 'hands on'?

I know you guys like being idealistic about some of these things, but sometimes reality is a preventative factor all on its own.


----------



## Julia (15 March 2013)

explod said:


> There is logic and psycho*logic*  there is cha*otic* and pshych*otic*
> 
> Facts or Beliefs



Um, explod, what is 'psychologic'?  I cannot find such a word.
And perhaps you could explain "there is chaotic and psychotic", assuming your post has some underlying meaning?



Ves said:


> Two things to keep in mind:
> 
> (Pope) Benedict XVI is 85 years old.   I don't know what you mean by 'hands on', but your example of him helping to something as similar as the floods, is a bit rich.   How many 85 years old do you know out there shovelling? The chance of someone his age experiencing a stroke from strenuous labour is a serious threat.



Oh, for heaven's sake, vesupria!   Firstly, we were not talking about Benedict, but about Pope Francis.
Secondly, no one literally expects him to get out and shovel mud.  Even you cannot seriously have imagined either Bunyip or I had such a literal thought.

Rather I was looking for someone to tell me what great work Pope Francis has done thus far, e.g. setting up organisations to help the poor and disadvantaged, regardless of their religious affiliations, objecting to the previous papal directive that condoms should not be used, despite the clear proof that such use significantly diminishes the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, political stands against wars, furthering of nuclear armaments etc, years of determining to stamp out the hideous sexual abuse of the church's priests instead of covering it up.
 The list is potentially endless.
Cooking his own cheese on toast and catching the occasional bus doesn't really cut it.




> The second is his safety.   He's a well known figure, in a world that has become increasingly hostile (terrorism) and unsafe for someone of his stature.  Can you imagine the poor old guy getting assassinated when he is out and about trying to be 'hands on'?



In the bulletproof popemobile???  I cannot think of any other world figure more shrouded in security.
None of my few suggestions above require him to physically put himself at risk.



> I know you guys like being idealistic about some of these things, but sometimes reality is a preventative factor all on its own.



Probably yes, such suggestions are idealistic, given the determination of the Catholic Church to wallow in its own wealth and the vulnerability of its disciples.


----------



## Ves (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> None of my few suggestions above require him to physically put himself at risk.




Forget I posted anything - but you should have made these a lot earlier in the thread.  _Did I miss them by any chance?_ Hence my misinterpretation when people were talking about shovelling mud after the floods and other *hands on* activities.   We obviously have a different interpretation of the word. Or you're right with your implication that I can't read.

Most of the modern Popes have been in their 70s, so my post would stand for any of them, I believe. But it's irrelevant.

As far as I understand Francis has been a pretty big advocate of human rights and similar activism in Brazil.  I honestly don't know why you guys are criticising him that area.


----------



## burglar (15 March 2013)

Julia said:


> ... In the bulletproof popemobile???  ...




The popemobile is bullet resistant. 
You could shoot into it but would need a large calibre weapon.

Glass on the outside laminated to absorber on the inside.
Apparently one way. 
So the Pope can shoot you from inside!

I watched one episode of QI with Stephen Fry 
and now I am an expert on everything!

*Bow*


----------



## Tink (16 March 2013)

bunyip said:


> Duckman and Tink
> 
> Since you two seem so keen to champion the pope and the catholic church in general, I have a couple of questions for you that you may or may not wish to give me your views on.
> 
> ...



Bunyip, to your question, with age comes wisdom, and its a process that they must go through before they can become a Pope. Age isnt important to me.
I want the Church to stand strong with what is right and wrong and what they believe in.
Yes they have the tarnish of the abuse which they are dealing with, as with anything with humans. Corruption and abuse has been pouring out off all institutions, not just the Catholic Church - humans are the problem and needs to be dealt with in all.
As Duckman said, the Catholic Church cant win, no matter what they did, but for me, their teachings are important. The ten commandments stand steadfast and strong, and have survived through the years.

Interesting reading all these people shunning religion, without it, has it become a better place? 
Drugs and alcohol to take them where?.
Clogging up our mental health...

I am strong in my thoughts and my beliefs and I dont change with the feel good factor for the day and I expect the Church to do the same. Traditions are important to me and I want them to stand strong with these things and through the generations for our children and childrens children.
As for the pomp etc that is mentioned in this thread, it hasnt changed through the years, they have stayed that way and dressed that way for years. 
Its their tradition and the way they have always been -- I like that.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15678&page=13

My opinion


----------



## bunyip (16 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Bunyip, to your question, with age comes wisdom, and its a process that they must go through before they can become a Pope. Age isnt important to me.
> I want the Church to stand strong with what is right and wrong and what they believe in.
> Yes they have the tarnish of the abuse which they are dealing with, as with anything with humans. Corruption and abuse has been pouring out off all institutions, not just the Catholic Church - humans are the problem and needs to be dealt with in all.
> As Duckman said, the Catholic Church cant win, no matter what they did, but for me, their teachings are important. The ten commandments stand steadfast and strong, and have survived through the years.
> ...



Thank you Tink, for your reply.
It’s interesting that you cite ‘the wisdom of age’ as a reason for the choice of an old man as pope.

I do have to wonder just how much wisdom any of these popes really have, though, or more specifically, how much of that wisdom is evident in the decisions they make about Catholic policy.  Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying they have no wisdom at all, of course they do. Anyone living into their seventies and eighties can reasonably be expected to have gained considerable wisdom across a broad range of issues.

Yet it’s not hard to find examples of Catholic policy that are just plain silly and completely lacking in wisdom or common sense.
Example....their stance against condoms or any other forms of manufactured contraception, even in third world countries where over-population is causing immense hardship and poverty.
Another example....banning marriage for priests. It’s a no brainer that it’s completely abnormal for a person to take a vow of celibacy for their entire lives. It’s just plain ridiculous to expect any normal person, male or female, to shut themselves off from the most basic and necessary of human instincts. No wonder the priesthood has so many depraved queers who exploit children as an outlet for their sexual frustrations.
I very much doubt if the pope or anyone else could come up with a sensible reason why married priests would be any detriment to the Catholic church.

Anyway Tink, I thank you again for your reply – I appreciate you sharing your views even if I don’t agree with some of them. 
Incidentally, despite my criticism of the Catholic church, I’m happy to acknowledge the good work they do in many areas. They put considerable effort and money into a number of charities, and in general, like most Christian churches, are more than willing to help their fellow humans. 
Just over two years ago my area was in the thick of the floods that devastated parts of Queensland. When I was helping out at the flood refuge center in our village, feeding people, handing out clothes and bedding, mopping the floor etc. etc., there was a Catholic priest there who was counseling people, not just Catholics, who had been affected by the flood. I was impressed that he was also doing his share of the physical work, mopping the floor, feeding people etc. just like the rest of us were doing.


----------



## Julia (16 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Bunyip, to your question, with age comes wisdom, and its a process that they must go through before they can become a Pope.



Tink, there is perhaps a tipping point in the ageing process where wisdom acquired peaks and the degeneration of the brain can set in.  I'd have thought someone of around 55 - 60 would still be sharp of thought, possessed of considerable wisdom if such has been sought, but not approaching senility.


> I want the Church to stand strong with what is right and wrong



But don't you see that this is so much of the problem with the way the church is viewed as abuse after abuse can no longer be concealed when victims speak up, after being terrified into silence for so many years?
The church has been a massive perpetrator of one of the most hideous crimes against thousands of children, many of whose entire lives have been affected as a result.



> and what they believe in.



Even when they believe in complete nonsense, such as banning condoms in Africa (or anywhere else) when the promotion of same could save so many lives and prevent so much misery via avoiding the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases?



> Yes they have the tarnish of the abuse which they are dealing with, as with anything with humans. Corruption and abuse has been pouring out off all institutions, not just the Catholic Church - humans are the problem and needs to be dealt with in all.



You don't think the unnatural imposition of a life of celibacy, suppressing one of life's most fundamental instincts, has anything to do with the abuse of vulnerable children who were defenceless against such breach of trust?



> The ten commandments stand steadfast and strong, and have survived through the years.



Millions of people follow the basic tenets of the Ten Commandments, which after all are just a set of rules designed to make society functional - not stealing, murdering etc etc.  Not necessarily anything at all to do with religion.  I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that people who do not embrace religion are impaired in their capacity to make decent moral decisions?



> Interesting reading all these people shunning religion, without it, has it become a better place?
> Drugs and alcohol to take them where?.
> Clogging up our mental health...



You are implying that, without religion, human beings will have a greater predilection toward the use of mind altering substances and mental disorders.   If you could find a single piece of research to back that up I'd be amazed.



> I am strong in my thoughts and my beliefs and I dont change with the feel good factor for the day and I expect the Church to do the same. Traditions are important to me and I want them to stand strong with these things and through the generations for our children and childrens children.
> As for the pomp etc that is mentioned in this thread, it hasnt changed through the years, they have stayed that way and dressed that way for years.
> Its their tradition and the way they have always been -- I like that.



If religion is a comfort in your life, Tink, as I know it is in the lives of many, I get that absolutely.  And I agree there can be something nice about some traditions.  People who  have been indoctrinated into religion all their lives will always find it possible to justify what others of us see as indefensible.

I'm not at all having a personal go at you, Tink.  You put your views up without aggression or attack on other people and that's appreciated.


----------



## Tink (16 March 2013)

You are welcome bunyip and thanks for sharing your story 
Julia, the government and many others have been massive perpetrators too regarding children, I am still waiting........
I have written my view on many occasions and I stand by what I wrote 
Our views are different


----------



## Duckman#72 (16 March 2013)

bunyip said:


> No Duckman – that’s not what I’m doing, as you well know.
> Interesting to note that you pulled just one comment from my post, and focused your criticism on that. I mentioned a couple of other examples of people who have made it their life's work to help people, but you ignored those comments.




Hi bunyip 

I made no comment about Mother Teresa or Fred Hollows as I took no issue with them. Both fine examples of people helping humanity greatly. I only took exception to comparing the contribution to humanity made by the 20 thousand flood volunteers to that of the Pope. I thought it was disingenuous at best and mocking at worst to suggest that a Priest from Argentina, who is renowned for his work for the poor, had not provided similar support to his community when faced with adversity.

I agree with the comments made by yourself and Julia regarding the age of Pope. I think it does nothing for the image of the Church to see men appointed who are frail and failing. I too would like to see vibrant, progressive leadership. However the Pope is only the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. In my opinion, far too much importance is placed on his influence at grass roots level by those outside the Church. 

But at the end of the day, the Church is picking a spiritual leader for those Catholics. They are not looking for approval from those people whom believe religion to be antiquated, nonsensical, full of depraved individuals and notions. With all due respect, it wouldn't matter which Cardinal they appointed - I suspect it would not influence or alter the positions held by yourself and Julia. My intuition tells me it is not the person you have an issue with but rather the appointment of a Pope full stop.

I can understand people being apathetic to the Church. I can also understand people having atheistic viewpoints. What I can't understand is the openly disrespectful, intolerant and in some cases hostile attitudes shown towards the Catholic Church.

I am genuinely saddened that your overall experience with the Church has been so overwhelmingly negative. There are so many good people within the Church, just as there outside the Church. I have been in and around the Catholic Church for many decades including 5 years at a boys boarding school and I have never seen, heard or experienced anything that would pass for sexual impropriety. But I have seen plenty of good. As a quick example the Catholic brothers used to take students into town most weekends to help elderly townspeople with their gardening and odd jobs. Unfortunately this doesn't sell many newspapers.

I apologize if my comments offended. I rarely post about religion for fear of being labelled a "god bothering bible basher". 

Duckman


----------



## Julia (16 March 2013)

Ah, Duckman.  Back to the Duckman of old with a reasoned argument.
It's the characteristic I always associate with you - your devout Catholic affiliation standing alongside an understanding of how those not persuaded by religion will see the Church.

I expect  you're right when you suggest that those of us who are agnostic or atheistic will be less than understanding of the hysteria surrounding the appointment of a new Pope, regardless of who he might be.  All week on Radio National, listeners have been treated to breathless exchanges between Geraldine Doogue (in Rome) and Fran Kelly between the smoke signals.  Doogue describes the past week as 'the most exciting of her entire life'.

It's just the overt contrast between all this hooplah and the mental picture of thousands of terrified abused children that gets to me.

It does not, however, take away from the great work some lay catholics do for others.  St Vincent de Paul comes easily to mind.  They are not far behind the Salvos in genuine caring for the disadvantaged.

Thanks for clarifying your position.  I'm reassured.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Ah, Duckman.  Back to the Duckman of old with a reasoned argument.
> It's the characteristic I always associate with you - your devout Catholic affiliation standing alongside an understanding of how those not persuaded by religion will see the Church.
> 
> I expect  you're right when you suggest that those of us who are agnostic or atheistic will be less than understanding of the hysteria surrounding the appointment of a new Pope, regardless of who he might be.  All week on Radio National, listeners have been treated to breathless exchanges between Geraldine Doogue (in Rome) and Fran Kelly between the smoke signals.  Doogue describes the past week as 'the most exciting of her entire life'.
> ...




Hi Julia

As a  catholic in a small country town trying to raise the 4 ducklings the best way we can, Mrs Duckman and I are literally a world away from the throngs of celebrating devotees in Rome. The media attention given to this has been completely over the top. The crosses over to Mel on sunrise in particular have been cringe worthy. The media ask anyone they can get their hands on about the "type of Pope" he will be. I'll tell you for free - he'll be aged, he'll be conservative( even if he is progressive), he will be learned, and he will have failings. It is ironic that, to me,  it  almost seems to be the non-Catholics that are looking at him as if he should be some kind of messiah. The "what has he ever done" seems more important to non-Catholics.

Plenty has even made of his desire to cook for himself and take a bus to work. These are hardly newsworthy items. They certainly are not prerequisites to become a Pope, but neither should they be reasons to deride and disrespect. He is just a man when all said and done.

If I were a non-catholic the coverage would completely give me the @&$@s! However, that is not the fault of the church. That is just today's media cycle. 

I know the people in st peters square were almost weeping with joy, and like you and bunyip I question such devotion. Don't confuse these few (when compared to to whole of the catholic community) to grass roots, plain vanilla catholic parishioners. Nothing changed at our place

Julia, I know you called me devout, but I consider myself anything but. I am full of contradictions - I don 't like the pomp, but I am a stickler for traditions; I don't believe the Pope should be worshipped but fully believe and support him in his role a spiritual leader of the church; I fully believe in the values of the church as a moral compass but attend catholic church less than once a month:

Cheers
Duckman


----------



## burglar (17 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> ... attend catholic church less than once a month:
> 
> Cheers
> Duckman




If God is everywhere, why attend a church?


----------



## bellenuit (17 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> As a  catholic in a small country town trying to raise the 4 ducklings the best way we can, Mrs Duckman and I are literally a world away from the throngs of celebrating devotees in Rome. The media attention given to this has been completely over the top. The crosses over to Mel on sunrise in particular have been cringe worthy. The media ask anyone they can get their hands on about the "type of Pope" he will be. I'll tell you for free - he'll be aged, he'll be conservative( even if he is progressive), he will be learned, and he will have failings. It is ironic that, to me,  it  almost seems to be the non-Catholics that are looking at him as if he should be some kind of messiah. The "what has he ever done" seems more important to non-Catholics.
> 
> ...




I probably have a similar background to you and the opinion expressed in this post of yours resonates with how I felt before becoming an atheist. But the more and more I thought about it, the more it all seemed non-sensical.


----------



## Tink (17 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> ............
> But at the end of the day, the Church is picking a spiritual leader for those Catholics. They are not looking for approval from those people whom believe religion to be antiquated, nonsensical, full of depraved individuals and notions. With all due respect, it wouldn't matter which Cardinal they appointed - I suspect it would not influence or alter the positions held by yourself and Julia. My intuition tells me it is not the person you have an issue with but rather the appointment of a Pope full stop.
> 
> I can understand people being apathetic to the Church. I can also understand people having atheistic viewpoints. What I can't understand is the openly disrespectful, intolerant and in some cases hostile attitudes shown towards the Catholic Church.
> ...



Agree completely with this section of your post Duckman, well said.


----------



## DB008 (17 March 2013)

Hmm...



> *Britons afraid to challenge radical Islam, says former Obama adviser*
> 
> British people are too afraid to offend a "vocal and aggressive" section of the Muslim community who demand that their cultural values are accepted by wider society, according to a former adviser to Barack Obama.
> 
> ...


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 March 2013)

burglar said:


> If God is everywhere, why attend a church?




That has been used by me to justify many a week off burglar!  Perhaps the easiest way to explain is to repeat a phrase of the Mass....."it is right to give our thanks and praise".  

I appreciate the feedback Bellenuit, and tink, thanks for the comments.

Duckman


----------



## Julia (17 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> I It is ironic that, to me,  it  almost seems to be the non-Catholics that are looking at him as if he should be some kind of messiah. The "what has he ever done" seems more important to non-Catholics.



Well, I suppose we are wondering what it is that makes this particular cardinal stand out from the others.
Don't Catholics themselves need justification of his appointment?  If a country appoints a political leader, and the situation seems not dissimilar, we all have a pretty good idea of the achievements and characteristics that rendered the candidate so appealing to those who elected him/her.

Or perhaps the whole process is like the political factions and it's all about who is most able to lobby whom?

I don't think it's unreasonable that people question the whole process.



> Julia, I know you called me devout, but I consider myself anything but



I suppose to me anyone who goes to church is 'devout'.



> I fully believe in the values of the church as a moral compass



I raised this with Tink and she didn't respond.  Not sure whether you will feel more inclined to comment?
It seems to most of us onlookers that the church's 'moral compass' is significantly poorly aligned, given the appalling abuse of innocent children followed by the woeful hypocrisy of covering it up for so long.  It has only been forced into the open now because of the courage of some of the victims in coming forward.

So I do not get how the church is the arbiter of morals and get pretty irritated at the suggestion by many believers that those who do not follow a/the religion are as a result disposed to have a faulty grasp of moral and ethical behaviour.


----------



## explod (17 March 2013)

Julia said:


> So I do not get how the church is the arbiter of morals and get pretty irritated at the suggestion by many believers that those who do not follow a/the religion are as a result disposed to have a faulty grasp of moral and ethical behaviour.




Absolutely agree.  

Most western democratic legal systems have the higher ground in maintaining ethics.  The rod speaks louder than the word.

May well have had considerable influence in original structure but without looking at it such ethics between cooperative peoples will have had a history greater than the scriptures would be my guess.


----------



## DB008 (17 March 2013)

*US clergy victims make demands of new pope*



> LOS ANGELES (AP) ”” Most Roman Catholics are rejoicing at the election of Pope Francis, but alleged victims of clergy abuse in the U.S. are demanding swift and bold actions from the new Jesuit pontiff: Defrock all molester priests and the cardinals who covered up for them, formally apologize, and release all confidential church files.
> 
> Adding to their distrust are several multimillion dollar settlements the Jesuits paid out in recent years, including $166 million to more than 450 Native Alaskan and Native American abuse victims in 2011 for molestation at Jesuit-run schools across the Pacific Northwest. The settlement bankrupted the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus. The order also paid $14 million to settle nine California cases.
> 
> "I would like to see this pope stand up and say to those cardinals, 'You need to square this away and change everything that was covered up,' " said Ken Smolka, a 70-year-old retired actor who claimed in a lawsuit he was abused as a teen by a Jesuit priest. "You need to get them on their knees, and let them spend the rest of their lives on their knees praying for the victims."




http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-clergy-sex-victims-want-change-new-pope


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Well, I suppose we are wondering what it is that makes this particular cardinal stand out from the others.
> Don't Catholics themselves need justification of his appointment?  If a country appoints a political leader, and the situation seems not dissimilar, we all have a pretty good idea of the achievements and characteristics that rendered the candidate so appealing to those who elected him/her.
> 
> Or perhaps the whole process is like the political factions and it's all about who is most able to lobby whom?
> ...




Hi Julia

No I don't look for justification in this appointment. I see it as a very different process to an election of a political leader. Our political process involves a voting electorate (which I have a direct influence albeit small), it involves a political party that has a set agenda, and it involves individuals that, in some cases have spent substantial amounts of time in a life outside of politics. For these reasons, we spend considerable time getting to know the candidates. Not only that, but the policies between the parties can be extreme.

Now look at the appointment of the Pope. As I have expressed earlier, the difference between the candidates is marginal. All are quite elderly men, all have spent considerable time studying theology, all have spent their entire lives dedicated to the Church. Some are more moderate and some extremely conservative, however all follow the teachings of Christ. Are they infallible? No. Do more worthy candidates miss out? Most definitely (depending on your agenda). Generally speaking there is very little difference between the majority of the cardinals. Some will call me extremely gullible for  assuming that the appointed cardinal does not have a history of sordid sexual abuse or at least covering them up. I accept that. I could  make the same case back and say those that believe he would have a history of sordid sexual cover ups are extremely cynical. 

Generally speaking, the sexual monsters in the church are the rogue bastard priests who don't rise through the ranks. They don't want to anyway as they lose contact and access to grass roots parishioners (victims). Certainly the cardinals have had to work out the best way to address sexual abuse claims and many have come up very short.

The other point to make Julia is that local catholic parishioners do not have a say in the appointment of their local parish priest - let alone the appointment of the Pope  Am I interested? For sure. Am I looking for justification? No.

As for your other question about the moral compass, I'd be happy to answer later but I  have to go for now. It is a subject very close to me and one that I think we see very differently on. 

Cheers

Duckman


----------



## Julia (17 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> As for your other question about the moral compass, I'd be happy to answer later but I  have to go for now. It is a subject very close to me and one that I think we see very differently on.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Duckman



I look forward to that, Duckman.


----------



## bellenuit (18 March 2013)

Since it's St Patrick's Day.....


----------



## Sean K (20 March 2013)

There is only one way this is going to go at current pace.

Down the same lines as the UK and France, et al.

It needs to be controlled now.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...-muslim-enclaves/story-e6frf7kx-1226601928100


----------



## MrBurns (20 March 2013)

kennas said:


> There is only one way this is going to go at current pace.
> 
> Down the same lines as the UK and France, et al.
> 
> ...




They'll ignore that report of course


----------



## Sean K (20 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> They'll ignore that report of course



We can't afford for that to happen MrB. Our collective will of natural justice, democracy, human rights, freedom of expression, respect of individual belief, protection of children and equality, should hold us steady. The moment we introduce a new law subjecating a minority, or women, or children, is the day we have lost our soul as the Australian nation. I'm terribly concerned I will see something like it in my life time. 

(Disregard the fact we only gave Aboriginals the right to vote a few decades ago...)


----------



## Julia (23 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> As for your other question about the moral compass, I'd be happy to answer later but I  have to go for now. It is a subject very close to me and one that I think we see very differently on.
> 
> Duckman



Duckman, I'm disappointed that you haven't followed through with your promise to discuss how your personal moral compass is set by the church, given the very obvious misalignment of the church's own moral compass.


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Duckman, I'm disappointed that you haven't followed through with your promise to discuss how your personal moral compass is set by the church, given the very obvious misalignment of the church's own moral compass.




Sorry for the delay Julia.

In my opinion we all need values to live by. It just so happens that I chose to live by the values of the Church. Like it or not........at least these are set standards to live by. "Life expectations" if you like. Whether you agree with them is another issue but at least at a young age we are encouraged to live by a set of rules. All too often, and I've seen it within my own family, where the values of the Church are specifically shunned, no set values take their place. This is my concern. Don't automatically assume that another set of ethical values are there to take the place of Church values......sometimes it just means an individual devoid of values altogether.

Tech a wrote on another thread..."Humans need direction, order, compassion and authority".  Whether it is acknowledged or not, these are the values taught through the Church. I realize that there have been horrific atrocities committed by members of the Church, however I am pragmatic enough to realize that these were the doings and failings of sick, sadistic individuals. They were not the teachings of the Church. 

It is estimated that over 50% of sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by direct family or friends of the victim.  How sad that these victims don't get to experience the beautiful unconditional bonds formed within the majority of loving families. Imagine being abused by your own father/brother, yet we realize this isn't the norm......and we continue to look for strong, loving relationships in which to raise our families. Same could be said about scouts, or schools - evil predators abound in all forms of life, however I understand that it is much easier to distinguish between the individual and the organization when a Church is not involved.

There are many, many fine individuals who have "their own" values, however if you dig deeply I think you'll find that  the majority of the values they hold are the same position as those of the Church. 

Cheers 
Duckman


----------



## Julia (24 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> In my opinion we all need values to live by.



Agree.  I'm not sure, though, how much these values are formed by some extrinsic dictate like a church, how much by childhood modelling and guidance via parenting/education etc., and how much is just intrinsic, an instinctive understanding that - if we expect to live in a civilised society - then we have personal responsibility toward making it so.  A version of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' if you like.



> It just so happens that I chose to live by the values of the Church. Like it or not........at least these are set standards to live by. "Life expectations" if you like. Whether you agree with them is another issue but at least at a young age we are encouraged to live by a set of rules.



OK, but my point is that a set of rules (standards) apply across the whole of society, that's why we have laws and punishments for breaking them.  Similar 'rules' exist in all structures, ie sporting organisations, workplaces, volunteer  involvements.  So I'm not really understanding from your post where the set of values specifically offered by the catholic church (even if some of the representatives and hierarchy of that church don't live by such values themselves) is actually different from the given rules most of us make an essential structure of our lives.



> All too often, and I've seen it within my own family, where the values of the Church are specifically shunned, no set values take their place. This is my concern. Don't automatically assume that another set of ethical values are there to take the place of Church values......sometimes it just means an individual devoid of values altogether.



Yes, sometimes it does.  Human beings are not all alike.  We value order and morality to different extents.



> Tech a wrote on another thread..."Humans need direction, order, compassion and authority".



That's a reasonable comment but it didn't specifically refer to any particular institution having a monopoly on the understanding of such tenets.



> Whether it is acknowledged or not, these are the values taught through the Church.



Just as they are taught by many schools and by decent parents, regardless of any religious affiliations.


> I realize that there have been horrific atrocities committed by members of the Church, however I am pragmatic enough to realize that these were the doings and failings of sick, sadistic individuals. They were not the teachings of the Church.



It has been the Church which has covered up this hideous behaviour for decades and that's the subject of my cynicism and criticism.



> It is estimated that over 50% of sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by direct family or friends of the victim.  How sad that these victims don't get to experience the beautiful unconditional bonds formed within the majority of loving families.



Abuse by one family member does not wipe out the love and support from the rest of the family.


> Imagine being abused by your own father/brother,



I don't need to imagine it, Duckman.  It does not render the entire family abusive or invalid.
Offenders - when reported - are punished.  Their crimes are not covered up, permitting them to go on abusing others year after year.



> There are many, many fine individuals who have "their own" values, however if you dig deeply I think you'll find that  the majority of the values they hold are the same position as those of the Church.



Which is pretty much what I'm saying above.  i.e. that one does not need a religious belief to hold decent moral and ethical values, and further, that the Church has been hugely hypocritical in preaching all things good and decent while perpetuating horrible abuse on innocent children.

I'm not arguing with your enjoyment of your religion, Duckman.  If it contributes to your sense of OK-ness and offers a moral framework for you, then that's fine.  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the organisation and questioning how ordinary catholics can retain their faith in the church in such circumstances.


----------



## Ruby (24 March 2013)

Duckman, you have fallen into the same illogical rehetoric employed by everyone who defends the behaviour of the church.




Duckman#72 said:


> In my opinion we all need values to live by. It just so happens that I chose to live by the *values of the Church*. Like it or not........at least these are set standards to live by.
> 
> This is my concern. Don't automatically assume that another set of ethical values are there to take the place of *Church values.*.....sometimes it just means an individual devoid of values altogether.
> 
> Tech a wrote on another thread..."Humans need direction, order, compassion and authority".  Whether it is acknowledged or not, these are the *values taught through the Church*.




These "values of the church" are the same values and moral code that all decent people live by.  They existed long before the christian religion and the church were invented.  They did not originate with the church, nor are they "owned" by the church.  I am tired of hearing about "church values" and "christian values" as though it is necessary to belong to church in order to have a good set of "values" and a moral code to live by.   Do you suggest that the moral values taught to you by your church are in any way better or diffent than the moral code of atheist - simply because he is an atheist?   That is not logical.



> I realize that there have been horrific atrocities committed by members of the Church, however I am pragmatic enough to realize that these were the doings and failings of sick, sadistic individuals. They were not the teachings of the Church.




As Julia said in her excellent post, it is the fact that the church has covered up, denied, protected these atrocities, and knowingly allowed them to continue unabated that makes us so angry and disgusted.  This is something you don't address, and not does Tink, who made similar comments a few days ago.  I am afraid you are in denial too.


> It is estimated that over 50% of sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by direct family or friends of the victim. .......
> 
> *Same could be said about scouts, or schools *- *evil predators abound in all forms of life*, however I understand that it is much easier to distinguish between the individual and the organization when a Church is not involved......




This is another red herring thrown in (also used by Tink a few days ago).  Does the fact that these atrocities are carried out by people outside the church somehow make the church less guilty? I think not.  Do you think that it is somehow a mitigating factor?  I think not.   What other people do outside the church is not relevant to the argument, which is that the catholic church is guilty of a most henious crime for which there is absolutely no defence, and as Julia said, has lost its moral compass.

(My bolds)


----------



## Duckman#72 (24 March 2013)

Ruby said:


> it is the fact that the church has covered up, denied, protected these atrocities, and knowingly allowed them to continue unabated that makes us so angry and disgusted.  This is something you don't address, and not does Tink, who made similar comments a few days ago.  I am afraid you are in denial too.




Hello Ruby and Julia,

At the end of the day, I think this sums up your position.  It is not about church values but more about the lack of moral response from the church regarding sexual attrocities and how this reconciles with their principles. 

I have never suggested that "good values" are the sole domain of the church alone. I agree that a moral code of an atheist may well be exactly the same "in principle" as that of a church going Catholic. I just want people to have an ethical set of moral codes.  In my opinion as more and more people shun religion, we are expecting moral values of "decent people" to automatically take its place. I just don't see that happening. My argument is that installing church values at least guarantees an ethical set of values is instilled in kids. 

Ruby, you call my arguments illogical. I could say the same to you and Julia. You need to separate the Church and its teachings and values. It was not the Church's values and teachings that molested kids and covered them up for decades/centuries. As much as you love saying "the church" it was ultimately the act of individuals. How can you say i'm living in denial? I agree it happened, I agree it was appalling but if i went around denouncing anybody or any organization that had wronged me or wronged somebody, I would be living in a bubble. As I have said many many times before, I have only ever had positive experiences with my dealings with the Church. What do you want me to do? 

Duckman


----------



## Tink (24 March 2013)

Excellent post Duckman
The Royal Commission is dealing with this and many others...

The good people of the Church are still doing what they have always done and what I have seen
They shouldnt be penalised when they have done nothing wrong.


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> In my opinion as more and more people shun religion, we are expecting moral values of "decent people" to automatically take its place. I just don't see that happening.




I'm sure your intent was not to cause offense, but I find these sort of statements rather insulting, especially given the "moral values" of many members of the clergy. It would seem having a moral compass has little to do with religion and everything to do with nature and nurture.



Duckman#72 said:


> It was not the Church's values and teachings that molested kids and covered them up for decades/centuries. As much as you love saying "the church" it was ultimately the act of individuals.






Duckman#72 said:


> As I have said many many times before, I have only ever had positive experiences with my dealings with the Church. What do you want me to do?




The RCC actively aided paedophile priests by shuffling them around and not alerting police authorities. I think it's absolutely correct to refer to it as "the Church". It was institutionalised criminality.

It's an interesting observation that you disagree with negative experiences being attributed to "the Church" but describe positive dealings with "the Church". Perhaps your positive experiences have ultimately been the act of indivuals, the causation of which has little to do with religion.

There's nothing particularly unique about what Christianity "teaches". That it tries to claim certain traits of human behaviour as being "Christian" is no different to when a politician gets on TV and describes "mateship" as uniquely Australian.


----------



## Tink (25 March 2013)

I agree with Duckman. 
So, is it a better place without religion?
Drugs, alcohol, violence, to name a few 

Well I will go back to my post and say, *I expect the Catholic Church to stand strong in whats right and wrong and what they believe in.... *


----------



## McLovin (25 March 2013)

Tink said:


> I agree with Duckman.
> So, is it a better place without religion?
> Drugs, alcohol, violence, to name a few




America is the most religious developed country in the world. It also has the highest homicide rate of any developed country and the highest drug related death rate. In fact the homicide rate is actually highest in states that form the US Bible Belt, not to mention the racial discrimination and de-facto segregation that still operates in many of these communities. 

It's mighty naive to assume that religion is some sort of panacea for the worst of human behaviour. The last 2000 years is evidence of that.


----------



## Tink (25 March 2013)

Wouldnt have anything to do with guns now would it?
Does the Church agree with that -- NO!
We are talking about the values of the Church, and how much it has changed without it -- marraige, children, families, the list goes on.
I expect them to stand their ground to do with all these decisions.

Where is the moral code in society now?


----------



## McLovin (25 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Wouldnt have anything to do with guns now would it?
> Does the Church agree with that -- NO!




Shock horror, people commit actions that the Church say are bad. Quite a head in the sand statement, considering the number of criminal clergy. 



Tink said:


> We are talking about the values of the Church, and how much it has changed without it -- marraige, children, families, the list goes on.
> I expect them to stand their ground to do with all these decisions.




And as they stand their ground on things like contraception in Africa, I expect them to continue to shrink into irrelevancy. Which can't come soon enough, IMO.

I have no doubt that in 100 year's time, the Church's position on many social issues today will seem as ridiculous as when the Church found Galileo to be a heretic for his theory of heliocentricity.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2013)

McLovin said:


> And as they stand their ground on things like contraception in Africa, I expect them to continue to shrink into irrelevancy. Which can't come soon enough, IMO.
> 
> I have no doubt that in 100 year's time, the Church's position on many social issues today will seem as ridiculous as when the Church found Galileo to be a heretic for his theory of heliocentricity.



+1.  
Tink, you seem to be completely ignoring the criminality of the Church in its systematic and prolonged covering up of the appalling abuse of children over decades.  Dreadful enough that priests, in their position of trust, engqaged in such behaviour in the first place, but that the Church then moved these people to another area to allow them to actively continue their aberrant ways, just says everything about the 'values' of the Catholic Church to me and many others.

How you can align that with the values of the Church being a code to live by is simply beyond me.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 March 2013)

Maybe a little off topic but one thing I would add is - never judge a system by its abuse. Whether it be religious, philosophical, trading approach. 

Someone claiming to act in the name of Christ but acting contrary to his teachings doesn't discredit him but the person acting in his name.
In the same way that if you developed a great trading methodology and someone says they use it but really the don't and they make losses. That discredits them and not you.

No one is perfect and we must acknowledge that, but continued, deliberate and systematic abuse from any church or organization discredits them. In this regard some churches more closely represent Christ than others.

(Who Christ actually was and what the evidence points to is a completely different topic altogether).


----------



## McLovin (25 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Someone claiming to act in the name of Christ but acting contrary to his teachings doesn't discredit him but the person acting in his name.




I don't actually think that is in dispute. The main point Julia, myself and a few others are making is that even if someone is taught "Christian values" that doesn't necessarily make them a better human-being than if they weren't. Nature and nurture shapes a person's values, morals and sense of what is right and wrong far more than religion does, IMO.


----------



## DB008 (25 March 2013)

*‘Quarantine her!’ Top Tunisian Islamist says topless girl needs stoning
*



> A Tunisian Salafi preacher has called for a 19-year old girl who posted her topless pictures on Facebook to be “quarantined” and stoned to death before she starts “an epidemic.”
> 
> Tunisian newspaper AssabahNews quoted Salafi preacher Alami Adel, who heads the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, saying: “According to God’s law, she deserves 80 to 100 lashes, but what she committed is worth much more than that. She deserves to be stoned to death and she must be quarantined because what she did is an epidemic.”
> 
> “She is like someone suffering from a serious and contagious illness and she must be secluded and treated,” he added.




http://english.alarabiya.net/en/2013/03/23/-Quarantine-her-Top-Tunisian-Islamist-says-topless-girl-needs-stoning.html


----------



## FxTrader (25 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> I have never suggested that "good values" are the sole domain of the church alone. I agree that a moral code of an atheist may well be exactly the same "in principle" as that of a church going Catholic. I just want people to have an ethical set of moral codes.  In my opinion as more and more people shun religion, we are expecting moral values of "decent people" to automatically take its place. I just don't see that happening. My argument is that installing church values at least guarantees an ethical set of values is instilled in kids.




And so goes the insidious argument for the religious indoctrination of children.  Instill religious mythology in the mind of a child and hopefully they will live moral and ethical lives and, cross your fingers, we will have a better society as a result (the end justifies the means).  As if bronze age magic books are the best guide available to us today for morality and decency in modern society.  Never mind the rest of putrid baggage that goes with religion, the moral code justifies the teaching of the whole canon of man-made magic books as infallible truth written (via inspiration) by an invisible loving sky God.

A.C. Grayling points out the danger  _"the justifications offered by religious people for their beliefs very often turn out to be post facto rationalisations for something that in its deepest depths is non-rational – something emotional, traditional, its roots almost always in the experiences of childhood when trusted adults instilled a religion-involving, and often an explicitly religious, way of viewing the world."_

"_With regard to the good things attributed to religion – the consolation and inspiration it provides, which it provides even if it is false – the critics of religion have a view. It is that there are other and better sources of these valuable things, which have the additional merit of being far better grounded in reason and a more accurate understanding of the world – which is in short to say: are far closer to the truth."_

Finally... _"the argument against religion is an argument for the liberation of the human mind, and the possibility of at last formulating an ethical outlook that all humankind can share, thus providing a basis for a much more integrated and peaceful world."_

Exactly, programming the mind of a child with religious dogma thinking you are doing them and society a favor in the process is not just misguided, you're enslaving their mind not expanding it and society is not the better for it.  Instilling "church" values guarantees nothing in the future and this is also true about the mythology that underpins such indoctrination.


----------



## Ruby (25 March 2013)

Duckman#72 said:


> I just want people to have an ethical set of moral codes.  In my opinion as more and more people shun religion, we are expecting moral values of "decent people" to automatically take its place. I just don't see that happening. My argument is that installing church values at least guarantees an ethical set of values is instilled in kids.




Duckman, I want people to have a set of ethical values too, but why do you make the assumption that unless the church teaches them no-one else will?  I taught my children a set of values without the help of the church, and they are very fine people.  And once again you are calling them 'church values'!!!

Where are you looking?  I see moral values being instilled everywhere without the intervention of the church!

No, installing 'church values' does NOT guarantee anything.  what nonsense!   Many of society's low-lifes have been brought up as catholics.   Many high profile criminals are catholics. There is no evidence to back up what you say.  It is mere assumption.



Duckman#72 said:


> It was not the Church's values and teachings that molested kids and covered them up for decades/centuries. As much as you love saying "the church" it was ultimately the act of individuals. How can you say i'm living in denial? I agree it happened, I agree it was appalling but if i went around denouncing anybody or any organization that had wronged me or wronged somebody, I would be living in a bubble. As I have said many many times before, I have only ever had positive experiences with my dealings with the Church. What do you want me to do?




The church from the pope - the top man -down, has covered up and denied its criminal activities for centuries.  What I would like you to do - since you ask - is have the courage to stand up and be counted - denounce the hypocrisy.



Tink said:


> The good people of the Church are still doing what they have always done and what I have seen
> They shouldnt be penalised when they have done nothing wrong.




Tink - no-one has suggested otherwise.



Tink said:


> So, is it a better place without religion?
> Drugs, alcohol, violence, to name a few




Is the world a *worse *place without religion?   We have always had drugs, alcohol, violence, murder, theft, etc.   Read some history!  Society was more violent in England in the middle ages, or in Victorian times (to give two examples) than it is now.  And that is when everyone 'belonged' to the church.  



Tink said:


> Well I will go back to my post and say, *I expect the Catholic Church to stand strong in whats right and wrong and what they believe in.... *




That's great.......... except that the catholic church does not do that.  The proof is there. The church is two-faced - teaches one thing and does another.



Tink said:


> Wouldnt have anything to do with guns now would it?
> Does the Church agree with that -- NO!
> We are talking about the values of the Church, and how much it has changed without it -- marraige, children, families, the list goes on.
> I expect them to stand their ground to do with all these decisions.
> ...




Very confusing post Tink, but go back to what I said before.   You have no evidence to support what you say.


----------



## bellenuit (25 March 2013)

Interesting book. Should be worth a read when it comes out.....

*The Bonobo and the Atheist*

Frans de Waal's Bottom-Up Morality: We're Not Good Because Of God

I_n a book coming out next week called The Bonobo and the Atheist, primatologist Frans de Waal argues that morality is built into our species. Rather than coming to us top-down from God, or any other external source, morality for de Waal springs bottom-up from our emotions and our day-to-day social interactions, which themselves evolved from foundations in animal societies.

For 30 years, de Waal has authored books about apes and monkey that open our eyes to the bottom-up origins of our human behaviors, ranging from politics to empathy. In this, his 10th volume, he extends that perspective by writing, "It wasn't God who introduced us to morality; rather, it was the other way around. God was put into place to help us live the way we felt we ought to."_

more at link......

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/...ttom-up-morality-were-not-good-because-of-god

Check the comments at the end of the article.


----------



## Tink (25 March 2013)

Oh well, keep dreaming McLovin, The Church is here to stay, its been here for a long time and will stay for a long time. I noticed you didnt answer my last question about 'where is the moral code in society now?', but thats your choice.
We hear so much about the good old days and how the values were so much stronger then within the families...
What happened?
The Church I attend is always full,  and Pope Francis is expected to come to Australia in the near future. The Church charities are doing a wonderful job, not just here but worldwide as well, so dont wish away the good in the communities.

Julia, we have all acknowledged the abuse, but I dont believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater -- we disagree on this topic. 
I prefer the values of the Church, and I want them to stand up for what they believe in as being right and wrong.
The Church has always been about families, you may not agree with some of their teachings but for me, its important. 
Spiritual leaders are needed, the peacemakers, and they keep things balanced..

This is my view, we have choices and I am glad we do...


----------



## Julia (25 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Oh well, keep dreaming McLovin, The Church is here to stay, its been here for a long time and will stay for a long time. I noticed you didnt answer my last question about 'where is the moral code in society now?', but thats your choice.



Don't you actually read what McLovin, Ruby, I and others have written?  We have all addressed the question of the origin of a moral code in some detail.

I guess it's simply not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose adherence to indoctrinated dogma  outweighs the capacity for objective thinking.

Perhaps that's the key to religious affiliation?  Obedience to the indoctrinated beliefs simply replaces critical thought?


----------



## jersey10 (25 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Oh well, keep dreaming McLovin, The Church is here to stay, its been here for a long time and will stay for a long time....




I bet it doesn't.  The information age and globalisation means the end for religion.


----------



## McLovin (26 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Don't you actually read what McLovin, Ruby, I and others have written?  We have all addressed the question of the origin of a moral code in some detail.
> 
> I guess it's simply not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose adherence to indoctrinated dogma  outweighs the capacity for objective thinking.
> 
> Perhaps that's the key to religious affiliation?  Obedience to the indoctrinated beliefs simply replaces critical thought?




+1

Exactly. 

The pattern is fairly clear, as a population becomes more educated the less they need to rely on wizardry and magic to explain the workings of the Universe. Those who choose to believe will continue to do so. Thankfully, their influence will continue to wane. One day, children will be brought up in families that don't impose religious dogma on young, easily influenced minds.


----------



## Tink (26 March 2013)

No, they just go through drugs to get there, think of the children 

Magic and wizardry?
Its obvious none of you believe in God, but thats your business, but dont crush others.

Science has its own dogma..

My opinion...


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

Morality is an interesting thing to discuss. 

I have no doubt that there are many morally good atheists and many morally bad people who claim to be 'religious.' Not believing in God doesn't mean a person can't be moral. That is nonsense. 

I guess the question is 'what is morals?'. If you believe in a transcendent God (e.g. the Christian God for example), then you are able to believe that there are 'absolute' morals that exist that are over and above any opinions, society etc. You have a moral framework to operate within and if you are truly a 'believer' as you claim to be then you are to adhere to these (note not all religions are equally 'moral'). You won't always be successful but your motives 'should' be to uphold them. 

If you are an atheist then it is different. You are free to determine what morals you believe and what is right and what is wrong (it will vary from person to person). As many of the great atheist philosophers have concluded and expressed, there are no moral absolutes because there is nothing transcendent that can determine what is good and bad (if there is such thing) in absolute terms. We can have opinions as individuals, as society but that is as far as it goes. These can agree with religious morals or disagree. 
I don't believe that we can say society determines absolutes because if say, Hitler or someone similar indoctrinated a mass of people to believe that weeding out genetically inferior people is the highest good we can aspire to, this doesn't make that act morally good even if the whole world agrees. 

So anyone can be morally good, religious or not but the question is 'what morals are good?'. They will vary from person to person. It is all mere opinion without any sort of transcendent being who is'above and beyond' which determines their goodness. 
There may be an atheist like mother Teresa who is so morally upright that they gain the admiration and respect of the world. There may also be someone like Hitler who is adhering to his moral code equally well and believes he is equally good for ridding the world of genetically inferior people. Both are upholding their moral code. Society doesn't determine whether one is right or wrong because society could be composed of 100% people like Mother Teresa who agree with that moral code or 100% like Hitler who agree with his moral code. 

But I guess the short answer is that atheists can be as good morally, or even superior to religious people, even in regards to the majority of any religious code of morals.


----------



## dutchie (26 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Its obvious none of you believe in God, but thats your business, but dont crush others.




So its OK for religions to influence/crush non believers into believing but not vice versa?

Just asking.


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

dutchie said:


> So its OK for religions to influence/crush non believers into believing but not vice versa?
> 
> Just asking.




It's a good point. Like with trading, everyone should have reasons for their beliefs and evidence to support it.

Whether it's someone reading from a book behind a pulpit or someone reading from a book behind the teachers desk in the science class, we cannot accept the information just because someone tells us.

Unfortunately most people don't care and believe what they want to believe. We will never have objectivity.

Personally all I care about in any area of life is TRUTH. Most do not. Not to say I'm right about all areas of life but I will at least endeavor to weigh up the evidence as objectively as I can.


----------



## Ves (26 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Unfortunately most people don't care and believe what they want to believe. We will never have objectivity.



The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one.   Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible.  Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees. 

Should that stop anyone from pursuing truth of any description?   Probably not, because ultimately part of, or degrees of truth, is better than fatalism.  We all seek  (or ascribe) some sort of truth (or meaning) whether we consciously think about it or not.


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

Ves said:


> The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one.   Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible.  Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.
> 
> Should that stop anyone from pursuing truth of any description?   Probably not, because ultimately part of, or degrees of truth, is better than fatalism.  We all seek  (or ascribe) some sort of truth (or meaning) whether we consciously think about it or not.




Yeh that is true. 

I know it's impossible to be completely objective about some (all) things. Consistency is important to me. Adopting a standard and applying it consistently across ALL evidence.


----------



## explod (26 March 2013)

Ves said:


> The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one.   Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible.  Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.
> 
> Should that stop anyone from pursuing truth of any description?   Probably not, because ultimately part of, or degrees of truth, is better than fatalism.  We all seek  (or ascribe) some sort of truth (or meaning) whether we consciously think about it or not.




A good post.  

We have science, of which I subscribe, and we have beliefs.  As you aver, human nature will take its own individual path.  

There are those who find comfort in belief and we need to appreciate that whilst at the same time focus on revealing facts, truth and education to the young so that they may hopefully make the human road a better one than the mess we have so far. 

It does seem that the respective authourities are slow to curb the disgusting practices of some in the high offices of trust but as the facts are only now being clearly revealed, and acknowledged we might add, the change will now come and be accepted.  These changes will also bring about some readustments in bleiefs systems too in my view.

Also it seems that to pool those divergent ideals for a higher ethic we may agree the questions where the shades of grey meet should be of growing interest.

 Blasting each other serves only to narrow thoughts.


----------



## Julia (26 March 2013)

Tink said:


> No, they just go through drugs to get there,



This is the sort of silly and unsubstantiated remark that adds nothing useful to the debate.
What you are effectively suggesting is that unless we subscribe to the dogma of the Church we are destined to become pathetic slaves to drugs and other evils.  Utterly illogical.


> think of the children



Quite.  Something the Catholic Church has utterly failed to do in any positive sense.



Ves said:


> The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one.   Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible.  Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.



Sounds very esoteric, Ves.  Perhaps we don't really need to have Socratic like wisdom to conclude that an organisation, cloaked in wealth, pageantry and smoke signals for communication, which deliberately and systematically covers up the vile abuse of children by its members, is something less than a force for good.




explod said:


> There are those who find comfort in belief and we need to appreciate that whilst at the same time focus on revealing facts, truth and education to the young so that they may hopefully make the human road a better one than the mess we have so far.



Are we in fact in 'such a mess'?  From where I sit, human beings continue to make ongoing discoveries for the betterment of humanity, many of us are primarily motivated with kindness and generosity of spirit, whilst at the same time having minimal tolerance for hypocrisy.  

I know it's fashionable to engage in self flagellation, such being encouraged by a nanny state which encourages people to be 'offended' and to require apologies for any slight upset, but imo it's something that's misplaced.
Rather, let's encourage those who would have us think for ourselves, and take responsibility for our own actions, and to celebrate what is good and useful.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 March 2013)

Ves said:


> The subjectivity vs objectivity debate is an interesting one.   Unfortunately, it is a necessary part of existence that humans are finite beings. Therefore any ultimate objectivity is impossible.  Any objectivity that we experience will be through the filter of our finite existence, and only be seen in degrees.




The body is definitely finite.  But since I can observe my body, then I cannot be my body.  I can also observe my thoughts, so i can't be them either.  Anything I can observe and perceiev cannot be me/I.  So what in fact is the 'I' that says "i am this, I am that"?  That's the the "Self without object" or the 'I-I' as Ramana calls it.  Small 's' self is subject confused with object.  Big 's' Self is subject on its own, which is (apparently) the ultimate Truth..


----------



## Sean K (26 March 2013)

Thank you all for the quality discussion here. Been reading with great interest, and enjoying.


----------



## Ves (26 March 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The body is definitely finite.  But since I can observe my body, then I cannot be my body.  I can also observe my thoughts, so i can't be them either.  Anything I can observe and perceiev cannot be me/I.  So what in fact is the 'I' that says "i am this, I am that"?  That's the the "Self without object" or the 'I-I' as Ramana calls it.  Small 's' self is subject confused with object.  Big 's' Self is subject on its own, which is (apparently) the ultimate Truth..



The mind-body problem is pretty interesting.   A lot of that line of thought can be blamed / praised (depending on your view on it) on Descartes. His Cartesian dualism influenced much thought along this lines.  His "rationalism" even influenced scientific methods from what I have read.

I'm probably more with Aristotle on this issue though:



> For Aristotle (384–322 BC) mind is a faculty of the soul. Regarding the soul, he said:
> 
> “It is not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what is properly so spoken of is the actuality” (De Anima ii 1, 412b6–9)




To link back to explod's post the modern developments in neurosciences and other related fields cross-referenced against the great philosophers of the past are starting to show that there is a place for both scientic thought and metaphysical discover.

Perhaps one day we will have an in-depth scientific understanding (as opposed to an absolute truth) of consciousness.


----------



## Ves (26 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Sounds very esoteric, Ves.  Perhaps we don't really need to have Socratic like wisdom to conclude that an organisation, cloaked in wealth, pageantry and smoke signals for communication, which deliberately and systematically covers up the vile abuse of children by its members, is something less than a force for good.



Apologies to you Julia, but my post was not intended to provide argument for either side of the debate that you are participating in.    Personally I'm not interested in participating. 

Was my post Socratic or Platonic?   Probably not either.


----------



## noco (26 March 2013)

Tink said:


> No, they just go through drugs to get there, think of the children
> 
> Magic and wizardry?
> Its obvious none of you believe in God, but thats your business, but dont crush others.
> ...




Yes, think of the children who have been molested by Catholic preists over many years.

So much for religion.


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

noco said:


> Yes, think of the children who have been molested by Catholic preists over many years.
> 
> So much for religion.




If the doctrine encouraged molesting children I'd say 'so much for (that) religion' too. As it stands I'd be more inclined to say 'so much for those who claim to do good but do evil (rather than pointing to bad acts as evidence against all religion as if those are somehow part of the doctrine).

As an aside (probably little relevance), I do not support the teachings and traditions which form the Catholic Church. In fact I disagree considerably to varying degrees on different aspects of the church.


----------



## DB008 (26 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> *If the doctrine encouraged* molesting children I'd say 'so much for (that) religion' too. As it stands I'd be more inclined to say 'so much for those who claim to do good but do evil (rather than pointing to bad acts as evidence against all religion as if those are somehow part of the doctrine).
> 
> As an aside (probably little relevance), I do not support the teachings and traditions which form the Catholic Church. In fact I disagree considerably to varying degrees on different aspects of the church.




*If the doctrine encouraged...*

Well, that leaves you open to interpretation really, doesn't it?




> *Good Quran*
> 
> Don't confuse truth with falsehood or knowingly conceal the truth. 2:42
> 
> ...







> *Bad Quran*
> 
> Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruby (26 March 2013)

Tink said:


> The Church is here to stay, its been here for a long time and will stay for a long time.




I wouldn't be too sure of that Tink.  The church has maintained its supremacy through the centuries by contolling (through fear and threats) a largely ignorant and illiterate populace.  Look around you - now that people are educated and have learned to think for themselves, church attendances have dwindled dramatically, even in my lifetime, and continue to do so.   These are verifiable facts.



Tink said:


> I noticed you didnt answer my last question about 'where is the moral code in society now?', but thats your choice.
> We hear so much about the good old days and how the values were so much stronger then within the families...
> What happened?




No, but *I *answered your question.   The moral code in society is where it has always been.  As I said before, read some social history!

Oh yes............."the good old days"........... Come on, Tink - take off the rose coloured spectacles!!!!   "The good old days" exist only in peoples' memories!



Tink said:


> The Church has always been about families.............




No, the church has not always been about families - only if families obey its rules; rules made by an unmarried clergy!  It has a history of ripping families apart, and causing untold misery.


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

DB008 said:


> If the doctrine encouraged...
> 
> Well, that leaves you open to interpretation really, doesn't it?




The teachings of Mohammad are nothing that I aspire to. A religion of compulsion and not love.


----------



## Duckman#72 (26 March 2013)

Julia said:


> I guess it's simply not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose adherence to indoctrinated dogma  outweighs the capacity for objective thinking.
> 
> Perhaps that's the key to religious affiliation?  Obedience to the indoctrinated beliefs simply replaces critical thought?




With all due respect Julia, as John Howard might say ...........this post is dripping with hubris.  

I thought it was only we "Christians" that rode on high horses.

Duckman


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

Obedience to indoctrinated beliefs replacing critical thinking. Is that the same for evolution too? 

- genetic information is never increased only duplicated or decreased (natural selection is the opposite of macro evolution)
- irreducible complexity of the cell (which throws into strong doubt whether Darwin would still believe his theory - based on his own quote about of they discovered the complexity of the cell)
- no examples of life coming from non-life. Yet we assume it just can (no evidence)

Or are these critical points overlooked.


The same with the belief in a God.

Why do people in here believe in it? Blind faith? If not then what evidence? 

How about people on each side of the argument provide EVIDENCE rather than say the other side is indoctrinating people at the expense of critical logic. Pot, kettle, black.


----------



## Julia (26 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> How about people on each side of the argument provide EVIDENCE rather than say the other side is indoctrinating people at the expense of critical logic. Pot, kettle, black.



This has been covered at length earlier in this and other threads.
No one has proved either the existence or the non-existence of a god.
Imo agnosticism is the only position that makes sense.

What are you actually asking for evidence of?


----------



## pavilion103 (26 March 2013)

Julia said:


> This has been covered at length earlier in this and other threads.
> No one has proved either the existence or the non-existence of a god.
> Imo agnosticism is the only position that makes sense.
> 
> What are you actually asking for evidence of?




Yeh this isn't an issue that will get a consensus resolution 

I just don't like generalizations that either religious believers, say Christian, or atheists aren't being logical simply because they believe a certain position.

I may have misinterpreted your previous statement (if it was in a specific context) because I only saw it in the quote above.


----------



## Julia (26 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> How about people on each side of the argument provide EVIDENCE rather than say the other side is indoctrinating people at the expense of critical logic. Pot, kettle, black.






pavilion103 said:


> Yeh this isn't an issue that will get a consensus resolution
> 
> I just don't like generalizations that either religious believers, say Christian, or atheists aren't being logical simply because they believe a certain position.
> 
> I may have misinterpreted your previous statement (if it was in a specific context) because I only saw it in the quote above.



Well, perhaps follow the entire discussion, rather than inappropriately focusing on a single phrase outside of any context.

I think my comments have made pretty clear what my argument is against the Catholics saying that they are dependent on the Church to provide them with a moral code by which to live, when quite obviously the Church's own moral code is significantly lacking in view of their systemic and prolonged covering up and actually perpetrating the ongoing abuse by its priests for so long.

See also remarks by McLovin, Ruby and others.

I should have thought the hypocrisy is pretty plain.  Hence the observation that adherence to dogma is replacing logical and critical thinking.

If you disagree, you might like to be specific about your disagreement.


----------



## FxTrader (26 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Obedience to indoctrinated beliefs replacing critical thinking. Is that the same for evolution too?
> 
> - genetic information is never increased only duplicated or decreased (natural selection is the opposite of macro evolution)
> - irreducible complexity of the cell (which throws into strong doubt whether Darwin would still believe his theory - based on his own quote about of they discovered the complexity of the cell)
> ...




In a word NO.  Irreducible complexity is pseudo-scientific nonsense invented by creationists in the vein hope that it's a viable alternative to evolutionary theory.  It simply a sham and if you seriously investigated the case against it you would not consider it worthy of mention here.  Evolution theory is just that and the supporting evidence for its validity is quite compelling but discovery and refinement continues.  Evolution theory is not a godless philosophy, atheism is not a religion and non-belief in religious superstition is not a dogma. 

Reason and the scientific method are tools we use to try and discern fact from fiction and develop evidence based beliefs from.  Such discipline does not apply to supernatural imaginings.

Ask the religious for "evidence" (that is something verifiable, testable, reproducible or in any way provable) for their faith based beliefs and you get quotes from iron age scrolls or metaphysical gibberish.  Scientific discoveries force modification to religious beliefs over time so that religious faith must be forever elastic in response to science.

Satanic serpents, virgin birth, resurrection of dead bodies, prayer to invisible beings and the magic books that describe these things are not subject to "critical logic".  They are inventions of human imagination that subjugate the minds of millions of deceived religious slaves desperate to live forever and join their celestial dictator in a state of eternal servitude.

By all means, let's hear the evidence in support of the supernatural claims of the religious that involves something more than quotes from magic books.  As Sagan would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> The teachings of Mohammad are nothing that I aspire to. A religion of compulsion and not love.




You may not aspire to Mohammed's teachings, but over 1 billion Muslims do.
You may not aspire to Jesus teachings, but we are about to celebrate Easter in Australia.  

Richard Dawkins points this out a lot of times - 'Nit picking' good/bad points from the Qur'an(Ko'ran)/Bible & other holy book, as I did in my previous posts.

To take these 'holy books' at face value (verbatim), can have dangerous outcomes.


----------



## bunyip (27 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Don't you actually read what McLovin, Ruby, I and others have written?  We have all addressed the question of the origin of a moral code in some detail.
> 
> I guess it's simply not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose adherence to indoctrinated dogma  outweighs the capacity for objective thinking.
> 
> *Perhaps that's the key to religious affiliation?  Obedience to the indoctrinated beliefs simply replaces critical thought?*




My wife was born and and raised in a strong Catholic family in Ireland, went through all the usual Catholic hoo haa, was forced to undergo various processes and rituals of religious indoctrination from an early age when she was too young to understand what was happening.
Then as a teenager, climbing some mountain on top of which was some symbol of religious significance, walking around and around it on her knees like hundreds of other people were doing. Kissing the Cardinal’s ring, being blessed by people in silly costumes, etc etc.

As a young adult she underwent nursing training, then worked as a registered nurse in Glasgow, Scotland, which is a very strong Catholic area and a very poor socio-economic area.
As a midwife she was faced with many issues that gradually caused her to question the teachings of the Catholic church.
I’ll give just one example....
A mother of six children was in labor with her seventh child, having serous life-threatening complications. The doctors told her and her husband that they could save either mother or baby, but not both.
They called in their Catholic priest to consult with him. He was adamant that the baby should be saved, even though the mother would almost certainly not survive. They pointed out to him that there would be six children at home who’d grow up without a mother.
The priest was adamant – the baby must be saved. 
They rejected his advice – why deprive six children of their mother?
The long and short of it is that the mother lived, the baby died, and their Catholic priest shunned them thereafter.

This was just one of the many incidents that caused my wife to start questioning the decency and the teachings of the Catholic church.
She consulted the Catholic priest back home in her Irish village, told him of her concerns and her questions. His reply was that it’s a sin to question the teachings of the church – as a good Catholic her responsibility was to believe, not question.
She consulted two more Catholic priests, and was told the same thing. 

She grew increasingly disillusioned with the Catholic church as her nursing career progressed and she saw more incidents that in her opinion showed the church in a poor light.
She eventually abandoned her Catholic faith and has never returned to the church.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 March 2013)

Rumi was a Muslim.  One of the greatest poets of all time.  This poem is proof of 'seeing'.



Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field.  I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase 'each other'
doesn't make any sense.


----------



## McLovin (27 March 2013)

Tink said:


> Its obvious none of you believe in God, but thats your business, but dont crush others.




Tink, I really don't care what you choose to believe in. Quite frankly, it's none of my business. What I object to is the morally arrogant "our system is the only right way of thinking" that all religion seems to have encoded in its DNA. That's the difference between your beliefs and mine, I don't believe that the way I think is the way everyone has to think in order to not be a morally retrograde individual.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 March 2013)

I don't have time at this minute to put forth all my opinions (I will endeavor to do so).

I disagree with the irreducible complexity point. It would have to be shown how the original cell could have existed in its entirety (incredible complexity)  without evolving. Darwin's own comment cast doubt as to whether he would continue to uphold his theory with modern discoveries.

Anthony Flew couldn't help but change well established beliefs held for 50 years in light of those discoveries. He stressed he will go wherever  the evidence leads. And this is the foremost (former) atheist of the past 50 years. Amazing how people will quote him for years and then when modern science points in another direction and he changes his mind (in line with Darwin's own comments), people like Dawkins label him as 'too old.' Pathetic.


----------



## jersey10 (27 March 2013)

Everyone is an atheist.  There are thousands of gods you could believe existed but you choose just one (basically contingent on where you were born).  You are therefore an atheist with respect to the thousands of other gods that other people believe in.  Why don't you believe any of these other gods exist?

There is nothing more immoral than not valuing what is truth.  How you feel is exponentially less important than understanding and respecting what is true.

In my opinion whether or not a god exists is a redundant question that, in the relatively near future, will evolve into complete insignificance.  In much the same way that witchcraft, magic spells and the like have become silly and insignificant in explaining what was once unknown in centuries gone by, religion will follow the same path despite being held as truth by many today.

The more interesting question is why would you want a god to exist.  I identify as an anti-theist.  Christopher Hitchens puts it quite well:


----------



## pavilion103 (27 March 2013)

An atheist means to believe in NO Gods. 

So someone cannot believe in one God and because they don't believe in another God be an atheist towards that other god (they can only be a disbeliever of that other god). An atheist is to believe in NO gods so this is a contradiction of terms.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 March 2013)

I have no doubt that evolution will be looked upon as one of the biggest cons in history in years to come. People will look back and think 'how the heck did people believe that!!!!'

The reason why someone would believe one god over another would include 1) looking at philosophical reasoning 2) look at historical evidence e.g manuscript evidence, evidence in secular writings of the time, etc...  rather than limping them all in the same boat and dismissing everything without examining this evidence.


----------



## jersey10 (28 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> An atheist means to believe in NO Gods.
> 
> So someone cannot believe in one God and because they don't believe in another God be an atheist towards that other god (they can only be a disbeliever of that other god). An atheist is to believe in NO gods so this is a contradiction of terms.




Point is you take the same position with respect to all these other gods that atheists do.


----------



## jersey10 (28 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I have no doubt that evolution will be looked upon as one of the biggest cons in history in years to come. People will look back and think 'how the heck did people believe that!!!!'
> 
> The reason why someone would believe one god over another would include 1) looking at philosophical reasoning 2) look at historical evidence e.g manuscript evidence, evidence in secular writings of the time, etc...  rather than limping them all in the same boat and dismissing everything without examining this evidence.




Evolution describes what has happened.   Saying it will be looked back on and disbelieved doesn't make sense.

So what philosophical reasoning and historical evidence do you have that leads you to believe in your god?  I bet in most cases there is a very high correlation with where you are born and what you were brought up with.


----------



## banco (28 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I have no doubt that evolution will be looked upon as one of the biggest cons in history in years to come. People will look back and think 'how the heck did people believe that!!!!'
> 
> The reason why someone would believe one god over another would include 1) looking at philosophical reasoning 2) look at historical evidence e.g manuscript evidence, evidence in secular writings of the time, etc...  rather than limping them all in the same boat and dismissing everything without examining this evidence.





....and number 1 reason people believe in a particular god: because their parents did.


----------



## bellenuit (28 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> An atheist means to believe in NO Gods.
> 
> So someone cannot believe in one God and because they don't believe in another God be an atheist towards that other god (they can only be a disbeliever of that other god). An atheist is to believe in NO gods so this is a contradiction of terms.




Atheism (by the generally accepted definition) is a statement of non-belief, not of belief. On the basis of the evidence available, an atheist does not believe there is a God.  This is not the same as saying that an atheist believes there is no God. It is a subtle but important difference.

Let's assume that for a particular atheist (using the generally accepted definition) to believe in a God, certain evidence must be provided. And let's say that such evidence is available in regards to the Christian God, but not in regards to any other god, but this particular atheist has not yet heard of the Christian God.

This atheist goes through life travelling from country to country and being presented along the way with claims of the existence of various gods; Hindu, Ancient Greek etc. None of them provide the evidence he demands so in relation to all those gods, he is true to his atheist credentials. He eventually encounters the Christian God and after assessing the evidence, he accepts that the Christian God exists. This cannot be viewed as a change of mind or that he has in someway been proved to be wrong. 

However, someone who believes there is No God, undertaking the same journey would be proven wrong. They would have to reassess their belief system (because they held a belief that is proven wrong, not a non-belief based on available evidence).

So it is quite acceptable to say one can be an atheist in relation to all Gods other than the one you believe in.


----------



## bellenuit (28 March 2013)

For those who say that atheism is a belief system (that there is NO God) just like any other religion, rather than just non-belief as per my previous post, it is the same as saying that the Off Button on a TV is just another channel, or as Bill Maher puts it, that abstinence is just another sex position.


----------



## pavilion103 (28 March 2013)

An atheist doesn't have a belief in ANY gods. If you believe in one god, saying you are an atheist towards other gods obviously isn't the right word to use. It's not a major point, just the wrong use of the word.


----------



## pavilion103 (28 March 2013)

Anyway guys I came in to make a couple of comments and didn't expect to be so actively involved 

Thanks for the chat guys. I'm going to stick with stocks discussions for now. 

Happy to answer any questions in PM. I know any further answers in here will lead to more counter points that will lead to endless discussion  

The final point I'll make is that I respect whatever position you guys hold provided you have an evidenced based position.

Enjoy the chat guys! And enjoy your trading!


----------



## FxTrader (28 March 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> An atheist doesn't have a belief in ANY gods. If you believe in one god, saying you are an atheist towards other gods obviously isn't the right word to use. It's not a major point, just the wrong use of the word.




You've missed the point Bellenuit made quite clearly...



> Atheism (by the generally accepted definition) is a statement of non-belief, not of belief. On the basis of the evidence available, an atheist does not believe there is a God. This is not the same as saying that an atheist believes there is no God. It is a subtle but important difference.




Atheists declare there is currently no evidence for the existence of any God and most that I know are quite open to any credible evidence that shows otherwise. 

Ordering ones life around the notion that a sky God exists and specific actions are required by this sky God to get the right ticket at the entrance gate to eternity risks choosing the wrong sky God.  You had better adopt the right religious mythology or else.  Personally I find Christianity the most appealing of the religions in this respect since a death bed conversion erases a lifetime of evil depravity.


----------



## Ruby (30 March 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Atheism (by the generally accepted definition) is a statement of non-belief, not of belief. On the basis of the evidence available, an atheist does not believe there is a God.  This is not the same as saying that an atheist believes there is no God. It is a subtle but important difference.




Thank you for this post Bellenuit.  I have in the past been annoyed by the insistence of some people that not believing in a god equates to having a belief that there is no God, and that that in itself is a belief system.    You have expressed very well what I could not find the words to say.

Ruby


----------



## DB008 (4 April 2013)

Can't believe this.

Muslims need to get thicker skin and grow up! Western civilization is caving to this barbaric religion.
What a joke!




> *Lego withdraws 'anti-Islamic' Star Wars Jabba the Hutt palace model from sale after complaints*
> 
> 
> TOY giant Lego has reportedly agreed to stop producing a Star Wars toy product Muslims find offensive.
> ...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (5 April 2013)

I've seen this build over the past 10 years or so.  The number of internet pages is growing very fast, and we're possibly close to a tipping point.  Up until recently, the idea of enlightenment (or holiness) was viewed as something only a special few had achieved.\  But ordinary people are now achieving the same mind state. - there's even one woman in Adelaide.  So it's happening - the evolution of the species.  I bet that in 10-20 years time the talk of the town will be who's enlightened, and who's not.  Stand by for the popular media to grab hold of this.  Big trends like this take a while to get moving.

This article explains where science and the *core root* of religions meet.




Enlightenment: Is Science Ready to Take it Seriously?
| Jeff Warren | November 2012 - Issue 3 | 49 Comments


I’m not given to making grand predictions, but in this case I can’t resist: the very real spiritual transformation at the heart of mysticism is about to explode into the secular mainstream, and the consequences may just revolutionize our scientific understanding of the mind.

Yowzer! No doubt the reader’s New Age flapdoodle-detector is now shrieking. Bear with me. Let’s first get the tricky business of defining enlightenment out of the way.

For expediency’s sake, I’ll define enlightenment as a complex and multi-faceted process by which the mind comes to know – and over time rest more securely in – its own ground. As this happens, our habitual sense of being a separate and bounded self begins to fade. Ultimately, the person for whom this happens no longer feels themselves to be an autonomous entity looking out at an external world; rather, they feel themselves, more and more, to be an intimate part of that world’s humid expression, an unfolding natural process no different than anything else in nature. As a result, practitioners report a liberating sense of freedom, ease, spontaneity. The volume of self-referential thought often decreases, although, since enlightenment happens along a deepening continuum, they are still routinely trapped in old habits of dualistic thinking.

Despite the fact that this transformation has been painstakingly described in virtually every contemplative tradition – from Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism through to the mystical branches of the Western Abrahamic religions [eg. Christianity] – and is the central drama in the lives of thousands of lucid and intelligent human beings, here in the West there is zero mention of the phenomenon in any of our bastions of intellectual respectability. You’ll never read about spiritual enlightenment in a Malcolm Gladwell book, or the pages of The New York Review of Books. This is true even in most Western Buddhist books, where enlightenment may be mentioned as a general principle or orientation, but almost never as a tangible transformation that happens to real 21st-century human beings.

The reason for this probably has to do with accessibility. The first American Buddhist teachers, most of them operating out of the Insight Meditation Society (Joseph Goldstein, Sharon Salzberg, Jack Kornfield and others), acted as skillfully as possible to bring the benefits of meditation to a large secular audience. Given how skittish Western intellectuals are around religious themes, the last thing you’d want to do here is start raving on about mystical oneness. There is also a lively debate in the spiritual world about the advisability of even mentioning different states and stages. On the upside it can help orient practitioners within often strange and difficult experiences; on the downside it can burden them with unrealistic expectations of “progress” that end up getting in the way. Compounding this, there are whole schools of contemplative thinking who argue that all of us are already enlightened; we have no where to go and nothing to do.

The majority of old-guard U.S. Buddhist teachers erred on the side of caution; as a consequence most of their books are filled with sensible soft-dharma insights gently shaped to fit our general Western model of psychotherapy. There are exceptions, and those exceptions, I’d like to argue, are about to become the new rule.

There is a new spirit of openness, for instance, in both the culture of spirituality and the culture of science.  One spiritual Trojan horse is yoga. Another is the increasingly popular practice of “mindfulness.” Both of these are powerful spiritual technologies. Most people approach them for practical fitness or stress-reduction reasons, and this is all they ever deliver on. But, for a small percentage, something else happens. They find themselves – deliciously, inexorably, sometimes alarmingly – moving along a course of spiritual development they never expected.

I teach mindfulness meditation, so I have a particular interest here. Mindfulness is the practice of bringing clarity and concentration and equanimity to our moment-by-moment experience. Doctors chirp happily about its secular benefits even as the terrifying specter of loving mystical connectedness pours from the belly of the horse. You can thank Jon Kabat-Zinn for this. His pioneering Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction model is everywhere – over 120 medical centers in the US alone offer mindfulness programs, and there has been a commensurate scientific interest in the subject – official NIH-funded studies on mindfulness have gone from two in the year 2000 to 128 in 2010. Mindfulness in small doses is an immensely helpful way to address stress and anxiety and pain and all kinds of other conditions. Mindfulness in large doses is called vipassana; it rewires the brain and extirpates the sense of a separate self. Come for the raisin, stay for the perspective-shuddering cosmic U-turn. What starts subtle can grow, and, as the brilliant Buddhist teacher Shinzen Young says, “subtle is significant.”

In the multidisciplinary world of consciousness studies, the buzzword is nonduality, a translation of Advaita (literally “not two”), an ancient branch of Hindu philosophy. I’ve presented at two ‘Toward a Science of Consciousness’ meetings, a terrific annual assembly of the biggest names in neuroscience and philosophy of mind, among them Antonio Damasio, David Chalmers, Wolf Singer, Susan Greenfield, Stuart Hameroff and others. For the past few years nonduality has been a popular subject of discussion. There is even a dedicated ‘Science and Nonduality’ conference - now in its fourth year – that features some of the same speakers, many of them offering straight-to-the-bone “Direct Path” instruction in books and DVDs and weekend workshops.

The Internet is the great culprit in all of this. Where once you had to climb a mountain in Tibet to get answers to spiritual questions, you can now find them on Wikipedia, or an easily-arranged Skype call. Enlightenment is the Internet subject par excellence – vague, contradictory, fiercely blogged about by ill-credentialed authorities. It’s no small irony that the very medium that is hopelessly fragmenting human attention is simultaneously offering up some of the necessary tools to heal us – that is, if you can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Within American Buddhism, the heart of this new transparency calls itself “Pragmatic Dharma.” The influential Buddhist Geeks podcast and conference is at the center of it. For the past few years, in popular interviews with dozens of scientists and teachers, they talk openly about different aspects of the awakening process, including frank testimonials of their own enlightenment experiences. This is a culture of learning and experimenting and exploring together. The Geeks believe – as do I – that the reticence and secrecy around spiritual transformation is no longer helpful or productive.

How do we know that all of these self-described enlightened practitioners and teachers aren’t bull****ting us? We don’t. And we won’t until we find some identifying neural signature in the brain, if such a signature even exists. I know several neuroscientists working on this question right now.

In my own case, I have stopped quibbling. People I’ve known for years tell me about their enlightenment experiences and I believe them. I believe them because my curiosity about what may be happening in the mind is greater than my allegiance to an outdated and uninformed scientific consensus. Western psychology is still outgrowing a reactive skepticism towards the subjective anecdote that it inherited from behaviorism. Fortunately, this is changing. These days, there is a growing appreciation among investigators that if you want to understand consciousness – as opposed to just brain activity – you have to start taking first-person reports seriously. This will soon include reports of enlightenment.

Science changes. That’s what it’s supposed to do. How it stands to change from enlightenment is something I’ll address in my next column.

[Part 2 of 2 -- click here to read Part 1]

In March of 2012, myself and twenty other “adept” meditators participated in an experiment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. The experiment was a collaboration between a young Harvard neuroscientist named David Vago and a Buddhist scholar and mindfulness meditation teacher named Shinzen Young.

Over a period of one week, all twenty of us meditated in a makeshift retreat space inside the functional imaging laboratory. On a couple of the afternoons, we completed various behavioral and psychological tests. But the main event happened in the hospital. Every few hours, a meditator was selected from the larger group and taken down the road to the hospital’s MRI facility to have their brain scanned both functionally and anatomically (because of a metal plate in my neck, the result of an injury sustained years before, I did not particulate in the scanning portion of the experiment).

Vago and Young were attempting to tackle one of the biggest problems in neuroscience: what is the real resting state of the brain? In order to look at any kind of brain activity in an MRI study – the recalling of a memory, the movement of a body part, the focusing of attention – the neuroscientist must have a baseline resting condition with which to compare the active state. And so for years neuroscientists would tell subjects in the MRI to let their minds “just wander” between active tasks – as though “mind-wandering” were some sort of idle resting state. But recent research on the “default mode network” of the brain has shown that there is nothing at all restful about mind-wandering. In fact, the “resting” brain is massively activated; in particular, the networks that support something called “self-referential processing” – i.e., the endless ruminative story of me.

This is the all-too-familiar part of our brains that engages in constant comparison and scheming and worrying and fantasizing, the part that pours over conversations at a party the night before looking for insults and clues and conclusions. In other words, it is the thinking mind, or at least one aspect of the thinking mind, a mode most of us reflexively revert to when not absorbed by some specific task.

True rest, Shinzen Young argues, is something else, something meditators can demonstrate for sustained periods of time, in order to help identify the real ground of sensory experience.  And this was what our little group set our minds to doing.

Lying flat on their backs with the fMRI humming above them and three Tesla of magnetic activity scouring their brains, each meditator dropped into one of the four different rest meditations taught to them by Young: visual rest, auditory rest, body rest, and an open state known as “do nothing,” where the meditator surrenders all attempt to control his attention and just lets all thoughts come and go, while maintaining awareness. In an experienced meditator this creates a clear, open and spacious mind. When the subjects felt they had stabilized each of these states, they pressed a button. In between each of these active conditions, they would let their minds wander – again, in order to generate a contrast, but also in order to highlight how different mind-wandering was from these other flavors of deeper rest.

Except … there was a problem, something Vago hadn’t foreseen. The twenty meditators in the experiment had been chosen for the length and the consistency of their practice. But even here there was a demarcation between intermediate meditators and a few older practitioners who had been meditating for over twenty years. Their minds were different, both in degree, and, it seemed, in kind. They were no longer like the minds of regular folks.

The veteran meditators could do each of the resting states perfectly, but when it came to creating a contrasting condition, they were helpless. They had lost the ability to “let their minds wander” because they had long ago shed the habit of entertaining discursive narrative thoughts. They no longer worried about how their hair looked, or their to-do lists, or whether people thought they were annoying. Their minds were largely quiet. When thoughts did come – and they did still come – these subjects reported that the thoughts had a different quality, an unfixated quality.  The thought “This MRI machine is extremely loud” might arise, but it would quickly evaporate. Thoughts seemed to emerge as-needed in response to different situations and would then disappear crisply into the clear backdrop of consciousness. In other words, these practitioners were always meditating.

*This turned out to be the least dramatic of Vago’s discoveries. With the two most experienced meditators, something even more surprising happened, something that, to the knowledge of the investigators involved, had never before been captured on any kind of brain imaging technology.

Lying on their padded gurneys in the center of the humming MRI in this famous research hospital in the heart of East Boston and Harvard Medical School, each of the two research subjects suddenly … disappeared.

Har-Prakash Khalsa, a 52-year old Canadian mail carrier and yoga teacher – and one of the veterans to whom this happened – describes his experience:

“It’s a kind of pressure or momentum. I was in one of the rest states, and as I let go of it, I felt myself heading into a much bigger dissolution – a bigger ‘gone’ as Shinzen would call it. It felt impossible to resist.  My mind, body and world just collapsed.”

A few moments later – blinking, refreshed, reformatted – Har-Prakash returned to consciousness, not at all sure how he was to supposed to fit this experience into the research protocol. He couldn’t indicate it with a button press even if he wanted to: there was no one present to press the button.*

This wasn’t rest – it was annihilation.

For Har-Prakash, the experience was utterly familiar. He experienced his first cessation in 2003, after a particularly intense meditation retreat, and now they happened all the time.

“Sometimes it happens just walking down the street,” he told me.

In and out of existence Har-Prakash would strobe, often multiples times a day. It was no wonder he could live “in the moment” – the moment was literally always new. It was like waking up ten times a minute.

When I asked Young about the phenomenon he told me they were called “cessations,” or Nirodha, and were a hugely important theme in Buddhist practice. In fact, one of Young’s main jobs as the teacher of advanced meditators, he said, was to help his students acclimatize to these disconcerting little deaths, which often happened more frequently the longer the students practiced.

“It may sound dangerous, but somehow you always continue to function just fine,” Young said.

He told me about his own cessations, which, for example, happened while driving his car from his home in Burlington, Vermont, to where he runs a regular meditation retreat in Waterbury, a half-hour away.

“I’ll go in and out of cessation a hundred times. Time and space punctuated with nothing. But I’ve never even gotten a ticket, let alone had an accident. And that’s not just my experience. I’ve never seen a Zen master bump into a wall because for a moment, perceptually, he wasn’t there. Remember the material world doesn’t go away, this is all events in sensory experience. It’s consciousness. Causality is still there. Force fields are still there.”

Clearly, Young, like the two veteran practitioners in the MRI, no longer experiences reality the way most humans do. Attempting to describe how exactly his perception has shifted has become something of a journalistic obsession for me. In the mystical literature, commentators use one of a series of shorthands: “self-realized,” “awakened,” “liberated,” and, most loaded of all, “enlightened.” “A very clear experience of cessation,” Young told me, “would bring about classical enlightenment.”

Whatever you want to call it, after years of assiduous practice, Young’s sense of identity has shifted. Like the two experienced meditators in the study, he no longer has the same quality of discursive thinking. He spends more and more time in states of emptiness. And he no longer experiences himself to be a separate bounded self – rather, he feels himself to be part of a much larger selfless “doing.”

As both an observing journalist and a participating subject, I was in the MRI room while some of these events took place, and I watched Vago carefully. What would he make of these strange permutations of meditative experience? Although over the past ten years hundreds of scientific papers had been published on the neuroscience of meditation, few of them were brave enough to address the explicit goal of Buddhist practice, the end of suffering known as awakening or enlightenment (The name “Buddha” itself means “awakened one”).

There are signs that this may be shifting. Indeed, the year before, Vago and a consortium of Harvard colleagues published a paper in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science called ‘How Does Mindfulness Meditation Work?’ In its review of the different components of mindfulness mechanisms, the authors of the paper include an aspect they call “change in perception of the self.”
*
If in the early stages of meditation, the authors explain, there is a de-identification with some part of mental content. A more “drastic disidentification” around our core sense of self is said to happen at more advanced stages of practice. “In place of the identification with the static self, there emerges a tendency to identify with the phenomenon of ‘experiencing’ itself.” Both theoretical accounts and experiential reports, the authors write, “ascribe to the change in the perspective on the self a crucial role for development and maturity in meditation.” They then go on to summarize the few neuroimaging and self-report findings that could shed light on what might be happening in the enlightened brain (although they are careful never to use ‘the E word’).*

In a science paper, this is simply a string of interesting words. In someone’s actual living experience, it is a complex and radical shift that time and again is described as the most important re-orientation of that person’s life. And not just in Buddhism. Although the language is different, throughout history, this shift from self-thoughts to an entry into the stream of consciousness itself has been described in all the world’s contemplative traditions, as well as in the secular literature.

There are many ambiguous maps and contradictory descriptions of enlightenment. In Young and in Vago’s hopeful view, a true “science of enlightenment” might be able to bring together and illuminate all the paradigms and experiences that lie at the heart of serious spiritual practice.

Why is this endeavor important, and what might its effect be on science?

On the individual front, we are looking at potentially revolutionary insights to help address human mental and emotional anguish. As a person’s identity shifts through the practice of meditation, time and again practitioners report dramatic reductions in personal suffering. Pain does not go away, of course. Pain really is part of the human condition. But one’s relationship to suffering can change.

*What is the core dynamic here? It seems to involve a kind of “unfixating” from sensory experience in general, and then, as practice deepens, from our actual identity as separate autonomous individuals. In Young’s way of thinking, one of the skills the practitioner develops is equanimity, which he describes as a lack of gripping in the sensory system.*

Experiences move more fully through the meditator, stirring up fewer disturbances, returning them more quickly to homeostasis. A sense of lightness emerges, an internal balance and capacity for fulfillment independent of external conditions. As practitioners struggle less with themselves, energy is freed up that can also be directed towards helping others.  The meditator feels more connection to the soul of the world, and to other people. Indeed, another aspect of the “awakened” mind is the unfettering of what many describe as a primordial compassion.  Our basic nature may be more loving and easy than we suspect.

These changes seem to happen along a continuum. Right now there is a huge scientific interest in mindfulness meditation because it is one way of moving people along this continuum, which even at the “shallow end” can have a dramatic effect on conditions ranging from stress-related complaints to anxiety, depression, addiction, pain management and more.

But as I’ve tried to show, more dramatic shifts can happen too. Any science of mind worthy of the name must try to isolate, describe, and understand the full continuum. Otherwise, the paradigm of the power of meditation is missing its cornerstone.

Once the full dynamic is better understood (which may or may not include important neural correlates), then it may be possible to bring the benefits of serious practice to people who do not have the luxury of meditating full time for twenty years. We may be able to fine-tune our meditation techniques – or, more controversially, use some form of techno-boost, as Young himself has suggested – in a way that allows us to literally change our minds and achieve a deeper level of fulfillment and connection in our lives.

As we get more clarity about the real elements of human experience, we may reach a time when, in Shinzen Young’s words, “outer physical science could cross-fertilize with inner contemplative disciplines to create a sudden and dramatic increase in global well being.” Young describes this as his “happiest thought.” Such a cross-fertilization could leave us with an enriched neuroscience, new tools for addressing human suffering, and a vastly expanded sense of human potential.

How might this cross-fertilization work in practice? I’ve already suggested that scientific understanding could make the benefits of serious meditation more accessible. But this is a two-way street. There’s another possible consequence – namely, that enlightenment itself might affect the scientific practitioner. Young often says the next Buddha may be a team of enlightened neuroscientists. What he means is that deep practice confers a quality of deep seeing. This is both literally true, in the form of extraordinary sensory clarity, and metaphysically true, in the form of deep insights about the nature of reality.

That these two may amount to the same thing is captured in a story Young tells about his own teacher, Jōshū Sasaki Rōshi (I’ll risk one last anecdote at this late stage in the column).

At 105 years old, Sasaki Rōshi is very likely the world’s oldest living Zen master. A good case could be made that he has been meditating longer than any other human on the planet.

One day in a public talk, with Young translating (Young began his monastic training at Mount Kōya south of Osaka and speaks fluent Japanese), the Rōshi asked an unusual question, “Do you know what the number one is?” Before the baffled audience could respond, he answered, “The number one is that which has the number zero as its content.” He went on, “Do you know what the number two is?” and again answered his own question, “The number two is that which has the number one as its content. Do you now what the number three is?” He continued in this vein, and as he did, Young, something of a math geek, had a revelation.

The Rōshi was articulating a fundamental dynamic of consciousness, one no scientist has yet reported, but has been described in slightly different language by Buddhists for over two thousand years. In the Rōshi’s way of seeing things, each sensory moment emerges when an empty source (Zero) polarizes into an expansive force and a contractive force. Between them, these two powers shape each nanosecond of perception. Again and again they mutually cancel and reunite, pulsing sensory reality into existence, creating ever-richer states of Zero that experienced meditators can learn to observe and even to ride (Young once told me this accounts for the bouncy vitality and spontaneity of some Zen monks).

Young realized the Rōshi’s exposition was remarkably similar to the modern foundation of mathematics known as “set theory.” And yet the Rōshi knew nothing of math – his 19th century education was essentially feudal. When Young pointed out this similarity, there was a long pause before his teacher eventually replied, in an unimpressed Zen deadpan, “Ahh… so the mathematicians have seen that far, eh?”

Of course, as Young himself is careful to point out, this may be a superficial coincidence. Many people are eager to make comparisons between spirituality and science (usually involving quantum mechanics), a move that in most cases just annoys real scientists, who have a more nuanced view of these processes. But then, the scientific tendency to make a vague generalization about “meditation” – a hugely complex set of techniques and processes – equally annoys contemplatives. This is one reason why the idea of investigators with training in both domains is so appealing.

What might we find as we begin to probe the intersection between deep self and wide world? Any honest scientist or philosopher will tell you that the relationship between mind and matter is still a mystery, perhaps our greatest mystery. Contemplatives from historic times to the present have argued that as we increase in perceptual sensitivity and openness, we begin to detect a more interactive and integrated relationship between our inner and outer worlds. Is this discernment or delusion? Only a genuine collaboration between science and advanced contemplation will tell us.

Fin.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (5 April 2013)

The aforementioned Adelaide woman is Linda Clair.  There would be others, however.

Here's a short Q and A with her, followed by a youtube interview.  Not what you expected is it?

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/linda_clair.htm

Try to listen and read as if it *isn't *some poetic, fantasy, woo-woo  bull****, but actual literal truth.


excerpt:

Q: Enlightenment is to die while you're alive -- I think Bunan said that, and to me that communicates the profundity what we're talking about. You're saying that first comes the realization that "I'm not the mind," and then comes "I am not the body"? Doesn't Vipassana typically have people watch their body first, then watch the mind? I've had a number people say to me "I know I'm not the body, but I can't say that about my mind/awareness." Do they only "think" they are not the body and don't really understand?

A: You have to ‘realise’ that you’re not the body, and this is not an intellectual exercise. You can’t reason or talk your way through it. To realise means that it has become real for you in your body and this is only possible when the mind completely subsides. You need to go so deeply into the body that you trust the intelligence of the body rather than using the mind as security. You have to prove to yourself that the body does not need the mind to survive, because the great fear is that if you let go of the mind, the body will die. It’s such a huge thing, much bigger than I ever imagined. It’s the reason you have been given your body – to use it to realise that you are not your body – to realise the meaning of life.

Q: What is the greatest difficulty that students have with your method?

A: Fear. When people start to really look deeply into who they think they are, the mind/ego becomes very fearful as it knows that it can’t exist when someone is fully here, now.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 April 2013)

I was watching a science doco on SBS tonight which triggered a realization, and I was able to add a few pieces to my personal science/religion puzzle.  I say 'personal' because I'm sure others elsewhere have come to the same realization, but I feel like I just "discovered" it, so here it is:


*
The Trinity of Religion and Science:*



*OBSERVER* God (the realization of oneness, where there is no separate 'other'). "You" cannot exist here.  .....versus...  Black Hole (no separate thing can exist, nor emerge from here, because everything in the universe (including space, time and each other) are created AT the event horizon, not BY black hole). You are destroyed here. 


*PROCESS OF OBSERVATION* ego/mind/self (the celluloid 'film' that contains all scripts and images - film is 2 dimensional).  ....versus....  event horizon (stores all the information that goes to create 3D reality on its 2D surface).

*OBSERVED* "3d reality" (recognized over 2500years ago as illusion/projection) ...versus.....  3d reality (just starting to be recognized as a hologram).


Just as the mind and intellect  cannot realize God, so no object can survive crossing the event horizon.  

There's no gap really.  The most advanced scientists and the most advanced spiritualist practitioners are approaching the very same point, one from the East, one from the West.  It will be a good day when they meet.


----------



## Sdajii (8 April 2013)

Isn't it amazing that people can come up with such extreme crap and convince themselves of it? Not surprising that it often requires lengthy sessions of twisting, spinning and confusing.

Watch a religious person when posed with clear and obvious facts which completely oppose their empty beliefs. Watching their faces gives me a mixture of amusement and disappointment, as does listening to their responses.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 April 2013)

Sdajii said:


> Isn't it amazing that people can come up with such extreme crap and convince themselves of it? Not surprising that it often requires lengthy sessions of twisting, spinning and confusing.
> 
> Watch a religious person when posed with clear and obvious facts which completely oppose their empty beliefs. Watching their faces gives me a mixture of amusement and disappointment, as does listening to their responses.




If you're referring to me with your rude comments, I don't believe in anything.  I'm pointing out the striking similarities between real religion and science.  They parallel each other exactly.


----------



## Julia (8 April 2013)

GB is there some esoteric meaning attached to your 'signature' of multiple numerals at the base of every post?


----------



## Some Dude (8 April 2013)

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 April 2013)

Julia said:


> GB is there some esoteric meaning attached to your 'signature' of multiple numerals at the base of every post?




Not really.  I had been contemplating non-dualism, and how the entire universe can only exist when there are opposites (one male, one female, one up one down, one good, one evil, one pleasurable, one painful, and so on).  Then I was comparing that to the way a computer can encode limitless amounts of information into a simple string of zeroes and ones.  The computer chip only needs two things (1 and 0) to encode and create everything it does.  Two things - yin and yang.  Creation of anything requires "two", and the two are opposites.  So if pleasure is possible, then pain and suffering will always be possible.  This is how/why the non-dualist philosophers came to realize that the only end to human suffering was in abandoning both.    

The myth of Adam and Eve (and it is a myth) is a remarkably accurate symbolism of the origin of life and the human condition, so long as one knows how to read it (carefully).  

That's probably more than you were after, but anyhow!  

edit: Good one dude.. haha.


----------



## pixel (8 April 2013)

Julia said:


> GB is there some esoteric meaning attached to your 'signature' of multiple numerals at the base of every post?




it's probably GB's mobile number 0479 611 818

PS: Good one, Dude


----------



## Julia (8 April 2013)

Some Dude said:


> There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't



And those who find the repetitive appearance of it somewhat visually irritating, especially when it has no specific relevance to the topic.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 April 2013)

Julia said:


> And those who find the repetitive appearance of it somewhat visually irritating, especially when it has no specific relevance to the topic.




I'm going to hide behind my couch  :couch

Tell me when the cranky lady has gone.


----------



## Some Dude (8 April 2013)

Julia said:


> And those who find the repetitive appearance of it somewhat visually irritating, especially when it has no specific relevance to the topic.




You can disable signatures in your Settings/General Settings section.


----------



## Julia (8 April 2013)

Some Dude said:


> You can disable signatures in your Settings/General Settings section.




Thank you.


----------



## Ves (8 April 2013)

Julia said:


> And those who find the repetitive appearance of it somewhat visually irritating, especially when it has no specific relevance to the topic.



Can you name one single forum signature on the internet that ever has? 

It's the same as screen names, avatars (like my Cho'gath and your dog - sorry I don't remember his or her name) and everything else that has personal relevance that people attach to their internet appearance.  

It's really just a bit of novelty.


----------



## Julia (8 April 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'm going to hide behind my couch  :couch
> 
> Tell me when the cranky lady has gone.



You're right, GB.  I have been cranky today following some distressing news.
That's no reason to take it out on you, however.
My apologies.


----------



## DB008 (18 April 2013)

Is religion crazy?

My opinion. Yes.



> *Teen Witness must have a transfusion, rules judge*
> 
> A 17-year-old Jehovah's Witness suffering from a lethal form of blood cancer and refusing treatment threatened to rip the IV needle out of his arm if doctors attempted a blood transfusion.
> 
> ...


----------



## CanOz (18 April 2013)

I don't understand why they waste resources and blood on these people...let them go be with their god i say...

CanOz


----------



## pixel (18 April 2013)

CanOz said:


> I don't understand why they waste resources and blood on these people...let them go be with their god i say...
> 
> CanOz




I have to agree - even more for another reason:
Blood donors are scarce, and I can tell from personal experience, it's not the most enjoyable pastime to lie on a recliner, a needle in your arm, while a bag fills with your life blood. It's even worse when you donate plasma and platelets because the centrifugue is so much slower, and then your red blood cells are re-injected.

But you do it because you know it makes a big difference to some kid's health or even survival. When I then hear/ read that some dude feels "raped" by my trying to save his life, I guess I'm entitled to feeling "raped" myself.

Here is my suggestion how parents/ guardians/ mind twisters should be dealt with:
Anybody who refuses life-saving medical assistance on religious grounds should be free to have their own way and use prayers, faith healing, or anything they believe will work.
*BUT:* 
If their method fails and the patient dies, take them to a Criminal Court for murder or at least homicide.


----------



## Sean K (28 April 2013)

Wow, Melbourne Uni, you need to check yourself.

Gender segregation?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...back-to-dark-age/story-e6frgcjx-1226630341152


----------



## DB008 (29 April 2013)

Good article in today's Sydney telegraph. Page 13. Tim Blair. I'm at work using my mobile, but will try to get a link up when I get home


----------



## DB008 (29 April 2013)

DB008 said:


> Good article in today's Sydney telegraph. Page 13. Tim Blair. I'm at work using my mobile, but will try to get a link up when I get home





*PATTERNS EMERGE​*
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/patterns_emerge/

It’s now 14 days since the Boston Marathon was bombed by Islamic extremists, 406 days since an Islamic extremist shot Jewish children in France, 1171 days since Islamic extremists bombed Pune in India, 1270 days since an Islamic extremist murdered 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, 1615 days since Islamic extremists launched an assault on Mumbai that killed 164 citizens, 2853 days since Islamic suicide bombers slaughtered 52 commuters in London, 3336 days since 191 were blown apart by Islamic extremists in Madrid, Spain, 3852 days since Islamic extremists killed 202 people including 88 Australians in Bali and 4248 days since nearly 3000 died in the Islamic extremist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In between times, it’s also been 2131 days since failed attempts by Islamic extremists to bomb London and Glasgow, 1546 days since Islamic extremists were jailed in NSW and Victoria for planning to bomb the 2005 AFL Grand Final, 226 days since a young Islamic woman was photographed during Sydney riots taking a snap of her four-year-old child holding a sign reading “Behead all those who insult the prophet” and just four days since three Islamic extremists were sent to prison in the UK over terrorism conspiracies.

There may have been one or two other recent Islamic extremist incidents besides. It’s difficult to keep count. In any case, a pattern seems to be emerging that involves extremists of a particular type. It’s obvious to all except our friends on the Left, who have developed three distinct coping mechanisms over the past decade or so in order to dodge any confrontation with Islam.


----------



## Sean K (29 April 2013)

Religious orders reveal abuse complaints
From: AAP April 29, 2013 4:10PM

THE Salesian Catholic order admits it failed to properly supervise its priests, as it revealed it's paid more than $2 million in compensation to victims of sexual abuse in Victoria.

A parliamentary inquiry heard today there have been a total of 49 complaints made against 14 priests of the Salesian order.

Of those, 37 payouts have been made, the Victorian child abuse inquiry heard today.

Five priests from the order have been convicted of criminal offences.

The first abuse case came to the organisation's attention in 1986, its provincial Greg Chambers said.

Father Chambers said two priests accused of abuse remained in the order, but both were bound to domestic duties and had no exposure to children.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abuse-complaints/story-fngburq5-1226631515643


----------



## Boggo (29 April 2013)

kennas said:


> THE Salesian Catholic order admits it failed to properly supervise its priests, as it revealed it's paid more than $2 million in compensation to victims of sexual abuse in Victoria.




And there lies the problem, they are more concerned about how much it has cost them $$$ than they are about being proactive and ensuring that it will not continue to occur.


----------



## DB008 (30 April 2013)

Time for a laugh!


*Even Stevphen Islam vs Christianity*


----------



## Lantern (30 April 2013)

Meanwhile in the religion of hate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo&list=PL6644A687FC212F81

I only watched the first vid, but that was enough.


----------



## McLovin (30 April 2013)

What a disgrace the Catholic Church is. Their own insurance company refused to continue compensation coverage but the diocese didn't do a thing for 13 more years. All those poor people who had their lives destroyed for no other reason than to protect the image the RCC.



> Bishop Connors said Catholic Church Insurance told the diocese in 1975 it would no longer cover compensation payments for Ridsdale, later jailed for child sexual offences, because he had abused so many victims. But Bishop Mulkearns, in charge from 1971 to 1997, took no action until 1988, in which time Ridsdale abused many more victims.




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/c...tated-abuse-20130429-2ip15.html#ixzz2Rwwns9yr


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2013)

Ready for a laugh everyone?

*Morocco's police is looking for atheist activist Imad Eddin Habib, 22. Potential charges: creating the “Council of ex-Muslims of Morocco” and stating: “there is no God but Mickey Mouse”.*



> The whereabouts of Moroccan student Imad Eddin Habib, 22, are unknown since yesterday, April 29 in the evening. A few days ago, plainclothes policemen interrogated his father at his workplace. They wanted to know whether Imad was supported by a foreign organization, what his goals and motives were… Yesterday, Apr 29, they broke into an address that is mentioned on the young man’s ID””only to find out that he doesn’t live there anymore. Informed that he was a wanted individual, the Casablanca paramedical student decided to go underground. It will probably not take long before he resurfaces. Yet, that might be long enough for a solidarity campaign to start.
> 
> Imad Eddin Habib is not a criminal””at least not under international law and international treaties on freedom of speech and conscience. The reason why the Moroccan police is after him, is that he’s an outspoken atheist.
> 
> In the Islamic kingdom of Morocco, atheism itself is not a criminal offense. “Shaking the Muslim’s faith” is. Under this vague designation, anyone openly criticizing Islam or promoting any other religion can be condemned to a prison term ranging from 6 months to 3 years (Christian missionaries are regularly expelled from the kingdom in virtue of this article.) In other words: when you live in Morocco, you can think whatever you want of religion, but you better keep it for yourself.




http://www.freearabs.com/index.php/society/81-stories/565-jb-span-maroc-jb-span-wanted-for-atheism


----------



## noco (2 May 2013)

Who would like to live in a Muslim World after reading this?

Wake up Australia before it is too late.

Subject: German's View on Islam

German's View on Islam - worth reading. 



This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.

In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem (see below), just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation’s shores.

In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.
And we are silent.......



GOD BLESS AUSTRALIA , PLEASE


----------



## DB008 (2 May 2013)

Crazy..

64 percent of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2013)

> 22 dead as Bangladesh Islamists demand blasphemy law
> 
> At least 22 people have been killed in pitched battles between Bangladeshi police and thousands of hardline Islamists in the capital Dhaka.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/22-dead-as-bangladeshi-islamists-demand-blasphemy-law/4672540


----------



## DB008 (7 May 2013)

*They're taking our children*

*West Papua's youth are being removed to Islamic religious schools in Java for "re-education", writes Michael Bachelard.
*

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifestyle/theyre-taking-our-children-20130429-2inhf.html


----------



## Some Dude (8 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> There's no gap really.  The most advanced scientists and the most advanced spiritualist practitioners are approaching the very same point, one from the East, one from the West.  It will be a good day when they meet.




You may enjoy The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson. She postulates a similar notion with one side or the other climbing the mountain of universal awareness and understanding only to discover the other side relaxing atop the mountain.

Much water has passed under the bridge since I read the book in the 90's, much of that water probably quenching the fire in some respects for many, but it was an interesting read at the time and your comment reminded me of her book.


----------



## FxTrader (8 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> You may enjoy The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson. She postulates a similar notion with one side or the other climbing the mountain of universal awareness and understanding only to discover the other side relaxing atop the mountain.




The only mountain the religious sit atop is Mt. Delusion.  There is a huge difference between evidence based beliefs arrived at by scientific investigation and religious beliefs largely derived from the mythology passed down in iron-age magic books.  "Universal awareness" is not what the religious seek, rather its universal conformity and obedience to mythical invisible beings and their commandments as laid down in their magic books and interpreted by their religious leaders.  There is no common ground between religion and science, the scientific method is the rational pursuit of knowledge while religion seeks impose static metaphysical dogma (fiction) on the faithful.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> The only mountain the religious sit atop is Mt. Delusion.  There is a huge difference between evidence based beliefs arrived at by scientific investigation and religious beliefs largely derived from the mythology passed down in iron-age magic books.  "Universal awareness" is not what the religious seek, rather its universal conformity and obedience to mythical invisible beings and their commandments as laid down in their magic books and interpreted by their religious leaders.  There is no common ground between religion and science, the scientific method is the rational pursuit of knowledge while religion seeks impose static metaphysical dogma (fiction) on the faithful.




This is an incredibly ignorant statement. 

You haven't acknowledged the scientific evidence that points to creation.

You haven't considered the historical evidence to determine if events in certain documents are factual. 

You haven't acknowledged philosophical reasoning which supports creationism.

The ironic thing is you probably just accept evolution as fact. Whereas evidence (or a lack of) points to it as the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo ever.

I don't mind people discussing opinions. I enjoy it. But the above blanket statements and ignorant generalizations show that you have not even touched the surface.

Quite scary...


----------



## FxTrader (8 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> This is an incredibly ignorant statement.




Well, there is more than one statement there and I understand religious mythology quite well thanks.  My statements can only be branded as ignorant if I knew nothing about the subject.  Clearly your offended but my attack is on religion itself.  As for the believers themselves, they are willing victims of a fraud.



> You haven't acknowledged the scientific evidence that points to creation.




Such evidence does not suggest the necessity of a creator but rather an event.



> You haven't considered the historical evidence to determine if events in certain documents are factual.




This is an old, tired and useless line of argument frequently rolled out by the religious. Even if some historical events described in the books of the Bible for instance can be verified by scientific investigation is does not validate anything else in the texts.



> You haven't acknowledged philosophical reasoning which supports creationism.




True, since I don't accept such "philosophical reasoning" as proof or evidence of anything other than vivid human imagination.



> The ironic thing is you probably just accept evolution as fact. Whereas evidence (or a lack of) points to it as the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo ever.




Evolution theory has a large body of evidence to support it without all aspects of the theory being proven or scientifically verifiable as yet.  Mumbo jumbo on the other hand is a trademark of religion.



> Quite scary...




That phrase accurately describes my view of religion and its ongoing impact on human society and progress.  You have nothing to fear from me or any other atheist.  However you do have something to fear from other religious believers, millions of which condone killing you for disagreeing with them.


----------



## bellenuit (8 May 2013)

FxTrader +1 to all your responses.


----------



## Ian (8 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> This is an incredibly ignorant statement.
> 
> You haven't acknowledged the scientific evidence that points to creation.
> 
> ...





I fear that it's you who is scary Pavilion103, 
The world is finding it hard to further itself faced with this level of blindly held ignorance. Unfortunately there is no shortage of it globallyf and the worrying factor is the vast majority of it has its birth in religous movements of one description or another. At the extreme end are the fanatics who would put a bomb under any disenting voice and deny women the right to education. But the difference between them and the so called enlightened end of the spectrum is not the basis of belief, it's only the degree of hatred they are willing to support it with.
Remember the Catholic Spanish Inquisition. Not really so long ago, when we had the Grand Inquisitor determining what we ould all think regardless of fact, ie based on myth. I suppose today we consider Catholic enlightened, but does that mean the myth has been substituted by evidence based fact. Regretably not. 
You see this problem has been around the thousands of years and it seems you wold like it to continue. 
That is what is scary


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 May 2013)

Thanks SD, will check it out.

FX, the thing about religions is that you have to be prepared to dig really, really deeply to find any glimmer of truth.  If 99% of modern religion is useless rubbish, you have to get to the 1% that is gold.  You haven't done that yet.  It took me 10 years.  I can now discern with great accuracy what's what.  The greatest men throughout history knew what was going on when it came to the real root of religion.  For example, Einstein, da Vinci and Plato were all deeply religious in their own way, but you're probably a tad smarter than those guys.  

If you watch the nightly news and think that religion is about what goes on at the Vatican, your local church or a typical Zen Monastery, you haven't dug anywhere near deep enough.  It's nothing like that.


----------



## FxTrader (8 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> FX, the thing about religions is that you have to be prepared to dig really, really deeply to find any glimmer of truth.  If 99% of modern religion is useless rubbish, you have to get to the 1% that is gold.  You haven't done that yet.  It took me 10 years.  I can now discern with great accuracy what's what.  The greatest men throughout history knew what was going on when it came to the real root of religion.  For example, Einstein, da Vinci and Plato were all deeply religious in their own way, but you're probably a tad smarter than those guys.




Actually I did dig deeply over many years and dug a huge hole at that.  However, the gold I found (to use your metaphor) was fools gold.  Your sarcastic insult aside, only a very small fraction of the scientific community today believe in a sky God of any description.  The real "root" of religion is a desperate search for meaning, purpose and eternal existence that manifests itself in the creation of fantastic mythological stories and expressions that are not based on sound reasoning or verifiable evidence, just wishful thinking.

There is merit to contemplation, meditation and the desire to be a better human being but I do not consider this to be a religious pursuit but rather a path to a happier more fulfilling existence on terra firma.  I agree, there is a glimmer of truth in religious texts but nothing that is not of human origin.


----------



## Some Dude (8 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> I agree, there is a glimmer of truth in religious texts but nothing that is not of human origin.




In the same way that current scientific models are simply our way of abstractly defining reality, religions served that purpose and as such I find provide more insight about who we are than necessarily what is outside of our minds. Morality is my current topic of interest and while I find it very easy to dismiss virtually all religions from a moral authority perspective, I do find the historical trajectory and the role they were perceived as having played useful to gain insight into how we divine and determine right and wrong.

Or in other words, it seems obvious to us now that slavery was morally wrong yet it is hard to derive an effective model, experiment, or theory to help demonstrate that in the same way gravity developed. Yet it seems ridiculously simple within the ethic of reciprocity, so why so long for that awareness to take hold on a wider civilisation scale? Religion seems to have a natural or inherent key for "coercing" people to do things in this context, albeit one that is also ridiculously easy to manipulate.

I find religions to be superstitious nonsense, yet there is an effectiveness to them that I find worth learning about.


----------



## Sean K (8 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Actually I did dig deeply over many years and dug a huge hole at that.  However, the gold I found (to use your metaphor) was fools gold.  Your sarcastic insult aside, only a very small fraction of the scientific community today believe in a sky God of any description.  The real "root" of religion is a desperate search for meaning, purpose and eternal existence that manifests itself in the creation of fantastic mythological stories and expressions that are not based on sound reasoning or verifiable evidence, just wishful thinking.
> 
> There is merit to contemplation, meditation and the desire to be a better human being but I do not consider this to be a religious pursuit but rather a path to a happier more fulfilling existence on terra firma.  I agree, there is a glimmer of truth in religious texts but nothing that is not of human origin.



Good post. Especially the last sentence. Nice one.


----------



## DB008 (9 May 2013)

*Babies' herpes linked to circumcision practice*




> New York (CNN) -- Two more infants have contracted the herpes virus after undergoing an ultra-Orthodox Jewish type of circumcision, which has been linked to the spread of the potentially deadly virus to newborn boys, according to the New York City Health Department.
> 
> *In the ritual, known as metzitzah b'peh, after removing the foreskin of the penis the person performing the procedure places his mouth briefly over the wound, sucking a small amount of blood out, which is discarded.
> *
> ...




http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/07/health/new-york-neonatal-herpes


----------



## Tink (9 May 2013)

Great post Pavilion.

NO, THOU SHALT NOT KILL is a part of religion,  and so is LOVE THY MOTHER AND FATHER, but you want to throw that in the bin for the future generations


----------



## Some Dude (9 May 2013)

Is there another thread about creation, evolution, etc.? If not I am happy to discuss opinions about that here but I thought I would check first.


----------



## bunyip (9 May 2013)

Tink said:


> Great post Pavilion.
> 
> NO, THOU SHALT NOT KILL is a part of religion,  and so is LOVE THY MOTHER AND FATHER, but you want to throw that in the bin for the future generations




The Bible also says ‘_an eye for an eye’,_ and it contains many stories that condone and glorify killing people, slavery, and general barbarity towards humans.


----------



## bellenuit (9 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Is there another thread about creation, evolution, etc.? If not I am happy to discuss opinions about that here but I thought I would check first.




Yes there is, but I can't recall its name. It was quite active a year or two ago.


----------



## DB008 (9 May 2013)

Tink said:


> Great post Pavilion.
> 
> NO, THOU SHALT NOT KILL is a part of religion,  and so is LOVE THY MOTHER AND FATHER, but you want to throw that in the bin for the future generations




And herein lies the problem with religion.

It can be nit-picked to suit whomever you are, and can be interpreted whichever way you want, to suit you.


Lets take a look at the Koran


*The Koran*




> *The Quran Distinguishes Muslims from Non-Muslims and Establishes a Hierarchy of Relative Worth*
> 
> The only acceptable position of non-Muslims to Muslims is subjugation under Islamic rule:
> 
> Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29 Jizya is the money that non-Muslims must pay to their Muslim overlords in a pure Islamic state.)






> *The Quran Says that Allah does NOT Love Unbelievers*
> 
> Allah only loves those who obey Muhammad (at least according to Muhammad, who provided the "narration"):
> 
> ...






> *The Quran Says that Non-Muslims are Destined for Eternal Torture in Hell*
> 
> The Quran Says that Non-Muslims are Destined for Eternal Torture in Hell
> 
> And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers (3:85)


----------



## Tink (9 May 2013)

The ten commandments have stood strong through the years
Dont blame religion.

Who is breaking it down?

Some Dude -- Is there a God
Beauty in Religion
and a few other religion threads, had alot of indepth about science and religion.

Sadly seems alot have left ..


----------



## Sean K (9 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> The Bible also says ‘_an eye for an eye’,_ and it contains many stories that condone and glorify killing people, slavery, and general barbarity towards humans.



Golly, all should check out Deuteronomy and be shocked by the violence. No loving there. How can any modern person read that and still connect with traditional religion?


----------



## bunyip (10 May 2013)

Religion is a belief system, and our beliefs tend to be similar to what our parents believed and taught us. Not always, but frequently that’s the case.

If you were born to aboriginal parents in Central Australia a couple of hundred years ago, you’d believe in rainbow serpents and bunyips and all sorts of fantastic and mythical creatures. Just as almost every religion believes in fantastic and mythical creatures.
Religions have worked out that if you make something sound appealing, lots of people are going to believe in it even if it’s not supported by evidence. Spruikers use the same basic principle to sell dodgy investment schemes – tell people what they want to hear, that you can help them to become wealthy, and they’ll follow you in droves. Storm Financial is a good example.
I grew up in Christian family, just as my parents did. I and my parents before me were subjected to weekly religious instruction classes from our earliest school days, we were taken to church and Sunday school every Sunday without fail. 
We had religious instruction in school for half an hour every Friday. And we learnt things that sounded fantastically good to us. 

I learnt that Jonah lived in a whale because it was God’s will that he be punished for some misdemeanor. I can’t remember what he did wrong, or how long he lived the whale, and I never questioned how he could survive inside a that big fish without air or tucker or women. I just knew that he did - both the bible and the minister of our church told me so.

Noah built the ark because God told him to. Following God’s instructions to the letter, he captured a male and a female of every species of living creature on earth, transported them to his boat, and kept them alive through a flood that lasted forty days and forty nights. Every creature on earth was drowned. But no problem, Noah had replacement breeding stock in the form of  one male and one female of every species, so the world was repopulated with living things.

What a fantastic story – it awed me and appealed to me so much that I believed every word of it without reservation. I didn’t question how Noah managed in just a couple of years to build a boat that must have been bigger than the largest ships of today, if it was to house all these millions of animals and other living creatures. I never questioned how he managed to go out and run down a pair of wild rhinos or grizzly bears without getting ripped apart or gored to death, let alone transport them to his ship and get them aboard, or prevent them from wreckong the boat once he got them there.  I reckon old Noah must have been quite a guy. 
And his wife must have been an intrepid woman of immense fortitude with an enormous capacity for work. I mean, imagine how busy she would have been gathering all that hay to feed thousands of large grass eating animals. And I imagine she was a dawn to dark woman when it came to the daily feeding routine. 
I’ve hand-fed more than a thousand cattle every day during a drought, and I can tell you it’s a bloody big job. So I can only marvel at Mrs. Noah’s prodigious work capacity in being able to feed many thousands of animals on board her husbands boat.
I can only assume that Noah and his missus were non-smokers, otherwise they would have been blown to smithereens the first time they lit a fag in the midst of all that methane gas expelled from all those grass eating animals.

I am of course being facetious to make a point – that the nonsense that’s rammed down our throats about religion is the sort of stuff that no reasonable adult would believe if they heard it for the first time. But tell it to them as children, and repeat it over and over again in stories and bible classes and Sunday school and suchlike, and kids come to believe it and accept it for the rest of their lives.
Just as they accept that God is your friend and your guardian and your champion who, providing you give him your unswerving loyalty and admiration, will protect you and your family, keep you safe from ills, heal you if you’re unwell, send you rain when you need it, and stand by your side in times of adversity to ensure you prevail over your enemies.
 When I learnt as a small boy that God was such a great bloke who was willing to go and and bat for me in every aspect of my life if I believed in him, I grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I mean, who wouldn’t want a pal like that?

As I grew up and started thinking more and more for myself instead of believing everything I was told, it became increasingly plain that I’d been conned by all this God business. 
It almost beggars belief that adults who are intelligent, thinking people in just about every aspect of their lives, can still go on believing the religious fallacies that are taught to us as children.


----------



## pavilion103 (10 May 2013)

Assumption - because someone was told something by their parents it is less valid. 

3 sets of parents
1. Tells their kid 1+1 = 2
2. 1 + 1 = 3
3. 1 + 1 = 4

1. Oh you just believe 1+1 = 2 because you're parents tons you. Haha you can't think for yourself.


The only sensible thing is to question the validity of the belief system. Not to judge whether its from parents or not. Because some parents WILL be right. 

I know something like Christianity is an interesting case. Started in Middle, then became most prominent in Europe, then South America. Now it is becoming (if it isn't already) most prominent in Asia and a country like China (communist background).
So to say this was just passed down and believes from parents is inaccurate. This is a fact.

And don't be so arrogant to say "oh these countries believe because the white man came in and told them and everyone just bowed down and believed the white man"
No... Different people with a completely different background have been exposed to it and reasoned that it makes the most sense.

Such a silly ignorant assumption: most across the world have just believed because their parents did. The above proves that that simply is not true at all.


----------



## pavilion103 (10 May 2013)

It also boggles the mind to think that sensible intelligent adults could believe in evolution.

A kid can tell you that something can't come from nothing. How ridiculous.

Yeh, something evolved from pond slime and somehow programmed itself to develop over time into a human. Yep, I'm sold!

Natural selection of course ( losing genetic information). But macro evolution (the complete opposite of gaining genetic information) = no evidence.

Isn't science supposed to be something that is observable and repeatable? Evolution is a philosophy which even Darwin said would be in serious question if the cell was found to be irreducible complex like it is today. In this day and age Darwin's THEORY would not have got off the ground.

Are you people INSANE! 

I hope you don't trade like you reason about this stuff!!!


----------



## McLovin (10 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Yeh, something evolved from pond slime and somehow programmed itself to develop over time into a human. Yep, I'm sold!




It's a bit more believeable than thinking a snake could talk and some dead Palestinian walked on water. At one point religion supported the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe. To disagree was to be called a heretic. Who was proven right? 

*shrug*

No one's views will be changed in this thread. Not that it matters. Education is the slow death of religion.

The end.


----------



## Some Dude (10 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It also boggles the mind to think that sensible intelligent adults could believe in evolution.
> 
> A kid can tell you that something can't come from nothing. How ridiculous.




What does evolution have to do with something coming from nothing?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It also boggles the mind to think that sensible intelligent adults could believe in evolution.
> 
> A kid can tell you that something can't come from nothing. How ridiculous.
> 
> ...




If you've ever seen a monkey skeleton next to a human skeleton (and brain and nervous system and muscular system), you might change your mind because they are almost identical apart form size.  I'd say evolution is a highly likely theory.

Your other point about "something can't come from nothing" - I feel like everything came from nothing, which was the Big Bang.  But for me this doesn't negate what true religion is all about.  The Void, the Abyss, the Nothingness , as the Source of Everything, is what some people have historically called God.  God can be realized only by complete and utter destruction of the 'self'.  The 'self' is not the body, but the process by which the mind identifies with the body.  It is the socially programmed idea that 'I' exists.... ego in other words.  Each of us believes we inhabit this body (the one typing or reading this message), but this identity, this ownership, is nothing more than a thought....ie. illusory.  A good place for a skeptic to start would be to read Jill Bolte Taylor's account "My Stroke of Insight".  Not that she experienced enlightenment, but it was sort of heading in that direction.  She's a neuro-scientist...and now she understands how science and religion fit together....which they do, perfectly in fact.


----------



## dtraeger (10 May 2013)

Religion should be illegal, it causes too many problems


----------



## FxTrader (10 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It also boggles the mind to think that sensible intelligent adults could believe in evolution.
> 
> A kid can tell you that something can't come from nothing. How ridiculous.
> 
> ...




Such is the reasoning of a slave to religious mythology.  Your poor understanding of the implications of evolution theory is inexcusable and deliberate ignorance.  Evolution theory is not a belief system, is not a godless philosophy and makes no claims or suppositions about the origin of the universe.  It stems from observable generational genetic mutation and the fossil record.  Your irrational contempt for this theory about how life emerged on this planet is based on the absurd notion held by many religious Luddites that if someone can claim a flaw in evolution theory then it must be totally false and the only plausible alternative is a sky god of some metaphysical description.

Let me spell this out for you, whether aspects of evolution theory are totally false or only partially correct, that does not by default make a compelling case for the existence of any invisible architect of any human description.  Accepting that the large body of scientific research around evolution theory has merit is not in any way equivalent to belief in invisible beings or faith in the total infallibility of things written in iron-age magic books.



> Are you people INSANE!




If by insane you mean strong belief in things like angels, demons, satanic serpents, virgin births, arks and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old - not me.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Yeh, something evolved from pond slime and somehow programmed itself to develop over time into a human. Yep, I'm sold!




Well... How would an independent observer be able to tell the difference between pond slime and a catholic priest?


----------



## dtraeger (10 May 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Well... How would an independent observer be able to tell the difference between pond slime and a catholic priest?




By checking reaction to boys


----------



## bellenuit (10 May 2013)

I think the last dozen or so posts are off topic and should be moved to the "Is There a God?" thread , where there has been numerous discussions on evolution etc.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6781&highlight=god


----------



## boofis (10 May 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0EHI3Hg_Q


----------



## explod (10 May 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Well... How would an independent observer be able to tell the difference between pond slime and a catholic priest?




They have 4.5 billion invested with murdock so that would complete the mix.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 May 2013)

dtraeger said:


> By checking reaction to boys




But often, pond slime is all over boys as well.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I think the last dozen or so posts are off topic and should be moved to the "Is There a God?" thread , where there has been numerous discussions on evolution etc.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6781&highlight=god




The problem with this thread and that one you point out is that they are rendered totally useless by the fact that terms have not been defined.  God - yes or God- no.  Vote now!  Means nothing...less than nothing to anyone.

Voltaire said "If you would converse with me, define your terms."  So all this argument is totally pointless really.  29 pages of a thread...and no one knows what the other is talking about. 

Personally I disagree with everyone on this thread, both the religious and the non-religious.  When I read what people say about politics and economics and trading, I can see value in a lot of the contributions people make, but here there's just no value at all, on either side.  It's so outdated, so old hat, so fuc.king last century...the whole argument, BOTH SIDES.  

Remember Good Will Hunting, the movie?

Here's an excerpt that always comes to mind whenever I have the misfortune of reading this thread:




*WILL*
            You fuc.kin' people baffle me. Spend all your money on
            these fu.ckin' fancy books you surround yourselves with
            'em... *and they're the wrong fu.cking books.
*
*SEAN*
            Then what're the right fu.ckin' books, Will?

* WILL*
            Hey, whatever blows your hair back.


----------



## FxTrader (10 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The problem with this thread and that one you point out is that they are rendered totally useless by the fact that terms have not been defined.




There are simply infinite ways to define the term "God" and no consensus is possible except among like minded cults.  The dictionary definition is only one such attempt.  Who or what this fictional entity called God is conjured up to be by the major religions is not the point.  Strong belief in the the competing claims in magic books is tearing human society apart.  This is happening today as well as in the past.   The arguments against religion have changed over time as scientific discovery has advanced.  Some are old and some are new.  Changing the views of the religious requires a challenge to the very core of what they believe and yes, what they believe is centuries old dogma scribed in magic books.  Posting articles about religious lunacy does not convince the religious to review their beliefs since such events are written off as extremist and unrepresentative behavior.  The replies by the religious apologists here is evidence of this.

Religion is indeed crazy and people such as Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins to name a few have advanced the argument against religious belief over the last decade and society never needed such debate more than now.  

If you're so enlightened and somehow consider the discussion here last century why not move on instead of posting a vulgar rant?


----------



## McLovin (10 May 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Well... How would an independent observer be able to tell the difference between pond slime and a catholic priest?




One is harmful to children.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> One is harmful to children.


----------



## Some Dude (10 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Remember Good Will Hunting, the movie?
> 
> Here's an excerpt that always comes to mind whenever I have the misfortune of reading this thread:




Any port in a storm...


----------



## Sean K (10 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I think the last dozen or so posts are off topic and should be moved to the "Is There a God?" thread , where there has been numerous discussions on evolution etc.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6781&highlight=god






Gringotts Bank said:


> The problem with this thread and that one you point out is that they are rendered totally useless by the fact that terms have not been defined.  God - yes or God- no.  Vote now!  Means nothing...less than nothing to anyone.



Yes, threads get off topic when they're inter-related. I think once the other thread has some people posting in that specific line of thought it might gather momentum. At the moment, the momentum is here.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 May 2013)

kennas said:


> Yes, threads get off topic when they're inter-related. I think once the other thread has some people posting in that specific line of thought it might gather momentum. At the moment, the momentum is here.




Here's some of my own definitions that I have been using in my arguments.  With these definitions, everything can easily be explained, religious, scientific and otherwise.  They can comfortably explain the whole lot - nothing need be left out of the picture.

*Mind:*

-- aka self, aka ego, aka thought-stream.
-- mind is continuous 24 hours a day except in NREM sleep (deep sleep).
-- the deepest most cherished thought is the 'I' thought.
-- all other thoughts are layered on top of the 'I" thought.
-- all other thoughts relate to the 'I' thought
-- Even when you are very relaxed and peaceful, the 'I' thought is active.  eg. who is peaceful?  I am.
-- mind is the only thing standing between normal everyday consensus reality, and a level of consciousness that could be called God-realization or enlightenment.. 
-- mind is created mainly by left cerebral hemisphere activity
-- Mind can be temporarily switched off through hallucinogenic drug use.  This is a dangerous incomplete and unreliable method.
-- Mind can be switched off by certain types of meditation and certain types of prayer.
-- Mind creates the body.  It also creates time and space.  Time and space literally cease to exist when the mind is made silent.  Ecstasy and freedom from all fear happens.  Desire ends.  The body continues to live until it gets old and dies or gets sick and dies.  When the ego re-boots after enlightenment, it is used as a "shell" to function in the World.

*God:*

-- aka Enlightenment, Realization, Truth, Light, Universal love
-- is not a thing, person, energy, wave/perticle.  Is not a thing nor a no-thing.
-- can only be described in the negative (what it is not).
-- cannot be conceived of by the mind, since mind is the barrier (the only barrier)
-- ANY way the mind wants to conceive of God must necessarily be wrong and hence....
-- ALL beliefs are false.  Not just all beliefs about God, but all beliefs full stop.
-- beliefs are false in a relative sense, since they are created by the mind.  Mental activity is not reality, but a concept of reality (the finger which points to the moon is not the moon itself).  Beliefs are simply a bunch of neurons deciding to fire a certain way.  They have no inherent reality.  This applies to scientific beliefs also - they are all false.
-- Anything you think about God is false.  It has to be so, since it's the mind which is doing the imagining.
-- God is what existed before the Big Bang, and what gave rise to the Big Bang.  
-- God is not "in" everything, since it *is* everything, including the profane, the ugly, the grotesque and the sinful.  God is not synonymous with "goodness" as such, since goodness and badness is a mental concept.  It is beyond good and evil.

*
Religious experience*

-- Anything that you can experience is not the Ultimate, since there is a "you" who experienced it.
-- Some on this forum (eg Tink) have experienced bliss or love, lights, divine love etc.  This is an important aspect of spirituality, but not God itself.  God itself is when *all experiences end*.  It's the end of everything you ever knew, including yourself.  The body does not need to die for the self to die.
-- Spiritual experience is mind-created, and as such, illusory.  When I say "illusory", I mean it lies at the same level of reality as what we call consensus reality.  It can however be life changing, as it gives a glimpse of "something else" going on.  Religious experiences can be extremely powerful.
-- When ancient (and some modern) texts talk about angels and demons, they _actually do exist_, but only at the mind-level.  Anyone who has ingested an heroic dose of LSD reports that other-worldly beings do in fact exist in other dimensions.  The robustness of this reality is far above that of say dreaming a dream at night.  When we wake from a normal dream about weird creatures, we say "oh that was silly" and think nothing of it.  When you come down after an LSD trip and have seen angels and demons, you say "MY GOD, they actually EXIST!!".  This can happen with meditation and prayer also.  One need not worry about angels and demons or other beings - it is truest to say that they both exist and they do not exist.  Paradoxical, but only to the socialized mind.
-- Religious experiences must be completely set aside if one is to realize the Ultimate.  They are of no significance in the end.

*Love*

-- Normal human love is pretty pathetic.  It's so full of conditions that you could not really call it love.  Divine love is unconditional.  It loves the sinner and saint equally.  People cannot truly love while the ego is intact.

*True Religion*

-- All the Greats - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Krisha, Socrates, Lao Tse, Plato, Da Vinci, and some modern ones such as Adyashanti, Jed Mckenna, Richard Rose, Allan Watts.... on and on... lots of them.  They all speak the same way.  They all say "quiet the mind and see what happens".  


You're welcome to have your own definitions, but these are mine, based upon a lot of study.  They work.


----------



## bunyip (14 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Religion is indeed crazy and people such as Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins to name a few have advanced the argument against religious belief over the last decade and society never needed such debate more than now.




I agree – religion is crazy - some of them dangerously so.
The following link throws some light on Islam, the ‘religion of peace’. Anyone who thinks this particular religion is no threat to Australia is not thinking clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TodayTonight


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (14 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It also boggles the mind to think that sensible intelligent adults could believe in evolution.
> 
> A kid can tell you that something can't come from nothing. How ridiculous.
> 
> ...




Go read Virolution by Frank Ryan. The book was released in 2001 after the human genome was mapped. If you are looking for evidence in relation to the gaining of genetic information, you can find it here. If you are looking for observable and repeatable, the mechanism discussed in this book is observable and repeatable in every species on the planet. Have fun.


----------



## DB008 (14 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> I agree – religion is crazy - some of them dangerously so.
> The following link throws some light on Islam, the ‘religion of peace’. Anyone who thinks this particular religion is no threat to Australia is not thinking clearly.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/TodayTonight




Yeah, idiots.

More of this stuff to come

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/17129164/troubled-suburbs/


----------



## Lantern (15 May 2013)

^^ That should lead to instant deportation.

Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, just go now.

I used to consider myself not to be a racist but these radical muslims have changed all that.


----------



## bunyip (15 May 2013)

Lantern said:


> ^^ That should lead to instant deportation.
> 
> Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, just go now.
> 
> I used to consider myself not to be a racist but these radical muslims have changed all that.




You’re not a racist for detesting people who behave like sub-human mongrels.

That bloke who made the king hit on the other muslim, he’s one of those low lifes who virtually created a mini riot by marching in protest aginst the film about muslims that was made oversears, and had nothing to do with Australia. To see him and his mob of goons ranting and raving and brandishing posters that said ‘BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM’, shows us just how low this mob are, and how slack our authorities are for not hitting them with the full force of the law. It’s illegal to incite people to violence in this country. He speaks with a foreign accent, obviously he wasn’t born here, so why have we not deported him to the miserable desert that he and his kind crawled out of. I doubt if he or any of his pals even copped a fine over that little show of sick hatred. I wonder if he’ll cop any criminal penalty for the king hit – somehow I doubt it – at best he’s likely to get a slap over the wrist.

It’s a tragedy that successive Australian governments, through their bloody do-gooder policies, have set Australia on the road to the very same problems that plague every country that’s opened its doors to extremist religions.


----------



## fiftyeight (16 May 2013)

Not impressed that we still have a daily lords prayer at the beginning of federal parliament. I would really like to see this changed


----------



## dutchie (17 May 2013)

Islam - religion of peace - not going so well in Syria.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/15/syrias-warring-parties-film-themselves-committing-atrocities


Little bit of cannibalism on the side.


----------



## DB008 (18 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> Islam - religion of peace - not going so well in Syria.
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/15/syrias-warring-parties-film-themselves-committing-atrocities
> 
> ...




Hmm.....


----------



## Sean K (23 May 2013)

So, one man makes a crappy movie about one of the prophets and there are riots around the world including in Australia calling for his head. Literally.

A man gets his head cut off on the streets of London for, um, being on the streets of London. Allah Akbar!

Has humanity really advanced to this?

Still just animals.


----------



## bunyip (27 May 2013)

From my bible study days I recall that Jesus was supposedly a strong advocate of ‘turning the other cheek’. His message to his followers was that if someone slaps you then rather than retaliate, you should offer him the other cheek to slap as well.
I don’t recall Jesus giving any advice on how far you should take his ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy. 
To me it sounds both idealistic and unrealistic. Boys boarding school taught me very quickly that the meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach doesn’t work too well in the real world – there are people who will walk all over you unless you learn to stick up for yourself by giving as good as you get, both verbally and physically.

Last week in London we saw yet another example of religion-based madness when a couple of sub-human animals ran a man down in a car, then hacked him to death with meat cleavers.
 Is there any person, Christian or otherwise, who would seriously suggest we ‘turn the other cheek’ to this sort of thing?

Duckman and Tink - as followers and presumably advocates of the teachings of Jesus, your thoughts on this would be appreciated.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> From my bible study days I recall that Jesus was supposedly a strong advocate of ‘turning the other cheek’. His message to his followers was that if someone slaps you then rather than retaliate, you should offer him the other cheek to slap as well.
> I don’t recall Jesus giving any advice on how far you should take his ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy.
> To me it sounds both idealistic and unrealistic. Boys boarding school taught me very quickly that the meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach doesn’t work too well in the real world – there are people who will walk all over you unless you learn to stick up for yourself by giving as good as you get, both verbally and physically.
> 
> ...




The following item of advice appears to have been issued shortly thereafter within the very same conversation:



			
				Luke 6:31 said:
			
		

> "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."




Would you agree that there would be far fewer atrocities (murders, robberies assaults etc.) if everyone were to follow this sage advice?

P.S. Apologies for not being Duckman or Tink, but I also happen to have some admiration for Jesus teachings.


----------



## bellenuit (28 May 2013)

cynic said:


> The following item of advice appears to have been issued shortly thereafter within the very same conversation:
> 
> "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
> 
> ...




Agreed. It would be wonderful if everyone followed that teaching. Not only would there be far fewer atrocities, as you say, but there would be no opposition to gay marriage, women priests or a myriad of other "policies" (if that is the right word) that Christians believe are important. 

I too think some of the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the New Testament are fundamental to a just and caring society, as opposed to the vindictive and revengeful edicts of the God in the Old Testament, though I believe  there is a Jesus quote that orders his followers to obey the rules of the Old Testament God (it's too late for me to go looking for it now). But also, the "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you" (as I learned it in school) command is more likely to be followed by Atheists and humanists today than by many, though not all, Christians.


----------



## Tink (28 May 2013)

Agree Cynic 

Sadly we have this thread blaming religion for human failings, seems to be a passtime, yet if we all lived the way of Jesus, what a perfect world it would be.
Heaven on earth.

Bellenuit going on about gay marraige destroys the family which is exactly what its about, taking away the rights of children loving their mother and father.
Thats a selfish thing to do, dont say its not about the children because children are a part of gay marraige and will be written in law.
How dare we do that to the children?

Bunyip, you know the Church is nothing like that, there is goodness there and helping others. You have seen it for yourself.
The Christian charities, churches, schools, hospitals are all full to the brim helping the community.


----------



## pavilion103 (28 May 2013)

Either you take all of Jesus or none of him. Jesus was not for gay marriage. How absurd that someone would say if people followed Jesus there would be no opposition to gay marriage. Beyond laughable.

The teachings of Jesus are amazing. It's the failings of the church at times that is bad. When they fail it is because they are actually acting against Jesus teachings. 

Religion causes problems (man made traditions etc), following Christ doesn't. It leads to life and freedom


----------



## pavilion103 (28 May 2013)

But people do need to look into what Christ taught and no exclude parts.

He made unmistakable claims of his divinity. He can't just be a good moral teacher. He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.

Jesus was in his day and is very polarizing because he forces is to make a choice about whether we will accept who he claims to be


----------



## boofis (28 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> He made unmistakable claims of his divinity. He can't just be a good moral teacher. He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.




I see you're a C.S. Lewis fan.


----------



## bunyip (28 May 2013)

cynic said:


> The following item of advice appears to have been issued shortly thereafter within the very same conversation:
> 
> Would you agree that there would be far fewer atrocities (murders, robberies assaults etc.) if everyone were to follow this sage advice?




Absolutely – the world would be a great place if everyone treated each other in the same way they themselves would like to be treated. 
That’s the basic principle I was brought up with, and still try to live by today. That’s the basic principle that my wife and I have instilled in our children. Perhaps that’s why my family and I live peaceful and contented lives, getting along with people in our community and helping our friends and neighbors (and sometimes complete strangers) wherever we can.

Now that I’ve answered your question, Cynic, perhaps you’ll answer mine –* How far do we take this meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach that Jesus advocated?*
For example, should we have turned the other cheek in 1942 when the Japanese dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Darwin than they dropped on Pearl Harbor?
A brief history....Japanese military intelligence told them, incorrectly as it turned out, that the US Pacific force was in Darwin. So the Japs decided that the best way to take out the American force supposedly stationed there was to kill all forty thousand Darwin residents by bombing the city into oblivion. 
So tell me, Cynic, and Duckman and Tink and anyone else who’d like to comment – what would your Christian perspective have been in this situation? Should we have ‘turned the other cheek’ to the Japs by adopting the meek and mild, non-retaliatory approach that Jesus taught? Or were we right to recognize that the pacifist approach wouldn’t have worked with the Japanese, and the only way to avoid being over-run by the enemy was to fight back?


----------



## bunyip (28 May 2013)

Tink said:


> Bunyip, you know the Church is nothing like that, there is goodness there and helping others. You have seen it for yourself.
> The Christian charities, churches, schools, hospitals are all full to the brim helping the community.




Tink, I most definitely agree with you – Christian churches are for the most part comprised of decent, caring people who go out of their way to help others. I’ve seen it for myself and have personally been involved in the caring and kindness many times. I’ve known an odd bad person to be a member of a church, but they’re outnumbered about a hundred to one by the decent caring people.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.




...or a prophet similar to Buddha, Zarathustra, Socrates, Laotse, Ramana, etc.

When you do a bit of deciphering, they all spoke the same way, about the same things.  It doesn't diminish Jesus' work to say this.  

I tend to agree with Osho, who says that the 'Sermon on the Mount' is very insightful, but probably the only part of the Bible you need to read. There's a lot of rubbish in it that requires sifting through, and the same can be said for a lot of other religious texts.  The problem has always been that ordinary men have tried to capture what cannot be captured easily in words.  As Laotse said:  “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know”.


----------



## Sean K (28 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It's the failings of the church at times that is bad.



Yes. Organised religion has failed by not understanding that moral and social rules are only relevant for the day and need to be adapted and upgraded as we progress as a species. 

Those religions that cling on to the dogma of ancient myths relevant for the blind will eventually fail.

Those that adapt to new understanding and discovery will flourish. 

There's no flourishing going on in religion right now.


----------



## FxTrader (28 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> But people do need to look into what Christ taught and no exclude parts.




Agreed.  Once one examines the entirety of the claims of Jesus and his followers and not just select excerpts of wisdom then a clear picture emerges of the genesis of a mythology that has deceived millions into believing extraordinary claims on bad evidence.



> He made unmistakable claims of his divinity.




As have many other religious figures before and after Jesus.



> He can't just be a good moral teacher. He is either crazy, a liar or Lord.




This is fallacious logic based on omission.  He could just be mistaken or deluded but his claim to be a God, sent by God or some derivative of God is not unusual in human history.



> Jesus was in his day and is very polarizing because he forces is to make a choice about whether we will accept who he claims to be




Whoever and whatever Jesus claimed to be only forces one to examine the extraordinary claims against the extraordinary evidence in support of those claims.  Since such evidence does not exist such claims can be dismissed as wishful thinking and we move onto the claims of the next self proclaimed prophet of an imaginary sky God.


----------



## McLovin (28 May 2013)

kennas said:


> Yes. Organised religion has failed by not understanding that moral and social rules are only relevant for the day and need to be adapted and upgraded as we progress as a species.
> 
> Those religions that cling on to the dogma of ancient myths relevant for the blind will eventually fail.
> 
> ...




+1

I've got no problem in people believing whatever they want to, regardless of how ridiculous it seems. If a book about sorcery gets you out of bed in the mornings then there's nothing wrong with that, just keep it to yourself. And spare the rest of the lectures.

Sooner or later, religion today will be viewed in the same way as we view the Druids worshiping the Sun.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 May 2013)

No one is getting this.

Time for some Socratic dialogue.    Wrote it myself - hope you like it.

*Questioner:  Who is debating religion?  Who asks the questions?  (not directed at anyone).

Answerer:  I am.*

Q: What does 'I' mean?
A: You know ...I.  How else can I say it?!!
Q:  what is the I?  Describe it.
A: just this! (points to the body)
Q: The 'I' is the body?
A: Yes I am THIS (waves hands over the body).
Q: You're telling me that the 'I', the 'me', is the body, that they are the same?
A:  Yes.

Q:  Now pay attention to your whole body.
A:  ok
Q: No... I want you to really do this.  Give your attention to your whole body at once.
A: ok I am doing that.
Q:  Who is paying attention?
A: I am!!  Duh.
Q:  You just told me your body is your 'I'.  Now you're telling me there is something else you call 'I' that is doing the watching of the body, the thing you called 'I' just a second ago.  So is the thing you call 'I', the body or the thing watching the body?
A: I guess it's the thing doing the watching.
Q: So you are not your body
A: No, I am the thing watching
Q: And what is that?
A: My mind...I must be my mind,

Q: What is the mind?
A: the mind is thoughts, mental processes.
Q: ok, I agree.  Now pay attention to your thoughts and mental processes for a moment.
A: ok
Q: Now who or what is paying attention to the thoughts and mental processes?
A: I am.
Q: So you're not your mind either.  What are you?  Who are you?  What is this 'I' that you keep referring to?

and so on....

Jesus said "I am that I am".  What did he mean?  He also said ""Before Abraham was, I AM."  What did he mean?

Nissagardatta entitled his book "I Am That".  He understood also.

Ramana got it also.  “Your duty is to be and not to be this or that. 'I am that I am' sums up the whole truth. The method is summed up in the words 'Be still'. *What does stillness mean? It means destroy yourself.* Because any form or shape is the cause for trouble. Give up the notion that 'I am so and so'. All that is required to realize the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that?”

Descartes:  "Cogito ergo sum" - I think therefore I am.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 May 2013)

....In other words, the very moment you know who or what you _*really*_ are (who the 'I' is), the whole world collapses and you realize that you literally do not exist, and that you never existed.  The thought "I exist" is seen for what it is...simply a thought with no inherent truth.  Only IT has ever existed (call it God if you want).  IT gave rise to time and space, the big bang, evolution, your body and even the illusion of 'me'. 'Me' is not the body, so when 'me' dies, the body goes on as usual.  So when Jesus refers to himself as God, there's nothing else he can really say!!  He is God, but so am I...and so are you!  But this is just explaining the theory.  Anyone can do that.  Destroying the I-thought is very, very tricky.  Million times harder than trading, so they say!


----------



## cynic (29 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> Absolutely – the world would be a great place if everyone treated each other in the same way they themselves would like to be treated.
> That’s the basic principle I was brought up with, and still try to live by today. That’s the basic principle that my wife and I have instilled in our children. Perhaps that’s why my family and I live peaceful and contented lives, getting along with people in our community and helping our friends and neighbors (and sometimes complete strangers) wherever we can.
> 
> Now that I’ve answered your question, Cynic, perhaps you’ll answer mine –* How far do we take this meek and mild, ‘turn the other cheek’ approach that Jesus advocated?*
> ...




Thanks for your reply Bunyip.Your subscription to the "treat others the way you'd like to be treated" philosophy is exemplified by the courteous and non-judgmental tone of your many posts on this forum.

Before giving my response to your question, I would like to state for the record that I do not claim to be able to reconcile every written account of the actions and words of Christ with my understanding of the key teaching/s that many have come to describe as Christianity. Things like the cursing of a barren tree, bouts of rage at the temple and calling a woman a dog are a few of the things that lead me to wonder whether the masters might be capable of having bad halo days. (It is, of course, entirely possible that there was a higher purpose behind these actions which continues to elude me.) 

Having said that, I do not currently subscribe to the view that any of Jesus' teachings require passive submission to the hostile actions of others. I take solace in the fact that items of advice such as "turn the other cheek", and "not forbidding your cloak to those whom take your robe" are given amidst many other items of sage advice (including one of my favourites: "treat others the way you'd like to be treated"). 

What I do believe is that the advice largely calls on adherents to correct misguided aggressors in the same manner that one would hope to be corrected were one to make a similarly calamitous error. 

My current understanding of "...turn the other cheek" and "... do not forbid your cloak" is to maintain one's commitment to a righteous path irrespective of the hostile distractions of others (i.e. not allow the actions of aggressors to tempt descension into the aggressor/victim cycle).

"Sure he slapped your cheek and took your robe!"
"Should one detour from their rightful course only to issue a retaliatory cheekslap and then steal back one's robe?"
"Does one really want to empower misguided thieves and aggressors to entice oneself into becoming the same and thereby granting them an even greater victory?"
"Despite the cheekslap and the stolen robe, one still has another good cheek and a warm cloak also! There's no reason that the show cannot continue!"
"Would this not be preferable to the needless perpetuation of a violent cycle?"


In reference to a few of the other recent posts, I, like GB, have also noticed a number of remarkable similarities between Christ's teachings and those of masters that hail from other religions/philosophies. I like to believe that the value of the message is what's important here. Whilst I agree that questions regarding the origins of various prophets and masters (divine origin/inspiration, virgin birth etc.) are fascinating, they tend to distract from the message that was delivered. Although I lean predominantly towards Christianity and science (with maybe a dash or two of Hinduism and Hermitism thrown in), I do not consider it appropriate for any of the religions that I've encountered to date to claim a monopoly on the truth. Consequently, I prefer not to get too distraught over the political question of which belief system might be the one true and perfect religion. 

(Chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, spearmint etc., feel free to choose whichever you find more palatable!  Whatever flavour you choose it's still ice cream!)


----------



## Tink (29 May 2013)

kennas said:


> Yes. Organised religion has failed by not understanding that moral and social rules are only relevant for the day and need to be adapted and upgraded as we progress as a species.
> 
> Those religions that cling on to the dogma of ancient myths relevant for the blind will eventually fail.
> 
> ...




Thats why the Christian schools are all bursting at the seams with long waiting lists.

Says it all.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> +1
> 
> I've got no problem in people believing whatever they want to, regardless of how ridiculous it seems. If a book about sorcery gets you out of bed in the mornings then there's nothing wrong with that, just keep it to yourself. And spare the rest of the lectures.
> 
> Sooner or later, religion today will be viewed in the same way as we view the Druids worshiping the Sun.




This is how evolution will be viewed. It will probably go down as the biggest con in history and will look embarrassing.

We've taken natural selection (the loss of genetic information) which is obvious and then somehow invented the idea of a macro evolution which is the complete opposite of anything observed (increase in genetic information) and then by faith extrapolated it backwards by millions of years!

Science is observable and repeatable. This however is a complete faith position. People creating a story about the past based on current observable things.

Even Darwin admitted that if the cell was shown to be irreducible complex his theory would be cast into doubt. A lack of transitory fossils is also admitted. There are zero examples of life coming from non life and given that the world is not eternal how can something come from nothing? 

I've given this a try. But I'm sorry this is beyond laughable. I cannot take it seriously. It reminds me of people buying at the height of the property bubble when more and more evidence emerged that it was a completely stupid thing to do. But then again people aren't rational!!!


----------



## pavilion103 (29 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> As have many other religious figures before and after Jesus.





No others have risen from the dead and backed up their claims. 

Have you ever examined the evidence for the resurrection?

- *doubting disciples scared and in hiding after Jesus death. Then something happens and they are prepared to go to death fearlessly for what they knew 100% to either be truth or a lie. *
-empty tomb guarded by Roman soldiers who would be put to death if the body went missing
- appearances to over 500 eye witnesses
- also on a separate note, the Bible doesn't give a generic tomb that no one can research. It gives a very specific location that can be verified with history. Not that this proves anything but the writers certainly aren't being vauge about any of the details
- Also why would the writers have women as the first eye witnesses? Therir testimony held no weight in that culture. If they were trying to convince people they would certainly use men. Once again, not that this proves anything but again, but making the story convincing isn't their number 1 goal. They are recording the facts. 


The biggest one for me is the disciples. What accounts for this bold compelte transformation? Thinking Jesus has let them down, was defeated and in hiding, denied him. And then something happens and they are fearless, they will not deny that Christ (who they thought let them down) is the Lord and rose from the dead. They go to death for it. They wouldn't die for something they know 100% to be a lie.

There is much more evidence...... look it up (and this is for the resurrection alone).  

There are many atheists who have gone on a mission to research and disprove the resurrection and have ended up becoming believers because the evidence is undeniable. 

I am not forcing my view on anyone, I am just after the truth, whatever it is. I wonder if everyone else is too. 

Look into the resurrection.


----------



## boofis (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> No others have risen from the dead and backed up their claims.
> 
> Have you ever examined the evidence for the resurrection?
> 
> ...




50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

I dare say resurrection doesn't appear as unique given that many people jumped up from their slumber around the same weekend!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Look into the resurrection.




It's quite possible that 'resurrection' is a metaphor for death of the self and rebirth into a new consciousness (literally, ego death).  Many commentators have successfully argued this in the past.  Adam and Eve is a metaphor - an excellent one.  Being a metaphor (and not literal truth) does not in any way diminish its usefulness.  Most religious texts involve metaphor and poetry because it's one of the best ways to convey what is very hard to describe literally.  How can one possibly describe the ineffable in ordinary words?

You put a heck of a lot of blind faith in a book that was written a long time ago by ordinary followers of an extraordinary man.  Say I lived back in Einstein's day.  I recognize there is something very special about him, even though I only have a basic science degree.  I follow him everywhere and document his every move and everything he says, all his insights, formulas and wisdom... and I put it into book form.  What are the chances this would be an accurate representation of Einstein's work?  He would likely read my book and say "that's not what I said!  That's not what I meant!  This is all wrong!".  The gulf between me and Einstein is so large that despite my best efforts I just couldn't capture what he was on about.  Those who wrote the Bible would be in the same boat - individuals writing about a man who has no individuality....impossible!!


----------



## McLovin (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> This is how evolution will be viewed. It will probably go down as the biggest con in history and will look embarrassing.
> 
> We've taken natural selection (the loss of genetic information) which is obvious and then somehow invented the idea of a macro evolution which is the complete opposite of anything observed (increase in genetic information) and then by faith extrapolated it backwards by millions of years!
> 
> ...




Oh the irony.



pavilion103 said:


> No others have risen from the dead and backed up their claims.




I've given this a try. But I'm sorry this is beyond laughable. I cannot take it seriously. It reminds me of people buying at the height of the property bubble when more and more evidence emerged that it was a completely stupid thing to do. But then again people aren't rational!!!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> Oh the irony.




Oh the ironing.  Must get onto that today.  Piling up a bit.


----------



## bunyip (29 May 2013)

cynic said:


> Thanks for your reply Bunyip.Your subscription to the "treat others the way you'd like to be treated" philosophy is exemplified by the courteous and non-judgmental tone of your many posts on this forum.
> 
> Before giving my response to your question, I would like to state for the record that I do not claim to be able to reconcile every written account of the actions and words of Christ with my understanding of the key teaching/s that many have come to describe as Christianity. Things like the cursing of a barren tree, bouts of rage at the temple and calling a woman a dog are a few of the things that lead me to wonder whether the masters might be capable of having bad halo days. (It is, of course, entirely possible that there was a higher purpose behind these actions which continues to elude me.)
> 
> ...



Cynic

I’m very impressed by your post, and I say that with complete sincerity.
Your clarity of thought is pleasing to see. Thanks for taking the time to respond.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> It's quite possible that 'resurrection' is a metaphor for death of the self and rebirth into a new consciousness (literally, ego death).  Many commentators have successfully argued this in the past.  Adam and Eve is a metaphor - an excellent one.  Being a metaphor (and not literal truth) does not in any way diminish its usefulness.  Most religious texts involve metaphor and poetry because it's one of the best ways to convey what is very hard to describe literally.  How can one possibly describe the ineffable in ordinary words?
> 
> You put a heck of a lot of blind faith in a book that was written a long time ago by ordinary followers of an extraordinary man.  Say I lived back in Einstein's day.  I recognize there is something very special about him, even though I only have a basic science degree.  I follow him everywhere and document his every move and everything he says, all his insights, formulas and wisdom... and I put it into book form.  What are the chances this would be an accurate representation of Einstein's work?  He would likely read my book and say "that's not what I said!  That's not what I meant!  This is all wrong!".  The gulf between me and Einstein is so large that despite my best efforts I just couldn't capture what he was on about.  Those who wrote the Bible would be in the same boat - individuals writing about a man who has no individuality....impossible!!




History records the disciples going to a physical death for their faith in which they declared that Jesus was divine. 
We know for a fact that Jesus suffered physical death and the disciples claimed he rose again. They were claiming historical events. And were willing to die for it.

Even after Jesus death they were in hiding, terrified and felt let down. Nek minnit they are going to death for the belief that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead and appeared to them.

The metaphysical interpretation has no basis. There is no evidence for it. 

That would also beg he question:

So your willing to believe some events in the noble and not others? Which ones? So you pick and choose? So it is a reliable historical document

It's a contradiction to accept it as historical and some event so occurring and then calling he same document unreliable when relating to others.

You can't apply a different standard to the same document because "you want to"


given that.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 May 2013)

What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.

ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> History records the disciples going to a physical death for their faith in which they declared that Jesus was divine.
> We know for a fact that Jesus suffered physical death and the disciples claimed he rose again. They were claiming historical events. And were willing to die for it.
> 
> Even after Jesus death they were in hiding, terrified and felt let down. Nek minnit they are going to death for the belief that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead and appeared to them.
> ...




I'm not saying categorically he didn't die and get resurrected.  No one can know that.  I'm saying it's quite possible it was a metaphor, similar to the story of Adam and Eve.  The science of the Big Bang shows us that Adam and Eve was a metaphor.  As I said, I think it's one of the best metaphoric descriptions of the human condition there is available.

If the Bible was written by "God", then we could read it literally...but it wasn't.  If it was written by a Truth-realized man such as Jesus, then I would give it more credibility.  But it was written largely by ordinary men like you and me, guys who followed Jesus around and had no idea what he was on about most of the time.  All they knew was that he was special somehow - one out of the box.  They just did their best to scribble it all down as it happened.  It would have been a fascinating time, no doubt.  But men are highly fallible in their recounting of stories.  Chinese whispers and all that.  If Jesus came back today, I suspect he would take one look at the Bible and suggest it be re-written in its entirety!  And he'd probably recoil in horror at the way the most churches preach his stuff.

But to answer your question, it's not so much that i pick and choose, but more that I evaluate, just as I would any scientific material I might come across.

Some of the greatest spiritually-inspired books are 90% fiction.  For me that's not a problem, because it's a fiction that points to a deeper truth.


----------



## boofis (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> We've taken natural selection (the loss of genetic information) which is obvious and then somehow invented the idea of a macro evolution which is the complete opposite of anything observed (increase in genetic information) and then by faith extrapolated it backwards by millions of years!
> 
> Science is observable and repeatable. This however is a complete faith position. People creating a story about the past based on current observable things.
> 
> Even Darwin admitted that if the cell was shown to be irreducible complex his theory would be cast into doubt. A lack of transitory fossils is also admitted. There are zero examples of life coming from non life and given that the world is not eternal how can something come from nothing?




Multiple new flu virus's each year = ID?  Or evolution? 

"People creating a story about the past based on current observable things", is there any other option? We can't base it on future things and apparently the past things (fossils) we base it on are seemingly current in your opinion? 

Something from nothing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0EHI3Hg_Q
Read the book, it's well worth it. 

Is 'the cell' irreducibly complex? ....


----------



## McLovin (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.
> 
> ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?




You keep trying to drag evolution into it. Whether the theory of evolution is wrong or right it does not invalidate the title of the thread. To the unindoctrinated, religion, does indeed, seem crazy.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.
> 
> ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?




This is compelling evidence.  Human skeleton next to chimp.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> This is compelling evidence.  Human skeleton next to chimp.




What? Because two animals are similar it means one evolved into another? 

I'm not sure how that photo is evidence. And it doesn't address any of the points I've made.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> You keep trying to drag evolution into it. Whether the theory of evolution is wrong or right it does not invalidate the title of the thread. To the unindoctrinated, religion, does indeed, seem crazy.




Agree. This is not an evolution thread. Maybe another place for it.

The last point I will make though is that you say religion does seen crazy to the un indoctrinated. I'd say the same of evolution as being crazy to the un indoctrinated.

Something comes from nothing. Life then appears from non-life magically. It has no programming and with no instruction at all somehow evolves into a person over millions of years. No transitory fossil evidence, no examples of increases of genetic information anywhere, irreducible complex cells in existence!  This just happened from nothing and from no where. Give me a break, it takes a lot to believe that. A lot of stupidity that is.

But I'll leave that alone and let you guys carry on.  Hopefully we can have some more agreeable chats on the trading threads


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What? Because two animals are similar it means one evolved into another?
> 
> I'm not sure how that photo is evidence. And it doesn't address any of the points I've made.




I probably shouldn't be discussing evolution - not my field.  So I'll retract my photo!   

Boofis sounds like he might engage you.


----------



## dutchie (29 May 2013)

I did not realise the extent of the abuse (adult and child) in just the Catholic Church. 

No wonder they covered it up as much as possible.

The list on this site is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/


----------



## boofis (29 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Agree. This is not an evolution thread. Maybe another place for it.
> 
> The last point I will make though is that you say religion does seen crazy to the un indoctrinated. I'd say the same of evolution as being crazy to the un indoctrinated.
> 
> ...




 I gave you an intro link from one of the leading experts in this field through which you could've found a text to read which would not only answer alot of your questions but refute alot of your arguments. 
But it seems you only took a couple of hrs to have the book delivered, read the entire work which is essentially a summation of one mans life of research AND to review the claims made in the book against other research published.... this is a prime example of religion giving individuals the impression they have found the truth and nothing else need be looked into.

Also re. indoctrination: noone can be indoctrinated into science, the whole concept is that there isn't anyone (anyones research) who is above interrogation and questioning. Pick everything to pieces and see if you can find a better answer. 
The same cannot be said of religious indoctrination. I was always told that I'd just thought about things too much when I was in school..


----------



## McLovin (29 May 2013)

boofis said:


> Also re. indoctrination: noone can be indoctrinated into science, the whole concept is that there isn't anyone (anyones research) who is above interrogation and questioning. Pick everything to pieces and see if you can find a better answer.
> The same cannot be said of religious indoctrination. I was always told that I'd just thought about things too much when I was in school..




Exactly. One uses observation and reason, the other uses authority.


----------



## bellenuit (29 May 2013)

What is it with fundamentalist religions and hats? Almost all the different sects of each religion that are normally classified as fundamentalist require their followers to wear silly hats of some sort.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2013)

And red shoes?


----------



## Trentb (30 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Something comes from nothing. Life then appears from non-life magically. It has no programming and with no instruction at all somehow evolves into a person over millions of years.




To engage you: 

1. If evolution is wrong, are the people responsible for the science purposely lying and misleading everyone, or are they just too stupid to understand? 

2. Why do christian churches exist as individual buildings and land?  What justification is there for not selling all of them and using the billions of dollars gained to help fight world poverty? Why can't mass be held in a park?


----------



## DB008 (30 May 2013)

*Delay communions until adulthood, says priest*



> First communions and confirmations should be delayed, potentially into adulthood, to prevent the events from becoming hollow moments that mean nothing to those taking part.




http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/delay-communions-until-adulthood-says-priest-232680.html


----------



## Sean K (30 May 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Something comes from nothing. Life then appears from non-life magically. It has no programming and with no instruction at all somehow evolves into a person over millions of years. No transitory fossil evidence, no examples of increases of genetic information anywhere, irreducible complex cells in existence!  This just happened from nothing and from no where.



Yes, the best way to explain this is to assign it to God... 

...if you're living in a world that thinks the Sun and Moon are biologically related, the Earth is flat, and Moses parted the Red Sea.

Humans have assigned the unknown, incredible natural phenomenon, and bad luck, to Gods for a very very long time.

I think the earliest recorded human attempt to explain evolution is the Eridu Genesis. Perhaps we haven't evolved much since then after all.


----------



## bunyip (30 May 2013)

Just to give the evolution vs creation argument a break for a while............

One of the things that perplexes me about religion is why some victims of abuse by clergy continue to belong to the religion in which the abuse occurred, and even send their children to schools run by that religion.
I know one man who as a child was sexually abused by a Catholic priest. This man continues to be a Catholic to this day, attends church regularly, and even sent his children to a Catholic school.

Another friend of mine was physically abused by nuns in a Catholic boarding school when he was six years old. The nuns used to lay into the little kids with a heavy leather strap for bed wetting, talking after lights out, and various other minor misdemeanors that are just a normal part of little kids growing up.
Yet he is still a Catholic and he still sent his own children to a Catholic school. 

This I do not understand. If a church has given you horrific childhood experiences, and then covered up their crimes and protected the animals who committed them, why in the world would you continue to support that church and even send your own kids to schools that are run by it?


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> Just to give the evolution vs creation argument a break for a while............
> 
> One of the things that perplexes me about religion is why some victims of abuse by clergy continue to belong to the religion in which the abuse occurred, and even send their children to schools run by that religion.
> I know one man who as a child was sexually abused by a Catholic priest. This man continues to be a Catholic to this day, attends church regularly, and even sent his children to a Catholic school.
> ...




Being an ex-Catholic and from speaking to my religious friends it's because they see their religion as separate from its practitioners. Church teachings do not condone or encourage the bad behaviour of some priests and nuns, so there is no need, in their minds, to reject those teachings because some chose not to follow them. I am no longer a Catholic, not because of the behaviour of the clergy, but purely because I no longer believe the basic tenets that are taught. However, much of Catholic morality I agree with, but I see that as being human inspired and not by a deity.


----------



## FxTrader (30 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> If a church has given you horrific childhood experiences, and then covered up their crimes and protected the animals who committed them, why in the world would you continue to support that church and even send your own kids to schools that are run by it?




A significant contributing factor would likely be religious indoctrination as a child.  Poisonous religious programming allows the church institutions to somehow be given a pass while the individual perpetrators get all the focus.

Catholic schools in particular are perceived to provide a higher standard of education by the parents who send their children to them.  That and the lower cost of such private education in Catholic schools in comparison to other private schools are the prime drivers of their popularity with many parents and not the religious nonsense that is peddled to their children.  

So called religious "education" (indoctrination in reality) of school children should not be permitted in a modern society.  The dangers of this are plain see all over the planet where religious mythology is elevated to a primacy in human discourse and behavior it does not deserve.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Being an ex-Catholic and from speaking to my religious friends its because they see their religion as separate from its practitioners.




This presumably also explains the apparently continuing total belief in the church by its adherents, some of whom have demonstrated this unshakeable faith on this forum.

It must be very difficult trying to reconcile absolute belief in a religion, the leaders of which have been so clearly shown to be corrupt in the extreme.  I don't know how it's possible, but they continue to do it.

Perhaps the early indoctrination of the overwhelming belief in a God plus the attraction of belonging to some belief system shared by others is enough.


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> This I do not understand. If a church has given you horrific childhood experiences, and then covered up their crimes and protected the animals who committed them, why in the world would you continue to support that church and even send your own kids to schools that are run by it?




Many of my friends who are atheist or at best lapsed Catholics send their kids to Catholic schools because they perceive them to be better than non-religious schools. I think that is probably correct as a generalisation, but there will be many particular exceptions.

The kids themselves (at least most I know) only partake in religious practices in the schools to the extent that such practices are mandatory.  

Even though it is very unlikely that deviant clergy would today get away with molesting (or in some cases brutalising) kids as they have done in the past, it is also the case that most Catholic schools are almost completely staffed by lay teachers. Even headmasters and headmistresses (is that still the right word?) are mainly lay people today.


----------



## Sean K (30 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> A significant contributing factor would likely be religious indoctrination as a child.



A brilliant tactic of the church. 

This is quite possibly the most significant factor in contributing to the perpetuation of their doctrine. 

If the secular world is able to control religious education until the point that humans can think for themselves then religion is toast!

And, why not religion?  Why not allow a broader education?

The fear that kids be converted to logic and science?


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Perhaps the early indoctrination of the overwhelming belief in a God plus the attraction of belonging to some belief system shared by others is enough.




Plus the fear of not believing in a God. It was drummed into them from an early age that to not believe meant you would go to hell, which at that time was believed to be a place of eternal torture (I think they have mitigated that since, to just being a state of exclusion from God). That is a terrifying thought that still controls peoples' minds right until their deathbed. 

Of course at the same time, the God who would do that was described as *infinitely* forgiving, which doesn't make sense. Why? I am not infinitely forgiving, but I would not submit my worst enemy to that fate for even a day.


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Even headmasters and headmistresses (is that still the right word?) are mainly lay people today.




School Principals is what I meant to say.


----------



## Tink (31 May 2013)

Agree with your post bellenuit answering Bunyips question.
The Church does not condone that behaviour.
As I mentioned earlier, the Christian schools are all full with long waiting lists, the morality that is taught rings true.

I know we have had this conversation before, but the teachings are on family and others, the principles in their teachings.
The view away from Christianity seems to dwell on self, not so much including others in the equation. 
Jesus teachings is about helping others, there is no joy in putting yourself first, we are all a part of each other.
Love one another as I have loved you is what its all about.

I hope I have explained myself properly here.


----------



## bunyip (31 May 2013)

Tink said:


> Agree with your post bellenuit answering Bunyips question.
> The Church does not condone that behaviour.
> As I mentioned earlier, the Christian schools are all full with long waiting lists, the morality that is taught rings true.
> 
> ...



Why wouldn’t a victim of sexual abuse by a Catholic priest simply move across to another church? Since many of the incidents of abuse appear to occur in Catholic schools, why would an abuse victim potentially expose his children to abuse by sending them to a Catholic school? 
Catholic schools are nothing special, as far as religious schools go. My wife and I sent out kids to a private Presbyterian school, and quite frankly it left the local Catholic schools for dead. It was excellent in terms of instilling decent Christian principles in it’s students, such as honesty, integrity, responsibility, consideration for others. And it’s academic and sporting achievements were well in front of the Catholic schools in our area. Don’t misunderstand me, some Catholic schools excel in all areas. But my point is that if a victim of abuse in the Catholic church wanted an excellent private school education for his kids, and he favored schools run by religions, then there are usually other choices apart from Catholic schools.

The catholic church is nothing special, it’s no better than other Christian religions. Contrary to what they teach you, you will not go to hell just because you abandon your Catholic faith by changing over to another church. Do you really think that God, if he exists, cares what church you belong to, or even if you belong to any church at all? Common sense should tell us that if God exists and he’s as loving and compassionate as he’s touted to be, then he’ll judge you on your character and integrity and your adherence to decent Christian principles, not on which church you belong to.


----------



## McLovin (31 May 2013)

People send their kids to Catholic schools because they're a cheaper option to a private school (religious or not), with generally better education outcomes than a non-selective public school.



			
				Tink said:
			
		

> The Church does not condone that behaviour.






> con·done
> /kənˈdōn/
> Verb
> 
> ...




Really? What they've been shown to have done over the last God knows how long seems to fit the definition of condone.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> People send their kids to Catholic schools because they're a cheaper option to a private school (religious or not), with generally better education outcomes than a non-selective public school.



Largely agree.  Not often because of any religious affiliation or interest.


----------



## Ruby (31 May 2013)

Tink said:


> ............The view away from Christianity seems to dwell on self, not so much including others in the equation.....




Tink, this is a very biased and narrow-minded statement and there is no evidence to support it.  Lack of Christian belief does not make one selfish.  Some of the most philanthropic, kind and loving people in the community are non-Christians; conversely many Christians are sanctimonious selfish bigots.


----------



## Sean K (31 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> People send their kids to Catholic schools because they're a cheaper option to a private school (religious or not), with generally better education outcomes than a non-selective public school.



I've seen no peer reviewed Phd studies on this hypothesis, but my own personal experiences with family and friends would would be contrary to this assertion.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2013)

Ruby said:


> Tink, this is a very biased and narrow-minded statement and there is no evidence to support it.  Lack of Christian belief does not make one selfish.  Some of the most philanthropic, kind and loving people in the community are non-Christians; conversely many Christians are sanctimonious selfish bigots.



+1.  It's the same as religious devotees claiming that only they, via their religion, have a handle on a decent moral compass.


----------



## cynic (31 May 2013)

kennas said:


> A brilliant tactic of the church.
> 
> This is quite possibly the most significant factor in contributing to the perpetuation of their doctrine.
> 
> ...






			
				http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/astrology/newton.htm said:
			
		

> ... when Dr. Halley ventured to say anything disrespectful to religion, he invariably checked him, with the remark, “I have studied these things – you have not”.’[22]
> The fact that Halley and Newton often quarreled on theological matters is confirmed by another remark recorded by John Conduitt, who in turn heard it from his wife (and Newton’s niece) Catherine Conduitt (nÃ©e Barton; 1679-1739).[23] However, these altercations were never so intense as to cause a rift between these two great scientists...



http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/astrology/newton.htm
I find it somewhat comical that various posts (on this and other threads) have expressed a dismissive view of those whom embrace religious/metaphysical beliefs. The claim that such people are devoid of logic, or perhaps indoctrinated to the point of being unable to think critically, and that science education will somehow prove to be a suitable remedy, leads me to question the capacity for objective investigation on the part of those making such claims. A brief examination into the lives and practices of just a few of the more significant scientific pioneers throughout human history reveals people whom held strong beliefs in philosophy, metaphysics and the existence of God!  

Now I ask you, where would our modern day sciences of mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry etc. be without the past discoveries of these religious savants?


----------



## Sean K (31 May 2013)

cynic said:


> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/astrology/newton.htm
> I find it somewhat comical that various posts (on this and other threads) have expressed a dismissive view of those whom embrace religious/metaphysical beliefs. The claim that such people are devoid of logic, or perhaps indoctrinated to the point of being unable to think critically, and that science education will somehow prove to be a suitable remedy, leads me to question the capacity for objective investigation on the part of those making such claims. A brief examination into the lives and practices of just a few of the more significant scientific pioneers throughout human history reveals people whom held strong beliefs in philosophy, metaphysics and the existence of God!
> 
> Now I ask you, where would our modern day sciences of mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry etc. be without the past discoveries of these religious savants?



Imagine where we'd be with pure logic and reason?


----------



## bunyip (31 May 2013)

Ruby said:


> Lack of Christian belief does not make one selfish.  Some of the most philanthropic, kind and loving people in the community are non-Christians;



I agree. After the 2011 floods caused death and destruction in my area, a flood refugee center was set up in my local village to look after those who homes were inundated. A couple of hundred people were there helping out. I knew most of them, including whether or not they were church goers. Some were, some weren’t, about half and half I’d say. Same story when it came to helping clean up homes that had gone under water – loads of people helping out, some of them Christians, some not. 
There are many good and decent people who are not Christain in as much as they don’t believe in God, but they nevertheless live lives of integrity, honesty, and consideration of others. In short, they live according to the basic Christian principle of treating other people as you'd like them to treat you.

As has been mentioned before on this thread, Christians don’t own a monopoly on goodness and decency.



Ruby said:


> conversely many Christians are sanctimonious selfish bigots.




Certainly there are some of these types of people in Christian churches. But in my experience the overwhelming majority of Christians are genuinely good and decent people.


----------



## bellenuit (31 May 2013)

cynic said:


> Now I ask you, where would our modern day sciences of mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry etc. be without the past discoveries of these religious savants?




Certainly not as far as it is today. But because religion was regarded as part and parcel of civilised society, the contribution of the pioneers in each of the fields you listed was due to the fact that they were *educated* people, not religious people. It is only since Darwin that people could see how the different species that exist today could evolve through random mutation couple with natural selection. And it was only in the last century or so that people began to understand the fundamental structure of matter, the composition of the universe, the absolute vastness of the universe, the mathematics of how the universe could come to what it is today from its origins in the Big Bang, issues like the equivalence of mass and energy etc. etc. 

So without that understanding how could anyone, prior to the twentieth century, explain the universe as it was known without relying on a deity of some sort. It was pretty much accepted that God was the creator of everything and science was just a means of understanding God's laws.  

Perhaps to restate your question.

Apart from who assisted in the discoveries, what additions to our knowledge of mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry etc. came from religious knowledge. What have the scriptures for example, which is the source of most Abrahamic religious beliefs, added to our knowledge of those subjects. I think pretty much zilch. In fact in most instances, where biblical text addresses these issues, it is just plain wrong.


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2013)

kennas said:


> I've seen no peer reviewed Phd studies on this hypothesis, but my own personal experiences with family and friends would would be contrary to this assertion.




There's a book about it...



> ''It's one of the great paradoxes of Australian education,'' says Dr Helen Proctor, from the University of Sydney. ''We're one of the least-religious nations in the world, yet we have this large and increasing attendance of children in religious schools.''
> 
> Proctor was the co-author of the 2009 book School Choice: How Parents Negotiate the New School Markets in Australia, for which she interviewed many non-religious parents about why they sent their children to religious schools.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...g-the-faith-20130217-2el4a.html#ixzz2UshUIzxO

I went to an Anglican school (I think it's the one the guy at the beginning of the article got expelled from). The religion aspect was certainly never forced down your throat beyond the once a fortnight morning house chapel service and an annual Founders' Day service. It does seem to be a bigger part of the Catholic system.


----------



## Tink (1 June 2013)

Ruby said:


> Tink, this is a very biased and narrow-minded statement and there is no evidence to support it.  Lack of Christian belief does not make one selfish.  Some of the most philanthropic, kind and loving people in the community are non-Christians; conversely many Christians are sanctimonious selfish bigots.




Ruby, next time, dont pull out one sentence out of a whole paragraph when I was talking about Christian schools verses public schools.

I would appreciate if you wrote the whole contents, thanks.


----------



## cynic (1 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Certainly not as far as it is today. But because religion was regarded as part and parcel of civilised society, the contribution of the pioneers in each of the fields you listed was due to the fact that they were *educated* people, not religious people.




I can partially (although not totally) agree. 
My post was primarily intended as a rebuttal to the opinion that those subscrbing to a belief in a higher being/power were either illogical or indoctrinated beyond the capacity for critical thought. A brief examination of the history of major scientific pioneers strongly suggests that, not only did many hold strong religious/philosophical beliefs, but on many occasions their scientific discoveries arose consequent to pursuits inspired by those religious/philosophical beliefs!



bellenuit said:


> It is only since Darwin that people could see how the different species that exist today could evolve through random mutation couple with natural selection. And it was only in the last century or so that people began to understand the fundamental structure of matter, the composition of the universe, the absolute vastness of the universe, the mathematics of how the universe could come to what it is today from its origins in the Big Bang, issues like the equivalence of mass and energy etc. etc.
> 
> So without that understanding how could anyone, prior to the twentieth century, explain the universe as it was known without relying on a deity of some sort. It was pretty much accepted that God was the creator of everything and science was just a means of understanding God's laws.




Yes this is very much akin to my philosophy. As it happens, even with science's progress into unravelling the mysteries of creation, much continues to remain unexplained. 
Has an account been given for the origins of the particles/energy that led to the Big Bang event? 
Certainly we are able to experience the existence of things such as energy/matter, volume and the passage of time. 
Is anyone actually able to define the limits of the universe that we experience? 
If they are, how do they resolve the puzzle of what lies outside of those limits? 
If there's nothing outside, how could there be anything inside? 
If it has a beginning, from whence did it come? 
If it has an ending, where did it go? 
If something has no begining nor ending, how could it ever have come to be and how could time be finite or even definable? 
To me, the mere concept of existence is an intriguing paradox. To date, neither my belief in God nor my belief in science has yielded a solution to this conundrum! If you've somehow managed to discover a solution, I'm sure that many of us here would be happy to hear of it!



bellenuit said:


> Perhaps to restate your question.
> 
> Apart from who assisted in the discoveries, what additions to our knowledge of mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry etc. came from religious knowledge. What have the scriptures for example, which is the source of most Abrahamic religious beliefs, added to our knowledge of those subjects. I think pretty much zilch. In fact in most instances, where biblical text addresses these issues, it is just plain wrong.




Rather than limit myself to one stream of religious texts, my preference is to reply with my current understanding of the origins of several branches of science. Chemistry resulted from discoveries made by druid alchemists whilst engaged in their quest for the philosopher's stone. Initial interest in the movement of heavenly bodies (i.e. astronomy) arose from the practice of astrology. Much of our mathematics was provided by philosophers, many of whom subscribed to metaphysical belief systems of one form or another (if my memory serves me correctly, Pythagoras had an active interest in numerology!). I am also of the understanding that religious bodies/organisations founded the vast majority of our earlier universities. I do not insist that a firm belief in higher powers is a prerequisite for the expansion of the frontiers of science, however, I do believe that, whilst so much continues to remain unexplained, a mind that is open to a wider array of possibilities is essential!

My reasons for arguing the case for divine belief systems is twofold.
Firstly, I've experienced  phenomena (often coincident with prayer/meditation) for which science has, as yet, failed to provide adequate explanation. The automatic denigration of my cognitive faculties, which is often the typical response of resolute disbelievers, could hardly be described as anything less than prejudicial and hence unscientific. (The "I know I am right therefore you must be wrong" philosophy simply doesn't wash with me!)

Secondly, whilst there are mysteries within our universe, that remain unexplained by science and other religions, I fail to see how anyone subscribing to one belief system can automatically claim to have such absolute authority over the truth as to be able to boldly and confidently declare another belief system entirely false.

Please understand that whilst I do have a firm belief in the existence of the divine, I do have an enquiring mind and, as such, remain open to the consideration of any alternative explanation that eventuates. 

I've known many wonderful people in my time. Some believe in divinity, some disbelieve and others are undecided.

Whilst the aberrant actions of some devotees have certainly done a great disservice to the cause of various belief systems, including Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Science (yes! Some scientists have been naughty too!), it shocks me that intelligent people will so quickly condemn an entire philosophy without first giving consideration to the many wonderful contributions made to our society.


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2013)

'Moderate Political Islam' Leading 
 Turkey to 'Moderate Shariah'

Read more: 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/turkey-political-islam-sharia.html#ixzz2UumNBe5m


----------



## DB008 (1 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> 'Moderate Political Islam' Leading
> Turkey to 'Moderate Shariah'
> 
> Read more:
> ...





Yeah, looks like Turkey is about to step back in time.


*Al Jazeera*



> *Protesters #OccupyGezi to save Istanbul park*
> 
> Turkish riot police fired tear gas and water cannons into crowds of demonstrators gathered in Istanbul’s Gezi park on Friday. Since May 28, activists have held peaceful protests to prevent the demolition of a what they call Istanbul’s last green public space.
> 
> ...






*CNN*



> *A Letter to the Rest of the World*
> 
> I can be the first to admit that I've never been very politically active. I always watched from the sidelines. This is the first time in my 30 years that tears well up for what is happening just up the road from where I write these words.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruby (1 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Ruby, next time, dont pull out one sentence out of a whole paragraph when I was talking about Christian schools verses public schools.
> 
> I would appreciate if you wrote the whole contents, thanks.




Tink, I apologise.  I did not realise that part of your post was still about religious schools versus non-religious schools, so I will rephrase my comment.

It is narrow minded and incorrect to suggest that the teachings and philosophy of non-religious schools are any more self-centred and less philanthropic than those of religious schools.  There are many non-religious schools which turn out very fine young people who have been taught to have high ideals, a spirit of service, and to be the best they can be.  I speak from experience.  Where is the evidence for your claim?


----------



## Ruby (1 June 2013)

bunyip said:


> Certainly there are some of these types of people in Christian churches. But in my experience the overwhelming majority of Christians are genuinely good and decent people.




Bunyip - what is your point?   The overwhelming majority of non-Christians are *also *genuinely good and decent people.

My issue is with sweeping baseless claims having no evidence to support them, such as the one which prompted my comment.


----------



## bellenuit (3 June 2013)




----------



## DB008 (3 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


>





Crazy.

Someone posted a youtube link in this thread where a certain Christian group thinks that the Earth is only 5,000 years old.


Saw this on reddit the other day.


----------



## cynic (3 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


>





That visiting scientist is to be commended for actually keeping a straight face throughout the interview - if it'd been me, my sides would've been splitting with laughter!

Thanks bellenuit for unearthing this gem!


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (4 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.
> 
> ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?





You ignored my post completely.  Virolution - macro gaining of genetic material. Have fun.


----------



## bellenuit (4 June 2013)

This just makes me sick to read. We seem to powerless to prevent this sort of thing and the family has to combat this utter misogyny on its own.

*Rape victim and 'black virgin' Kainat Soomro condemned to die in Pakistan over rape*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ned-to-be-killed/story-e6frg6n6-1226656060310


----------



## MrBurns (4 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> This just makes me sick to read. We seem to powerless to prevent this sort of thing and the family has to combat this utter misogyny on its own.
> 
> *Rape victim and 'black virgin' Kainat Soomro condemned to die in Pakistan over rape*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ned-to-be-killed/story-e6frg6n6-1226656060310




Pakistan, I'm starting to dislike that place - 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26835&p=776126&viewfull=1#post776126


----------



## DB008 (4 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> This just makes me sick to read. We seem to powerless to prevent this sort of thing and the family has to combat this utter misogyny on its own.
> 
> *Rape victim and 'black virgin' Kainat Soomro condemned to die in Pakistan over rape*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ned-to-be-killed/story-e6frg6n6-1226656060310





I saw that one yesterday, but didn't want to post it.

Terrible.


----------



## Paul Woodward (5 June 2013)

Religion is just a set of outdated belief systems and the civilized world is starting to question. As people question the fiction in the teachings they break down the belief system.

I'm reading a very good book that discusses this.
To Believe Or Not To Believe: The Social and Neurological Consequences of Belief Systems.
Rahasya Poe


----------



## pavilion103 (5 June 2013)

Paul Woodward said:


> Religion is just a set of outdated belief systems and the civilized world is starting to question. As people question the fiction in the teachings they break down the belief system.
> 
> I'm reading a very good book that discusses this.
> To Believe Or Not To Believe: The Social and Neurological Consequences of Belief Systems.
> Rahasya Poe




Interesting. Does this also apply to other philosophies and belief systems such as evolution and other theories or just religion?


----------



## CanOz (5 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Interesting. Does this also apply to other philosophies and belief systems such as evolution and other theories or just religion?




Pav, i didn't want to get involved in this thread but i can't help but wonder how you can compare a belief system with a theory. You're a smart guy, so I'm sure you understand what a theory is. The bible is not a theory right? The theory of evolution is not a belief system, or religion...right?

Regardless if the theory of evolution has a staggering amount of evidence backing it up it still is a theory and cannot be proven at this stage. As far as i know religion is a belief system and not a theory, for all the evidence collected so far by the scientific community contradicts the bible, or the belief system.

OR are you saying there is enough evidence available supporting Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism that they are to be considered theories and not religions (belief systems)?

CanOz


----------



## bellenuit (5 June 2013)

CanOz said:


> Pav, i didn't want to get involved in this thread but i can't help but wonder how you can compare a belief system with a theory. You're a smart guy, so I'm sure you understand what a theory is. The bible is not a theory right? The theory of evolution is not a belief system, or religion...right?
> 
> Regardless if the theory of evolution has a staggering amount of evidence backing it up it still is a theory and cannot be proven at this stage. As far as i know religion is a belief system and not a theory, for all the evidence collected so far by the scientific community contradicts the bible, or the belief system.
> 
> ...




Just to add to what CanOz said. The theory of evolution refers to the process by which evolution came about, not to the fact that evolution has happened. Evolution is a fact. There is evidence all around us and covering many different scientific disciplines. The theory of evolution refers to the process by which this evolution came about and that process is natural selection combined with random mutation. The word _theory_ in science, as is the case of the theory of evolution, has a different connotation to that used by lay people. When used in science it means the best possible explanation of the process and will only retain the status of theory so long as no evidence comes to the fore that disproves it. If new discoveries prove the theory incorrect, then the theory has to be abandoned or modified by the new information (meaning that the modified theory must account for all previous discoveries/evidence and the new discoveries/evidence). The word _theory_ as used by laypeople particularly those that say "evolution is just a theory" equates to the word _hypothesis_ in science. An _hypothesis_ is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A scientific hypothesis will becomes a scientific theory if it withstands all testing and no evidence can be found to show the hypothesis is wrong.

The Catholic Church fully accepts the theory of evolution as well as the fact of evolution. However, the church insists that the hand of God actively intervened at crucial points along man's evolutionary path.


----------



## pavilion103 (5 June 2013)

Micro evolution is a fact. Natural selection which involves the LOSS of genetic information. Of course this is a fact. There is not a single example of macro evolution however, which is the gaining of genetic information. 

Yes I believe the evidence scientific, philosophical, historical points to a creator. Blind faith in anything with no evidence is foolish. 

To say science is contradicting God is not accurate. In fact the more complexity that is found, particularly the irreducible complexity of the human cell points to a creator.

Philosophical reasoning is looked over foolishly too.
- how does something come from nothing? Only something from outside of time can create a cause inside of time. This question can't be skimmed over.
- there are no examples of life coming from non life so by science (observable and repeatable) it cannot be concluded that life arose from non life
- genetic information decreases not increases. Genetic entropy is a fact.

So Canoz, much like trading, I feel many skim over these glaring points and conclude what they want. Plus a range of other points. Don't be so easily convinced because society tells you so. Many of the cliches thrown around in this thread point to obvious ignorance on the part of many backing up macro evolution.


----------



## fiftyeight (5 June 2013)

Science loves new evidence contradicting current theories as it opens up new areas of study. 

I am open to being wrong re evolution, are you open to being wrong on evolution?

If scientists can create life artificially, how wold this impact your thinking? What about if god came down and was like "I exist, I created the big bang as a joke but yeah life was just an accident that I had no part in it", would this change your thinking?


----------



## Julia (5 June 2013)

Pav, no obligation to respond, of course, and I don't want to be intrusive, but I'm wondering how you formed your beliefs?


----------



## Paul Woodward (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Interesting. Does this also apply to other philosophies and belief systems such as evolution and other theories or just religion?




Absolutely. As we evolve a lot of our belief systems change. A few decades ago we believed the world was flat.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Micro evolution is a fact. Natural selection which involves the LOSS of genetic information. Of course this is a fact. *There is not a single example of macro evolution however, which is the gaining of genetic information. *
> 
> Many of the cliches thrown around in this thread point to obvious ignorance on the part of many *backing up macro evolution*.




Posted for the THIRD time.  Pavillion not sure why you're ignoring me. I understand that individuals that hold strong belief systems can find dissenting evidence confronting.  You've made the above bolded statement several times in this thread. You've loudly challenged anyone to provide dissenting evidence. Twice before I have quietly directed you towards what you have asked for. Once again I point you in the direction of the book Virolution as a mechanism of gaining of genetic information, (and not the only one). I'm not saying this book will answer every question you have. Over the last 30 years there have been extraordinary advances in our understanding of biology and genetic structure. I don't think this book will have all your answers, and also doesn't address the question of other evolutionary processes such as sexual selection and neutral evolution. Read the book...make up your own mind.

Here's a quote...

We are part virus. This bizarre yet inescapable fact has been revealed over the past 30 years, as scientists have spelunked their way through the human genome and encountered stretches of DNA with the telltale chemical signatures of viruses. All told, they've found 100,000 such segments so far. As Frank Ryan explains in "Virolution," these pieces of virus DNA ended up in our genome through a peculiar kind of infection. From time to time, viruses slipped their DNA into the eggs and sperm of our ancestors. Parents then passed down the virus DNA to their offspring. These viruses could no longer escape their hosts, but they could still make new copies of their DNA, which were then inserted back into our ancestors' genomes. And so it is that, after millions of years of infection, viruses now make up at least 8% of the human genome. Our "own" genes””the genes that encode the proteins that constitute our bodies””make up a measly 1.2%.

Dr. Ryan, a British physician and science writer, argues that this discovery demands a new vision of how evolution works””hence the name of his book and a splashy boast on its cover: "The most important evolutionary book since Dawkins's 'Selfish Gene.' " In that landmark 1976 work, Richard Dawkins presented a gene-centered view of evolution. Evolution did not work for the good of the species, he argued. Altruism and other selfless traits were actually strategies that evolved so that genes could make more copies of themselves. In "Virolution," by contrast, Mr. Ryan presents a virus-centered view of life, in which viruses help steer the course of evolution. "Natural selection alone could not have given rise to the evolution of life," Mr. Ryan declares.

When Mr. Dawkins wrote about natural selection 35 years ago, he was describing a process in which genes mutate as they are passed down from one generation to the next. Viruses, Mr. Ryan notes, can deliver entire sets of new genes all at once. Sometimes this viral DNA can become domesticated: It evolves from a recipe for a parasite to a vital service for its host. Placentas, for example, stick to the wall of uteruses thanks to proteins that originated in viruses. Without our viral DNA, in other words, none of us would have ever been born.


----------



## CanOz (6 June 2013)

Thanks Sir O!


----------



## Sean K (6 June 2013)

Here are the very best of religious explanations for creation:

Mesopotamian around 1100 BCE:



> When the sky above was not named,
> And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
> And the primeval ApsÃ», who begat them,
> And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
> ...




Aboriginal maybe 20000 BCE:



> The Baiame myth tells how Baiame came down from the sky to the land, and created rivers, mountains, and forests. He then gave the people their laws of life, traditions, songs, and culture. He also created the first initiation site. This is known as a bora; a place where boys were initiated into manhood. When he had finished, he returned to the sky, and people called him the Sky Hero or All Father or Sky Father.




Abrahamic around 700 BCE:



> In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
> the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
> Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
> And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
> ...




I tend to be swayed towards the theory, until a better explanation appears.


----------



## FxTrader (6 June 2013)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Posted for the THIRD time.  Pavillion not sure why you're ignoring me. I understand that individuals that hold strong belief systems can find dissenting evidence confronting.




You could repeat yourself 100 times and still not get the likes of Pavilion to seriously examine the evidence in favor of evolution.  Anyone that ascribes any credibility to the faux "creation" science that is intelligent design theory and its thoroughly debunked premise of irreducible complexity, is someone who will cling to their religious mythology at any intellectual cost.   The only "science" the religious will embrace is that which seems to confirm anything they already believe.

The focus on evolution vs divine creation is a game of misdirection religious converts play ad nauseam.  In the main, the assumption is that if evolution can be discredited by whatever means then the only other possible explanation for existence is an infinite sky God of some description.  This strategy is aimed at taking the focus off of the many fallacies of religious belief by attacking science and the scientific method as if this can somehow vindicate and justify one's belief in the supernatural accounts and claims in iron-age magic books.  It's best to just decline to play this game with the religious and put the focus on what they believe and why they believe it. 

Religion is mythology cloaked in a veil of intellectual legitimacy by believers that it does not deserve.  When this veil is lifted and the naked fraud that is religion is revealed it just makes most religious converts angry and defensive rather than causing them to seriously question their beliefs.  Such is the nature of strong human attachment to religious superstition.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 June 2013)

1) If a virus has deposited DNA into us, the DNA has not been created. It already exists. It’s added it’s own DNA to our DNA. It isn’t new DNA. It’s not evolution. It's a mix up of the genes. We are not building any new DNA. It is old DNA mixed, no manufacturing of new DNA.

 So where did the FIRST living thing get it’s DNA from?

 In the virus example its simply using the same materials to make different structures. Just like the a builder uses the same materials to build different buildings.

 On a bit of a different point: In terms of any similarities between us and a virus, well there are similarities between a Boeing 747, Ferrari and a bicycle. That’s where it ends. All it shows that it came from one mind. One designer. God.

We have genetics similar to a virus so we come from a virus. We have genetics similar to a banana too, did a banana it impregnate a woman?

*So I ask the same question. Give me an example of NEW genetic information being created. Not existing information being mixed!!*



2) Also this is not science. It is not observable. How it came into being has not been observed. An assumption has been made, a leap of faith. Just like a cup of coffee is on a table, we can only observe that it is there. Once we make assumptions about how it got there, then it is philosophical reasoning and not science.


3) What is observable today?
The same engineer using the same design in different things because IT WORKS.
Just like similar design principles appear in vastly different structures today.
This points more and more to a common creator.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> You could repeat yourself 100 times and still not get the likes of Pavilion to seriously examine the evidence in favor of evolution.  Anyone that ascribes any credibility to the faux "creation" science that is intelligent design theory and its thoroughly debunked premise of irreducible complexity, is someone who will cling to their religious mythology at any intellectual cost.   The only "science" the religious will embrace is that which seems to confirm anything they already believe.




I call BS. 

Look at my response above.

I am so utterly tired of evolutionists in here passing off philosophical reasoning as science. 


When will someone answer *MY* questions:

1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?
2) Give me one example of life coming from non-life?
3) Give me one example of an addition of genetic information?
4) How do you account for irreducible complexity?


So many people sitting there taking potshots at creation but how about you answer these questions above huh? Rather than dodging them repeatedly. 

Utterly intellectually dishonest that you throw things at me but cannot address my questions.

*Address question 1 first.*


----------



## Trentb (6 June 2013)

To answer pavillion

1) A fart. Where does that come from?

How do you know it is not eternal?

2) After God formed man in Genesis 2:7,   He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.  

Are humans the only life in the world? If not then did god breathe into a dogs nose too?

3) Insertion mutation

4) one piece at a time, you?


----------



## pavilion103 (6 June 2013)

Trentb said:


> To answer pavillion
> 
> 1) A fart. Where does that come from?
> 
> ...




Ok I'm going to start with point one and stay in this until we work through it and THEN tackle the rest.

 A fart comes from a living being which already exists. I am utterly staggered by this question/comparison, staggered beyond belief!!!!!

 It isn't something coming from nothing. How could you even use such an example? 
Try again...

How do I know it's not eternal? Have you put a single moment of research into this? Don't give me lazy questions. Take a look


----------



## FxTrader (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I am so utterly tired of evolutionists in here passing off philosophical reasoning as science.




Since I am not an "evolutionist" but instead someone who forms beliefs based on evidence and not what is scribed in magic books, I must assume you are not referring to me here.  As for "philosophical reasoning" this is exactly one of the things you called upon on Pg 55 to justify belief, quote...



> You haven't acknowledged philosophical reasoning which supports creationism.




Clearly you give such "reasoning" much credibility.

You continue to play the evolution vs creation game to justify religious belief.  I will deal with your questions in the same dismissive spirit they are posed...

_



			1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?
		
Click to expand...


_First explain how God came from nothing and thus solve the problem of infinite regression then you can pose this question legitimately.  

_



			2) Give me one example of life coming from non-life?
		
Click to expand...


_Adam and Eve

_



			3) Give me one example of an addition of genetic information?
		
Click to expand...


_It may exist in some scientific studies, but the absence of example does not add any credibility to religious belief.



> 4) How do you account for irreducible complexity?



I don't because IC is a fraud!!  IC has been thoroughly debunked and I won't waste time discussing it since it would not convince you to abandon your blind faith in religion.


----------



## fiftyeight (6 June 2013)

Question 1

Why do I need to answer question 1 for evolution to be a valid theory? God existing and evolution being correct are not mutually exclusive. 

Not that I think there is a god, but lets say god set the laws of physics and kicked things off. Which eventually led to Earth forming and being conducive to life and then evolution did the rest.

Question 2

As far as I know this his not been achieved yet. But there are lots of things science does not understand currently. If science did create life would this alter your thinking?

Question 3 and 4

Cellular autonoma go someway in explaining how complexity can be created by very simple rules.

I am open to being proven wrong and so is science, are you?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> 1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?




Most of the masters say that Nothingness (the Great Void) *is* God.  So everything comes from nothingness.  But these masters knew it as a direct experience.  I don't know it as an experience I'm just re-telling what they said.

Buddha was all about direct experience of holiness (wholeness), and told his followers to forget about all the intellectual debating.  He said:

Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

Then there's the Zen saying "Disputation is a proof of not seeing clearly', which to me means that anyone who is debating this stuff (including me) has not experienced the ultimate truth.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Since I am not an "evolutionist" but instead someone who forms beliefs based on evidence and not what is scribed in magic books, I must assume you are not referring to me here.  As for "philosophical reasoning" this is exactly one of the things you called upon on Pg 55 to justify belief, quote...
> 
> Clearly you give such "reasoning" much credibility.
> 
> ...




I do give credit to philosophical reasoning. I am merely saying don't try to claim as science what clearly isn't. 

1) easy. If God is eternal he exists outside of time. Anything that is not eternal requires a cause. Anything that is eternal clearly does not (by definition).

2) ok - Creator

3) lol so there is an absence. Actually there is not one single scientific example

4) BS


So I can pose question 1 legitimately now. I've given my reasoning. You give me yours...
From your worldview, how can something come from nothing?
Stick to this point 1. 
Answer briefly and concisely is you can. Don't stray.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Most of the masters say that Nothingness (the Great Void) is God.  So everything comes from nothingness.  But these masters knew it as a direct experience.  I don't know it as an experience I'm just re-telling what they said.
> 
> Buddha was all about direct experience of holiness (wholeness), and told his followers to forget about all the intellectual debating.  He said:
> 
> ...




So how does something come from nothing?

How did matter appear in a non eternal world without someone outside of time creating it?


----------



## pavilion103 (6 June 2013)

I see many lengthy answers yet no one being able to provide one better or even plausible explanation than an eternal creator creating matter. 

Someone just freaking answer in 2-4 sentences. To the point, on topic (if you can). CONCISE!!!


----------



## fiftyeight (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> So I can pose question 1 legitimately now. I've given my reasoning. You give me yours...
> From your worldview, how can something come from nothing?
> Stick to this point 1.
> Answer briefly and concisely is you can. Don't stray.




It does not need to be answered if we are strictly talking about evolution as I said above


----------



## Gringotts Bank (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> So how does something come from nothing?
> 
> How did matter appear in a non eternal world without someone outside of time creating it?




It can't be answered in words, it can only be experienced.  When the self is seen through as illusion, all that's left is Truth (or God) experiencing itself as infinite things.

To experience it, you would need to either *1)* interpret the Bible differently, similar to the Christian mystics and contemplatives such as Bernadette Roberts or *2) *look into some of the other religions and philosophies, which explain it more clearly, and how to do it.

If the Bible is the limit of your spiritual learning, you could easily be mislead, just as if your only learning was from the Koran.


----------



## FxTrader (6 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> 1) easy. If God is eternal he exists outside of time. Anything that is not eternal requires a cause. Anything that is eternal clearly does not (by definition).




Truly pathetic.  Please don't cough up metaphysical nonsense to try and explain what can't be explained.  Far more intelligent religious commentators than yourself rightly state the origins of their God as a mystery.



> 2) ok - Creator



  You're proud of this response are you?  If you posit that life can't come non-life then how did your eternal magician make it happen?



> 3) lol so there is an absence. Actually there is not one single scientific example



  Like I said, it makes no difference since it does not make the case for a sky God but you just can't seem to grasp that point.



> 4) BS



 Well that accurately sums up the your case for religious belief.  Keep your intellect buried in the religious sand so you can keep your head in the clouds and remain a slave to religious mythology.


----------



## boofis (6 June 2013)

Here is my succint answer.

1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give 
me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?

If the context of this question is the universe, then there's a fairly high chance that the philosophical idea of 'nothing' doesn't exist. So when you ask, how can something come from NOTHING...welllll it turns out that 'nothing' may just have measurable physical qualities so it's an invalid question. 

2) Give me one example of life coming from non-life?

You have to define life on this one otherwise my answer will be assumptive of your premise of what life is. 

3) Give me one example of an addition of genetic information?

This ones easy: A-T,C-G,C-G,A-T,T-A,C-G.......A-T,C-G,C-G,G-C,A-T,T-A,C-G. And yes that's legitimate.

4) How do you account for irreducible complexity?

Again, it's an invalid question cause irreducible complexity doesn't exist. 

Answer me this one question and I'll gladly shout you a beer.

If God made the universe and it's only 6000 years old (if you're a literal Bible man), what is your explanation of the night sky? 

I'm leaving that question vague, because if you haven't thought about it before, then I dare say you need to so I'm not going to spoon feed you an answer you won't accept, and if you have thought about it, you'll know the fatal implication.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 June 2013)

Ok I get what is going on here. There is a lot of piss being taken. 

The atheist theory relies on something sprining into being from nothing (i.e. without being created). The Universe it not eternal so it couldn't have always existed. How did it get into being? 

Then I'm answered that there is no such thing as nothing, or how did God do it?


No place for logic in this thread obviously, you guys just tyring to have a laugh and wind me up with those answers. 


I'm not going to bother. You are not seeking the truth. 

I'm outta here. Catchya on the trading threads guys and girls!


----------



## spooly74 (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Ok I get what is going on here. There is a lot of piss being taken.
> 
> The atheist theory relies on something sprining into being from nothing (i.e. without being created). The Universe it not eternal so it couldn't have always existed. How did it get into being?
> 
> Then I'm answered that there is no such thing as nothing, or how did God do it?




Atheist Theory?

The Universe is almost 14 billion years old, so of course it's not eternal. You wont find many who think it is.
But what caused the Universe to form could be. We don't know.

I get the impression that you think that 'nothing' is somehow a preferred or natural state, but I don't think it's relevant.
You should be asking yourself, how can the Universe and what caused it not exist? as 'something' is all we know to be true.


----------



## FxTrader (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> The atheist theory relies on something sprining into being from nothing (i.e. without being created). The Universe it not eternal so it couldn't have always existed. How did it get into being? Then I'm answered that there is no such thing as nothing, or how did God do it?



Once again you have demonstrated that you don't understand what atheism is or what atheists do and don't believe but instead attack your straw man caricature of atheism.  It's so typical of the religious to cast the  hated atheism in a mold they can then criticise, just intelletual dishonesty and religious arrogance really.



> No place for logic in this thread obviously, you guys just tyring to have a laugh and wind me up with those answers.



Thoughtful logic and reason have not been a feature of your argumentation here so you have form asserting this.  Your little misdirection attack on evolution fools nobody here, you have made no compelling arguments for the existence of any God let alone a Christian one, just the some old and tired creationist playbook.



> You are not seeking the truth.



 Yet more dismissive arrogance from a religious drone.  This calls to mind something I read recently here...

http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/17856-the-arrogance-of-christian-nationalism

In particular...

_"A common perception of Christianity, or perhaps a common Christian self-perception, is that Christianity or Christians are humble and that atheists, humanists, and scientists are arrogant. Dwell briefly on this notion and it is quickly and correctly reversed. Christianity claims to know ultimate truth with absolute certainty on the basis of no evidence. Atheists, humanists, and scientists claim to have answers supported by evidence, not faith, and are willing to alter their views should new evidence arise. The conceit falls on the side of unshakable faith."_

How true.


----------



## boofis (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Ok I get what is going on here. There is a lot of piss being taken.
> 
> The atheist theory relies on something sprining into being from nothing (i.e. without being created). The Universe it not eternal so it couldn't have always existed. How did it get into being?
> 
> ...




I'm deadset serious just for the record. If we're discussing matter/the universe/etc. then my statement regarding nothing is currently justified. It may be proved wrong in which case I will be forced to adjust my view of reality to fit with the evidence rather than choosing the evidence that agrees with my view of reality.


----------



## bunyip (7 June 2013)

I don’t know and don’t care how mankind, the earth, other planets, other galaxies, or anything else came into being. *The simple fact is that it really doesn’t matter.*
What’s most important is that we lead decent lives, and if we do that well enough then we just might just secure an entry pass into heaven, if such a place exists (which I doubt). And if there’s no next life, then living decent lives doesn’t do us any harm anyway.

One thing that occurs to methough is this......this place Heaven, much vaunted as a utopia, a blissful paradise where life is perfect, is unlikely to be anywhere near as perfect as many people seem to think. That is, assuming that heaven exists, which in my opinion it does not. 
Think about it. We think places like China and Indonesia and Bangladesh are crowded, but they’d be sparsely populated in comparison to heaven. Good and decent people have been dying for hundreds of thousands of years – if they all landed in heaven after they died then you’d have to suspect that the place must be getting a mite crowded by now. I mean, if there’s a constant stream of new arrivals but nobody is dying, then heaven must be just about bursting at the seams.

Another thing.....I’m not sure that all the clientele in heaven would be quite the people of impeccable character that we might hope for. Most of the Mafia mobsters of the last 100 years or so have been of Sicilian or Italian heritage, both of which are strongly Catholic countries. It’s well documented that many Mafia gangsters have been regular attendees at Mass, and have populated the confession box from time to time. Given that in Catholic doctrine they are cleansed of their sins by confessing them to a priest and asking for forgiveness, and given also that many of these mobsters, though criminals of the worst kind, have in fact made significant positive contributions to their communities, you’d have to wonder if they will end up in heaven along with all the good people.

How about all those Islamic terrorists who are headed straight to heaven as their reward for blowing themselves up in their efforts to kill as many infidels as possible. 
How about the former bikie gang members and various other criminal types who you see on TV every so often, claiming they’ve found God and have mended the error of their ways...will they end up in heaven as well?

I’m starting to think this heaven place might be very over-rated. Far from being a paradise, it could turn out to be an overcrowded hell hole that’s home to some pretty rough and disreputable characters. Rubbing shoulders with bikies and Mafia thugs and Islamic extremists is not exactly my scene - I’m not so sure I want to end up in heaven even if it does exist!

Returning to the creation question for just a moment .....science tells us there are hundreds or maybe even thousands of planets apart from the commonly known ones of  Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
This begs the question to those who believe that God created Earth – did he create all the other planets as well? If so, this God fellow must have a prodigious capacity for work!


----------



## Tink (7 June 2013)

Thats right bunyip, live decent lives, so why have these sort of threads?

Atheists pushing their slogan, yet another religion.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Ok I get what is going on here. There is a lot of piss being taken.
> 
> The atheist theory relies on something sprining into being from nothing (i.e. without being created). The Universe it not eternal so it couldn't have always existed. How did it get into being?
> 
> ...




But you've only ever studied Christianity, none of the other religions.  Not only that but you have a very literal and rigid interpretation of Jesus' teachings. I offered an alternative view of Christianity in the work of Bernadette Roberts, which you would not even look at.  What are you afraid of?  That God will punish you for questioning him?  I think there's a huge amount of fear lurking beneath the surface.

Say I read Darvas' book as my one and only trading book.  I proclaim Darvas box theory is *IT* and therefore every other approach to trading is wrong.  Good move?  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  I'd want to do some comparisons, read much more widely, see how other people are approaching their trading and how successful they are at it.  If my Darvas box trading was spectacularly successful, there will be no impetus to look elsewhere.  Maybe that's where you're at now with your Christian faith - things are rosy in your world and there's no need to question anything.  IVA up 70% and all is well.

But it only takes a moment's reflection to see that the world is far from a pleasant experience for many millions of  people, including devout Christians.  Do you ever ask yourself the hard questions?


----------



## pavilion103 (7 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> But you've only ever studied Christianity, none of the other religions.  Not only that but you have a very literal and rigid interpretation of Jesus' teachings. I offered an alternative view of Christianity in the work of Bernadette Roberts, which you would not even look at.  What are you afraid of?  That God will punish you for questioning him?  I think there's a huge amount of fear lurking beneath the surface.
> 
> Say I read Darvas' book as my one and only trading book.  I proclaim Darvas box theory is IT and therefore every other approach to trading is wrong.  Good move?  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  I'd want to do some comparisons, read much more widely, see how other people are approaching their trading and how successful they are at it.  If my Darvas box trading was spectacularly successful, there will be no impetus to look elsewhere.  Maybe that's where you're at now with your Christian faith - things are rosy in your world and there's no need to question anything.  IVA up 70% and all is well.
> 
> But it only takes a moment's reflection to see that the world is far from a pleasant experience for many millions of  people, including devout Christians.  Do you ever ask yourself the hard questions?




I'll reply this this particular post.

I've only ever studied Christianity have I? I've never studied alternative views? Thanks for making this untrue assumption. 

Quite to the contrary. In fact I've spent many hours on YouTube listening to atheists and evolutionists talk. I've studied many religions and philosophies. In fact I believe God ENCOURAGES us to ask questions and explore truth. Just because I'm led to one conclusion doesn't mean I've not considered a wide range of world views. 

By the way IVA is up 85% get it right lol


----------



## pavilion103 (7 June 2013)

And the world is a harsh place for many. I run a feeding the homeless program once a month on a Saturday morning. I'm also heading to the slums of India in late November this year. Will be a big eye opener.

More than anything this shows the consequences of a world that has rejected God and His principles for how to live life!

Without God we are free to live as we want with no accountability other than that we give ourselves, which may well be zero. And apparently if two thirds of the world is starving well tough....


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I'll reply this this particular post.
> 
> I've only ever studied Christianity have I? I've never studied alternative views? Thanks for making this untrue assumption.
> 
> ...




Noooo, you haven't studied other religions.  It's very obvious.  

When I asked you about the hard questions.....

There's a 10 year old child in Africa right now praying to God for food because he is starving to death.  He is starving because both his parents were murdered.  He prays and prays, he has been moral and righteous his whole life.  But he doesn't just pray, he makes every effort to go looking for food.....and then he dies a very painful death. No burial, the carcass just gets picked to pieces by scavengers. Way to go, as they say.  We're here in Australia tapping away on our keyboards with a latte in one hand, enjoying our 85% gains.  Where does your God get off not helping this Christian?  Is he really a "person" outside of time and space as you believe?


----------



## FxTrader (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> And the world is a harsh place for many. I run a feeding the homeless program once a month on a Saturday morning. I'm also heading to the slums of India in late November this year. Will be a big eye opener.



Commendable, but hopefully in the process you will focus just on the provision of food and not use the opportunity to spread religious propaganda to the poor and destitute.



> More than anything this shows the consequences of a world that has rejected God and His principles for how to live life!



Presumably, you're referring to a Christian God and the principles jealousy, slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, hatred of gays etc. as expressed in the Old Testament as well as the ten commandments.



> Without God we are free to live as we want with no accountability other than that we give ourselves, which may well be zero. And apparently if two thirds of the world is starving well tough....



Oh my, atheists don't care if people are starving, such are the musings of a religious fool.  There is no accountability in Christendom, just ask for forgiveness whatever the sin and it's forgiven.  Do you actually think before tapping out such trash on your keyboard?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 June 2013)

Another child just died (just then)...  this one of AIDS.

She studied the Bible every night after school, she was good to everyone, a true Christian.

Another one.... 

Another one.... this one prayed exactly as is written in the Bible.

What on earth is God doing?  Why did Jesus say "Ask and it will be given to you?"

Is it possible your concept of God is entirely different to the truth of the matter?

This is just one of the many hard questions that can be posed.  My philosophy about "how stuff works" can at least make some sense of such horror and allow for a God (of sorts).


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Presumably, you're referring to a Christian God and the principles jealousy, slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, hatred of gays etc. as expressed in the Old Testament as well as the ten commandments.




The New Testament was designed as a replacement text for the Old (outdated) Testament.  There's nothing about jealousy, slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, hatred of gays in the 10 commandments.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> 1) If a virus has deposited DNA into us, the DNA has not been created. It already exists. It’s added it’s own DNA to our DNA. It isn’t new DNA. It’s not evolution. It's a mix up of the genes. We are not building any new DNA. It is old DNA mixed, no manufacturing of new DNA.




Let me guess Pavillion - you have decided that you won't read the book.  I'm sure it will be available at your local library. Why trust my interpretation? Perhaps you should read it for yourself.

You said "If" above. It's not a debatable statement. We have genetic material in us that has come from viruses. If you doubt me...go find out for yourself, read more than one book, it's not my job to educate you.

Oh and many viruses don't have DNA at all - they have RNA, a less complex form of genetic code. Viruses also have the largest degree of neutral evolution. (you know what this is? Pure *mutation* of genetic code - essentially *new DNA*) like you said above. This is due to several factors, radiation, cross species interaction, lack of cell lipids forming permeable cell barriers etc etc



> So where did the FIRST living thing get it’s DNA from?
> 
> In the virus example its simply using the same materials to make different structures. Just like the a builder uses the same materials to build different buildings.




Cool.  Define "life" for me. Is a virus alive? How about a bacteria? an archaea? a prokaryotes?  Some of those I just mentioned are really weird things. Some don't even have a cell nucleus, some don't have DNA at all only RNA (which is a different type of building material if you will), some can be found in conditions of extreme heat, cold, ph etc.  Some have properties of mutualists or commensals. (they like to bond with other things).  The point I'm getting at Pavillion is non-life to life is not a black and white, on-off proposition, but more shades of grey. The more we understand the world around us the more complex the definition of "Life".







> On a bit of a different point: In terms of any similarities between us and a virus, well there are similarities between a Boeing 747, Ferrari and a bicycle. That’s where it ends. All it shows that it came from one mind. One designer. God.
> 
> We have genetics similar to a virus so we come from a virus. We have genetics similar to a banana too, did a banana it impregnate a woman?




You know, grown-ups solve their issues by having discussions. Children make ridiculous statements in attempts to distract others and obfuscate. Perhaps you might get more out of our discussion if you provide a cogent argument rather than trying to distract with ridiculous statements.  







> *So I ask the same question. Give me an example of NEW genetic information being created. Not existing information being mixed!!*




I'm not sure you understand what NEW genetic information is...why don't you tell me what you are looking for precisely.







> 2) Also this is not science. It is not observable. How it came into being has not been observed. An assumption has been made, a leap of faith. Just like a cup of coffee is on a table, we can only observe that it is there. Once we make assumptions about how it got there, then it is philosophical reasoning and not science.




Not observable and not science? What did you base that on? Oh right, you are making this blanket statement from a lack of information. That's OK we don't know what we don't know and you appear to have already made up your mind on the topic. It's a shame you are acting under this misconception and from a position of ignorance.


----------



## FxTrader (7 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The New Testament was designed as a replacement text for the Old (outdated) Testament.  There's nothing about jealousy, slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, hatred of gays in the 10 commandments.




The New Testament (what we call this collection of books today) was not "designed" to do any such thing and is primarily a collection of additional magic books detailing (with inconsistency, contradiction and many years after the original author's death in most cases) the mythology around the life of Jesus. 

The Old Testament is riddled with accounts of jealousy, slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, hatred of gays, blood sacrifice etc. sanctioned by a (now reformed) temperamental  God.  If you read more carefully I said that such things exist along with (in addition to) the 10 commandments (that revered moral code scribed by the hand of God on stone tablets) - presumably the best effort the almighty could put in on the day.  What Jesus does give us though is free pass, no more Thou shall not... but instead just ask and thou shall receive.  A complete and utterly nonsensical fairy tale.


----------



## bunyip (7 June 2013)

Maybe Pavilion or one of the other Christains on here would care to watch last Monday's Four Corners program on this link.

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.src...&gclid=COC4nZCB0bcCFUodpQoddWEAww#/view/39621

Then come back on this thread and explain to us why your God, who is widely touted as a god of compassion and love, stood by and did nothing while the young girls in this story, some of them as young as 11, were horribly abused by gangs of sub-human vermin.

And while you're at it, perhpas you can also explain why God stood by and did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis.

Remember, this is the supposedly all-powerful god of compassion and love we're taking about here. Not some mere mortal like you and me who was powerless to intervene.

Answers please Christians! There are no shortage of examples where your god of compassion and love was found sadly wanting when it comes to living up to his reputation.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 June 2013)

We are given a free will. Our choices will invariably impact others around us. It is inescapable in this world. We live in a fallen world where we see the consequences of our rejection of God.

God does not promise prosperity in this life, or comfort, or ease. The Bible says we must be obedient and ensure until the end. 

Those who do will be rewarded. 
"The suffering of the present moment cannot be compared to the glory that will be revealed"

This life is NOT fair. But that child that starved to death and trusted to God will receive their reward. Far above the suffering endured. They are rejoicing now. 

Ultimate justice wins out in the end. THAT is the promise.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 June 2013)

None so far in this thread actually understand what Christianity teaches.

It is blanket assumptions that you may have picked up from the books, media.

So for the religion you are arguing against, you make fair points. But what you are arguing against is not Christianity. You don't understand it. 

And lol @ the posters telling me what I have and haven't researched. Only compounds the extent of your ignorance.

This is definitely my final post. Sick of discussing things with people who don't even understand the worldview. One day we will all find out the ultimate truth. 

I hope for more pleasant chat on the trading threads.

I won't even be back in here to read follow up comments.

Catchya.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> None so far in this thread actually understand what Christianity teaches.
> 
> It is blanket assumptions that you may have picked up from the books, media.
> 
> ...





Bye Pavillion. Have fun on the stock threads.


----------



## bellenuit (7 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I call BS.
> 
> Look at my response above.
> 
> ...




I think these two videos should adequately address your last two questions much better than I ever could.

3) Give me one example of an addition of genetic information?



4) How do you account for irreducible complexity?


----------



## bunyip (8 June 2013)

bunyip said:


> Maybe Pavilion or one of the other Christains on here would care to watch last Monday's Four Corners program on this link.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.src...&gclid=COC4nZCB0bcCFUodpQoddWEAww#/view/39621
> 
> ...






pavilion103 said:


> We are given a free will. Our choices will invariably impact others around us. It is inescapable in this world. We live in a fallen world where we see the consequences of our rejection of God.
> 
> God does not promise prosperity in this life, or comfort, or ease. The Bible says we must be obedient and ensure until the end.
> 
> ...



The usual Christian claptrap that fails to answer the question.

Christianity promotes its god as good, all-powerful, loving and compassionate, always ready to help us in times of trouble if we believe in him. Christianity tells us to bring our troubles to God, and he’ll help us. Christianity tells us to ask, and we will receive.

Christianity and its God fail miserably to deliver on those promises.


----------



## bunyip (8 June 2013)

And on a lighter note..........
_
On their way to Church to get married, a young Catholic couple was involved in a fatal car accident.

The couple found themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process them into Heaven.

While waiting they began to wonder; Could they possibly get married in Heaven?

When St. Peter arrived they asked him if they could get married in heaven.

St. Peter said, "I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out," and he left.

The couple sat and waited for an answer... for a couple of months.

While they waited, they discussed the pros and cons.

If they were allowed to get married in Heaven, should they get married, what with the eternal aspect 
of it all? "What if it doesn't work? Are we stuck in Heaven together forever?"

Another month passed. St. Peter finally returned, looking somewhat bedraggled.

"Yes," he informed the couple, "You can get married in Heaven."

"Great!" said the couple. "But we were just wondering; what if things don't work out? Could we also 
get a divorce in Heaven?"

St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slammed his clipboard on the ground. 
"What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple.

"OH, COME ON!!!" St.Peter shouted. "It took me 3 months to find a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take to find a lawyer?"_


----------



## Tink (8 June 2013)

You really dont think the world evens itself out, bunyip.
Look around you and really take note.

Your questions were all answered that if we all lived by Jesus teachings, what a better world it would be.


----------



## fiftyeight (8 June 2013)

Tink said:


> You really dont think the world evens itself out, bunyip.




Are you serious? 

The world gets more unfair every single day. Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You and I won the birth lottery and were born into a first world country. Millions loose this lottery and are born into poverty and misery every day. 

I think Pav was correct on one thing, I need to stop reading this thread


----------



## bunyip (10 June 2013)

Tink said:


> You really dont think the world evens itself out, bunyip.
> Look around you and really take note.




I suspect that the  girls who were abused by those sex gangs would find zero comfort in you telling them the world evens itself out in the end. I'm sure they'd consider your words as poor justification for God ignoring their pleas for help - pleas which I'm sure at least some of them and their families made on more than one occasion.

The Jewish victims of the Nazis - some of whom are still alive today and are still so traumatized that they’re reduced to tears just by talking about it – try comforting them by telling them that the world evens itself out in the end. 
Try explaining to them why their god, who is promoted by both Jews and Christians as as loving and compassionate and always ready willing and able to help those who believe in him, abandoned them to the cruelty of the Nazis despite all their prayers for his help. 
Next time you see someone on TV with tears running down their face as they talk of how the Gestapo knocked on their door at 3am, took their father or mother away, and they never saw him/her again – ask yourself if they’d find any comfort in you telling them that the world even itself out in the end. 

People are kidding themselves if they believe that some god (the Christian god or any of the other dozens of gods that have been worshipped by the human race) will come running to their aid out of pure compassion and love whenever they call on him/it for help.
If you believe that, then you might as well believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden as well.

Christianity needs to stop lying to people. I suspect that pretty much every other religion lies as well, although I don’t know for sure. But I do know about Christianity, I was brought up in a Christian family, I was a practicing Christian myself, and I saw first hand the blatant dishonesty, contradictions and hypocrisy of some (not all) of the teachings of Christianity.



Tink said:


> Your questions were all answered that if we all lived by Jesus teachings, what a better world it would be.




I agree completely that it would be a far better world if everyone lived by the teaching of Jesus. But you’ll never get everyone to live by the teachings of anyone. People will make their own choices – some will choose to live as decent people, some will choose not to.
Those who choose not to live decent lives are often a thorn in the side of decent people. That’s why we have laws and police forces – to give us some protection against these indecent people.

One of the teachings of Christianity is that God will be our ally and comforter and protector if we believe in him, live decent godly lives, and bring our problems to him through prayer.
Anyone who doesn’t see the world through rose coloured glasses will know that God fails to deliver on that promise.


----------



## MrBurns (11 June 2013)

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/06/11/13/52/child-executed-in-syria


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 June 2013)

bunyip said:


> One of the teachings of Christianity is that God will be our ally and comforter and protector if we believe in him, live decent godly lives, and bring our problems to him through prayer.
> Anyone who doesn’t see the world through rose coloured glasses will know that God fails to deliver on that promise.




It is the only comforter and ally, but not in the way people think.  You can't say "hey God, get me out of this mess" and expect your request to be answered.  It just doesn't work like that.  God isn't a person for one.  He is not a He either, so I'll call it "it".  But also It doesn't care.  Caring and compassion are mental concepts, so the idea that there is a person who cares about you is not correct.... even if you're a Christian.

*Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.*

This quote from the Bible says quite plainly that God is not anything that can be labelled or conceptualized by the mind, but instead is the core what you actually are.  You cannot approach it other than within (ie. meditation).  It is the core of everything that is, and everything that is not.  This includes the dog **** on the pavement...that is also God.


----------



## Ruby (11 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> It is the only comforter and ally, but not in the way people think.  You can't say "hey God, get me out of this mess" and expect your request to be answered.  It just doesn't work like that.  God isn't a person for one.  He is not a He either, so I'll call it "it".  But also It doesn't care.  Caring and compassion are mental concepts, so the idea that there is a person who cares about you is not correct.... even if you're a Christian.
> 
> *Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.*
> 
> This quote from the Bible says quite plainly that God is not anything that can be labelled or conceptualized by the mind, but instead is the core what you actually are.  You cannot approach it other than within (ie. meditation).  It is the core of everything that is, and everything that is not.  This includes the dog **** on the pavement...that is also God.




Yes, GB, I believe this is closer to the truth than any of the other medieval Christian nonsense that has been spouted here.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 June 2013)

Ruby said:


> Yes, GB, I believe this is closer to the truth than any of the other medieval Christian nonsense that has been spouted here.




Right, medieval times (Middle Ages) is probably when the dualistic notions were quite strong, for example in the gnostics and Catholic faiths.  They still carry over today, but less so.  For me, dualistic religious ideas are far too easily picked apart.  You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.  Non-dualist religions are much harder to pick apart - at least I haven't been able to yet, despite a lot of effort.  They stand up to a lot of scrutiny.  The other thing about non-dualist religions is that they do not require blind faith or adherence to ritual.  They simply say "try this and see for yourself".  On an intellectual level, I find them fascinating.  But the intellectual stuff amounts to nothing really....it's the doing that's the thing.

My view is that dualist religions have _at best_ a partial understanding of the nature of Reality.  Non-dualists often point out how and where dualists go wrong (having been there themselves), but the reverse never happens as far as I can see.  This is nicely summarized in a famous saying "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him!!".


----------



## DB008 (13 June 2013)

Religion of peace?

*Egyptian author appeals for protection following Islamist threats*

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/73680/Egypt/Politics-/Egyptian-author-appeals-for-protection-following-I.aspx



> On Egypt's religious Hafez television channel, Shabaan accused Abdel-Samad of having been an "apostate" even before his recent statements. "He has been flagrantly questioning Islam and thinks it is a bad religion, a fascist religion... His punishment should be death," Shabaan declared.
> 
> "Even if he repents for what he said, he must be killed," Shabaan added. "His repentance might help him with God [in the afterlife], but he must be killed."


----------



## DB008 (17 June 2013)

I don't know what to say...

*Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete)*



After watching some of this, I really would love to see what is going on inside his head about the person he is interviewing....."What an idiot, muppet, nutcase"......

*Added to help 'plod...


----------



## explod (17 June 2013)

DB008 said:


> I don't know what to say...
> 
> after watching some of this, I really would love to see what is going on inside his head....."What an idiot, muppet, nutcase"......




Now that is a very big and serious call, 

would you care to explain why you believe that Dawkins is a nut case?


----------



## DB008 (17 June 2013)

explod said:


> Now that is a very big and serious call,
> 
> would you care to explain why you believe that Dawkins is a nut case?




No, not him....what he is thinking of the person with whom he is having the discussion with.


----------



## cynic (24 June 2013)

DB008 said:


> No, not him....what he is thinking of the person with whom he is having the discussion with.




Although I have great respect for the theory of evolution and little for "creationism" philosophy, I would have to admit that Wendy conducted her debate far more logically, intelligently and (dare I say it?) objectively than Richard. I believe that Darwin's theory deserves better representation from the scientific community than was provided by Dawkins in this instance. Having great admiration for science, I would like to believe that occasions such as this are more the exception than the rule, particularly when respected members of the scientific community are involved.

DB if you were trying to make a case for creationism (or a case against evolution) then I believe this interview was a most suitable choice, however, based upon your previous posts, I suspect that was not your intention. Some posts back, Bellenuit posted a link to a clip showing highlights from a scientist's visit to a creationist museum. It provided a far more compelling argument against the creationist approach to the mystery of genesis.


----------



## bellenuit (24 June 2013)

*'Gay cure' ministry closes after leader admits he's attracted to men*

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...der-admits-hes-attracted-to-men-29366451.html


----------



## FxTrader (24 June 2013)

When taking religious belief and faith healing to seriously leads to death for children...

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Faith-Healing-Churches-Linked-to-Two-Dozen-Child-Deaths-208745201.html

_"Two Philadelphia faith-healing churches have a long history of the youngest members of their congregation dying because parents refused medical care.

Families who attend Faith Tabernacle Congregation in North Philadelphia and First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park have lost more than two dozen children to illness since 1971, according to non-profit Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD, Inc.). Both churches believe in the power of prayer over modern medicine.

The Schaibles are one of those families.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible stand charged with third-degree murder and other crimes after their 7-month-old son Brandon died from bacterial pneumonia, dehydration and a group B streptococcus infection on April 18.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams says the boy’s death could have been prevented, but the couple instead turned to prayer.

This is the second time the couple lost a child to illness. They were sentenced to 10 years probation after the 2009 death of their 2-year-old son Kent. Kent died after contracting pneumonia, an illness prosecutors said could have been prevented with basic medical care."_


----------



## CanOz (24 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> When taking religious belief and faith healing to seriously leads to death for children...
> 
> http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Faith-Healing-Churches-Linked-to-Two-Dozen-Child-Deaths-208745201.html
> 
> ...




Bloody knuckleheads... How completely stupid could you be to do that twice? I reckon that Church should be sued into oblivion and then burnt to the ground and buried. WTF!!! Idiots!!:frown:

CanOz


----------



## Sean K (24 June 2013)

CanOz said:


> Bloody knuckleheads... How completely stupid could you be to do that twice? I reckon that Church should be sued into oblivion and then burnt to the ground and buried. WTF!!! Idiots!!:frown:
> 
> CanOz



What century are we in??



> “The church believe that people get sick because they’re not doing the right thing,” the man named John said. He refused to give his last name during the interview.
> 
> “God promised us that if we do his will, that there’s no infection; all these diseases that you name, would not come to you,” the man explained. John says he believes the congregation is being persecuted for their beliefs.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 June 2013)

This guy is very smart.

http://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/atman-is-brahman/


----------



## MrBurns (1 July 2013)

> Teenage sisters murdered in Pakistan
> 
> Two teenage sisters have been murdered in Pakistan for allegedly damaging their family’s name by filming themselves dancing in the rain.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/07/01/10/07/teenage-sisters-murdered-in-pakistan


----------



## Lantern (2 July 2013)

^^ How many more times will we read about these types of barbarism before we all stand up and say enough is enough.

I'm at the point where I would happily take the life of any radical preaching hate. And the longer it's not done then the worse it's going to get.


----------



## bunyip (2 July 2013)

The following was sent to me by a friend. I don't know if it's true or not - I suggest you do your own research and make up your own minds.
I'll reproduce his email exactly as it was sent to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_
Sharia Law is the most frightening thing to confront us all, especially women, I dont know if this info is correct but have had this e.mail sent to me from quite a few different people now, so it is worth thinking about. I will do some checking of my own before the referendum BUT Sharia Law must NOT be allowed into our systems here in Aust.

Subject: Fw: IMPORTANT -- PLEASE PASS AROUND

PLEASE PASS AROUND
Please, note this is from a friend who is well informed in the political area.

Hi
It is critical that all people oppose (vote NO) to the proposed change to recognise local govt in the constitution at the referendum at the Sept election. By local govt areas being recognised then Sharia law can be demanded in the local area based on the % of Muslim people in that local area. This is exactly how the Muslims obtained sharia law recognised in UK._


----------



## DB008 (4 July 2013)

*Homicide convictions upheld for Wisconsin parents who treated dying daughter with prayer*



> A deeply religious Wisconsin couple who prayed over their dying daughter rather than seek medical help were properly convicted of homicide, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday.
> 
> Kara Neumann, 11, of Weston, Wis., died March 23, 2008 ”” Easter Sunday ”” of complications of untreated juvenile onset diabetes.
> 
> ...




Link
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/03/19275007-homicide-convictions-upheld-for-wisconsin-parents-who-treated-dying-daughter-with-prayer?lite


----------



## McLovin (5 July 2013)

DB008 said:


> *Homicide convictions upheld for Wisconsin parents who treated dying daughter with prayer*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And apparently it's gay people having children we should be worried about.


----------



## DB008 (7 July 2013)

Religion of peace strikes again....



> *29 boarding school students burned alive, shot dead by Islamist militants in Nigeria*
> 
> POTISKUM, Nigeria - Islamic militants attacked a boarding school in northeast Nigeria before dawn Saturday, killing 29 students and one teacher.
> 
> ...



http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/06/19318588-29-boarding-school-students-burned-alive-shot-dead-by-islamist-militants-in-nigeria?lite


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 July 2013)

Watching the Truman Show for the umpteenth time (True-man).  There's no movie that is closer to depicting the real meaning of religion than this, except maybe the Matrix.  Here's the best excerpt.



*FEMALE CALLER:* 
              How can you say Truman lives a life like any other?

*      CHRISTOF:*
                      (sensing the thinly disguised
                      resentinent in the caller's voice)
              I believe that to be so.  I often feel the only
              difference between Truman's life and our own
              is that his is being more thoroughly documented.
              We all play our allotted roles--

*FEMALE CALLER:* 
              --He's not a performer.  He's a prisoner.

     [The Interviewer goes to cut off the call but Christof
     holds him back].

* CHRISTOF*
                      (rising to the challenge)
              --He can leave at any time.  If his was more
              than just a vague ambition, if he were
              absolutely determined to discover the truth,
              there's no way we could prevent him.  I think
              what really distresses you, caller, is that
              ultimately he prefers the comfort of his "cell"--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To become Truth-realized, Truman has to slay his mind-created Gods.  He has to challenge and destroy every single thing he has ever held to be true and in the process, confront his greatest fears. It is all illusion...the whole thing.  Great movie.  Based upon the work of the great spiritual masters.

Row, row, row your boat....


----------



## Some Dude (9 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Watching the Truman Show for the umpteenth time (True-man).  There's no movie that is closer to depicting the real meaning of religion than this, except maybe the Matrix.




Not contesting "closer" in this context but I would add Groundhog Day (Self awareness) and maybe The Fisher King (Redemption).



Gringotts Bank said:


> Row, row, row your boat....




It's a great nursery rhyme isn't it, and a very witty tie in to the movie you note.


----------



## noco (11 July 2013)

This young woman was shocked at what she came back to after some absence away from her community in the UK..

It happens when the ISLAMIC movemrnt has the numbers and the percentage to demand Sharia law and it can and will happen here in Australia in the not too distant future.

Muslims are infiltrating the Western World and I am still in shock to witness Ed Kusick take the oath of office as a Minister in the Rudd Government with his hand on the Koran.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1368058553


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 July 2013)

Beliefs are such strange things.  There exists such a range of different beliefs on the "big questions".  And then there are 'consensus' beliefs such as gravity, time, space and our own existence.  Is there something that is real beyond all belief?  

Hypnotists give us the most amazing insight into how beliefs work, and how powerful they are.  Beliefs can be "set" pretty much wherever you want them.  If you take a very young person (or suggestible adult as in the following video) and instill certain beliefs, she will be so certain that they are true that she will break down into tears and undergo a conversion of faith.  If you take that same person and instill another contrary set of beliefs, the same thing will happen - absolute certainty, just in another direction.  How can two things be true?  How can there be two certainties?  And yet that's what happens.

I've posted this before but it bears repeating.  Skip to 1:03 for the start of the hypnosis.  The girl just thinks it's a conversation, but of course Derren is triggering all sorts of things in her subconscious.  Fascinating. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLzT4CeBT6I

So with all these random beliefs that people buy into (including the existence of God), is there something True (capital 'T') that exists beyond all beliefs?


----------



## explod (17 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> So with all these random beliefs that people buy into (including the existence of God), is there something True (capital 'T') that exists beyond all beliefs?




Yes, indoctrination and control which is fact.

A successful Chief employs a Witch Doctor.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 July 2013)

explod said:


> Yes, indoctrination and control which is fact.
> 
> A successful Chief employs a Witch Doctor.




I don't call that fact though... not with a capital 'F'.

Your statement "A successful Chief employs a Witch Doctor".  Is that fact?  Are you trying to indoctrinate me and control the way I think with your particular brand of fact?  See?  We all participate unknowingly.  Maybe my brand of facts are trying to control you!  It's both fascinating and totally ridiculous!

So is there something True that is beyond all belief?


----------



## explod (17 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I don't call that fact though... not with a capital 'F'.
> 
> Your statement "A successful Chief employs a Witch Doctor".  Is that fact?  Are you trying to indoctrinate me and control the way I think with your particular brand of fact?  See?  We all participate unknowingly.  Maybe my brand of facts are trying to control you!  It's both fascinating and totally ridiculous!
> 
> So is there something True that is beyond all belief?




I think (belief), that you are clutching straws.

Our discussion here on ASF is a fact but some of the content may not be.

That I am breathing air is a fact.

That there is a God is a belief and it may be true,  but without his appearance or a clear (heavenly if you like) action having a physical effect, it is not a fact.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 July 2013)

explod said:


> I think (belief), that you are clutching straws.
> 
> Our discussion here on ASF is a fact but some of the content may not be.
> 
> ...




You think (believe) that I am clutching at straws.  Without a clear (heavenly if you like) action having a physical effect, it is not a fact.  That means I'm not clutching at straws, doesn't it?  

You've also assumed that  1) God (if it exists) is a 'thing' and that ... 2) God has a gender (he).  How can we debate when you've made such assumptions?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 July 2013)

explod said:


> Our discussion here on ASF is a fact but some of the content may not be.
> 
> That I am breathing air is a fact.




Our discussion here on ASF might not be fact at all.  

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

You probably think I'm being a smart alec, but if we're talking about truth versus non-truth, you have to look at things in a deeper way.  Can anything be proven?  Are all beliefs random neuronal firings?


----------



## explod (17 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Our discussion here on ASF might not be fact at all.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument
> 
> You probably think I'm being a smart alec, but if we're talking about truth versus non-truth, you have to look at things in a deeper way.  Can anything be proven?  Are all beliefs random neuronal firings?




On the contrary I do not think you are being a smart alec *at all*

Are we real? 

Do we really exist? ; and lets us not forget the other dimensions, or that our entire universe is but a pin sized speck in the eye of a small mouse in a universe of giants.   All great possibilities and wonderful for our imaginations.  

Yes great metaphysical arguments, and like the subject, were created to justify such so called theological truths.


----------



## dutchie (18 July 2013)

If you did not know it already, the Taliban is a joke.

Taliban say Malala is 'smearing' them.

A SENIOR Pakistani Taliban commander has written to Malala Yousafzai, the teenage activist shot by militants, accusing her of "smearing" them.

Gunmen from the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) shot Malala, now 16, in the head in her home town in Swat, in the country's northwest, where she campaigned for the right of girls to go to school, last October. Now Adnan Rasheed, a former air force member turned TTP cadre, said he personally wished the attack had not happened, but accused her of running a "smearing campaign" against the militants."It is amazing that you are shouting for education, you and the UNO (UN) is pretending that you were shot due to education, although this is not the reason ... not the education but your propaganda was the issue," Rasheed wrote.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/b...up/story-fndir2ev-1226681073277#ixzz2ZLpMurZ3

The poor little ol Taliban being smeared by a 16 year old they shot in the head because she wanted an educated - talk about backward!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 July 2013)

I wasn't sure where to put this link.  It's about beliefs.  But it's a very good reference for trading (you'll see how it applies).  Don't be put off by the cornball look of the website.

http://vladdolezal.com/blog/2010/everything-is-a-belief/


----------



## DB008 (24 July 2013)

Hmm....


*Religion to Disappear By 2041 Claims New Study*



> Author and noted biopsychologist Nigel Barber has completed a new study that shows Atheism is most prevalent in developed countries, and, according to his projections, religion will completely disappear by 2041. His findings are discussed in his new book “Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.” A new study that clarifies his earlier research will be published in August. His findings focus on studying trends within countries around the world and the fact that “Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries”-






> In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Moslem (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism.




http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/religion-to-disappear-by-2041-claims-new-study/


----------



## Zedd (24 July 2013)

DB008 said:


> Religion to Disappear By 2041 Claims New Study




Interesting. I know very few atheists and find most people identify as agnostic / don't-give-a-**** as opposed to atheist. Pity you have to buy the book to get his stats.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 July 2013)

I can see the old monotheistic religions dying off by mid century, except in 3rd World nations where they will continue to thrive.  Non dualist religions are (imo) true religions because they match up perfectly with modern science.  Here's a taste.  The author is Nisagardatta.  When you read it, understand that this is not just nice-sounding poetry, but literal explanation from someone who has lived it. 



The source of consciousness cannot be an object in consciousness.

To know the source is to be the source.

Realization is in discovering the source and abiding there.

You know yourself only through the senses and the mind.

Whatever you think you are you take it to be true-imagining yourself perceivable.

I see as you see, hear as you hear.

All this I perceive quite clearly, but I am not in it.

I feel myself as floating over it, aloof and detached.

There is also the awareness of it all and a sense of immense distance as if the body and the mind and all that happens to them were somewhere far out on the horizon.

I am like a cinema screen-clear and empty.

The pictures pass over it and disappear, leaving it as clear and empty as before. In no way is the screen affected by the pictures, nor are the pictures affected by the screen.

The screen intercepts and reflects the pictures. These are lumps of destiny, but not my destiny; the destinies of the people on the screen.

The character will become a person when he begins to shape his life instead of accepting it as it comes-identifying himself with it.

To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say “this I am”.

Only the onlooker is real, call him Self or Atman.

*It is enough to shift attention from the screen onto oneself to break the spell.*

It is enough to shift attention to the Self and keep it there.

To know the picture as the play of light on the screen gives freedom from the idea that the picture is real.

This is all imagination. In the light of consciousness all sorts of things happen and one need not give special importance to any.

The world just sprouts into being out of nothing and returns to nothing.

In reality I only look. Whatever is done is done on the stage. Joy and sorrow, life and death, they are real to the man in bondage; to me they are all in the show, as unreal as the show itself.

I see only consciousness, and know everything to be but consciousness, as you know the pictures on the cinema screen to be but light.

Movement is illusory. What moves is the film-which is the mind.

Bodily existence is but-a movement in consciousness.

I am not my body. I am the witness only.

The very purpose of creation is the fulfillment of desire. Things happen by their own nature. From my point of view everything happens by itself, quite spontaneously. I do nothing. I just see them happen.

The person is never the subject. You can see a person but you are not a person.

The difference between the person and the witness is as between not knowing and knowing oneself.

Mere knowledge is not enough; the knower must be known.

Without knowledge of the knower there can be no peace.

I know myself as I am in reality.

I am neither the body nor the mind. I am beyond all these.

You are accustomed to deal with things, physical and mental.

I am not a thing, nor are you. We are neither matter nor energy, neither body nor mind.

Once you have a glimpse of your own being you will not find me difficult to understand.

You must gain your own experience.

We believe so many things on hearsay. We never cared to verify.

You are confused because you believe you are in the world, not the world in you.

You see yourself in the world, while I see the world in myself.

To you, you get born and die, while to me, the world appears and disappears.

There is nothing wrong with the senses, it is your imagination that misleads you.

There is a deep contradiction in your attitude which you do not see.

In ignorance the seer becomes the seen and in wisdom he is the seeing.

When you refuse to open your eyes, what can you be shown?

Investigate your world, apply your mind to it, examine it critically, scrutinize every idea about it.

To question-is the essence of revolt. Without revolt there can be no freedom.

The way to truth lies through the destruction of the false.

To destroy the false you must question your most inveterate beliefs. Of these the idea that you are the body is the worst.

It is the clinging to the false that makes the truth so difficult to see.

You progress by rejection.

Everything must be scrutinized and the unnecessary ruthlessly destroyed.

There cannot be too much destruction. For in reality nothing is of value.

See your world as it is, not as you imagine it to be.

See the person you imagine yourself to be as a part of the world you perceive within your mind and look at the mind from the outside, for you are not the mind.

The world you can perceive is a very small world-entirely private.

Take it to be a dream and be done with it.

What begins and ends is mere appearance. The world can be said to appear but not to be.

Nothing perceivable is real.

Reality is essentially alone. To know that nothing is, is true knowledge.

The world lasts for a moment. It is your memory that makes you think that the world continues.

Memory creates the illusion of continuity.

I see the world as it is, a momentary appearance in consciousness.

The totality of all mental projections is the Great Illusion.

When I look beyond the mind I see the witness.

Beyond the witness is infinite emptiness and silence.

For the path of return naughting oneself is necessary.

My stand I take where nothing is.

To the mind it is all darkness and silence.

It is deep and dark, mystery beyond mystery.

It is, while all else merely happens.

It is like a bottomless well, whatever falls into it disappears.

Absolute reality imparts reality to whatever comes into being.

You are the source of reality-a dimensionless center of perception that imparts reality to whatever it perceives-a pure witness that watches what is going on and remains unaffected.

It is only imagination and self-identification with the imagined that encloses and converts the inner watcher into a person.

The person is merely the result of a misunderstanding. In reality there is no such thing.

Feelings, thoughts and actions race before the watcher in endless succession.

In reality there is no person, only the watcher identifying itself.

Self-identifications are patently false and the cause of bondage.

Liberation is never of the person, it is always from the person.

What is liberation? To know that you are beyond birth and death.

Go beyond, go back to the source, go to the Self that is the same whatever happens. See everything as emanating from the light which is the source of your own being.

By forgetting who you are and imagining yourself a mortal creature you create so much trouble for yourself that you have to wake up, like from a bad dream.

What you call survival is but the survival of a dream.

It is your desire to hold onto it that creates the problem. Let go.

Suffering is due entirely to clinging or resisting; it is a sign of our unwillingness to move on, to flow with life.

Your attachment is your bondage.

There is no such thing as free will. Will is bondage.

Your desires just happen to you along with their fulfillment or non-fulfillment. You can change neither. It all merely happens.

As long as there is the sense of identity with the body, frustration is inevitable. It is because of your illusion that you are the doer.

There is trouble only when you cling to something. When you hold onto nothing, no trouble arises.

Give up all and you gain all.

Then life becomes what it was meant to be: pure radiation from an inexhaustible source.

In that light the world appears dimly like a dream.

In the dream you love some and not others. On waking up you find you are love itself, embracing all.

Personal love-invariably binds; love in freedom is love of all.

The reward of self-knowledge is freedom from the personal self.

Freedom means letting go. Spiritual maturity lies in the readiness to let go of everything.

Discrimination will lead to detachment. You gain nothing. You leave behind what is not your own and find what you have never lost-your own being.

One you realize that there is nothing in this world which you can call your own you look at it from the outside as you look at a play on the stage or a picture on the screen.

When you refuse to play the game you are out of it.

Find the immutable center where all movement takes birth. Be the axis at the center-not whirling at the periphery.

The seeker is he who is in search of himself.

Give up all questions except one: “Who am I?”

The only fact you are sure of is that you are. ‘I am’ is certain. ‘I am this’ is not.

A false question cannot be answered. It can only be seen as false.

The question “Who am I?” has no answer. No experience can answer it.

All I can truly say is ‘I am’.

I am beyond consciousness and therefore in consciousness I cannot say what I am.

There is nothing wrong in the idea of a body-but limiting oneself to one body only is a mistake.

In reality all existence, every form, is my own, within my consciousness.

Destroy the wall that separates, the ‘I-am-the-body-idea’, and the inner and the outer become one.

In reality all is one, the outer being merely a projection of the inner.

This battle is always won, for it is a battle between the true and the false.

It is the witnessing consciousness that makes realization attainable.

The person is in resistance to the very end.

It is the witness that works on the person-on the totality of its illusions.

Abandon all self-identifications.

It is a vicious circle. Only self-realization can break it.

Self-surrender is the surrender of all self-concern. It cannot be done. It happens when you realize your true nature.

Complete self-surrender by itself is liberation.

Abandon the idea of a separate ‘I’. By focusing the mind on ‘I am’, on the sense of being, ‘I am so-and-so’ dissolves; ‘I am a witness only’ remains and that too submerges in ‘I am all’.

Then the all becomes the One and the One-yourself.

Realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world.

Look at the dream as a dream. When you see your dream as dream you wake up.

When you have seen the dream as a dream you have done all that needs be done.

The dreamer is one. I am beyond all dreams. I am the light in which all dreams appear and disappear.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

I've read a lot of that stuff. Some truths behind it which can be powerful.

What I mainly disagree with is that there is no good or bad, and that it's only a label we place on it.

My experience of the world disagrees with this. I believe that there are objective morals and that the rape and murder of an innocent child is bad or wrong in an absolute sense rather than 'just being what it is'

Proponents of this say we are to practice love. So despite no good or bad, as they claim, they are labeling love as good. If there is no good or bad then it makes no difference at all what we do. So they say there is no labeling or categorizing as good but anyone can see its apparent that there is.

Some good beliefs in here but the above contradiction is obvious. Most of the teachings are good but the above sort of inconsistency in logic which is glaringly exposed.


----------



## tech/a (25 July 2013)

Oh my
You are exercising freewill.
This simply will not do!


----------



## boofis (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> What I mainly disagree with is that there is no good or bad, and that it's only a label we place on it.
> 
> My experience of the world disagrees with this. I believe that there are objective morals and that the rape and murder of an innocent child is bad or wrong in an absolute sense rather than 'just being what it is'




And what of our old favourite Abe and Isaac? The objective moral being killing (BAD)...(ones own son, VERY BAD) yet with the label being good because he was willing to do it for the lord.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

Maybe I should just buy into the idea that there is no good or bad and then I can stop using a stop-loss for my trading. It won't be bad trading and when my account balance declines that won't be bad either. I can't lose (oh wait it's not bad to lose anyway :S)

My new thread "Pav's dart-board trading system" will be a phenomenon!!


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

boofis said:


> And what of our old favourite Abe and Isaac? The objective moral being killing (BAD)...(ones own son, VERY BAD) yet with the label being good because he was willing to do it for the lord.




Um. We are discussing non-duality at the moment.

It got really hot in the kitchen and you jumped straight out!

The thing that pisses me off the most about forums and most discussions about most areas of life. When someone comes under fire, rather than addressing the specific point they deflect.


----------



## boofis (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Um. We are discussing non-duality at the moment.
> 
> It got really hot in the kitchen and you jumped straight out!
> 
> The thing that pisses me off the most about forums and most discussions about most areas of life. When someone comes under fire, rather than addressing the specific point they deflect.




 What on earth did I deflect? 
You made a statement ... 







> My experience of the world disagrees with this. I believe that there are objective morals and that the rape and murder of an innocent child is bad or wrong in an absolute sense rather than 'just being what it is'



.... I made a response in relation to your belief of objective morality, and referred directly to the book you require for objectivity, pointing out the seemingly blatant contradiction...

The kitchen temp is fine here


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

I was curious as to why you didn't respond to my comments on non-duality but rather jumped straight to another belief system.

What are your thoughts on my non-duality contradiction assessment?


----------



## FxTrader (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> The thing that pisses me off the most about forums and most discussions about most areas of life. When someone comes under fire, rather than addressing the specific point they deflect.




Have you just had an epiphany?  You have demonstrated the art of deflection and misdirection in this thread many times with respect to avoiding questions around the absurdities of Christian mythology by attacking evolution and the science around it instead as though it's equivalent to an atheist religion.  Practice what you preach.


----------



## boofis (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I was curious as to why you didn't respond to my comments on non-duality but rather jumped straight to another belief system.
> 
> What are your thoughts on my non-duality contradiction assessment?




Ah! Fair enough, like you I also don't buy into their conclusion of 'love'.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

I have addressed many questions directly thrown at me in this thread.

This is why I stay away. I shouldn't have got sucked in to posting again in here.

In person this would be a good, interesting chat. On here its a bunch if mumbo jumbo going all over the place.

Nothing to do with whatever I believe but when I come into a thread of people who have no consistent application of historical evidence and no understanding of what scientific evidence even is(observable and repeatable) there really is little point.

A forum is probably the worst place to try and dissect the deeper issues.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I've read a lot of that stuff. Some truths behind it which can be powerful.
> 
> What I mainly disagree with is that there is no good or bad, and that it's only a label we place on it.
> 
> ...




I'm not meaning to be offensive, but you don't get it.  Not even close to getting it!  You say "some good beliefs here", when the idea is to burn all beliefs... the whole lot has to be destroyed.  In particular the belief that you exist as a separate entity called 'pavillion'.

You say "proponents of this say we are to practice love", but the ones that really understand are not fussed about love at all.  Love is neither here nor there in comparison to total freedom.  Love is just the ego seeking wholeness through another external source, which can only result in continued bondage (samsara).

From the enlightened state, rape and murder are the equivalent of a child's birthday party.  It's all one big game.  You create good and bad with your mind (as I do, since I am not enlightened either).

In the above excerpt, Nisagardatta says "In reality I only look. Whatever is done is done on the stage. Joy and sorrow, life and death, they are real to the man in bondage; to me they are all in the show, as unreal as the show itself".


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

You're right I missed the point.

I'm just saying I disagree. I believe that we have been given a conscience and that compassion is an important part of who we are as humans and that we are created with a purpose to love and help those in need (yes we do have needs its not an illusion). Compassion and love are both a very real part of reality (if that makes sense) inherent in us. To ignore these or disconnect from them is to lose touch with reality and go down a dangerous path of 'anything goes'


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

Not having a go at you either because I don't want to argue but something that is so ironic is that what you are writing in each post is of itself a set of beliefs and thoughts. 

One being the belief that I'm wrong and "don't get it"


----------



## FxTrader (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> On here its a bunch if mumbo jumbo going all over the place.



As stated previously, mumbo jumbo (evidenced again in recent postings here) is a defining characteristic of religious belief.



> Nothing to do with whatever I believe but when I come into a thread of people who have no consistent application of historical evidence and no understanding of what scientific evidence even is(observable and repeatable) there really is little point.



If you truly had a clear understanding of what constitutes evidence yourself then you would have contempt for religious superstition, it's poisonous impact on human society and all the metaphysical nonsense deployed to justify belief in invisible celestial dictators.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> As stated previously, mumbo jumbo (evidenced again in recent postings here) is a defining characteristic of religious belief.
> 
> If you truly had a clear understanding of what constitutes evidence yourself then you would have contempt for religious superstition, it's poisonous impact on human society and all the metaphysical nonsense deployed to justify belief in invisible celestial dictators.




To a large degree I agree with you. I do have contempt for religious superstition. Christianity and other religions have manipulated people and justified atrocities. These man-made traditions and rules do not sit well with me.

I don't believe in Christianity or put my faith in it. I believe in Christ however, his teachings and the historical evidence to support his resurrection. 

So I don't disagree with you on many of your points.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

And I won't believe what any man or book says on any topic without investigation and testing for myself.

I view the gospels as an historic document and apply the same historical tests to it as I do every other document in antiquity and then reach a conclusion as to its reliability.

To blindly accept any text is foolish.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Not having a go at you either because I don't want to argue but something that is so ironic is that what you are writing in each post is of itself a set of beliefs and thoughts.
> 
> One being the belief that I'm wrong and "don't get it"




This is where it gets tricky.  There's the famous saying: "The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself".  So if I state something, yes it might be in the form of a belief but it is (hopefully) a useful belief in that it points towards the moon instead of into further confusion.  Once the "moon" is pointed out, the idea is that the observer then discards the finger (ie. belief) which is pointing at it.  In this way, useful beliefs are those that can serve as a step ladder.  At some point you kick the step ladder away, because if you don't it will hinder you.  All beliefs have to go, in other words.

- - - Updated - - -



pavilion103 said:


> You're right I missed the point.
> 
> I'm just saying I disagree. I believe that we have been given a conscience and that compassion is an important part of who we are as humans and that we are created with a purpose to love and help those in need (yes we do have needs its not an illusion). Compassion and love are both a very real part of reality (if that makes sense) inherent in us. To ignore these or disconnect from them is to lose touch with reality and go down a dangerous path of 'anything goes'




These statements are all true from the egioc state of consciousness, which I also inhabit.  But they are not true from the enlightened perspective.  

One does in fact need to "lose touch with reality" in order to wake up to what's really True (God in other words).  What we think of as reality is apparently just illusion when compared to Truth.  This why it's such a dangerous undertaking.  Some go mad in the process, or experience what St John of the Cross called "The Dark Night".


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

Yeh. I think we have both had our say on the topic of non-duality and we can respectfully disagree. I've read Ekhart Tolle and Krishnamurti (I've told you previously that I've read different spiritual texts) and others.

So I have read up on it a lot but I just do not fully agree (as per the points that I raised).


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Yeh. I think we have both had our say on the topic of non-duality and we can respectfully disagree. I've read Ekhart Tolle and Krishnamurti (I've told you previously that I've read different spiritual texts) and others.
> 
> So I have read up on it a lot but I just do not fully agree (as per the points that I raised).




I like Krishnamurti's stuff.


--In obedience there is always fear, and fear darkens the mind.

--When one loses the deep intimate relationship with nature, then temples, mosques and churches become important.

 Krishnamurti, Beginnings of Learning


----------



## pavilion103 (25 July 2013)

As you can see I am far more open minded than you have believed.

Don't mistake reaching a different conclusion with being closed minded.


----------



## cynic (27 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> As stated previously, mumbo jumbo (evidenced again in recent postings here) is a defining characteristic of religious belief.
> 
> 
> If you truly had a clear understanding of what constitutes evidence yourself then you would have contempt for religious superstition, it's poisonous impact on human society and all the metaphysical nonsense deployed to justify belief in invisible celestial dictators.




Thankyou so much FXTrader for alerting me to how irrational I am being!

I kept believing a variety of written accounts of an incredible person doing some amazing things, despite never having personally met the man, nor witnessed the accounted events!

Heck! I haven't even personally met the authors of those accounts, and yet, still I believe! How crazy is that?!

Yes, that's right! Based on naught more than written accounts, I believe that, amongst many other things, a man actually walked on the moon!


----------



## pavilion103 (27 July 2013)

Yeh. I don't understand how people want scientific evidence for Jesus which is impossible but accept historical evidence for events with far less evidence by their own standards.

How so I scientifically prove that Booth assassinated Lincoln? Do I get them over tonight and make them re-enact the shooting?
Come on...... 

If we are going to be consistent we can dismiss the historical evidence for Christ as unreliable, sure, but then we also have to dismiss the historical evidence for almost everything else beyond a certain time period because by the same standard of evidence nothing comes close.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 July 2013)

cynic said:


> Yes, that's right! Based on naught more than written accounts, I believe that, amongst many other things, a man actually walked on the moon!




This is a topic I've been studying for the last few weeks, strange that you should bring it up.  How can we know anything is true?  Jed McKenna's "Theory of Everything" is just the best piece of writing I have found for this.  He has you questioning whether reality is actually real, and in a way that will jolt you out of your senses.  This is the core of real religion.... not the robes, the churches and the dogma, but what is True.


In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was
inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later:
the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the
validity of experience, but the very existence of external
reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying
was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but
that they might be right.  For, after all, how do we know
that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity
works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past
and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the
mind itself is controllable - what then?

George Orwell, 1984


----------



## boofis (27 July 2013)

Even if the issue of the census, place of birth and all the historical evidence are conceded and we agree they point towards a special man Jesus having existed, there's still the actual problem of inconsistency in teaching, ludicrous values and an introduction of a concept (even if metaphorical) of eternal punishment not mentioned by OT before, weeping and gnashing of teeth etc. that are the very reason I left it all.
Also, what of the historical evidence of joseph smith, prophet muhammad, ellen white, david koresh etc. have you interrogated all of their claims with as much gusto and enthusiasm looking honestly for the 'truth'?


----------



## pavilion103 (27 July 2013)

When I have time I can post up some more details thoughts. 

Briefly none of the others resurrected. Jesus said He would and He backed it up. Not to mention many many specific prophecies fulfilled by this one man. Factors that he couldn't control.

Evidence behind the resurrection.... Maybe even best to Google it yourself. Accompanied by stories of those who actively went out to disprove Chris's resurrection and became so compelled by the evidence that they became believers. The evidence is beyond doubt in a court of law. Seriously look into it.

I'll have to get you the quote of the lawyer with 255 consecutive murder acquittals who examined the evidence for himself and said it was beyond any doubt.

I don't think it's a matter of a lack of evidence but rather a lack of objective investigation by those who claim it didn't occur. Measure it by the same standard as other historical events. See for yourself.

I empathize with you. To just believe is silly. Crazy. But the evidence for this is so abundant that when investigates thoroughly, to not believe is then silly. Crazy.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 July 2013)

By the way I'm not using those people as solid evidence. Not at all. Just to point out the fact that there is enough evidence to, in instances, convince the hardest critics tying to disprove it.

This isn't just some silly story with no evidence, it is, at very least, a question that demands serious investigation and research in which many intellectuals have reached the same conclusion as I have. 

You may conclude differently. That's ok. But let's not pretend that this is a non-issue. The evidence is abundant whether you'd like to think so or not. That changes nothing.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 July 2013)

There have been others who do incredible things, aside from resurrection.  I don't think resurrection is necessarily proof of wholeness.


----------



## boofis (27 July 2013)

I believe you may be referring to the book A case for Christ, no? 
Well if we're assuming the accuracy of the bible account, then resurrection really wasn't that unique, eg. the graves of a multitude of people being opened in matthews account, lazarus, OT resurrections. So my qualm is still the actual teachings as I said a little earlier, that's all. I mean from a logical reasoning point of view, it's a bit of a case of ad hominem. e.g. Because Jesus rose from the dead, everything he said must be true being the fallacy.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 July 2013)

boofis said:


> I believe you may be referring to the book A case for Christ, no?
> Well if we're assuming the accuracy of the bible account, then resurrection really wasn't that unique, eg. the graves of a multitude of people being opened in matthews account, lazarus, OT resurrections. So my qualm is still the actual teachings as I said a little earlier, that's all. I mean from a logical reasoning point of view, it's a bit of a case of ad hominem. e.g. Because Jesus rose from the dead, everything he said must be true being the fallacy.




I think if he 
1. fulfilled hundreds of specific prophecies.
2. Claimed to be the son of God
3. Said he would die and rise from the dead and did

He made the claims and backed them up. Tell me who else claimed to be God and rose from the dead with an abundance of evidence? He is completely unique and reliable.

Case for Christ is good. Many other good books though.


----------



## boofis (27 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I think if he
> 1. fulfilled hundreds of specific prophecies.
> 2. Claimed to be the son of God
> 3. Said he would die and rise from the dead and did
> ...




Just for clarity, are you referring to OT prophecies about messiah that he fulfilled? 
Do you think he is god or was the son of god? 
Do you think that being raised from the dead has any correlation to being God or the son of God? 
In regards to the god and risen from dead thing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection , it's really not a bad read and gives a heap to look into even if the source itself is dubious.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolution-is-wrong-and-zeus-is-real-t658.html

It is condescending but I really enjoy aspects of this site.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 July 2013)

I'll check it out when I have time. Thanks


----------



## Ruby (28 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> When I have time I can post up some more details thoughts.
> 
> Briefly none of the others resurrected. Jesus said He would and He backed it up. Not to mention many many specific prophecies fulfilled by this one man. Factors that he couldn't control.
> 
> ...




Pavilion, there is absolutely NO evidence to  support the resurrection!!!   None whatsoever.   The gospels are *not *eyewitness accounts; they were written several decades after the death of Jesus.  They are full of inconsistencies and factual errors.

The idea of the dying-and-rising god exists in many pagan religions and mythologies, and the resurrection of Jesus was no doubt borrowed from them.   It may have symbolic value, but there is no evidence that it physically happened.  You need to remember that 2,000 years ago most people were illiterate and very open to suggestion - especially things of an apparently divinely-inspired nature.

Stories that have been handed down by mouth and benefited from embellishment with each re-telling should not be regarded as incontrovertible fact!

You don't have to look very far back in time for proof of what I am saying about a highly suggestible populace.   Read about the cargo cults of less than 100 years ago.


----------



## explod (28 July 2013)

Ruby 

And today the symbol control is the media.


----------



## Ruby (28 July 2013)

explod said:


> Ruby
> 
> And today the symbol control is the media.




Yes, Explod, how true!   All I have to do is pick up "Woman's Day" or "New Idea" and I can read the "facts" about the royal family, Hollywood celebrities, or local TV personalities..........   deeply personal stuff - gleaned from a "source close to the family"  - all "facts" - and not one of them verifiable!!


----------



## FxTrader (29 July 2013)

Ruby said:


> Pavilion, there is absolutely NO evidence to  support the resurrection!!!   None whatsoever.   The gospels are *not *eyewitness accounts; they were written several decades after the death of Jesus.  They are full of inconsistencies and factual errors.
> 
> The idea of the dying-and-rising god exists in many pagan religions and mythologies, and the resurrection of Jesus was no doubt borrowed from them.   It may have symbolic value, but there is no evidence that it physically happened.  You need to remember that 2,000 years ago most people were illiterate and very open to suggestion - especially things of an apparently divinely-inspired nature.




Good points Ruby.  I might add that virgin birth is also not unique to Christian myth.

As to Cynic's sarcasm...


> Heck! I haven't even personally met the authors of those accounts, and yet, still I believe! How crazy is that?! Yes, that's right! Based on naught more than written accounts, I believe that, amongst many other things, a man actually walked on the moon!



Since we have more than just written accounts of moon walks this is a particularly poor argument in favour of why anyone should believe things strongly based solely on written accounts in iron-age scrolls (otherwise known as faith).

Use of the emotive term "crazy" in this way is flogging a straw man.  I am more interested to know why you believe religious myth has any credibility other than it's written down in an iron-age magic book.  Religious apologists rely on faith arguments to justify belief in the fantastic claims made in magic books since there is no credible evidence to support such claims.  Such belief is then transformed into a personal virtue that must be expressed to every lost soul to avoid chosing the wrong eternal path.

By all means believe whatever religious mythology you like.  But in doing so don't arrogantly claim you possess certain knowledge about eternal life and the universe that others do not, don't tell anyone that you can have moral impulse that they can't because you believe in a celestial dictator, don't create laws and institutions to enshrine your mythology in society and (if nothing else) stop indoctrinating children in religious superstition.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

Matthew and John are eye witness accounts. They were both referred to as the authors from the beginning. This is not a myth that sprung up later in time. Reports of the death of the apostles were also recorded by secular sources. People die for what they believe to be a lie. But no one dies for what they KNOW to be a lie. They either saw Him rise or they didn't. 
They were willing to die for it despite prior to the resurrection thinking Jesus was a fake and running away.
Do some historical research.


The virgin birth myth and others in other religions did not appear prior to the first century. Some have claimed that they were from ancient cultures but the first accounts did not appear until AFTER Christ. This is evident with a little research. People bring this up but it simply is not accurate.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

I tend to go with the following philosophy, because I have plenty of personal experience to support it...

--Consciousness is the only thing that exists in Reality.
--Consensus reality (lets call it "reality") does *not* in fact exist.  Modern-day science supports this notion.
--"Reality" is created when consciousness is filtered down through both individual and consensus beliefs.
--Beliefs can be popular, such as "man landed on the moon in 1969", or unpopular such as "aliens are living amongst us".
--Beliefs are just random meaningless filters of the mind and so can be placed anywhere you like.
--In this sense, "aliens are living amongst us" is no more or less real than "man landed on the moon".  I will never have enough proof for either because....

--Proof does not exist in the egoic realm.  Nor does truth exist in the egoic realm.  Only consciousness exists.  Consciousness = Truth = God.

When you dig down deep enough into the religious texts, this is what they're saying.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

I hope you're at least consistent and feel the same way about indoctrinating children with evolution theory which is unscientific by definition in that it is not based on observable and repeatable evidence (zero examples of life from none life, zero evidence of something coming from nothing, zero evidence of increasing genetic information, observation of genetic entropy and the irreducible complexity of the cell).

I can at least respect you for your consistency then. But it seems whatever you believe (I have no idea what you do) you've shut out a lot of evidence and made up your mind from the start!

But hey don't let evidence get in the way of a good lie


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> But hey don't let evidence get in the way of a good lie




There's no such thing as a lie in the world we inhabit, because it's all imagined.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> There's no such thing as a lie in the world we inhabit, because it's all imagined.
> 
> "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein




This is just your opinion.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> This is just your opinion.




I know that.  I also know that opinions don't count for anything.

Remember what I said about the "finger pointing at the moon".  Only the experience of the moon is real, not the finger that points to it.  Amongst good spiritual teachers, words (and opinions) are considered expedient technique, because they can never of themselves convey the truth.

Jesus said "The kingdom of God is within you" not "The Kingdom of God is up above the clouds somewhere wonderful".  So why do you go on as if there is some external being that you have to obey or impress?

I could quote another 10 Jesus quotes that show you there is no person called God, no thing called God.. _but that God is real at the same time!!_... in fact the _only_ real thing.  The reason you won't look into this, if you're really honest with yourself, is because you are afraid of the God you have created in your mind..  Afraid of what he might do to you if you disobey.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

The bible cannot possibly be analyses as a metaphysical text. The interpretations are completely incorrect. 
The disciples died because they wouldn't renounce their testimony of a bodily resurrected Christ. 
Jesus himself, it is clear, believed the Old Testament to be the word of God with real people, events and places. 
Over 300 specific prophecies about Jesus fulfilled through his life.

You are more than welcome to pick out verses here and there and interpret them as you like but that it now how to analyze any historic document and it completely ignores the entire backdrop and everything going on around Jesus during this time. It is not accurate.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

Also what an inconsistency.

You use the bible manuscript to tell you what Jesus says. You consider these reliable records yet the you omit other parts as myth IN THE SAME DOCUMENT!

You can't pick and choose this stuff!!! These are historical documents to be analyzed consistently.


----------



## boofis (29 July 2013)

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm

There's an analysis of a detail that some of those prophecies you refer to are hinged on. 
Historical document by default because, yes, it is a document from the past. 
(Not picking and choosing, just trying to respond to your challenges decently)


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

We're at a stalemate on that point.

What about we define what this thing is we're referring to as God?

In *your* interpretation...

--Is God a person?
--Does God have any defining characteristics that could be defined as personal?  (height, girth, beard, sense of humour, sense of right and wrong, etc.)
--Does God inhabit a particular location?  eg. Up here, over there, everywhere at once.
--If God is not a person, is it a thing or object, like a cloud for example?
--If God is not a thing or object, does it have properties of a non-material entity, like microwaves, gravity or infrared?

And then we can see if we're talking about the same thing.


----------



## explod (29 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> We're at a stalemate on that point.
> 
> What about we define what this thing is we're referring to as God?
> 
> ...




We do not know any of the above.  God is a symbol in the minds of people.  

There is no physical or living evidence that he ever existed.

And the various writings are at odds to such a degree that he probably never ever did.  And that a God could exist with the powers muted is also very unlikely in fact.

However the brainwashing power of repetitive prayer and ritual, imprints the subcounscious to a state of belief so strong that the believer thinks it is real.  

Religion was created to control people and it does a very good job of it.


----------



## Zedd (29 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> ... evolution theory which is unscientific by definition in that it is not based on observable and repeatable evidence (zero examples of life from none life, zero evidence of something coming from nothing, zero evidence of increasing genetic information, observation of genetic entropy and the irreducible complexity of the cell).




Fossil records are observable evidence, and many experiments in genetics are providing further evidence which so far support the theory. There are still plenty of missing links, the primary ones in my mind are genesis of life from a primordial soup and macro evolution of a new limb or organ, but, in the last decade beneficial additional mutations have been witnessed, as has speciesation, which were two of the pillars of anti-evolutionists only 10 years ago. 



pavilion103 said:


> ... The disciples died because they wouldn't renounce their testimony of a bodily resurrected Christ.



Some other guys died relatively recently by plowing some planes into some buildings because they believed it was a quick ticket to 40 virgins. Martyrdom is conclusive evidence of blind faith, not accuracy of belief.



pavilion103 said:


> .. how to analyze any historic document ...




There're plenty of caveats to this, but in general an historical event is best analysed by looking at multiple, ideally of conflicting interest, sources. In general the larger the figure or event the greater the volume of records we can draw on.

The guy supposedly threw the Roman Empire and Jewish faith into disarray, at least in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, and was executed for it as an enemy of the state, but only four historians besides the Christians decided to record any mention of his existence, and none recorded any mention of his miraculous actions. And yet, we have historical records from Roman times of petty thefts, and minor social unrests.  And you doubt evolution due to a lack of evidence?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

explod said:


> We do not know any of the above.  God is a symbol in the minds of people.
> 
> There is no physical or living evidence that he ever existed.
> 
> ...




The debate has progressed beyond the various charges of "no proof".  There are a bunch of things you yourself believe in with no proof, such gravity and love.  All you can do is see the effect of such things, then work backwards and say "gravitons must be true".  But that's not proof - no one has ever seen a graviton and yet you walk around as if it's true.  You'd stake your life upon gravity being true, so certain are you.  If we use 'effect' as proof of cause, then we could equally say life is evidence of something having created it (ie. a God).  So that whole "prooove it!" argument is null and void.... and boring.

I was asking pavillion how he defined God.


----------



## explod (29 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The debate has progressed beyond the various charges of "no proof".  There are a bunch of things you yourself believe in with no proof, such gravity and love.  All you can do is see the effect of such things, then work backwards and say "gravitons must be true".  But that's not proof - no one has ever seen a graviton and yet you walk around as if it's true.  You'd stake your life upon gravity being true, so certain are you.  If we use 'effect' as proof of cause, then we could equally say life is evidence of something having created it (ie. a God).  So that whole "prooove it!" argument is null and void.... and boring.
> 
> I was asking pavillion how he defined God.




The debate has not progressed at all.  God may exist (a belief) but the evidence suggests that he does not.

Love is a feeling and part of the senses.  Gravity I feel when I get up.  It increases when I corner in a car because it comes from movement/momentum (as in rotation of the planet) so is a concrete feeling of real movement.

Belief is a thought process created within ones imagining, it is not a feeling nor can it be touched.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

*Pavillion!!*

Where's your definition of God?  (see post above).

Have you ever considered what it looks like, where it lives, how it looks and operates?

If we're miles apart on definition then I'll stop debating you.  I expect we are.


----------



## Zedd (29 July 2013)

explod said:


> God may exist (a belief) but the evidence suggests that he does not.




Really? 

String theory suggests a significant number more dimensions above the ones we perceive.
If you believe it's possible that conscious beings evolved from the elements created by the big bang, by what reasoning does one suggest that this can't occur on a higher dimension?

If such being exist they would be God-like to us. I just don't believe they care what we do on each seventh rotation of our planet, given the insignificance of our existence in their perception.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

An interesting article about the apparent realness of reality.

http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

9/11 terrorists are completely different. Don't you see this?
They died for what they thought to be true. 
The apostles died for what they KNEW to be true. There were there when it happened. They would not go to their death for something they knew to be a lie. Keeping in mind before the resurrection they were cowards and thought Jesus was a fake after his death.
Chalk and cheese.

Mutations are a duplication of existing information. A mutation adds NO NEW INFORMATION.


----------



## Zedd (29 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> An interesting article about the apparent realness of reality.
> 
> http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm




Awesome link!


----------



## Zedd (29 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Mutations are a duplication of existing information. A mutation adds NO NEW INFORMATION.




A change in an information stream can completely change the information. If when replicating a binary number of 0101 it became 010101 you couldn't argue that there's no new information. A regular argument provided previously was that all stable mutations witnessed in science were deleterious, and never had an additional mutation been witnessed that was stable. My point was this has now been witnessed and as such this particular link in the theory has been proven.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

Pavillion, I think I have you in checkmate!   

If you say God is an old man with a beard who lives in Heaven, I can take your queen and it's game over!

If you say God has no form and is pure nothingness (Spirit), then I will remind you of the time you said that "something (eg. a universe) cannot possibly come out of nothing".   Your king can't move.

I guess that's why you're taking so long to reply.


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Pavillion, I think I have you in checkmate!
> 
> If you say God is an old man with a beard who lives in Heaven, I can take your queen and it's game over!
> 
> ...




No it's because I just saw it.

My quote was "something that begins to exist must have a cause"

God is eternal
God did not BEGIN to exist
Therefore God does not have to have a cause

God is not nothing. God is outside of time. God can create something inside time that didn't exist previously. 

My thoughts are that something from inside of time cannot come from nothing inside of time. I.e the materialism view breaks down here.

CHECKMATE!!!


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

Give me something a bit harder GB, you're insulting my intelligence with simple ones like that.

I'm off for now though so have fun guys!

Some of us have got money to make on the FTSE!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> No it's because I just saw it.
> 
> My quote was "something that begins to exist must have a cause"
> 
> ...




So if God is outside of time (and space presumably), then it can't take any form.... right?  And if it has no form, what is it?  Is it Nothingness?  Is it, as I have previously explained to you, the great Void?  The Abyss?

I think it got a bit hot in the kitchen for you to run off like that.  I was just getting started.  Weak!


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

I answered your question. My logic makes perfect sense. I believe in a personal God. 

How can I explain an eternal form? No one can. If they could there would be an award named after them.

My thoughts are that an eternal uncaused cause outside of time makes the most (only) sense.

God is God. He can exist in whatever form he wants and do whatever he wants or create whatever he wants.

I'm not sure what else there is to discuss in relation to your previous question. I've explained my position and the logic is sound.


----------



## CanOz (29 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I answered your question. My logic makes perfect sense. I believe in a personal God.
> 
> How can I explain an eternal form? No one can. If they could there would be an award named after them.
> 
> ...




You've got me a little curious now Pav, what does your god look like in your mind? We all have images in our mind of people we have not met (on forums etc too.), i even recall having an image of god in my head at one time. Or is there no particular image that comes to mind when you think of your god?


----------



## pavilion103 (29 July 2013)

CanOz said:


> You've got me a little curious now Pav, what does your god look like in your mind? We all have images in our mind of people we have not met (on forums etc too.), i even recall having an image of god in my head at one time. Or is there no particular image that comes to mind when you think of your god?




Fascinating question. 
I guess the "personality traits" or qualities are very clear in my mind. Christ as the "human representation" of God.

In terms of appearance. I don't know. I believe that we were created in God's imagine but more so of being creative beings with a free will. Whether that means he appears "human like" in appearance or not I'm not sure. I'd be leaning towards it. I guess this comes from me believing in a personal God.


----------



## Tink (30 July 2013)

This is such a big area, GB, and good to see you sitting in the middle.
As you mentioned in another post, the angels and so much more..

So what would you categorize yourself as?
Just curious.


----------



## boofis (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> How can I explain an eternal form? No one can. If they could there would be an award named after them.
> 
> My thoughts are that an eternal uncaused cause outside of time makes the most (only) sense.
> 
> God is God. He can exist in whatever form he wants and do whatever he wants or create whatever he wants.




You god can exist in any form, do whatever he wants and create whatever he wants..? Isn't that the exact opposite of what a theists premise is  i.e. that god can be known on a definite and personal level???


----------



## Ruby (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Matthew and John are eye witness accounts. They were both referred to as the authors from the beginning. This is not a myth that sprung up later in time. Reports of the death of the apostles were also recorded by secular sources. People die for what they believe to be a lie. But no one dies for what they KNOW to be a lie. They either saw Him rise or they didn't.
> They were willing to die for it despite prior to the resurrection thinking Jesus was a fake and running away.
> Do some historical research.
> 
> ...




Pav, I'm afraid you are way behind here! Scholars agree (and I am assuming you are not a scholar of ancient texts) that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels written - around 70AD - and that Matthew, Luke, and John borrowed heavily from that and other documents.  Anyone who was around at the time Jesus was alive was long dead by the time Mark was written.

As for virgin birth....... yes, it was quite a while before the virgin birth was adopted into christianity (yet another embellishment), but once again your ignorance is on show.   Ancient mythologies and religions are rich with stories of virgin births.  In Tibetan mythology there is Indra; from India we have Krishna; some of the Pharaohs claimed virgin birth, as did Alexander the great; and Greek and Roman myths abound with virgin births.  

You suggest we do some historical research.  Perhaps you should take your own advice.   What you are claiming is not based on any historical research, but on a few badly written, inconsistent, ancient documents, which can't even agree with one another.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

Ruby said:


> Pav, I'm afraid you are way behind here! Scholars agree (and I am assuming you are not a scholar of ancient texts) that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels written - around 70AD - and that Matthew, Luke, and John borrowed heavily from that and other documents.  Anyone who was around at the time Jesus was alive was long dead by the time Mark was written.
> 
> As for virgin birth....... yes, it was quite a while before the virgin birth was adopted into christianity (yet another embellishment), but once again your ignorance is on show.   Ancient mythologies and religions are rich with stories of virgin births.  In Tibetan mythology there is Indra; from India we have Krishna; some of the Pharaohs claimed virgin birth, as did Alexander the great; and Greek and Roman myths abound with virgin births.
> 
> You suggest we do some historical research.  Perhaps you should take your own advice.   What you are claiming is not based on any historical research, but on a few badly written, inconsistent, ancient documents, which can't even agree with one another.




This post is completely false.

I can post post when I get home tonight. 1st Corinthians was the first book written around 55 AD. Mark written around 55-60 AD (within the lifetime of the apostles). John was the latest written in around 90AD when he was an old man.
20-30 years after the event is EXTREMELY soon after the event in ancient times. Compare it to any other text. Oral tradition was the main, reliable form of communication. As the apostles got older the texts were written IN THEIR LIFETIME.

And of course they compared notes. Who wouldn't when writing a biography/any book? But it was written in the LIFETIME of eye witnesses, so a myth could not evolve in this time.
Not only this but the very first writings contain virgin birth, bodily resurrection etc so this isn't a story of a natural Jesus that evolved over time. This was the original version from the start.

I'm very well researched in this. There probably isn't anything you can correct me on in terms of this historic stuff.
Your misconception is a very common one until people investigate some of these facts.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

If you're serious about truth just do a quick search on the net about why Jesus virgin birth claim is completely in contrast to the ancient ones that have been claimed. If you're not interested in doing that then I have nothing further to add on this. It's not at all a contentious point.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (30 July 2013)

Tink said:


> This is such a big area, GB, and good to see you sitting in the middle.
> As you mentioned in another post, the angels and so much more..
> 
> So what would you categorize yourself as?
> Just curious.




I'm glad you see me as sitting in the middle Tink, because I wouldn't want to come across as being on one side or the other.  That's not because I fear opposition, but because both 'sides' on this argument are untenable.

I see myself as a body.  I am fully identified with my body, and to a lesser extent, my mind.  I believe I am this body sitting typing at a computer screen.  This is the definition of ego.  So I am in an egoic state of consciousness.  I am in the dreamstate - there ain't no enlightenment here.  Few people throughout history have escaped egoic consciousness, but for those who have, they all speak roughly the same way regardless of cultural context, time frame or nationality.  

If someone was to say to me "GB your beliefs are rubbish", I'd have to agree.  But there has to be some communication in order to express what can't possibly be expressed in words.  The old finger/moon thing that I keep on about.

I don't have a religion.  But I do lean towards neo-Advaita stuff because it seems to add up.  If someone was to trash-talk Advaita, I wouldn't be too fussed at all, because I view it as a tool only.  The idea is that you discard the tool when it's no longer needed, so I try not to be attached to it. The only real test is in the doing, so I "do" certain practices every day and notice what happens.  The more I do them, the clearer things become.  It's like I can get a deep appreciation for what they're saying in these religious texts, whereas before it was just like reading a bit of flowery prose.  It's like learning a new language.  But the proof is in the doing, not the speculation.  Speculation is too easy.



Pavillion, if your God has a humanoid form with arms legs and a head then it has form.  Form cannot exist outside of space-time.  Well, that's what I've heard.  Probably up for debate too.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

We have no idea what can exist outside of space and time. If God is an all powerful being he can exist in any form he wants.

We cannot grasp eternal perspectives with our mind either. Think about describing colour to a blind person. Think about how futile trying to explain the Internet to an ant is. Then think that the gap in intelligence between us and God is infinitely greater than this!!

We put God in such a small box with our puny human minds!


----------



## boofis (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> We have no idea what can exist outside of space and time. If God is an all powerful being he can exist in any form he wants.
> 
> We cannot grasp eternal perspectives with our mind either. Think about describing colour to a blind person. Think about how futile trying to explain the Internet to an ant is. Then think that the gap in intelligence between us and God is infinitely greater than this!!
> 
> We put God in such a small box with our puny human minds!




What is that saying about his supposed character if he created something too stupid to comprehend him ?
Was he incapable of creating a creature that could comprehend him or was he sadistic enough to be ok with the apparent infinite inferiority of his creation?


----------



## tech/a (30 July 2013)

I personally have problems with something that creates 
organisms from single cell to Black holes to Cancer to Animals to humans.
That devour other organisms to exist!

The God "level" then must be purely Consciousness without form.

Consciousness with form must surely be hell!


----------



## skc (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> We have no idea what can exist outside of space and time. If God is an all powerful being he can exist in any form he wants.
> 
> We cannot grasp eternal perspectives with our mind either. Think about describing colour to a blind person. Think about how futile trying to explain the Internet to an ant is. Then think that the gap in intelligence between us and God is infinitely greater than this!!
> 
> We put God in such a small box with our puny human minds!




Here's a famous prove that God exists.


> The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and RenÃ© Descartes. The argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:
> 1.    God is the greatest conceivable being.
> 2.    It is greater to exist than not to exist.
> 3.    Therefore, God exists




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Empirical_arguments

Read on the above Wiki page and see how Kant reputed the above argument on logic grounds.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

Yeh that reasoning makes no sense to me either lol.


We all might not agree on everything but I tell you     I'd much rather be in here having an interesting discussion than in front of the TV each night like most, dead to everything else around them. 

This conversation is much better had in person. I can talk to people for hours about it. Follow a line of thinking, and challenge each other hard. A but disjointed in here but that's ok.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

Most people that I speak to will leave the conversation concluding that it is much more logical that some form of God exists (well the only logical position).

The second question then of "Who is God" is a whole another issue. 

It's silly to discuss both in one discussion/debate because its first imperative to establish that there is a God. Without that, no specific type of God will make any sense.


----------



## Ruby (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> This post is completely false.
> 
> I can post post when I get home tonight. 1st Corinthians was the first book written around 55 AD. Mark written around 55-60 AD (within the lifetime of the apostles). John was the latest written in around 90AD when he was an old man.
> 20-30 years after the event is EXTREMELY soon after the event in ancient times. Compare it to any other text. *Oral tradition was the main, reliable form of communication.*   As the apostles got older the texts were written IN THEIR LIFETIME.
> ...




You keep shooting yourself in the foot Pav.  Oral tradition is the most notoriously *unreliable *form of communication if you want the facts to be correct!  You are not well researched at all.

And the apostles compared notes??? O spare me, please.   Do you really imagine that fishermen in the first century were literate?  And got together to write a book?   You clearly believe you know more about this matter than the world's best scholars on the subject.  And I reiterate - this is not historical stuff as you claim - it is myth.  There is nothing, anywhere, to substantiate your claims.  You need to be able to differentiate.

*My bolds.*


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

You need to look into oral tradition more in terms of these types of societies.

Expert scholars? The ones that share your opinion? There are many that share mine. Many who went out to full on disprove these views and ended up believing because the evidence was irrefutable. 

You are intellectually dishonest throwing the blanket statement "experts" over the people who agree with you and ignoring the ones who agree with me as "Christian opinions". Of course anyone who agrees with my thinking is a Christian lol. But that is simply because they investigated and came to that conclusion. 

It's so stupid when people use the term "experts" and "scientists" for stupid generalizations. But the Christian experts and scientist's opinions are ignored. 
Some people are very clever in being deceptive. It doesn't deceive me one bit though.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

I have provided compelling evidence already about the crucifixion and resurrection. I've mentioned disciples willing to die for testimony that they KNEW to be true (not thought was true).  Manuscripts written in the lifetime of eye-witnesses who could refute this if untrue. Writing by eye-witnesses so close to the events compared to anything else in antiquity (Buddha was about 600 years later I think).
5,200 Greek manuscripts, an abundance of evidence also showing myth was not added later, the original was of a supernatural Jesus, not a natural one. 

You are using a different standard if evidence to other events in antiquity if you conclude that the resurrection did not occur. If you are being consistent then you cannot say that Buddha existed, or Alexander the Great. In fact there is more evidence for Christ than for Caesar (about 10 manuscript).

Luckadoo I think it was. The lawyer of 255 consecutive murder acquittals investigated the evidence from a court of law standard and concluded by this standard it is beyond any doubt at all.

But hey your faceless "scholars" all think otherwise lol.


----------



## tech/a (30 July 2013)

Hmm its a story.
The scriptures are also stories.
They maybe authentic but you cannot prove the contents.
LJ Hubbard is fictional yet according to followers its/he's GOSPEL.

Sorry but I just don't trust the human race.
They lie to justify their stand point.---


----------



## boofis (30 July 2013)

:bs: Mr. Pavlova, you are an expert of deception of yourself.


----------



## Ruby (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> You need to look into oral tradition more in terms of these types of societies.




Oral tradition is not fact.  The stories of the aboriginal dream-time are an oral tradition.  They are beautiful stories, but they are not historical fact.



> Expert scholars? The ones that share your opinion?.




No, I am not that arrogant.  They don't share my opinion, but after doing much reading from different sources, I share theirs.  



> You are intellectually dishonest throwing the blanket statement "experts" ............




I didn't make a blanket statement about experts at all.   In fact I don't think I even used the word.  I referred to scholars - people who have academic qualifications, respect of their peers, and decades of experience in their field.  It is not my opinion, but the opinion of such scholars, well versed in their subject, that the gospels are not eye-witness accounts, and that they contain inconsistencies, factual errors and a lot of embellishment added long after the event.  You seem to think that the very existence of these documents is evidence of their veracity - just because you *want *it to be true.


----------



## explod (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I have provided compelling evidence already about the crucifixion and resurrection. I've mentioned disciples willing to die for testimony that they KNEW to be true (not thought was true).  Manuscripts written in the lifetime of eye-witnesses who could refute this if untrue. Writing by eye-witnesses so close to the events compared to anything else in antiquity (Buddha was about 600 years later I think).
> 5,200 Greek manuscripts, an abundance of evidence also showing myth was not added later, the original was of a supernatural Jesus, not a natural one.
> 
> You are using a different standard if evidence to other events in antiquity if you conclude that the resurrection did not occur. If you are being consistent then you cannot say that Buddha existed, or Alexander the Great. In fact there is more evidence for Christ than for Caesar (about 10 manuscript).
> ...




Deep sea scrolls, manuscripts written on grand parchments or chipped in stone do not make the words fact or truthful.  Even a dying declaration in a court of law needs to be supported by other evidence to be fact.

As far as the different God's are concerned a good read on religions for me at Uni was "The Golden Bough" by an Oxford scholar called Frazer.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

I can understand the logic that because a document exists it doesn't prove the events are real. I agree.

I'm going to take a bit of a different direction here.

Who believes that Jesus existed as a man?

I ask this because no serious historian believes that Jesus did not exist at all. Heck, even Dawkins back flipped on this one and admitted that it is beyond doubt.

So do people believe that Jesus existed as a man or not?


----------



## CanOz (30 July 2013)

I think the reason we even have this argument or discussion is that religion is a belief that those who believe it to be fact, possess. Those that do not believe in religion usually believe in facts supported by what we determine to be the most accepted methods of the scientific community. 

I don't think this is going to end well, discussions between believers and non-believers. We should all just respect each others right to believe in whatever we want, be that fact or religion.

I just don't want this to become a slinging match between the  believers and non-believers.


----------



## boofis (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I can understand the logic that because a document exists it doesn't prove the events are real. I agree.
> 
> I'm going to take a bit of a different direction here.
> 
> ...




*drumrolll*...incoming C.S. Lewis quote!


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

I agree with that CanOz and I take no offense to anything in here. It's  hard to communicate the manner in which we are debating and mine is a friendly one and not very emotional at all.

I like an intellectual discussion and this is not personal one bit. I hope that is the same for others.


----------



## Ruby (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I can understand the logic that because a document exists it doesn't prove the events are real. I agree.
> 
> I'm going to take a bit of a different direction here.
> 
> ...




Jesus may have existed.   There seems to be a lot of evidence to support that, and many scholars seem to agree on that point.  However it is rather a large leap of the imagination to go from believing a man existed to endowing him with diving qualities - virgin birth, rising from the dead, and then taking off into the sky.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

But back to my question...

I'll add my thoughts.

It boggles the mind that every serious historian and most others will accept as a fact that Jesus the man existed using the historical evidence.

YET say that those same historical documents are unreliable when a Christian makes a claim about Jesus. (Oh they are just old papers and don't prove that any of the events happened - which includes Jesus existing)

Completely inconsistent and also totally absurd.

You can't have your cake and eat it too and anyone who can't see this inconsistency shouldn't even be having a discussion like this.


----------



## Ruby (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> But back to my question...
> 
> I'll add my thoughts.
> 
> ...




Pav - this is not inconsistent.   Scholars concede that Jesus *may *have existed, or *possibly *existed, or *probably *existed because the body of evidence available supports that hypothesis - not that his existence is an incontrovertible fact.

As for all the other stuff....... what evidence supports virgin birth (for example)?  So these 'old papers' don't prove or disprove anything.  They seem to provide evidence that Jesus existed, and that perhaps some of the events occurred, but no more.

An integral part of oral tradition is its allegorical nature - hidden meanings and symbols wrapped up in stories which were never meant to be taken as 'fact', and changing as they are passed down the generations.  Characters and events are given qualities in the re-telling that the originals never had.   This is what myths and legends, (and religious stories) are.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 July 2013)

I think this is going a little in circles now. I've given my reasoning, many have given theirs.

We will have to agree to disagree.

For every one post others have to answer I have about 3 or 4 lol. This is taking up time!

It's been good chatting, appreciate all your contributions. *shakes hands*

We will reconvene at a future date no doubt. I've got some money to go and make between now and then. Cya guys in the trading threads!!


----------



## Zedd (30 July 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> It's been good chatting, appreciate all your contributions. *shakes hands*




Brought to mind: "...if you die there are only two things to worry about, either you will go to heaven or to hell. If you go to heaven, then there is nothing to worry about. And if you to go hell, you'll be so darn busy shaking hands with your friends you won't have time to worry!"


----------



## Tink (31 July 2013)

Thanks for sharing GB, I agree this debate could go on and on

Our experiences are logic and reason to believe.

Agree Pav, regarding Jesus.
Christianity has shaped the world to what it is today.
I hope you are enjoying The Bible, excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ga7Lgdac6I


----------



## sydboy007 (31 July 2013)

I'm currently on holiday and using a VPN via the US to protect my internet traffic over the free wifi at the hotel.

Due to my IP address being in the USA range I am getting interesting adds on ASF.  The best one so far is 7 biblical truths about investing revealed.

Now I have read that some ethical investing strategies have seemed to provide better than average earnings, but I do find it a long stretch of the bow to claim the bible has investing strategies relevant to the world of dark pools and pico second HFT.

Might have to ask PBS to do a doco on the success or otherwise of the biblical trading strategy


----------



## noco (18 August 2013)

This is what is happening in the UK at this moment with the influx of Muslims.

With the influx of illegals into Australia the same thing will happen here if it is not controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RWcVguB0GaY


----------



## Lantern (19 August 2013)

Fully agree Noco. The future doesn't look too bright, does it.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 August 2013)

Excerpt of Jed McKenna's _Theory of Everything_.  Talking with his 'students' about the movie _Truman Show_.

---------------------------------------

“So, pretend it’s you opening that door,” I tell John and
Claire after the movie when they come to discuss it with
me. “Your whole life has been moving toward this; you’ve
undergone crisis after crisis, fought battle after battle,
destroyed illusion after illusion. You’ve been living in a
state of unrelenting emotional upheaval as your world
collapsed around you, you’ve made a great journey, and
now you’re about to discover the truth of your being.
You’re about to leave the only reality you’ve ever known
and step into a new, bigger reality you’ve never seen and
only recently began to suspect. Okay?”
“Okay,” they agree in unison.
“Okay. In the movie-metaphor, Truman is just stepping
out of a microcosm into the regular cosm we all know; it’s
really the same paradigm he’s known in the vast 
sound-stage of Seahaven, but on a different scale. He’s just
tunneling from one cell into a larger cell, right?”
I wait for their reply because this is a good time to have
everyone on the same page. They assure me they are.
“But what if, instead of standing at a door to the next
level, he was standing at the final door? A door that
wouldn’t open into just another layer, but beyond all layers
and into the ultimate, eternal and infinite reality. What if
he’d killed his final Buddha, took his final bow, and
stepped through that door into the perfect void of nothing
forever? What then?”
They treat the question as rhetorical and stare at me. 
“There’s no time or space on the other side of that final
door,” I continue, “no energy or matter, no motion, no
relativeness, no otherness. The mountain is not a mountain.
There are no people or places out there, no character to play
or audience to play to; it’s all truth and no Truman. There’s
nothing to perceive, so there’s no perception, and without
perceived and perception, how can there be a perceiver?”
“What does that mean?” asks Claire.
“Nothing forever,” I say. “The void of undifferentiated
consciousness.” 
“But what does that mean?” asks John.
“It doesn’t mean anything,” I say, “it just is.”
They look at each other, and back at me.
*
Let’s say Truman makes it to that final door. Then
what? Maybe he extends his hand through the door and
sees it disappear, or maybe he dives out and lands back on
the spot he dove from, or maybe... well, we kind of run out
of metaphors at this point. Standing at that final door isn’t
like anything. It’s the end of the line. The final question is
destroyed, the final veil is drawn back, the final gate is
opened. Everything is understood. Perfect knowledge is 
attained because all false knowledge has been destroyed.
He has arrived at the only place in Maya’s universe where
there is no further, a strange and lonely place called Done.
All he can do now is turn around and re-enter the false
reality he gave everything to escape. Only now he is, quite
literally, disillusioned.
And there it is. The enlightened guy is really just a bad
sport who stomped off in a black rage and then slinks back
after discovering that there’s nowhere else to go. I called
enlightenment a booby prize, and this is why, but truth-realization 
isn’t achieved by desire, so it’s only those who
can’t get there that would be disappointed. The black rage
guy didn’t want to become something true, he wanted to
un-become something false. That is achievable, and that’s
the only way it works.

----------------

_Damn, he's good!!_


----------



## DB008 (23 August 2013)

*Cut into pieces: ‘She challenged God’s orders’*



> MULTAN: A cleric cut his wife into pieces on Wednesday for refusing to wear a veil and sending their children to school, police said.
> 
> They said the body was recovered from near their house. They said they found his confession on the body and had also recovered the weapon he had used.
> 
> ...




http://tribune.com.pk/story/593466/cut-into-pieces-she-challenged-gods-orders/


----------



## DB008 (27 August 2013)

*Texas megachurch reverses anti-vaccination stance after 20 members contract measles*

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-texas-megachurch-measles-vaccination-082613



> A measles outbreak linked to a Texas megachurch amplifies the public health concern for those who opt out of immunizations.
> 
> A Texas megachurch has shifted its stance on immunization, following a measles outbreak among its faithful.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (2 September 2013)

*The imam who defected: Extremists run all Danish mosques*



> Finally he is there – on the podium of The Free Press Society. It is half past seven PM, Thursday, August 22, 2013, as the former Islamicist imam and deadly enemy of the Free Press Society, Ahmed Akkari, faces his most fierce critics.
> 
> A tiny man with more than a hundred deaths and the burning of two Danish embassies on his conscience.
> – Thank you for inviting me. I don’t know if I deserve all this, but perhaps my journey through life may be of use to you, says Ahmed Akkari as he timidly surveys the packed hall in the heart of Copenhagen.
> Since ex-Islamist Ahmed Akkari came out of the closet three weeks ago, he has been the man of the hour. On television shows, in newspaper articles and on radio, he has tried to explain what has happened to him. He went from being a hardened and fierce Islamicist to a kindly and thoughtful person, filled with love and gratitude for Denmark.






> The truth is that there is not a single mosque or Muslim organization in Denmark that is not run by Islamists. As soon as you enter the house of the believers, you are met with Islamism whether you want it or not. As soon as you become a devoted Muslim, you are infected by extremism, says Ahmed Akkari.





http://www.d-intl.com/2013/08/23/the-imam-who-defected-extremists-run-all-danish-mosques-2/?lang=en


----------



## bellenuit (10 September 2013)

*8-year-old Yemeni child dies at hands of 40-year-old husband on wedding night*

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...hands-of-40-year-old-husband-on-wedding-night

Let's ignore all this and get up in arms about a Miss World pageant instead.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 September 2013)

This is a student (Q) questioning Nisagardatta (M).  See what you you think, (or don't think).  It's taken from the all-time classic "I Am That", and it's about my 4th re-read.


*Q*:In my daily actions much goes by habit, automatically. I am aware of the general purpose, but 
not of each movement in detail. As my consciousness broadens and deepens, details tend to 
recede, leaving me free for the general trends. Does not the same happens to a [truth-realized person], but more so?

*M*:On the level of consciousness -- yes. In the supreme state, no. This state is entirely one and 
indivisible, a single solid block of reality. The only way of knowing it is to _be_ it. The mind cannot 
reach it. To perceive it does not need the senses; to know it, does not need the mind.

*Q*:That is how God runs the world.

*M*:God is not running the world.

*Q*:Then who is doing it?

*M*:Nobody. All happens by itself. You are asking the question and you are supplying the answer. 
And you know the answer when you ask the question. All is a play in consciousness. All divisions 
are illusory. *You can know the false only*. The true you must yourself* be*.

*Q*:There is the witnessed consciousness and there is the witnessing consciousness. Is the 
second the supreme?

*M*:There are the two -- the person and the witness, the observer. When you see them as one, and 
go beyond, you are in the supreme state. It is not perceivable, because it is what makes perception 
possible. It is beyond being and not being. It is neither the mirror nor the image in the mirror. It is 
what is -- the timeless reality, unbelievably hard and solid


----------



## bunyip (18 September 2013)

_‘Unholy Trinity’_ by former police detective Denis Ryan, is the true story of Mr Ryan’s 10 year struggle to bring a pedophile priest to justice in Mildura, Victoria.
It’s a must read for anyone who’s interested in knowing the real story of the collusion between the Catholic church and the Victorian police force that allowed pedophilia to flourish in the Catholic church.
People who claim the Catholic church doesn’t condone ‘that sort of behavior’ might change their minds after reading this book. Not only did they condone it, they rewarded the people who engaged in it.
And they launched a vicious campaign against the man who exposed it.
Between them, the Catholic church and the Victorian police force destroyed Denis Ryan’s career, his health, and his marriage. 
How or why this man remains a devout Catholic to this day, instead of turning his back on the Catholic church and treating it with utter contempt, is beyond me.

http://www.milduraweekly.com.au/2013/06/21/the-paedophile-priest-and-the-prostitute/


----------



## pixel (18 September 2013)

bunyip said:


> How or why this man remains a devout Catholic to this day, instead of turning his back on the Catholic church and treating it with utter contempt, is beyond me.



You've got to distinguish between the Faith and the Institution.
I have respect for Christians - of any "affiliation" - who take the teachings of the New Testament as a guidance to conduct their lives. I haven't read the novel, so I can't tell whether it applies to the author. But I know many "devout" Christians who are just as abhorred by the sexual, physical, and psychological abuse that keeps being dished out to vulnerable victims.
I have utter contempt for the men that administer and dispense the teachings while disregarding the essence for themselves; coming up with lame excuses in order to retain their power; referring their victims to a mythical/mystical "Paradise" where "all will be forgiven". It has been that discrepancy between words and deeds, preaching virtues of spirituality and frugality, while living in splendour and "getting away with murder", which has made me turn my back on institutionalised religion. However, I can still appreciate, respect, even attempt to follow, the teachings of Great Men, be they historic, mystic, or somewhere in between.


----------



## DB008 (22 September 2013)

*'All Muslims leave...we only want to kill non-Muslims': Gunmen massacre at least 22 in Kenyan shopping mall after releasing anyone who could prove they were Islamic by reciting a prayer
*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427892/Nairobi-mall-Gunmen-massacred-22-Kenyan-shopping-centre-targeted-non-Islamics.html


----------



## DB008 (22 September 2013)

**UPDATE TO PREVIOUS POST**

*Kenya Shopping Mall Attack by Al-Shabaab Leaves 39 Dead*



> Al-Qaeda-linked militants stormed an upscale shopping mall in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, and killed at least 39 people in the country’s worst terrorist attack in 15 years.
> 
> More than 150 people were injured, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta said in a statement broadcast on national television, as he vowed to hunt down those responsible. Kenya’s police and army were still engaged in a standoff with the gunmen more than 11 hours after the attack began. An unspecified number of people are being held hostage, the Kenya Red Cross said.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-21/kenya-shopping-mall-attack-leaves-at-least-39-people-dead.html


----------



## Sean K (24 September 2013)

Garry Ablett Jr thanking God for winning his second Brownlow last night (as he did winning MVP) has to be the craziest thing of the year. It was his Dad (Garry Snr - also known as God) who gave him the talent to win the medal. Crazy GAJ! Crazy!!


----------



## MrBurns (24 September 2013)

kennas said:


> Garry Ablett Jr thanking God for winning his second Brownlow last night (as he did winning MVP) has to be the craziest thing of the year. It was his Dad (Garry Snr - also known as God) who gave him the talent to win the medal. Crazy GAJ! Crazy!!




I think Gods got better things to do.


----------



## tech/a (24 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I think Gods got better things to do.




No---his Dads always been involved in Footy!


----------



## bunyip (24 September 2013)

kennas said:


> Garry Ablett Jr thanking God for winning his second Brownlow last night (as he did winning MVP) has to be the craziest thing of the year. It was his Dad (Garry Snr - also known as God) who gave him the talent to win the medal. Crazy GAJ! Crazy!!




Another example of a crazy ‘thank God’ moment is saying grace before a meal to thank God for the food that’s about to be eaten. How anyone can believe it’s God who puts food on our tables is beyond me.

- - - Updated - - -



DB008 said:


> *'All Muslims leave...we only want to kill non-Muslims': Gunmen massacre at least 22 in Kenyan shopping mall after releasing anyone who could prove they were Islamic by reciting a prayer
> *
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427892/Nairobi-mall-Gunmen-massacred-22-Kenyan-shopping-centre-targeted-non-Islamics.html




Islam - the 'religion of peace'!


----------



## pavilion103 (24 September 2013)

tech/a said:


> No---his Dads always been involved in Footy!




LOL


----------



## pavilion103 (24 September 2013)

Where does the food come from? 
Where did the hands come from to prepare it?
Where did our life come from? 

Oh that's right, evolution theory says it comes from nothing at all. Lmao.


----------



## boofis (24 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Where does the food come from?
> Where did the hands come from to prepare it?
> Where did our life come from?
> 
> Oh that's right, evolution theory says it comes from nothing at all. Lmao.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LzXf1TKQ


----------



## pavilion103 (24 September 2013)

boofis said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LzXf1TKQ




Probably about the standard amount of intelligence and reasoning that goes into most hollow responses by people like you without answers to serious scientific questions.


----------



## CanOz (24 September 2013)

Knock it off you two, one believes in god, one doesn't .... This ain't gonna work.


----------



## boofis (24 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Probably about the standard amount of intelligence and reasoning that goes into most hollow responses by people like you without answers to serious scientific questions.




lol lol lol. Let me know how your undergrad goes wurstchen.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 September 2013)

boofis said:


> lol lol lol. Let me know how your undergrad goes wurstchen.




Nice trolling. The attempts of a desperate man.


----------



## boofis (24 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Nice trolling. The attempts of a desperate man.




Don't forget lonely as well, as I don't have an imaginary friend to comfort me.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 September 2013)

boofis said:


> Don't forget lonely as well, as I don't have an imaginary friend to comfort me.




Man, If only I had a proper adjudicated face to face debate with you. I would have a field day and rip you to shreds!!!


----------



## Julia (24 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Man, If only I had a proper adjudicated face to face debate with you. I would have a field day and rip you to shreds!!!



Wow!  And devotees of religion talk about love!



CanOz said:


> Knock it off you two, one believes in god, one doesn't .... This ain't gonna work.



Don't like your chances, here CanOz.


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Wow!  And devotees of religion talk about love!




I was going to post the exact same thing. It certainly confirms the title of the thread.


----------



## Tink (24 September 2013)

kennas said:


> Garry Ablett Jr thanking God for winning his second Brownlow last night (as he did winning MVP) has to be the craziest thing of the year. It was his Dad (Garry Snr - also known as God) who gave him the talent to win the medal. Crazy GAJ! Crazy!!




Good for Ablett for saying what he thinks...

Gary Ablett becomes the first Gold Coast Suns player to win a Brownlow medal. He says he wants to be a good role model for kids.

http://video.cairns.com.au/v/134738/Gary-Ablett-says-he-wants-to-be-a-good-role-model-for-kids


----------



## pixel (24 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Man, If only I had a proper adjudicated face to face debate with you. I would have a field day and rip you to shreds!!!




"Peace, Man!"


----------



## bunyip (25 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Man, If only I had a proper adjudicated face to face debate with you. I would have a field day and rip you to shreds!!!






Julia said:


> Wow!  And devotees of religion talk about love!




And humility and consideration for other people.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 September 2013)

I was considering Gary saying how he thanked God for his success, and whether that's a strange thing to say (or not).  His perspective needs to be considered.

If Gary believes that God (as a separate entity) bestowed special gifts upon him, such as his sporting ability, that would be a very hard position to reconcile.  How then would one explain God bestowing some awful affliction upon a newborn baby who is free of sin?  We don't see it all that much in Australia, but in the rest of the World, **** happens.... being born without limbs, severe mental retardation, spasticity, starvation and so on and so on.  The World is full of extreme hardship and suffering.

On the other hand, Gary may have come to some sort of deeper understanding of how things work through his spiritual practices.  He may view God as the "only _real _thing happening".  If he does have that perspective, then his sense of self and individuality (ego) will have dropped away _to some extent._  To the extent that the self drops away, grace happens.  The word "grace" has a common Latin root with other English words such as "gratitude".  So when he thanks God, he may simply be expressing gratitude that he has partially left behind his self and merged with "the only _real _thing happening".  There's a few small signs that he may have this perspective.  The "the only real thing happening" perspective is the non-dual perspective.  While many Christians believe in a separate God in the from of a "super-person with a beard", not all do.  Some say the non-dual is the root of Christianity as well, and there's plenty of Jesus quotes to back that up.

How does this second (non-dual) perspective reconcile suffering and hardship and all the horrors of the World?  Apparently it does (_or can_); everything is explained, but only through personal experience of letting go of the self.  No point me saying anything more, since I haven't been there myself.


----------



## pixel (25 September 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I was considering Gary saying how he thanked God for his success, and whether that's a strange thing to say (or not).  His perspective needs to be considered.




Have you ever considered the possibility that it was simply a figure of speech? A "done thing"? As acceptance speeches go, displaying a bit of humility goes down well with his adoring fans. Much better than some of the Oscar winners, who, after a few glasses too many, spell out their FIGJAM opinion of themselves in literal detail.

Some people say, "Thank God it's Friday!" GA said in essence, "Thank God, I have this gift."
He's a footy player, for god's sake! Not a philosopher or theologian, delving into the mysteries of metaphysics. But then again, he can come across as quite cheeky; so I wouldn't put it past him that it was also a veiled reference to his father's being dubbed "God" in *his *heydays.


----------



## MrBurns (25 September 2013)

I have never been comfortable with people thanking God for things such as sporting achievement, Academy Awards, Emmys and so forth, I think it's presumptuous in the extreme to think that God has nothing better to do but help high achievers.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 September 2013)

pixel said:


> Have you ever considered the possibility that it was simply a figure of speech? A "done thing"? As acceptance speeches go, displaying a bit of humility goes down well with his adoring fans. Much better than some of the Oscar winners, who, after a few glasses too many, spell out their FIGJAM opinion of themselves in literal detail.
> 
> Some people say, "Thank God it's Friday!" GA said in essence, "Thank God, I have this gift."
> He's a footy player, for god's sake! Not a philosopher or theologian, delving into the mysteries of metaphysics. But then again, he can come across as quite cheeky; so I wouldn't put it past him that it was also a veiled reference to his father's being dubbed "God" in *his *heydays.




Not for a second did I consider that, because he's not that sort of guy.  He considers what he says.  It wasn't one of those throw-away comments that teenage girls make "Like...oh my god!".


----------



## pixel (25 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I have never been comfortable with people thanking God for things such as sporting achievement, Academy Awards, Emmys and so forth, I think it's presumptuous in the extreme to think that God has nothing better to do but help high achievers.




+1, Mr B. 
But then again, don't forget they're generally not paid to think too deeply, but to present an image, a "spin", that keeps their adoring fans happy and willing to pay for whatever they promote or play..


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 September 2013)

pixel said:


> +1, Mr B.
> But then again, don't forget they're generally not paid to think too deeply, but to present an image, a "spin", that keeps their adoring fans happy and willing to pay for whatever they promote or play..




Keep the fans happy? What on earth are you talking about?!!  Most Aussie footy fans would ridicule or berate him thanking God for his success.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I have never been comfortable with people thanking God for things such as sporting achievement, Academy Awards, Emmys and so forth, I think it's presumptuous in the extreme to think that God has nothing better to do but help high achievers.




Your comment is loaded with assumptions Burnsy.

1) that God exists as a separate entity
2) that he is capable of (or interested in), helping individuals

Neither of them might be true.


----------



## pixel (25 September 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Your comment is loaded with assumptions Burnsy.
> 
> 1) that God exists as a separate entity
> 2) that he is capable of (or interested in), helping individuals
> ...




I took Mr B's comment more in tune with this quote from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love"


> The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.


----------



## MrBurns (25 September 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Your comment is loaded with assumptions Burnsy.
> 
> 1) that God exists as a separate entity
> 2) that he is capable of (or interested in), helping individuals
> ...




We are taught God exists as a separate entity.

I didn't say He helped them I said they thanked him for helping them but of course He didn't, the presumptuous nature of that statement is astonishing.

They should make it clearer that their BELIEF in God helped them not thanking God as if He assisted them personally.


----------



## Julia (25 September 2013)

pixel said:


> Have you ever considered the possibility that it was simply a figure of speech? A "done thing"?



Yep, a bit like some award winners and winning politicians declare that they are 'humbled' by the honour.
Humbled???  I don't think so.  Rather, they're damn glad they won, and feel rewarded and confident as a result.


----------



## fiftyeight (26 September 2013)

Do the major religions deal with the possibility of alien life? Intelligent or otherwise?

If a silica based life form came down and said "whats cracking?" Would this disprove the major religions?

Fiftyeight


----------



## cynic (26 September 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Do the major religions deal with the possibility of alien life? Intelligent or otherwise?
> 
> If a silica based life form came down and said "whats cracking?" Would this disprove the major religions?
> 
> Fiftyeight



I am personally acquainted with at least one deeply religious alien being. 

Doubtless there are some agnostic and atheist aliens about as well!


----------



## fiftyeight (26 September 2013)

cynic said:


> I am personally acquainted with at least one deeply religious alien being.
> 
> Doubtless there are some agnostic and atheist aliens about as well!



 haha nice.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 September 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Do the major religions deal with the possibility of alien life? Intelligent or otherwise?
> 
> If a silica based life form came down and said "whats cracking?" Would this disprove the major religions?
> 
> Fiftyeight




If the Universe is _truly _infinite, then infinite variety of life forms must also exist.  Also, infinite worlds, infinite different planes of existence and so on and so on.  But this is just word play in one sense, because the mind is not capable of understanding the word 'infinite'.  When the mind tries to really understand it, it always fails because the very next thought will be "but where is the edge of infinity?  and if there's an edge then what's beyond that?...".  The mind can't cope with infinity, instead it just has this concept of it.  

In terms of religions, I think most of them talk about other planes of existence that non-earthly beings populate, some with bodies, some not.  Any religion which utilizes meditation, contemplation and or hallucinogenic drug use will attest that such beings do exist.  And basically all major religions do suggest using _at least one_ of these methods to open up the mind to other realities.  The religions/philosophies which delve mostly into this side of things are the Toltec and Aboriginal cultures and also certain streams of Buddhism.  What they have found is that these other realities are _*as real as this reality*_ sitting here at my PC.  In other words, these other planes and beings are not imaginary _*unless*_........

.... and this is where it gets interesting.... *unless* we understand that our reality is also imaginary.  Once they had explored all these other worlds, there's something much more profound that these guys found out:  _All realities are created by consciousness, even this one._  What remains after all the imaginary games are played out is the only true thing.  Some call that God, others Truth, the Ultimate, the Eagle, Light, Love, Silence ...whatever.  And it's not a thing separate to you and me.  It's not a person, it's not an object or a feeling, not bliss or ecstacy... it's nothing that the mind can conceptualize.  It's nothingness itself, but a full nothingness.  All of life comes from pure Nothingness.

No mind will ever understand truth.  The mind is only capable of grasping at _concepts _of truth, which aren't the same.  The reason why the mind cannot truly understand Truth is because Truth is infinite.  To get to it, you must go beyond mind into the unknown.

So what's crackin'?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 September 2013)

A few other things these guys found out:

- the core of your being is this Nothingness.  Nothingness = Pure Consciousness.
- if you trace normal everyday consciousness back to its root you will find out what Pure Consciousness is.
- in other words, _you *are* this Truth,_ ... "I am that I am".
- all beliefs, _no matter what they are_, are an impediment to understanding Truth.
- at best, words are mere pointers to Truth.  In that sense, nothing I say here is Truth, and you should not believe anything I say.  I'm just entertaining myself.


----------



## MrBurns (26 September 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> If the Universe is _truly _infinite, then infinite variety of life forms must also exist.  Also, infinite worlds, infinite different planes of existence and so on and so on.  But this is just word play in one sense, because the mind is not capable of understanding the word 'infinite'.  When the mind tries to really understand it, it always fails because the very next thought will be "but where is the edge of infinity?  and if there's an edge then what's beyond that?...".  The mind can't cope with infinity, instead it just has this concept of it.




Infinity has always fascinated me, the mind cant really comprehend it, the mind must see ends to things structures, the concept of never ending space cant be truly imagined.
It must go on forever, otherwise there must be an end ...but what would be beyond that, there cant be a wall ....there cant be an end.

( I think I just repeated what you said)


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Infinity has always fascinated me, the mind cant really comprehend it, the mind must see ends to things structures, the concept of never ending space cant be truly imagined.
> It must go on forever, otherwise there must be an end ...but what would be beyond that, there cant be a wall ....there cant be an end.
> 
> ( I think I just repeated what you said)




Yeh exactly, you begin to see just how restricted the mind is.  All it can do is conceptualize (as opposed to _realize_).


----------



## MrBurns (26 September 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yeh exactly, you begin to see just how restricted the mind is.  All it can do is conceptualize (as opposed to _realize_).




You could go many times the speed of light *forever* and never reach the end.


----------



## DB008 (28 September 2013)

Religious Police ?!?!?!? ....what kind of a f**ked up country is Saudi?



> *Saudis tweet anger at religious police following car chase death*
> 
> The death of a young Saudi during a car chase by the country’s religious police has stirred uproar on the social media, especially after it became known that the involved members of the Saudi religious police fled the scene of the accident.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruby (29 September 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Man, If only I had a proper adjudicated face to face debate with you. I would have a field day and rip you to shreds!!!




No, you wouldn't, Pav, because you don't have anything to debate with.  You keep saying the same thing over and over again and you have not a shred of evidence to back up your claims (the bible is not "evidence" of a deity who orders our lives) whereas the body of evidence supporting evolution is staggeringly huge - and growing all the time.

Such a debate would be embarrassing in the extreme - for you!


----------



## DB008 (30 September 2013)

The religion of peace strikes again!

*NIGERIA: MILITANTS KILL STUDENTS IN COLLEGE ATTACK*



> POTISKUM, Nigeria (AP) ”” Suspected Islamic extremists attacked an agricultural college in the dead of night, gunning down dozens of students as they slept in dormitories and torching classrooms, the school's provost said ”” the latest violence in northeastern Nigeria's ongoing Islamic uprising.
> 
> Idi Mato said as many as 50 students may have been killed in the assault that began at about 1 a.m. Sunday in rural Gujba. "They attacked our students while they were sleeping in their hostels. They opened fire at them," he said, adding that most victims were aged between 18 and 22.
> 
> Soldiers recovered 42 bodies and transported 18 wounded students to Damaturu Specialist Hospital, 40 kilometers (25) miles north, said a military intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.




http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nigeria-militants-kill-students-college-attack


----------



## burglar (30 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Infinity has always fascinated me, the mind cant really comprehend it, the mind must see ends to things structures, the concept of never ending space cant be truly imagined.
> It must go on forever, otherwise there must be an end ...but what would be beyond that, there cant be a wall ....there cant be an end.
> 
> ( I think I just repeated what you said)




Careful ...

You'll give yourself a "mental hernia"!! :


----------



## DB008 (1 October 2013)

What are your views on this?

My view, if he doesn't want to get the blood transfusion, so be it....



*Jehovah's Witness teen loses appeal over life-saving transfusion*




> A 17 year-old Jehovah's Witness who was fighting a court order to have a life-saving blood transfusion has lost an appeal just four months shy of his 18th birthday.
> 
> The religious teenager, who is being treated for Hodgkin's Lymphoma at The Sydney Children's Hospital, had threatened to rip the IV needle from his arm and said it would be akin to rape if he was given a blood transfusion while under anaesthetic.
> 
> ...





http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/jehovahs-witness-teen-loses-appeal-over-lifesaving-transfusion-20130927-2uib6.html#ixzz2gPm1tQcs


----------



## Julia (1 October 2013)

I don't envy anyone making a judgement on this.  If he were an adult I'd be right on his side.  But at 17 he has a lot of maturing to do, and is likely very much influenced by his family.  Tough on them too.  Hard to imagine that any family will choose their religion over a chance of their child living.


----------



## Whiskers (1 October 2013)

DB008 said:


> What are your views on this?
> 
> My view, if he doesn't want to get the blood transfusion, so be it....
> 
> ...




At the end of the day an adult has the right to refuse a transfusion or any other medical procedure. However, by virtue of the fact that one goes to a medical professional for help implies a duty of care on the health professional to keep him alive.

I reckon the doctrine could be worked to establish child abuse in cases like this. The gist of the JW reasoning is based in religious grounds, but based on long out dated interpretation of the ancient texts, antiquated science and medical procedures. 

Child abuse could be established if the court was satisfied the parents religious beliefs, which as I understand are based on incorrect interpretation of ancient text and antiquated medical procedures... ie that their belief is ignorant of those facts as they are better understood today and therefore negligent.

It seems to me that whereas a conscientious objection is more on the grounds of freedom of belief, JW religious objection is likely more grounded in false belief from those texts and antiquated medical information, which could open the door for child abuse. 

The distinction is subtle but potentially significant in terms of a child abuse or neglect.


----------



## bunyip (1 October 2013)

DB008 said:


> What are your views on this?
> 
> My view, if he doesn't want to get the blood transfusion, so be it....
> 
> ...




He has the right to refuse a blood transfusion.
Anyone who refuses a life-saving blood transfusion on religious grounds has been so brainwashed by religion that he/she is not thinking rationally. Ditto for anyone who on religious grounds regards a life-saving blood transfusion as ‘akin to rape’.
Maybe if the bloke knew what it was like to be raped (I don’t, incidentally) he would never have made such a bloody silly statement.

This JW practice of refusing blood transfusions is about as ridiculous as the formerly Amish bloke I saw on an ABC docco today. He’s given away the Amish religion and changed over to some other religious crowd who are almost as fanatical as the Amish.
He and his pals in his new religion were demolishing a perfectly good house with the intention of rebuilding, because apparently the bible says that if a house that’s been locked up for ten days develops mould inside, it’s unclean and must be torn down and replaced.

Religion sure does make some people develop absurd attitudes and do some crazy things.


----------



## burglar (6 October 2013)

!!!


----------



## Whiskers (6 October 2013)

burglar said:


> View attachment 54698
> 
> 
> !!!






Apparently the Celtic meaning of Arthur is: Strong as a bear!


----------



## Chris45 (6 October 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Infinity has always fascinated me, the mind cant really comprehend it, the mind must see ends to things structures, the concept of never ending space cant be truly imagined.
> It must go on forever, otherwise there must be an end ...but what would be beyond that, there cant be a wall ....there cant be an end.



I know this discussion is ancient history now, but anyway ...

*Empty space* can be infinite, that concept is not too difficult to understand.

But if we accept the Big Bang, and assuming space is linear, then the region *occupied by matter* is probably not infinite. There should be furthermost stars, dust particles, whatever, which would define the outer limits of occupied space in our universe.

Then again, if space is curved in on itself like a sphere, I dunno what happens then.

What is more intriguing is that the *really smart* boys are now suggesting that hard, solid matter is made up of strings of energy ... which begs the question ... what is energy made up of???

And, instead of just one universe, they're suggesting that there are many universes, interwoven with each other in dimensions (outside of the four that we know and love) that we can't yet even comprehend!

If they're correct, then the _"planes of existence that non-earthly beings populate"_ that GB talked about become a distinct possibility.

And if there's a universe where energy strings have combined differently to make intelligent life forms (that we think of as "spirits" or "souls"), then maybe there is a hierarchy with a supreme leader ... God.

Since we know so little about our own universe, and there are possibly many *unknown* unknowns, it's worth keeping an open mind on this stuff. But when GB starts talking about reality being imaginary, etc, my brain starts to hurt!


----------



## FxTrader (7 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Since we know so little about our own universe, and there are possibly many *unknown* unknowns, it's worth keeping an open mind on this stuff.



Where scientists may form many a hypothesis about existence and the universe, the religious postulate that not only does a sky God exist but that their particular version of this imagined God is the only correct one. The penalty for not believing this faith based nonsense is some version of eternal hell and perhaps even death for blasphemy in this life.  

If you're suggesting that the religious should be more "open-minded" about the possibility their magic books on mythology are fiction then that would mean they must be open to questioning their faith.  For most that's just to much to ask since to do so in earnest is just to confronting once they come to recognize that the core of what they believe constitutes nothing more than wishing thinking and a grand deception that enslaves the minds of millions of gullible worshipers.

There is no comparing the pursuit of knowledge by application of reason and the scientific method to the dictates of religion.  One produces human progress while the other only the establishment of dogma and metaphysical nonsense masquerading as knowledge.  Hitchens was right, religion is poison for human society.


----------



## Chris45 (7 October 2013)

FxTrader said:


> There is no comparing the pursuit of knowledge by application of reason and the scientific method to the dictates of religion.



I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree with your generally harsh view of religion!

I agree that some of the teachings of the established religions are rubbish, and certain religions are worse than others and I certainly don't endorse everything that the churches/mosques/etc. teach ...




But religions are businesses, and they need customers, so some of their rules are designed to increase their market share. But that doesn't necessarily mean all religions are completely rubbish.

Many people gain significant peace of mind and comfort from their religion and it helps them deal with life's tribulations and maintain their optimism.

Most people want a simple explanation for what life is all about and are not interested in, or can't cope with, anything too sciencey. Religions attempt to provide simple explanations that such people can accept, unfortunately not always successfully, and I think even God might say to them, _"Look, I gave you a brain, now USE the bloody thing!"_.

Some "humans" behave barely above animal level and need simple-to-understand rules to keep them in line. Religions provide simple rules to live by, many of which you would probably agree with, unless you think that murdering, stealing, adultery, cruelty, etc is acceptable human behaviour. Some religions are better in this regard than others!

Much excellent charitable work is done by religious people, more than by atheists, and many unfortunate beings have food in their stomachs and beds to sleep in because of religions. Hitchens is wrong! He is the poison.

But my point was that our universe/universes seems much more complex than most people have been led to believe and they should not rule certain things out just because they sound ridiculous. We don't have all of the answers yet, in fact, we know very, very little. I suspect that many people believe: Big Bang -> stars -> planets -> pond slime -> US! ... all questions answered! ... Wrong!!!


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2013)

I've seen other reports detailing some of this case and it would turn your stomach. There is no punishment strong enough for this maggot and I would support releasing an appropriate grade nuclear bomb on these people to try to eliminate them from the face of the earth.



> Saudi preacher jailed for 8 years for raping, killing daughter
> 
> 
> A Saudi court has sentenced a preacher convicted of raping his five-year-old daughter and torturing her to death to eight years in prison and 800 lashes, a lawyer says.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...d-8-years-for-raping-killing-daughter/5010380


----------



## DB008 (13 October 2013)

*Saudi Arabia's Women Driving Ban: Doctor Dismisses Cleric's Claim That Driving Hurts Ovaries*



> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- A Saudi doctor has gone on-air to dismiss claims made by a well-known cleric who caused a stir when he said medical studies show driving affects a woman's ovaries.
> 
> In comments aired over the weekend by the privately owned Rotana channel, gynecologist Mohammed Baknah says scientific studies have not proven that driving has adverse effects on women's reproductive health.
> 
> ...




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/saudi-driving-ban-ovaries_n_4016957.html


----------



## sydboy007 (13 October 2013)

DB008 said:


> *Saudi Arabia's Women Driving Ban: Doctor Dismisses Cleric's Claim That Driving Hurts Ovaries*




And there i thought it was the increasing levels of literacy and education that was causing the western world to have declining birth rates, when it was women getting behind a car wheel. :car:

I wonder what the cleric thinks driving does to a man's testes :dunno:


----------



## DB008 (13 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> And there i thought it was the increasing levels of literacy and education that was causing the western world to have declining birth rates, when it was women getting behind a car wheel. :car:
> 
> I wonder what the cleric thinks driving does to a man's testes :dunno:




Or a women passenger?

Saudi - still in the dark ages


----------



## burglar (14 October 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Apparently the Celtic meaning of Arthur is: Strong as a bear!




I was thinking the cleaning of the stone has resulted in loss of the patina.
Also the dust has ruined the appearance of the brick work!


----------



## DB008 (16 October 2013)

OMG....


----------



## Tink (16 October 2013)

Off topic - I love Whoopi Goldberg, she would have to be up there with one of my favourite actresses -- Color Purple, Sister Act and Ghost.


----------



## DB008 (17 October 2013)

About time someone called these idiots out!


*French scientologists angered by fraud verdict*



> France's highest court on Wednesday upheld several convictions for "organized fraud" against the Church of Scientology. A representative from the Church told The Local the ruling was tantamount to "religious persecution" by France.
> 
> The Cour de Cassation in Paris, France's highest appeals court, on Wednesday rejected an appeal by the Church of Scientology against several convictions for "organized fraud".
> 
> The Church had argued in a September 4th hearing that the verdicts constituted a violation of their religious liberty, but the court on Wednesday rejected that claim.




http://www.thelocal.fr/20131016/french-court-upholds-fraud-verdict-against-scientologists


----------



## Ceebee77 (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



JellySausage said:


> I like this quote:
> 
> Good men will do good, bad men will do bad...  but for a good man to do bad things; that takes religion.




Your all talking about two different things! Religion and Christianity are miles apart. I'm a Christian but I'm NOT religious. Most of you won't understand that! By the way, another quote to think about. Evil prevails when good men do nothing!


----------



## burglar (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Ceebee77 said:


> ... Most of you won't understand that! ,,,




Yes, you are correct. Most of me doesn't understand that!!


----------



## Ceebee77 (18 October 2013)

DB008 said:


> About time someone called these idiots out!
> 
> 
> *French scientologists angered by fraud verdict*
> ...




Now there's a contradiction of terms, Scientologist Church??? Do they really think that we think they are Christians!? What a tax rort! Church indeed! Have you heard of some of the stories of the folks that have left that Cult! Wow!


----------



## Ceebee77 (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



derty said:


> Here is a site that always amuses me - the Bible illustrated using lego figures. It is quite comprehensive.
> http://www.thebricktestament.com/
> 
> For some explanations of some of the really CRAZY things in the bible have a look at the Law section. It makes it clear when it is acceptable to stone the whole family, or just your children, how to deal with menstrual cycle, male genital injuries and what it means for you, campsite defecation, how long to hang someone and much much more. Its all there, take your time.
> http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html




That's why there's the New Testament or New Promise if you like. Boy some people are ignorant! The old law was abolished and Jesus bought in the new one. Love God, love your neighbour. Two simple things. If you don't know who your neighbour is it's everyone! Not just your next door neighbour. Leviticus is misunderstood by many. You included.


----------



## Ceebee77 (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



burglar said:


> Yes, you are correct. Most of me doesn't understand that!!




Then you need an education! You are the one I was talking to. So glad you were logged on! I can explain my comments if you like however, I've just seen some of your sarcasm so on second thought I have better things to do with my time.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Ceebee77 said:


> Your all talking about two different things! Religion and Christianity are miles apart. I'm a Christian but I'm NOT religious. Most of you won't understand that! By the way, another quote to think about. Evil prevails when good men do nothing!




That's great.  The problem is not the majority of NOT religious Crhistians or muslims or...

The problem is the relatively small minority that feel the need to enforce their beliefs on others.  The one's who want to dictate if you can learn about evolution at school, or whether girls can attend school or drive a car, or attend a sexual health clinic without being victimised.

You can be from atheist to ultra conservatively religious and I have no problem with it, but unfortunately as you move towards the extremes of the spectrum there seems to be this need and desire to at least share their views, and at worst enforce them.  Look at what the Christian churches have done in the past, look to what the Muslim religious groups do today to see what i mean.

Sometimes I think it's best to hide one's light under the bushel.

As for you evil prevails, I think think religious groups have shown how true that is!


----------



## burglar (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Ceebee77 said:


> Then you need an education! You are the one I was talking to. So glad you were logged on! I can explain my comments if you like however, I've just seen some of your sarcasm so on second thought I have better things to do with my time.




You have met the light entertainment of the forum!!! :


----------



## burglar (18 October 2013)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



Ceebee77 said:


> Then you need an education! ...




I have had the finest education on offer in Christendom!

I studied Catholicism under the Lasallians 
St Michael’s College

I studied Catholicism until I no longer wanted to be the Pope.

I studied Catholicism while I watched atrocities of the Vietnam War.

And then I wanted to put my children off religion.
I sent them to Catholic Schools.

Now they have had the finest education on offer in Christendom!


----------



## dutchie (19 October 2013)

This is why you don't have muslims condemning muslims..

Militants threaten British Muslims over criticism of jihadists 

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/m...ism-of-jihadists/story-fndir2ev-1226742887143


----------



## DB008 (19 October 2013)

Ceebee77 said:


> Now there's a contradiction of terms, Scientologist Church??? Do they really think that we think they are Christians!? What a tax rort! Church indeed! Have you heard of some of the stories of the folks that have left that Cult! Wow!




And how much tax would your local church pay?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

The idea of Christianity is to live a simple, humble life and devote one's energies to serving others in God's name.  I'm not a Christian and have no interest in becoming one.  I just think if someone is to parade their Christianity, they should "walk the walk".  In terms of the Christian lifestyle, one would take care of one's own basic needs, but devote the majority of one's time and energies to God's work (ie. service).

Trading is very self focused and insular.  The Christian life is community oriented.
Trading is about competing with others for money.  The Christian life is about service.
Trading is about becoming wealthy.  The Christian life is about pursuing God, and abandoning personal gratifications.
Trading contributes absolutely nothing to society (one of the few jobs you can say this about).

It's most interesting that no one has commented the following, which is a very central theme of Christianity:

*Luke 16:13 (NIV) "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Mammon."*

"Lite" Christianity.  It's the hypocrisy that is glaring.  No one has commented on that.  And just to repeat, I'm not a Christian, nor am I devoted to any other religion.  I do find them fascinating however.  People seem to want to make up their own versions which are diametrically opposed to the originator's teachings.

Country and sails, are you guys Christians?  "Lite" Christians?  Or none of the above?  I sense there are a few money changers in the temple.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple


----------



## burglar (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> ... I sense there are a few money changers in the temple ...




Would you have traders give up religion? Or what?


----------



## pavilion103 (21 October 2013)

So many inaccuracies in GB's post.

Won't waste my time other than to post: 

Proverbs 26:4 - when arguing with a fool, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

burglar said:


> Would you have traders give up religion? Or what?




I wouldn't have them do anything.  They can do as they please, but I can point out hipocrisy if it's glaring.  If I decided to devote *my* life to religion, I would do it properly.  Trading would be the first thing to go.  I would live a life of service, devotion and prayer.  I would not be paying 'lip service' to it.

In particular I would be heeding the *Luke 16:13* quote about the impossibility of serving two masters.


----------



## MrBurns (21 October 2013)

I saw a priest on the news praying in church for the fire victims, praying for rain, it seemed so primitive/out-dated somehow.


----------



## sails (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The idea of Christianity is to live a simple, humble life and devote one's energies to serving others in God's name.  I'm not a Christian and have no interest in becoming one.  I just think if someone is to parade their Christianity, they should "walk the walk".  In terms of the Christian lifestyle, one would take care of one's own basic needs, but devote the majority of one's time and energies to God's work (ie. service).
> 
> Trading is very self focused and insular.  The Christian life is community oriented.
> Trading is about competing with others for money.  The Christian life is about service.
> ...




Obviously I have different Christian beliefs to yourself which doesn't mean they are wrong. Accept that people are different.

In my early years I grew up under draconian Christian law and what I see in your posts remind me of that cult. My parents saw the light and thankfully got out.  

BTW - if you believe what you are saying *then why are you trading*?  

But don't ram your personal beliefs in to other people.  Live by them by all means but don't judge others who may have differing beliefs.  *Judge not lest ye be judged.*


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

sails said:


> Obviously I have different Christian beliefs to yourself which doesn't mean they are wrong. Accept that people are different.
> 
> In my early years I grew up under draconian Christian law and what I see in your posts remind me of that cult. My parents saw the light and thankfully got out.
> 
> ...




Actually I'm not saying you, pavillion or country lad should do anything other than what you're doing right now.  But it does go very much against the teachings of the Bible.  If you're happy to do that, I can't complain.  Really what I'm wanting to know is how you reconcile this obvious clash of values in your own experience.

Pavillion won't comment on the Luke quote.  Can you?  Or someone??!!

Luke 16:13 (NIV) "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Mammon (money)."

You asked me why I trade.  To make money of course.


----------



## sails (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Actually I'm not saying you, pavillion or country lad should do anything other than what you're doing right now.  But it does go very much against the teachings of the Bible.  If you're happy to do that, I can't complain.  Really what I'm wanting to know is how you reconcile this obvious clash of values in your own experience.
> 
> Pavillion won't comment on the Luke quote.  Can you?  Or someone??!!
> 
> ...




So you don't live by your own beliefs?  Why do you expect others to live by your beliefs when you don't bother to live by your own?


----------



## pavilion103 (21 October 2013)

Ok if you want a specific comment on that verse thats ok. 

What does is mean to make money a "Master"?
It means to make it the controlling thing in your life that you aspire to above God. I agree that that is not appropriate for a Christian.

Money is not the main driver in my life. I wake up at 5:30am each morning to spend time in prayer, I attend/help out at three church services a week. I just got back from two weeks of camps including being a leader in a dorm of six children, I run a feeding the homeless breakfast monthly in the city. I give 10% of my income to supporting church projects. God is the centre of my life. 

Money for me is about freedom. The freedom to not work a job. The freedom to give more freely (one of my main passions is missionary trips - I'm going to India in a month). And possibly to eventually move into community involvement full time. 

I have zero aspiration for a big house or a good car. I enjoy the simple life but don't begrudge anyone who wants all that. 


So many people think that making money a master means having lots of money. This could not be further from the truth. It is what you do with the money that determines if it is your master. Someone who is poor can be mastered by money just as much as someone who is rich. They can be stingy or desire money above all. 

Certainly the verse - to whom much is given, much is expected is a big responsibility for those Christians acquiring wealth. But when you look at those in the Bible that God blessed financially e.g. Solomon, it is obvious that God (from a Christian perspective) has nothing against anyone being wealthy, provided they use the money for His glory.  


You often say in posts that someone is fishing and don't entertain their posts. I feel the same way with you. Yet I post this for the purpose of others viewing. 

The ironic thing is much of what you say goes against your own spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

sails said:


> So you don't live by your own beliefs?  Why do you expect others to live by your beliefs when you don't bother to live by your own?




I'm not a Christian.  I have studied it, along with other religions.  I try not to have too many beliefs about anything, trading included.  If I was to have one core belief it would be that beliefs can be a great hindrance.  And I value consistency and honesty with oneself.

Still no comment on the Luke quote.  Anybody?  There's an elephant in the room.  [edit] ahh there it is, thank you pavillion!


----------



## sails (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'm not a Christian.  I have studied it, along with other religions.  I try not to have too many beliefs about anything, trading included.  If I was to have one core belief it would be that beliefs can be a great hindrance.  And I value consistency and honesty with oneself.
> 
> Still no comment on the Luke quote.  Anybody?  There's an elephant in the room.  [edit] ahh there it is, thank you pavillion!





Just because you have studied Christianity doesn't mean you have all the answers or even understand it.  It seems rather strange that you are telling people how they should live based on ONE verse out of the entire Bible of which you have put your own interpretation.

Taking verses out of the bible in isolation isn't smart.  Like the guy who was looking for guidance and flipped his bible open and his eyes fell on "And Judas went out and hanged himself".  So he flipped again and his eyes fell on the verse "Go thou and do likewise".

I'm not interested in discussing your interpretation of one bible verse.  I will say that the bible also says that the love of money is the root of all evil.  Money itself is not evil.

Can I respectfully suggest you stick to what you know in future and stop attacking other posters based on what you assume?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> You often say in posts that someone is fishing and don't entertain their posts. I feel the same way with you. Yet I post this for the purpose of others viewing.
> 
> The ironic thing is much of what you say goes against your own spiritual beliefs.




I'm genuinely interested in how you reconcile that Bible quote with your trading.  You answered, so thanks for that.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

sails said:


> I'm not interested in discussing your interpretation of one bible verse.




No, I realize that now.  You have your own special interpretation that allows you to sleep at night, and I should leave you to it.


----------



## sails (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> No, I realize that now.  You have your own special interpretation that allows you to sleep at night, and I should leave you to it.





Goodness, you like to bait.  

Got nothing to do with sleeping at night.  How about you answer these questions:

Would you believe a Christian shouldn't get a job because it would be denying someone else that job effectively robbing them of an income?

Would you believe a Christian should not run a business because you might be taking market share from someone else and effectively robbing them of income?

 A trading business is no different. 

So, if you are going to take you one little isolated bible verse to it's extremes, how do you expect a Christian to live?  They are not allowed to steal, so how do they buy food?

You are lacking the practical side of this.  And as I said in my last post it's the LOVE of money that can go wrong.  It's an obsession with money where money is the MOST important thing in your life.  Money in balance is no problem.

You are trying to base Christianity on one verse to which you have put your own interpretation and without the context of the entire Bible.

I look forward to your answers to my questions above.

And leave your personal swipes to me out of it.  Next one I will report.


----------



## Boggo (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Luke 16:13 (NIV) "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. *You cannot serve both God and Mammon (money)*."




Try telling that to the world's biggest property owner - the Catholic Church :frown:


----------



## bellenuit (21 October 2013)

sails said:


> A trading business is no different.




Actually, trading shares seems quite a Christian thing to do. 

When you buy some stock and eventually sell it, even when at a substantial profit, what happens?

When you buy, you have given the sellers the highest possible price at which they could sell the stock at that particular time. If you hadn't been in the market, the sellers would at best have got the same price, but probably would have got a lower price. When you eventually sell that stock, you have passed on that stock to the buyers at the lowest possible price at which they could obtain it, at that time. If you hadn't been in the market, the buyers would at best have had to pay the same for the stock, but probably would have had to pay more. 

So your trading endeavour has helped two or more others and if you are lucky, you have also been rewarded with some profit. And if you were to give a portion of your profits to charity, well the benefits to society just multiply. 

Hardly something to be ashamed of. 

Alternatively you could pray that those in need are helped. Knowing from overwhelming observational evidence that praying has never relieved the suffering or misery of others, the latter would seem less Christian than the former.

BTW, I am not suggesting that most Christians just pray and do nothing else to help others. Some are in that category though. I'm trying to highlight that trading is not in itself an ignoble profession. You are helping provide an efficient market, which is the cornerstone of capitalist societies, and as the example shows, you are directly helping others. And why would it be less noble than working for a bank say. Often the main difference between a trader and other professions is that the profits go to you instead of the company. 

IMO, it's what you do with what you have earned is what counts.

Getting back to serving two masters. Would one say that Bill Gates serves Mamon, being the richest man in the world? He clearly has his sights on helping those in need.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 October 2013)

sails said:


> Goodness, you like to bait.
> 
> Got nothing to do with sleeping at night.  How about you answer these questions:
> 
> ...




A simple, humble life, providing for one's basic needs.  Living a life of devotion and service to others (which one can be paid for).  I'm not saying *you* or anyone else should do this.  Absolutely not.  But this *is* the sort of life that Jesus advocated.

Trading on a short term time frame is pretty close to a zero sum game, particularly in the small cap end of town.  One winner and one loser... or one big winner an many smaller losers.  Is that ok?  Taking advantage of those less clever than myself?  I'm ok with it because no one is forced to trade; it's a choice. But there is no service provided to the community.  The job of trading exists only to "take", whereas all other jobs provide a good or service in exchange for payment.  Providing liquidity is done by the big boys, imo.  I think there would be plenty of liquidity without us retail traders.  I was just surprised that a Christian would be ok with it, given what the Bible says.  Pavillion's answer was _reasonably_ satisfying for me in the sense that he would seem to be internally consistent.  Not that he or you have to satisfy any requirements by me, but you can see why I would question your motives for trading.  Attachment to money (or the love of money) would be suspected in anyone who does a lot of short term trading.


----------



## CanOz (21 October 2013)

GB, this is getting ridiculous. Trading is no different than any other business. Its an auction. So if Christians are buying art, and the seller sells a painting to someone who is willing to pay more for the art than the seller originally paid, is this against the teaching of the bible as well?

Almost all commerce today would exclude Christians going by what you are saying. Obviously the bible was written a long time ago, before the state of the current world could even be imagined. 

I think this argument should be left alone, you've made your point, its time you accept that others have a different belief than you on the matter.


----------



## pavilion103 (21 October 2013)

Jesus spoke the parable about the men who were given "talents" (a sum of money) 

One man receives 5, another 2 and another 1.

When the master returned the first 2 men told him how they had doubled his money. Each was rewarded.
The third man who was given the 1 talent buried his money so he didn't lose it. The master blasted him and called him a lazy servant.
He took it away and gave it to the man who had 10.

Bottom line. Whatever we are entrusted with, including money, we are to be diligent with. God doesn't want us to be poor financially. He wants us to be poor in spirit (meaning we depend on Him and trust in Him with a humble spirit).


----------



## sails (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> A simple, humble life, providing for one's basic needs.  Living a life of devotion and service to others (which one can be paid for).  I'm not saying *you* or anyone else should do this.  Absolutely not.  But this *is* the sort of life that Jesus advocated.
> 
> Trading on a short term time frame is pretty close to a zero sum game, particularly in the small cap end of town.  One winner and one loser... or one big winner an many smaller losers.  Is that ok?  Taking advantage of those less clever than myself?  I'm ok with it because no one is forced to trade; it's a choice. But there is no service provided to the community.  The job of trading exists only to "take", whereas all other jobs provide a good or service in exchange for payment.  Providing liquidity is done by the big boys, imo.  I think there would be plenty of liquidity without us retail traders.  I was just surprised that a Christian would be ok with it, given what the Bible says.  Pavillion's answer was _reasonably_ satisfying for me in the sense that he would seem to be internally consistent.  Not that he or you have to satisfy any requirements by me, but you can see why I would question your motives for trading.  Attachment to money (or the love of money) would be suspected in anyone who does a lot of short term trading.




Ahh - but that's because you are too black and white in your thinking, imo.  You are not taking into consideration different circumstances.  Some people might trade from home because it means they can be home.  Single parents who trade, for example, don't have to go out to work and can still be there for their children.  People in other caring situations mean they can trade and still contribute to the needs of others. 

For me, I have a daughter with a long term depression and between caring for her and her two girls aged 6 and 14, there is no way I could go out to work.  This week alone I have dental and physio appointments for me, a CT scan for my daughter, a hospital appointment for 6 year old who was in hospital during the holidays, an appointment at headspace with the 14 year old.  That's on top of the meals, washing, shopping, getting a 6 year old to and from school, homework and helping the 14 year old with assignments, etc, etc.  I think you get the drift. But don't tell me I am not contributing to society even though they are my family.  They would be up the creek without a paddle without us and probably my daughter would have suicided by now.

 Money is not the important factor, albeit nice when the profits come.  Trading gives me an interest and something other than the often very demanding job of caring.

Again, the bible says not to judge.  And for good reason as we all have different circumstances.


----------



## Julia (21 October 2013)

CanOz said:


> GB, this is getting ridiculous.



+1.   GB, I can't speak for others, but personally I value your presence on this forum for the colour and interest.  It would be pretty dull if we all passively agreed with one another and no one ever raised a point of controversy.

But maybe consider that the backlash in this instance is because you might have got this one wrong to the point where your continuing to argue what you see as your point is becoming tedious and unreasonable.


----------



## explod (21 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> A simple, humble life, providing for one's basic needs.  Living a life of devotion and service to others (which one can be paid for).  I'm not saying *you* or anyone else should do this.  Absolutely not.  But this *is* the sort of life that Jesus advocated.
> 
> Trading on a short term time frame is pretty close to a zero sum game, particularly in the small cap end of town.  One winner and one loser... or one big winner an many smaller losers.  Is that ok?  Taking advantage of those less clever than myself?  I'm ok with it because no one is forced to trade; it's a choice. But there is no service provided to the community.  The job of trading exists only to "take", whereas all other jobs provide a good or service in exchange for payment.  Providing liquidity is done by the big boys, imo.  I think there would be plenty of liquidity without us retail traders.  I was just surprised that a Christian would be ok with it, given what the Bible says.  Pavillion's answer was _reasonably_ satisfying for me in the sense that he would seem to be internally consistent.  Not that he or you have to satisfy any requirements by me, but you can see why I would question your motives for trading.  Attachment to money (or the love of money) would be suspected in anyone who does a lot of short term trading.




Dog eat dog is the way of evolution and how we mastered other things in order to dominate the planet.

Trading on the puter is the same and some are better than others.  In the cup soon the best horse will win.

Jesus has been left far behind ole pal so move on.


----------



## bunyip (21 October 2013)

My upbringing in a Christian family taught me that great things can be achieved through the power of prayer. I believed it because as small children we tend to believe everything our parents and church ministers and Sunday school teachers tell us.
But as I started growing up and thinking more for myself, it became obvious to me that the power of prayer was a myth. I lived in rural communities where ‘pray for rain’ meetings were held during severe droughts.........but the droughts continued unabated.
I heard prayers being said in church for congregation members who had terminal illnesses......but they died anyway.
I could give dozes of other examples, but suffice to say that I lost all faith in the power of prayer after seeing it fail over and over and over again.

Now,  I know there are some devout Christians reading this thread who don't share my view that the power of prayer is a myth. So I thought we might run a little trial in an effort to sort the truth from the fiction on this issue.
We all know about the terrible bush fires presently ravaging the Sydney and Blue Mountains areas. We’re told that conditions are set to deteriorate in the next few days, with rising temperatures and winds increasing to 100 kph.
What I want every religious person on this thread to do is pray to your God to reverse those conditions. Ask him to provide cool days and calm winds so the people in that area are given a reprieve from further danger. Better still, ask God to send soaking rain over the fire-affected area for the next couple of days to douse existing fires and prevent any fresh outbreaks.

I’ll check back in a few days to see if the power of prayer has had any effect.


----------



## cynic (22 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> My upbringing in a Christian family taught me that great things can be achieved through the power of prayer. I believed it because as small children we tend to believe everything our parents and church ministers and Sunday school teachers tell us.
> But as I started growing up and thinking more for myself, it became obvious to me that the power of prayer was a myth. I lived in rural communities where ‘pray for rain’ meetings were held during severe droughts.........but the droughts continued unabated.
> I heard prayers being said in church for congregation members who had terminal illnesses......but they died anyway.
> I could give dozes of other examples, but suffice to say that I lost all faith in the power of prayer after seeing it fail over and over and over again.
> ...




Would you like any fries with your order ,sir?


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> My upbringing in a Christian family taught me that great things can be achieved through the power of prayer. I believed it because as small children we tend to believe everything our parents and church ministers and Sunday school teachers tell us. But as I started growing up and thinking more for myself, it became obvious to me that the power of prayer was a myth. I lived in rural communities where pray for rain meetings were held during severe droughts.........but the droughts continued unabated. I heard prayers being said in church for congregation members who had terminal illnesses......but they died anyway. I could give dozes of other examples, but suffice to say that I lost all faith in the power of prayer after seeing it fail over and over and over again.  Now,  I know there are some devout Christians reading this thread who don't share my view that the power of prayer is a myth. So I thought we might run a little trial in an effort to sort the truth from the fiction on this issue. We all know about the terrible bush fires presently ravaging the Sydney and Blue Mountains areas. Were told that conditions are set to deteriorate in the next few days, with rising temperatures and winds increasing to 100 kph. What I want every religious person on this thread to do is pray to your God to reverse those conditions. Ask him to provide cool days and calm winds so the people in that area are given a reprieve from further danger. Better still, ask God to send soaking rain over the fire-affected area for the next couple of days to douse existing fires and prevent any fresh outbreaks.  Ill check back in a few days to see if the power of prayer has had any effect.




You don't really understand prayer do you?
Trying to get God to do what you say to illustrate a point is the same as a guy who says to his girlfriend "you don't love me unless you have sex with me right now. Prove it"

You can't play games with God. It's a relationship and a sincere desire.

Look up something like the Asuza Street revival and see what eye witness accounts report about prayer. Evidence is out there (instantaneous healings  etc) but people don't look. God WILL reveal himself to the genuine seeker. But to the man who what's to play games, he despises their actions the most, as most of us do.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

I find it highly amusing that people who believe that there is no God spend so much time in these sorts of threads debating. 

 It's like if I didn't think a purple unicorn existed. I'd question my sanity if I spent countless hours and days debating its existence. I'd simply say "hmm ok you can believe that. I'm not going there. It doesn't exist and I won't waste my time talking about it."

Yet this is not the case. We all have an intrinsic knowledge that there is a God (who that God is is a separate discussion).. I don't know why so many people spend so much time fighting it. It's almost hilarious. Here fishy fishy...


----------



## explod (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I find it highly amusing that people who believe that there is no God spend so much time in these sorts of threads debating.
> 
> It's like if I didn't think a purple unicorn existed. I'd question my sanity if I spent countless hours and days debating its existence. I'd simply say "hmm ok you can believe that. I'm not going there. It doesn't exist and I won't waste my time talking about it."
> 
> Yet this is not the case. We all have an intrinsic knowledge that there is a God (who that God is is a separate discussion).. I don't know why so many people spend so much time fighting it. It's almost hilarious. Here fishy fishy...



Speak for yourself. Intrinsic blah blah blah.

I like throwing pebbles into the pool though.


----------



## tech/a (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I find it highly amusing that people who believe that there is no God spend so much time in these sorts of threads debating.
> 
> It's like if I didn't think a purple unicorn existed. I'd question my sanity if I spent countless hours and days debating its existence. I'd simply say "hmm ok you can believe that. I'm not going there. It doesn't exist and I won't waste my time talking about it."
> 
> Yet this is not the case. We all have an intrinsic knowledge that there is a God (who that God is is a separate discussion).. I don't know why so many people spend so much time fighting it. It's almost hilarious. Here fishy fishy...




Not all of us PAV.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

tech/a said:


> Not all of us PAV.




I'm so used to being on he same side as you Tech! This feels strange lol!


----------



## Hodgie (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I find it highly amusing that people who believe that there is no God spend so much time in these sorts of threads debating.
> 
> It's like if I didn't think a purple unicorn existed. I'd question my sanity if I spent countless hours and days debating its existence. I'd simply say "hmm ok you can believe that. I'm not going there. It doesn't exist and I won't waste my time talking about it."
> 
> Yet this is not the case. We all have an intrinsic knowledge that there is a God (who that God is is a separate discussion).. I don't know why so many people spend so much time fighting it. It's almost hilarious. Here fishy fishy...




I do not wish to get involved in the debate because I know that there will be no outcome whatsoever and no ones opinion will be altered due to the nature of the topic. 

However the thread is labelled "Religion is crazy!" so I think that will provoke people to get involved on both sides.


----------



## tech/a (22 October 2013)

Hodgie said:


> I do not wish to get involved in the debate because I know that there will be no outcome whatsoever and no ones opinion will be altered due to the nature of the topic.
> 
> However the thread is labelled "Religion is crazy!" so I think that will provoke people to get involved on both sides.




Well mine was changed when I realised how insignificant the human race is in the scheme of existence.

We have only been here for a few hundred thousand years.
We wont be here that much longer relative to the scale of existence---and who will know *OR CARE!*

That's us at the Bottom!







How we can have the audacity to think* "WE" *know how--what and who created all this in the past--now---and future (When we are not here)---*is CRAZY, fanciful and delusional*!

When we join this lot.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 October 2013)

tech/a said:


> Well mine was changed when I realised how insignificant the human race is in the scheme of existence.
> 
> We have only been here for a few hundred thousand years.
> We wont be here that much longer relative to the scale of existence---and who will know *OR CARE!*
> ...




This is very useful info, imo.  We are insignificant and not nearly so special as we believe.  Paradoxically, to realize our insignificance is a very spiritually powerful thing to do.  Quite a few religions have used this sort of technique to open up the mind to Truth (or God if you'd like to call it that).  For example, the American Indian shamans recommended talking to little plants or pebbles on the ground as if they are your equal!  I'm not kidding around.  

The most spiritually powerful realization is not just that we are little specs on a planet flying around a vast universe, but that we don't even exist.  If anyone is interested, http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/05/psychological-self-vs-no-self/   This is a Buddhist link, but I'm not a Buddhist, nor do I recommend anyone becomes one.  My religion is of my own making, and I cherry pick from the best of all of them.

[link edited]


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> But as I started growing up and thinking more for myself, it became obvious to me that the power of prayer was a myth. I lived in rural communities where ‘pray for rain’ meetings were held during severe droughts.........but the droughts continued unabated.
> I heard prayers being said in church for congregation members who had terminal illnesses......but they died anyway.
> I could give dozes of other examples, but suffice to say that I lost all faith in the power of prayer after seeing it fail over and over and over again.




I'm just passing on what I have read here; keep in mind I have no _personal_ experience of this particular topic.

For this sort of intentional prayer to work, ie. *making stuff happen*, it's said that one needs to first be able to enter a very deep state of meditation or prayer (specifically 4th jhana).  Jesus was probably the guy who was most famous for doing magical stuff, but in terms of the literature, the Buddhist and shamanic literature will give you specific instructions for doing it.  I imagine you'd need a good few decades of solid practice, if it's possible at all.  I have no idea if it is, and I have no idea if Jesus walked on water or not.  Seems incredible, but you never know.

Patanjali's 3rd chapter on "powers" is probably something to read if you're interested.  I can imagine it would be possible to waste one's entire life trying to master this sort of thing!  http://hermetic.com/vivekananda/raja-yoga/powers.html


----------



## Julia (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I find it highly amusing that people who believe that there is no God spend so much time in these sorts of threads debating.
> 
> It's like if I didn't think a purple unicorn existed. I'd question my sanity if I spent countless hours and days debating its existence. I'd simply say "hmm ok you can believe that. I'm not going there. It doesn't exist and I won't waste my time talking about it."
> 
> Yet this is not the case. We all have an intrinsic knowledge that there is a God (who that God is is a separate discussion).. I don't know why so many people spend so much time fighting it. It's almost hilarious. Here fishy fishy...



That seems a rather simplistic view of a debate.   And perhaps unnecessarily scornful.  Most rational people will take a stance of agnosticism in light of the reality that there's no objective proof of either the existence of a god or equally non-existence.
It's nonetheless an interesting topic, even in so much as thinking about why some people feel the need to believe in some greater power.

I sometimes vaguely envy people with religious convictions - they seem to find comfort amongst life's miseries by believing God has a plan for them and it just ain't all good stuff.
Death is made easier for many who believe they are passing on to some glorious after life.  And it might be so.  I have no idea.

But I don't think any of us should rubbish people with or without religious convictions.   There's surely a case for revulsion about the many abuses committed amongst practitioners of religion, but that would seem to have more to do their own inherent evil (or in some cases enforced celibacy) than necessarily the influence of their church.


----------



## Judd (22 October 2013)

If you have faith you don't need evidence and if you have reason you don't need faith.

If believing is based on evidence and not faith, produce this evidence which can then be verified.

And why the need to go back in time to the dark ages of science, philosophy etc? Merely because a belief is ancient does not give it any more credibility.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

We can know how because Jesus came to earth to reveal it.

Who do I listen I about how the world was created and for what purpose? Well I will listen to the one with the most credibility.
Who is that?
The one who prophesied that he would die and be resurrected 3 days later AND BACKED IT UP!

You can research the many examples of those who tried to disprove the resurrection and came to believe because the evidence is completely overwhelming. Including a lawyer with 255 consecutive murder acquittals!!!!!


Those who don't believe it tend to apply an inconsistent standard of evidence on different historic events based on whatever they choose.

I find that those who don't believe that the resurrection even occurred are those who have not even tried to research it. You need to go wherever the evidence takes you, even if that is uncomfortable. 

There is NO evidence for macro evolution yet people cling to that religion because it satisfies them in how they can live.

With trading, with this, with most things, I've found people don't base their research on sound principles. They believe what is convenient!


----------



## McLovin (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:
			
		

> We all have an intrinsic knowledge that there is a God (who that God is is a separate discussion).. I don't know why so many people spend so much time fighting it. It's almost hilarious. Here fishy fishy...




God you're sanctimonious.

I could care less if you believe in a purple unicorn, it's only when the purple unicorn believers start trying to force their stupidity on me that I care. And religion certainly has a long glorious history of doing that.

It's religion and its drones that burnt heretics at the stake, that accuses young children today of practising witchcraft, that blows up aeroplanes, that murders doctors who perform abortions. And that covered up the disgusting crimes of the Catholic Church against children. 

Get off your soap box.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

McLovin said:


> God you're sanctimonious.  I could care less if you believe in a purple unicorn, it's only when the purple unicorn believers start trying to force their stupidity on me that I care. And religion certainly has a long glorious history of doing that.  It's religion and its drones that burnt heretics at the stake, that accuses young children today of pratising witchcraft, that blows up aeroplanes, that murders doctors who perform abortions. And that covered up the disgusting crimes of the Catholic Church against children.  Get off your soap box.




And none of those things take away from the credibility of Christ. 

Maybe thread title should be "those who live by a philosophy that inflicts harm on others are crazy".

So silly to think someone who is living the true Christian life is doing those horrible things.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

And you obviously could case less. Far less.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Wars and harm of others are cause by going AGAINST what Christ taught ( true Christianity)

But they are caused by going FOR what evolution allows. Survival of the fittest. No purpose to life. No objective right or wrong. No accountability for the good of others.

So while you're at it McLovin maybe you should start becoming more concerned about evolutionary philosophy which allows for the above. But no, that wouldn't be convenient for you? 

Blatent inconsistency!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> But they are caused by going FOR what evolution allows. Survival of the fittest. No purpose to life. No objective right or wrong. No accountability for the good of others.
> !




Some religions and philosophies say that there is no meaning of life, at least none that the mind can conceive.  They also say that the deepest truth has it that there is no good/bad, right/wrong - such things are relative, not Absolute.  I'm not trying to provoke you with this comment, just saying there are some very clever dudes who have different understanding of how things work.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Some religions and philosophies say that there is no meaning of life, at least none that the mind can conceive.  They also say that the deepest truth has it that there is no good/bad, right/wrong - such things are relative, not Absolute.  I'm not trying to provoke you with this comment, just saying there are some very clever dudes who have different understanding of how things work.




Of course. That isn't a provoke as all. Valid point.

But if there is no meaning, no good or bad, no right or wrong then there is also no truth! And someone who claims there is truth is just stating a personal opinion.


----------



## Judd (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> But they are caused by going FOR what evolution allows. Survival of the fittest. No purpose to life. No objective right or wrong. No accountability for the good of others.




That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the biological evolutionary process is which is the change in the characteristics of living organisms.  It is not the development a bad attitude or refusal to cooperate peacefully with other entities as you infer.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Judd said:


> That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the biological evolutionary process is which is the change in the characteristics of living organisms.  It is not the development a bad attitude or refusal to cooperate peacefully with other entities as you infer.




I'm not saying that's what it is. I'm saying that if we are cosmic accidents evolved from pond scum and there is no objective moral law giver then everything is subjective. Whether I choose to feed a homeless man or put a gun to his head, it doesn't matter. There is no good or bad ultimately, only as I define it. 
Sure I'll go to jail and by society's perspective it will be a 'bad' act. But then again if Hitler took over the world then gassing Jews would be by consensus a 'good' act.

But this is not how life is and we know it. We know that there are objective morals. E.g. The rape and murder of an innocent child is always wrong. We are given a conscience.

Moral absolutes are one of many strong arguments for the existence of God. These moral absolutes do exist intrinsically regardless of culture. We often know right and wrong because we have a God-given conscience.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Moral absolutes are one of many strong arguments for the existence of God. These moral absolutes do exist intrinsically regardless of culture. We often know right and wrong because we have a God-given conscience.



Illogical theory.  It is not necessary to have any belief or interest in any sort of god to possess a sound moral philosophy.

The self-righteous tone does become irritating, pavilion.


----------



## Judd (22 October 2013)

It's subjective Religious morality, Julia, which depends crucially on faith.  If God had commanded the opposite then we would all be morally obliged to kill, rape, lie, steal etc.

Society doesn't view that proposition as "good" as it would no longer function effectively as a group.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Julia said:


> Illogical theory.  It is not necessary to have any belief or interest in any sort of god to possess a sound moral philosophy.  The self-righteous tone does become irritating, pavilion.




You have missed the point. 

"Sound moral philosophy" - who defines this morality? Society? The individual? 
If so then which society or individual defines it?
Hitler? Mother Teresa?
Without a God (a moral law giver) it is by definition subjective. This is not an opinion. Look at the works of atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.   

Self-righteous? In no way am I being self-righteous in stating that without a God there are no moral absolutes. Even Nietzsche, an atheist realized this. If anything I am being the opposite of self-righteous by admitting that my definition of morality cannot be trusted, and thus I put my trust in the objective morality of God. 

Now don't get this mistaken for me saying that I don't think an atheist can be a good person morally. Of course they can, many are. I'm just saying that without a moral law giver morality is subjective. This is a fairly obvious statement I would have thought, one accepted by 90% of the atheists that I know!!!


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Judd said:


> It's subjective Religious morality, Julia, which depends crucially on faith.  If God had commanded the opposite then we would all be morally obliged to kill, rape, lie, steal etc.  Society doesn't view that proposition as "good" as it would no longer function effectively as a group.




But God's morality is based on the fundamental principle that his character is 'good.' 
God cannot go against his character.   

Morality isn't considered good because God defines it. It is considered good because a 'perfectly good' God defines it.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2013)

I knew I'd regret any involvement in this.  It's not possible to have a logical discussion with a religious zealot.
You contradict yourself constantly.  You say a conscience is 'god given', then assert an atheist may of course have a good moral compass (paraphrasing).

Enough nonsense for me.  I'll leave you to your convictions.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Julia said:


> I knew I'd regret any involvement in this.  It's not possible to have a logical discussion with a religious zealot. You contradict yourself constantly.  You say a conscience is 'god given', then assert an atheist may of course have a good moral compass (paraphrasing).  Enough nonsense for me.  I'll leave you to your convictions.




God gives a conscience to all. We can choose to follow its promptings or not.  

I have not contradicted myself once. In fact my argument remains consistent the whole way. 

If there is one thing that I cannot be accused of it is being contradictory. I hold to the same logic, which you are unable to realize. 

It's sad that some people get hot under the collar when God is mentioned because someone is making a truth claim. Yet the person who is getting hot under the collar is also making a truth claim and gets defensive when someone disagrees!


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

If you want to list my contradictions I will address each one. One by one. 

If you can't, then don't waste my time throwing up smokescreens to derail discussion and attack me personally.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Of course. That isn't a provoke as all. Valid point.
> 
> But if there is no meaning, no good or bad, no right or wrong then there is also no truth!




Can you explain what you mean further?  I'm not sure what you're saying..


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Can you explain what you mean further?  I'm not sure what you're saying..




I'm asking how can you know that such a thing as truth even exists?


----------



## pavilion103 (22 October 2013)

As someone intelligently said: no one will change their mind in here. Each time I come back I regret the wasted time doing so.

I came to this forum for trading. I am going to go back to the trading threads now. 

Good luck with continuing the interesting discussion in here. 

If anyone wants to PM me they can. I will answer any questions. But this thread is not for me. It could go in circles for ever.

I'm leaving it all at the door. See you all in the trading threads!!


----------



## explod (22 October 2013)

tech/a said:


> Well mine was changed when I realised how insignificant the human race is in the scheme of existence.
> 
> We have only been here for a few hundred thousand years.
> We wont be here that much longer relative to the scale of existence---and who will know *OR CARE!*
> ...




In a nutshel, or small cocoon, tech.  +1


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I'm asking how can you know that such a thing as truth even exists?




I don't know it in my experience, otherwise I'd be enlightened (Truth-realized), and I'm not.  I have had certain experiences that make me think it's likely, however.

Here, Jed McKenna does a good job using logic, strangely enough!  This is an excerpt from his book "Theory of Everything":


“Okay, it’s two forty-seven right now. Loser buys the
beer. _Good_ beer.”
“You’re on. Do you believe that truth exists?”
“I won’t make it that easy for you.”
“Good, let’s try it the other way. Do you believe that
truth does not exist?”
“I sense a trap.”
“If we say that truth does not exist, then we are saying
it is true that truth does not exist; a self-nullifying statement
like saying there are no absolutes. Would you agree?”
“I suppose so.”
“This much is not belief or feeling, it’s simple logic. Do
you find fault with the logic?”
“No, I agree that the statement _truth does not exist_ is a
logical contradiction.”
“Therefore?”
*“Based on the fact that truth cannot not exist, because it
would be absurd to say that no-truth is truth is true, I agree
that truth must exist. I don’t know what truth is, only that
something must be true.”*
“So you agree that something must be true. Regardless
of what it might be, truth must exist. Yes?”
“Yes, I agree with that.”
“I don’t want to have to revisit this point because we
left too soon. Do you have any reservations about agreeing
that regardless of all else, something must be true?”
“I am convinced of it. No-truth can’t be true, so
something must be true. Four minutes left.”
“Okay, now that we have determined that something
must be true, regardless of what it might be, let’s see what
else we can say. For instance, do you think it would be
possible for truth to change? Could it be one thing now and
another thing later?”
“If it changes it can’t possibly be true. Truth must be
unchanging. Even if time comes to an end, truth must still
be true or it never was.”

“So you would agree that, whatever truth is, it must be
both unchanging and whole?”
“Certainly it must be constant and unchanging, yes.
And I would agree it must be a whole, not a part, because
what would the other part be? A different truth? Obviously
not. Untruth? Obviously not.”
“Well then, do you think truth could be a matter of
perspective? Do you think my truth could be different from
your truth? Can truth be relative?”
“Certainly not. We have established that truth must be
universally true or it is not true aall.”
“Would you suppose truth to be finite or infinite?”

end of excerpt.
..... and so on it goes.  It's a great little dialogue.


----------



## bunyip (23 October 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> As someone intelligently said: no one will change their mind in here. Each time I come back I regret the wasted time doing so.
> 
> I came to this forum for trading. I am going to go back to the trading threads now.
> 
> ...




This isn't the first time you've told us_ *'This thread isn't for me, I'm out of here, see you on the trading *_*threads'. *
Yet you always return to shove your religious dogma down our throats. 
Good luck with your trading - I hope your trading strategy makes more sense than your fanatical religious views.


----------



## bunyip (23 October 2013)

I’m not going to get involved in a stupid religious debate. But I do find it amusing that I seem to have started one!
I’m not ‘playing games with God’. I’m simply looking for a practical demonstration of the power of prayer.
I don’t know or care how many people on this forum will pray for mild weather conditions to alleviate the fire situation in the Blue Mountains. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that there will be hundreds, probably thousands of God believers across Australia, and particularly in the Blue Mountains area, who will be and have been praying hard for God to step in and help them out with these fires by sending them favorable weather. 

I’m sure they’ll all say ‘thank God’ if they get the good weather conditions they’re praying for. That’s what I’ve always noticed about Christians – they’re always quick to credit God with anything favorable that happens, but are most reluctant to ever admit that God let them down.
Anyway, today is forecast to produce horrific bushfire weather across the Blue Mountains region. Let’s wait and see if the power of prayer can do anything about it.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (23 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> I’m not going to get involved in a stupid religious debate. But I do find it amusing that I seem to have started one!
> I’m not ‘playing games with God’. I’m simply looking for a practical demonstration of the power of prayer.
> I don’t know or care how many people on this forum will pray for mild weather conditions to alleviate the fire situation in the Blue Mountains. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that there will be hundreds, probably thousands of God believers across Australia, and particularly in the Blue Mountains area, who will be and have been praying hard for God to step in and help them out with these fires by sending them favorable weather.
> 
> ...




I gave you a whole bunch of information about intentional prayer for a certain outcome.  Did you investigate or are you stuck on the topic of the Blue Mountains?!!

If you're saying "life is cruel and praying to God won't save us from pain", then yes I think that's mostly true (depending upon how the word 'God' is defined).  But certain people throughout history have found ways out, loopholes, where suffering can't penetrate, even in the worst situations.  Other people seem to have found ways of manipulating reality with their intentions.  If you're really keen on being able to do this yourself, those links are the sort of thing you need to study.


----------



## Chris45 (23 October 2013)

tech/a said:


> Well mine was changed when I realised how insignificant the human race is in the scheme of existence.



Tech, if intelligent life were ubiquitous throughout our known universe, I'd probably agree with you, but as far as we know from all of our efforts to discover evidence of it, it's not.

Therefore given the distinct possibility, however illogical it may seem, that we could well be the one and only form of intelligent life in existence in our known universe, I'd say we're reasonably significant given what we've managed to achieve in our short time here on Earth (unfortunately not all of it good).

It's worth bearing in mind that our perceptions of time, distance, etc. are based on our little planet's gyrations and our frames of reference on it.

4.6 billion years is an unimaginable period of time for most of us, but an intelligent being elsewhere might perceive it quite differently. Everything is relative.

Your chart refers to the evolution of life on Earth from primitive pond life to us. In the creation versus evolution debate, it's worth considering this image:





Would you agree that our wheeled vehicles have evolved over time?

Along the way there have been mutations (both successful and unsuccessful), extinctions, adaptations and selection.
* Bicycles ... a successful mutation.
* Three-wheelers (eg the Reliant) ... an unsuccessful mutation, now extinct.
* 4WDs ... an adaptation.
* The Ford Edsel ... classic example of "natural" selection at work.
etc. etc.

My point is that the first Roman chariot was created by an intelligent being and it has evolved, in a similar way to life, into the multitude of vehicles we see today. It didn't just randomly assemble itself from stuff on the ground (or in a pond).

Everything in our world has been intelligently created at some stage and has evolved ... including our societies, businesses, governments and even our religions.

Creation and evolution work hand in hand!

So why is it so inconceivable that life was created by an intelligent being?


----------



## tech/a (23 October 2013)

Chris.

A topic I could discuss with you for hrs.
My Kris who is a Doctor of Physics and I
do chat at length on the topic.

Infact my wife believes WE--you and I come from Aliens.
This in itself is a possibility. So WE could have been created or evolved from
a more intelligent life form which could be a GOD.

Infact tribes started worshipping the Aeroplane gods when they first saw them---planes.
I'm sure ancient man would have worshipped anything he didn't understand--Sun Moon Storms Lightening.
Religion also evolved---quite separately to GOD.

So if we say there is evidence that cannot be denied that we are not the only life form
(Science is of this opinion.) we could theoretically become in twinned again with--who 
came first the alien or the aliens aliens alien---

Then there are dimensions  science has identified and PROVEN 12
Strings and worm holes
and lastly a universe which is expanding away from us quicker than light---
One day we will be alone---no stars nothing but BLACK.

Look what you've done---you've got a Duck talking about religion and evolution.


----------



## Chris45 (23 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> I’m not ‘playing games with God’. I’m simply looking for a practical demonstration of the power of prayer.
> I don’t know or care how many people on this forum will pray for mild weather conditions to alleviate the fire situation in the Blue Mountains. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that there will be hundreds, probably thousands of God believers across Australia, and particularly in the Blue Mountains area, who will be and have been praying hard for God to step in and help them out with these fires by sending them favorable weather.
> 
> I’m sure they’ll all say ‘thank God’ if they get the good weather conditions they’re praying for. That’s what I’ve always noticed about Christians – they’re always quick to credit God with anything favorable that happens, but are most reluctant to ever admit that God let them down.



Bunyip, as Pav pointed out God doesn't take kindly to being challenged to demonstrate his power. Jesus Christ is reported to have said, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test", which I think is fair enough.

God gave us all brains and I imagine he's wishing we would use them (as Jesus tried to tell us in the parable of the talents   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:14-30&version=ESV) and not do stupid things like building expensive houses in fire prone areas surrounded by highly flammable vegetable matter so that we can be "close to nature".

But as I understand it there are three wills at play here, God's will, Satan's will and our will to choose between the previous two.

I'm told that Satan is very cunning and mischievous and maybe he puts thoughts into people's minds about where is a nice place to build their houses close to nature, so that when nature does a bit of routine cleansing and maintenance, God will get the blame. I wonder who suggested to the army that doing a bit of "live fire" a few days ago would be a good idea, or to those two kids that lighting a little fire would be an exciting thing to do?

As for the power of prayer, I'm finding that prayer does work well ... if my prayers are reasonable. Giving frequent thanks to God for all of the good things I enjoy in life helps maintain my optimism and inner peace and my reasonable prayers for help are usually answered positively, however it would be unreasonable to expect God to grant my EVERY wish and that would be naive and selfish.

I imagine that at any point in time, different people would be praying for different and often conflicting things, so just how God decides who's prayers to answer in these cases, I don't know.

But even if God doesn't exist, and prayers are just a placebo, or mind over matter, or whatever, (which I don't believe is the case) if they bring positive results then that's a good enough reason for me to continue with them. They don't cost much!


----------



## Chris45 (23 October 2013)

tech/a said:


> Look what you've done---you've got a Duck talking about religion and evolution.



Hahahaha!!! Good stuff Tech. I'm glad your mind is still open to all sorts of weird and wonderful possibilities and I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall during one of your chats with your son.

The RaÃ«lian Movement is a religion started by a French racing car enthusiast, Claude Vorilhon, who believes that we were created by some aliens. I went along to a couple of their local meetings here ... it was very amusing.

I like the possibility that we are a lab experiment being conducted by two masters of another universe in an as yet unknown dimension. 

PS. How are your earthquake predictions going?


----------



## bunyip (24 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip, as Pav pointed out God doesn't take kindly to being challenged to demonstrate his power. Jesus Christ is reported to have said, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test", which I think is fair enough.




Chris, the people of the Blue Mountains have been praying to God over the last week or more to lend a hand with the fire situation. They weren’t challenging God to demonstrate his power - they were simply asking their mate to help them out, just like you or I might ask our neighbor or our mate down the road to give us a hand with something. 
This is what Christianity teaches – time and time again when I was a practicing Christian I sat in church or Sunday school and listened to the minister or the teacher extolling the virtues of prayer as a means of getting help from our friend, God.

The Blue Mountains folk were not making some stupid, selfish request such as asking God for the winning numbers in next weeks Gold Lotto. They just wanted their homes and families and friends and neighbors to be safe. 
And then there are the people who don’t even live in the fire-affected area, but prayed that the area would be spared simply because they were concerned for their fellow human beings. None of these people were challenging God to demonstrate his power. They simply believed in the power of prayer, and wanted to utilize it for the benefit of others.

The power of prayer either works or it doesn’t work. 
You tell us it works for you – that’s great. 
It hasn’t worked in the fire emergency in the Blue Mountains – yesterday produced high temperatures, low humidity and strong winds across the region. A few days ago more than 200 homes were lost. 
The power of prayer was a failure again during the Black Saturday fires in Victoria a few years back, when more than 200 lives and one thousand homes were lost. And the Canberra bushfires a decade or more earlier demonstrated yet again the shortcomings of the power of prayer. 

I used to wonder why God repeatedly ignored people’s prayers when what they asked for was quite reasonable. But now I just think that if we ask an imaginary being for a miracle, we shouldn’t be surprised when nothing happens.

Good luck to anyone who believes they can benefit from the power of prayer – if it works for you, then by all means keep using it. Hopefully prayer will produce better results for you than it produced for the owners of the 200 homes that were burnt over the last week.


----------



## Chris45 (24 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> Chris, the people of the Blue Mountains have been praying to God over the last week or more to lend a hand with the fire situation.
> 
> The power of prayer either works or it doesn’t work.
> 
> ...



Bunyip, I read that the Blue Mountains fires did in fact receive some rain:   http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...s-to-leave-blue-mountains-20131023-2vzz3.html
_"Rain that fell overnight on four major bushfires burning in the Blue Mountains and the southern highlands actually hampered firefighting efforts, authorities said, as strengthening winds had already ramped up to 70km/h early on Wednesday morning. ... Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons said up to five millimetres of rain had fallen across fire grounds on Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning."_

So it looks like God sent some rain but I guess he gets no credit for that because probably what the people were praying for was a massive downpour to instantly extinguish the fires so they could continue on their merry little ways and not be forced to consider the consequences of their actions. Then I imagine they'd all be praying for the rain to stop because some of their houses were being washed away. Whatever he does he can't win!

Detonate some explosives on a hot dry day and start a wild fire ... no problem, quick prayer ... immediate downpour ... problem solved.

Build a nice timber house amongst the trees ... wild fire breaks out ... quick prayer ... immediate downpour ... problem solved.

Throw a cigarette out the window onto some dry grass ... grass catches fire ... no problem, quick prayer ... immediate downpour ... problem solved.
Etc.

Wouldn't it be marvelous if God intervened like that every time we had a problem? We would never need to use our brains and think of possible consequences to our actions because when we stuffed up ... no problem, a quick prayer ... problem solved. However, I'm not sure if that's the way God wants us to behave.

Australia is largely a hot dry country and wild fires in bushy areas are a natural occurrence and part of the routine cleansing and maintenance process, so maybe people who like to build their houses in such areas should be expected to take that into consideration in their planning.

If their stupid greeny governments and councils pass stupid laws that prevent them from creating sensible fire breaks etc. then maybe they should start jumping up and down and demanding some changes. Perhaps they could create the fire breaks and then plant trees elsewhere to make up for the ones they cut down, build fire fighting systems into their designs, restrict the numbers of people moving into sensitive areas, push for world population control to slow the numbers of migrants, and so on.

It's obviously very sad and devastating when individuals lose everything in a fire or flood, etc, but really what's a few hundred houses in the big scheme of things if that's what's needed to force people to accept responsibility for their actions and make some intelligent changes to their behaviour, instead of just repeating the same mistakes over and over again and then expecting God to bail them out every time it goes pear shaped?

If you were God, sitting on your golden throne up there in the clouds, looking down on your creations around the world and seeing everyone squabbling and fighting with each other, polluting and destroying the beautiful environment you created for them, wiping out many of your other marvelous creations through their greed and stupidity, etc. and then begging you to fix all of the problems they've created for themselves, wouldn't you be just a little bit peeved? Maybe you'd even be thinking it was time to redirect one of those massive asteroids you've had parked in a harmless distant orbit and wipe the whole lot out and start afresh.

Then again, maybe God is just an imaginary being, as you said, and we shouldn’t be surprised when nothing happens. That's something we have to decide for ourselves and that's all part of his grand experiment.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> If you were God, sitting on your golden throne up there in the clouds, looking down on your creations around the world and seeing everyone squabbling and fighting with each other, polluting and destroying the beautiful environment you created for them, wiping out many of your other marvelous creations through their greed and stupidity, etc. and then begging you to fix all of the problems they've created for themselves, wouldn't you be just a little bit peeved? Maybe you'd even be thinking it was time to redirect one of those massive asteroids you've had parked in a harmless distant orbit and wipe the whole lot out and start afresh.
> 
> Then again, maybe God is just an imaginary being, as you said, and we shouldn’t be surprised when nothing happens. That's something we have to decide for ourselves and that's all part of his grand experiment.




If I was that type of God (an individual up in heaven) , then I wouldn't be complaining at all, because I created man to be just this way - prone to upset, squabbling, fighting and destruction.  It's my fault.  I created man with this propensity so I can't sit back and blame man for having such issues.  What sort of nasty piece of work would offer Adam a tasty apple and punish him when he eats it?  It's like breeding a dog for fighting and scolding it when it gets into fights.  

But anyway, I don't suspect for a moment that God exists as a _separate entity_.  There's far too much evidence against it.  God is either everything or not at all... and by everything I mean even the dog **** on the bottom of your shoe.  God is consciousness, and consciousness is what you are.  Meaning that you are God, and you am I.  You dig?  I am that!


----------



## Bill M (24 October 2013)

This was done in the belief of a type of religion.

---
*Young Afghan lovers beheaded*

A young couple in southern Afghanistan have been beheaded after they reportedly had a love affair outside of marriage.

Police believe the family of the woman, in her 20s, was responsible for the murders in Helmand.

Relations between young men and women outside marriage are taboo in Afghanistan, *an extremely conservative nation with deep Islamic beliefs.*
---
Crazy, link here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/19530255/young-afghan-lovers-beheaded/


----------



## Chris45 (24 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> God is either everything or not at all... and by everything I mean even the dog **** on the bottom of your shoe.



You mean to say I was created by a piece of dog ****???
Wow! I've got to go back and have a serious talk to my minister! 

Woolies had 24 packs of toilet paper on special recently so I thought I'd stock up and I bought 4 packs. I was walking past my neighbour with my shopping bags full of toilet paper and he quipped, "I always knew you were full of it!". Good one!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> You mean to say I was created by a piece of dog ****???
> Wow! I've got to go back and have a serious talk to my minister!




I didn't say that.  And yes, you do!

I said if God is _anything_, then it's _everything_.  'Everything' includes the good and the bad, the sacred and the profane, the sweet smelling and the dog **** on your shoe.

Ask your minister to define God for you, so you know exactly what it is you're worshiping.  See if he stumbles over his words.  Alternatively, you could ask "Did God create the entire universe, or just part of it?" and then when he says "the whole thing", you follow up with "what about this dog **** on my shoe?  Is this part of the universe?  And what about sin and evil - are they part of the universe?"


----------



## bunyip (24 October 2013)

I couldn’t care less how we were created or how the world was created. 
If we’re descended from aliens, that’s fine by me. If someone or something called God created us, that’s OK by me too. Created by evolution? I’d be happy enough with that as well.
Something else?...no problem, it’s all the same to me. 
Someone called Satan is out to get me? No worries, let the bastard try, he hasn't succeeded yet! I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it!

All I know for sure is that we’re here, and if we’ve got any sense we’ll try to look after ourselves, look after each other, and enjoy the life we’ve been given.

I do find it amusing though when people think they can use prayer to influence the weather, the health and happiness of their loved ones, and various other aspects of their lives.


----------



## Chris45 (25 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> Someone called Satan is out to get me? No worries, let the bastard try, he hasn't succeeded yet! I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it!
> 
> All I know for sure is that we’re here, and if we’ve got any sense we’ll try to look after ourselves, look after each other, and enjoy the life we’ve been given.



I totally concur.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 October 2013)

bunyip said:


> All I know for sure is that we’re here...




I'm glad you said this.  This is the root of your difficulty in having your prayers answered.  _*We...are...not...here.*_  That's the whole bloody point!  If you truly understood this, you'd be able to manifest.

You won't get a more succinct and in-depth answer to your questions about prayer, what it is and how it works.


----------



## Chris45 (25 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I said if God is _anything_, then it's _everything_.  'Everything' includes the good and the bad, the sacred and the profane, the sweet smelling and the dog **** on your shoe.
> 
> Ask your minister to define God for you, so you know exactly what it is you're worshiping.  See if he stumbles over his words.  Alternatively, you could ask "Did God create the entire universe, or just part of it?" and then when he says "the whole thing", you follow up with "what about this dog **** on my shoe?  Is this part of the universe?  And what about sin and evil - are they part of the universe?"



OK I'm probably going to regret this reply ... but anyway:

I think my perception of God is vastly different from yours. No one can define God but the perception that works best for me is some kind of intelligent spirit/energy probably from a higher dimension, beyond our comprehension, who created life in our little universe of matter and, along with his rival Satan, is conducting a little experiment to see who can win the most hearts and minds either to amuse themselves or as a battle to the death of one of them. Being intelligent energies, God and Satan do not have defined forms like we do and can be anywhere and everywhere. Time is relative so what seems like an eternity for us could be a mere few "days" for them.



> I don't suspect for a moment that God exists as a separate entity. There's far too much evidence against it. God is either everything or not at all... and by everything I mean even the dog **** on the bottom of your shoe.



I see God as a separate entity from Satan. If God created our universe and the life in it then I guess he's instrumental in creating the sweet smelling and the dog **** on my shoe, but I can't see how God *is* the dog **** on my shoe.



> "Did God create the entire universe, or just part of it?"



I think he created *our* universe, I don't know about any of the others. He probably didn't create his own universe.



> And what about sin and evil



All part of the battle for hearts and minds, and sadly I get the feeling that Satan is currently ahead on points, but my money is on God.

I tried to read through that Jed McKenna piece about truth. It might make sense to you but my brain started to implode. I think "truth" is subjective and relative. The shortest path between two points might not necessarily be a straight line because it depends on your perception of "straight".


----------



## bellenuit (26 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> OK I'm probably going to regret this reply ... but anyway:
> 
> I think my perception of God is ......
> 
> No one can define God but the perception that works best for me is some kind of intelligent spirit/energy probably from a higher dimension, *beyond our comprehension,*




Chris, not arguing against your belief system, but once you say your perception of God is something *beyond our comprehension*, surely that is the end of what you can possibly say on God. Any possible attempted explanation or perception is superfluous to that statement,


----------



## Judd (26 October 2013)

Religion commenced before the written word.  It came into existence at the first hangover when, awaking from a stupor, the prayer was uttered “Oh God, let me live.”


----------



## DB008 (26 October 2013)

Brunei is heading back to the Middle Ages...

*Brunei introduces stoning, flogging among new sharia punishments*



> The Sultan of Brunei has announced tough new Islamic punishments as part of a new sharia penal code.
> 
> The punishments, which would only apply to Muslims, include death by stoning for adultery, flogging for drinking alcohol, and severing of limbs for theft.
> 
> ...




http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/brunei-introduces-new-sharia-punishments/5039216


----------



## trainspotter (26 October 2013)

Judd said:


> Religion commenced before the written word.  It came into existence at the first hangover when, awaking from a stupor, the prayer was uttered “Oh God, let me live.”




And all this time I thought it was "Dear God, I am never drinking again" 

I love it when the Godbotherers come to my door. I ask them if they have a bible on their person. Indubitably it is a resounding yes ! I then ask them to open up pslam 137.9.

8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. *9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.*

Soooo your God is happy for me to kill the children of my enemies by dashing their brains out on a rock? Good day to you Sir !


----------



## Chris45 (26 October 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Chris, not arguing against your belief system, but once you say your perception of God is something *beyond our comprehension*, surely that is the end of what you can possibly say on God. Any possible attempted explanation or perception is superfluous to that statement,



What I meant was that the *higher dimension* is beyond our comprehension, well beyond mine at least. I probably inserted one too many commas, sorry. My concept of God is rather vague and is still under construction and certainly open to modification as new ideas are presented.

The *really smart* science boys have been hypothesizing about multiple universes and extra unknown dimensions in addition to the four that we're familiar with, because, as I understand it, their complex differential mathematical equations start to give more meaningful results when they adjust their variables to allow for them. When mathematical equations start to produce meaningful solutions, that's usually an indication that you're on the right track.

But the weird things some of these guys are talking about these days in their attempts to explain the universe makes me wonder if maybe they've been over-indulging in coloured tablets and white powders.

Their ideas sound like pure science fiction to most people, and I certainly don't fully comprehend their work, but I'm not going to dismiss something as fanciful rubbish just because I don't understand it, which is why I try to keep an open mind on everything and basically adopt the view that *everything*, no matter how fanciful it sounds (eg wormholes ), is possible until proven otherwise. One scientist I saw in a documentary on SBS tried to describe parallel universes as being like slices of bread in a loaf. He was quite serious! He had difficulty trying to explain the higher dimensions.

One day, someone might come along and tell us that we've got it all wrong and give us a nice simple explanation that we can all comprehend, but I'm not holding my breath!

And if one day someone manages to create a simple life form in the lab from basic inorganic building blocks, many of us, myself included, will have to seriously rethink our ideas. So far, no one has come even close. We can synthesize amino acids etc. but joining them up to create even the simplest living structure, like we're asked to believe happened spontaneously in some ancient turbulent pond, is still way out of reach. However, if that day ever comes, I think we will be in for some ructions!!! I wonder how the Muslims will react?


----------



## Chris45 (26 October 2013)

I love it when atheists denounce the concept of God by picking selected verses from the *Old* Testament.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> One day, someone might come along and tell us that we've got it all wrong and give us a nice simple explanation that we can all comprehend, but I'm not holding my breath!




All the masters say there is no nice simple explanation that will appeal to the mind, _only the nice simple experience_ of Truth, which is actually a "non-experience" since there is no individual left to experience it, only Truth experiencing itself.  All questions cease at that point, everything is revealed as 'perfection' and in no need of change.... including evil, pain, suffering and death.  

The Bible is not a great spiritual book imo.  Too hard to decipher and too much rubbish mixed in.  If it had been written by Jesus it would be worth something.  But there are many other teachers (past and living) who have attained the ultimate and written about it.  Be aware that if a teaching makes perfect sense to the conscious mind that it is likely to be false and relative.

Really great Q and A in this free download, recognized as one of the best spiritual book of all time.  http://www.holybooks.com/i-am-that-nisargadatta-maharaj/


----------



## trainspotter (26 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> I love it when atheists denounce the concept of God by picking selected verses from the *Old* Testament.




Oh please ... I was not denouncing a deity. I was merely pointing out that the Good Book is full of contradictions. 

Also a great way to get rid of Godbothers is to answer the door in a smoking jacket and ask them inside to discuss ecumenical matters.


----------



## Chris45 (26 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> All the masters say there is no nice simple explanation that will appeal to the mind, _only the nice simple experience_ of Truth, which is actually a "non-experience" since there is no individual left to experience it, only Truth experiencing itself.  All questions cease at that point, everything is revealed as 'perfection' and in no need of change.... including evil, pain, suffering and death.



Aaaaaarrrrggggghhh!!!! .... Gringott, you're doing my head in again!!! 



> The Bible is not a great spiritual book imo.  Too hard to decipher and too much rubbish mixed in.  If it had been written by Jesus it would be worth something.



I'll probably be struck down by a bolt of lightning for saying this, but I'm inclined to agree with you ... most certainly the last bit. I remember as a kid in church, when the minister read from the old King James Bible, I had not the foggiest idea what he was talking about most of the time. It (like Shakespeare) was a foreign language to me.

When I later got a copy of the New English Bible, I discovered that what Jesus taught in the New Testament was both excellent and brilliant!



> Be aware that if a teaching makes perfect sense to the conscious mind that it is likely to be false and relative.



You're doing it to me again!!! 




trainspotter said:


> Oh please ... I was not denouncing a deity. I was merely pointing out that the Good Book is full of contradictions.





> Soooo your God is happy for me to kill the children of my enemies by dashing their brains out on a rock? Good day to you Sir !



That sounded a bit like a denunciation, albeit a subtle one, to me. 

Must confess I don't take much notice of the Old Testament because I'm not a Jew.

I have a better way of getting rid of "Godbotherers" as you like to call them. I have a BIG sign on my front door with a giant *NO* and then a long list ... salesmen, conmen, missionaries, etc.

I often hear them coming up the drive to the front door chatting to each other, then there's a long pause while they read my sign, then I hear them walking silently away down the drive. People tend to think I'm a bit of an anti-social old grouch when they see it but it works beautifully! Which reminds me ... I think it's time I printed a new one and added Halloweeners to the list.


----------



## burglar (26 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> ... I think it's time I printed a new one and added Halloweeners to the list.




No need.
They only come on one day of the year.
You can be out for the day, or just pretend!


----------



## Chris45 (26 October 2013)

burglar said:


> No need. They only come on one day of the year. You can be out for the day, or just pretend!



That's what I usually do but it's annoying having to sit in the dark in total silence while the little terrors rage up and down the street outside threatening to trash peoples houses unless they're given buckets of lollies.


----------



## cynic (27 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> ...
> Must confess I don't take much notice of the Old Testament because I'm not a Jew.
> ...



Jesus was (a Jew), but that's okay because I'm sure he won't hold that against you.



burglar said:


> No need.
> They only come on one day of the year.
> You can be out for the day, or just pretend!




Yes - out trick or treating with the rest of them! (i.e. "Do unto others before they do unto you!")


----------



## Chris45 (27 October 2013)

cynic said:


> Yes - out trick or treating with the rest of them! (i.e. "Do unto others before they do unto you!")



I thought of dressing up as the Grim Reaper and standing out the front with a huge scythe. I wonder if that would work?


----------



## trainspotter (27 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> I thought of dressing up as the Grim Reaper and standing out the front with a huge scythe. I wonder if that would work?




YEP ! that would do the trick nicely me thinks !


----------



## trainspotter (27 October 2013)

Chris45 said:


> That sounded a bit like a denunciation, albeit a subtle one, to me.




Hahahaaa My apologies on the typo .... actually I was thinking a person, place, thing, animal or idea rather than a public condemnation.


----------



## bunyip (28 October 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'm glad you said this.  This is the root of your difficulty in having your prayers answered.  _*We...are...not...here.*_  That's the whole bloody point!  If you truly understood this, you'd be able to manifest.
> 
> You won't get a more succinct and in-depth answer to your questions about prayer, what it is and how it works.




You mightn’t be here, mate, but I certainly am.

As for my _‘difficulty in having my prayers answered_’....I don’t believe in God, therefore I don’t pray and I don't have any prayers to answer. 

And as for my ‘_questions about prayer_’.....I didn't ask any and I don’t have any.


----------



## bellenuit (2 November 2013)

This was, I believe, a Sunni peace conference. If the attendees are representative of the Sunni community in general, then it puts paid to the myth that only extremists support the unsavoury side of Islam.

*Islam or Islamophobia?*

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia


----------



## DB008 (2 November 2013)

bellenuit said:


> This was, I believe, a Sunni peace conference. If the attendees are representative of the Sunni community in general, then it puts paid to the myth that only extremists support the unsavoury side of Islam.
> 
> *Islam or Islamophobia?*
> 
> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia




That link didn't work bellenuit.

This one does http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia2


----------



## bunyip (8 November 2013)

trainspotter said:


> Also a great way to get rid of Godbothers is to answer the door in a smoking jacket and ask them inside to discuss ecumenical matters.




I was busy trimming trees with my chainsaw last time the Jehovah's Witnesses turned up at my place. 
When they told me the lord was coming, I said_ ‘Great, I hope he knows how to use a chainsaw – he can give me a hand with these trees!’._

I’ll never have much time for religious fanatics who are so brainwashed by something the Bible says, that they’ll let their children die rather than give them a life-saving blood transfusion.

I had several life-saving blood transfusions when I was under treatment for Leukemia. If Christians are correct in their belief that there’s a superior being called God, and he’s as loving and compassionate as they believe him to be, then it’s highly unlikely that he’s going to blacklist me or anyone else whose had a blood transfusion to save their life.


----------



## tech/a (8 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> I was busy trimming trees with my chainsaw last time the Jehovah's Witnesses turned up at my place.
> When they told me the lord was coming, I said_ ‘Great, I hope he knows how to use a chainsaw – he can give me a hand with these trees!’._
> 
> I’ll never have much time for religious fanatics who are so brainwashed by something the Bible says, that they’ll let their children die rather than give them a life-saving blood transfusion.
> ...




I had a couple pray for me as I was Loading my board on the roof rack.
It worked---I wasn't eaten by a shark!---this time.

Who'd be god?
Really.

For all the imperfections in the world
For all the imperfections in his creations--mainly humans!
He/she really needs to improve.
Yet --- he/she is WORSHIPED!

Glad I'm a DUCK.


----------



## bunyip (8 November 2013)

tech/a said:


> I had a couple pray for me as I was Loading my board on the roof rack.
> It worked---I wasn't eaten by a shark!---this time.
> 
> Who'd be god?
> ...




What amuses me about people who believe in the power of prayer, is how on earth do they think their God has time to listen to them!

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, spread across many different couuntries and time zones. And they pray three times a day at least. So at any given time of  the day or night there must be hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of prayers going out to this feller called God or Allah or whatever else he gets called. And that’s just from the Muslims, let alone the millions of other people from various religions who pray every day. 
This God character must have a prodigious capacity for work if he can handle the tremendous volume of prayer traffic that comes his way 24/7!


----------



## pavilion103 (8 November 2013)

God would obviously be outside of time and is all knowing and all powerful. If there was a God do you think he would sit there with the clock running with a call centre of people in heaven answering calls frantically and sending the most important ones through to him?
We take the words all knowing and all powerful so lightly! Think about that for a moment.

If anyone cares to genuinely explore evidence for the power of prayer, look up:

1) Azusa street revival
2) Smith Wigglesworth

Examine the eye witness accounts and many testimonies. Examine them by the same standard or evidence you would for other historical claims. Be fair, thorough and consistent in your research. If you still choose not to believe in what happened, then at least it won't be because of a lack of evidence but rather a personal choice.


----------



## trainspotter (8 November 2013)

Our lager
Which art in barrels
Hallowed be thy drink
Thy will be drunk (I will be drunk)
At home as if in tavern
Give us this day our foamy head
And forgive us our spillages
As we forgive those who spill against us
And lead us not to incarceration
But deliver us from hangovers
For thine is the beer, the bitter, the lager
For ever and ever....
barmen

*hic*:drink:


----------



## tech/a (8 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> God would obviously be outside of time and is all knowing and all powerful. If there was a God do you think he would sit there with the clock running with a call centre of people in heaven answering calls frantically and sending the most important ones through to him?
> We take the words all knowing and all powerful so lightly! Think about that for a moment.
> 
> If anyone cares to genuinely explore evidence for the power of prayer, look up:
> ...




PAV

There are many "Miracles" in life without a label attached to them.
God/Prayer etc.

Things can actually "Happen"

After 4 Billion Years the Human race occurred.
A billion before that "Dinosaurs" had the earth to themselves
and in a billion years time You can bet we wont be here.

It will just---happen---god or no god.

I don't know about you but I cant remember before birth. 
I'm pretty sure I wont remember anything after death.

So Ill live the Now Now.
Ill live the then---then.

I don't "need" to know what's after death just as I don't need to know what was before life.
It will---be---then---as I am ---now.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 November 2013)

I find this interesting. You're a man of evidence Tech. 

There is a difference between 'miracles' just happening in the course of day to day life and well documented and testified cases of mass healings over a reasonable period of time by people proclaiming that they can heal in the name of Jesus and then backing it up. There is no better testimony of credibility than results!

You and others say that you don't believe that there is a God (any form of god), but my question is what evidence supports a self-existing universe?

1) Where there is a beginning there has to be a cause. There are zero examples of something coming from nothing. 
2) There are zero examples of life coming from non-life

That is just to start off the discussion. 
*Think for one moment. The universe is not eternal. How can it come from nothing? This should be the end of the debate. There is not a way around this.*

Then consider specifically in terms of evolution
3) Order and design. The most logical conclusion of such complex design is a designer
4) Irreducible complexity of the human cell does not even allow evolution
5) No examples of increases in genetic information (only duplication/mutation). Only natural selection is a fact, which is the opposite, a reduction of genetic information   


I'm not saying "Accept Jesus" because of this. That is a completely separate discussion. I'm asking: 

What does the evidence point to? Some form of God/creator


The only alternative is evolution but consider the scientific evidence:
- no examples of something from nothing
- no examples of life from non-life
- Irreducible complexity of the cell
- No examples of genetic information increasing
- Genetic entropy 


All I am saying in this post is that the evidence strongly points to some sort of creator and completely refutes marco evolution (not natural selection) even being possible. I will change my mind if there is evidence for it. But at the moment there isn't. I've done that many times with many topics. 
How can you believe with such blind faith? 


*Tech, if I analysed a chart in this way (a belief in evolution (and therefore no God) despite the lack of evidence for evolution, ignoring evidence pointing to God) and drew my trading conclusions in this way you would wonder why you have bothered to utter a single sentence to me in the past couple of years!* 

I will go where the evidence points me. 100% of the time. Any topic. Regardless of how unpopular the view is or how I will be scrutinise. Truth is all that matters to me. 

I enjoy a healthy debate, but I will not be afraid to challenge views!


----------



## McLovin (8 November 2013)

I could understand some poor villager in deepest, darkest Africa believing this cr@p...



> Wigglesworth claimed to have healed numerous people suffering from cancer, which he described as 'a living evil spirit'. He believed that ninety percent of diseases were 'satanic in origin'.[10] His methods often involved hitting, slapping or punching the afflicted part of the body. On a number of occasions his approach to persons suffering from stomach complaints was to punch them in the stomach, sometimes with such force that it propelled them across the room. *When challenged on this, his response was "I don't hit them, I hit the devil"*. [11]




The next bit is a beauty...it's not that I'm a charlatan it's that the poor sod with cancer doesn't believe.



> When confronted with the failure of a healing, Wrigglesworth's response was to accuse the sufferer of being "full of unbelief"




Reminds me of when Uri Geller couldn't bend the spoon because it had been swapped without his knowing; "I don't feel strong tonight" was his reason.

If this witch doctor is an example of the "power of prayer", then religion is indeed crazy.

I wonder if the good doctor ever prescribed eye of newt, or toe of frog.


----------



## Judd (8 November 2013)

What is it with these religious fruit cakes?  They leave the particular thread indicating that it's not for them and then darn well return.

To top it all, "proofs", such as they are (worthless, in my view) are offered to defend the fact that they have faith when the rest of us could not give a rats whether or not they believe.  Nor have they been asked them to defend the fact they have a faith.


----------



## Hodgie (8 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> You and others say that you don't believe that there is a God (any form of god), but my question is what evidence supports a self-existing universe?
> 
> 1) Where there is a beginning there has to be a cause. There are zero examples of something coming from nothing.
> 2) There are zero examples of life coming from non-life
> ...



*

I don't think you will find anyone on this forum that can provide sufficient explanation and reasoning to how the universe came out of 'nothing'...... unless we have a quantum physicist in our midst.

The theories behind quantum physics can be as hard to understand and more importantly to beleive as what is written in the bibble.

Im sure if you directed the same question to Stephen Hawking he could provide an answer, whether it makes sense to you or not is another thing.

Just the same as a priest could provide me with an explanation of something out of the bibble (sorry I havent read it so I cant reference any particular story) and it is highly unlikely that it would be convincing to me.*


----------



## trainspotter (8 November 2013)

There's probably no God ... so stop worrying and go and enjoy your life. I am a creationist .. I believe man has created God.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> 1) Where there is a beginning there has to be a cause. There are zero examples of something coming from nothing.




Pavillion, if *by chance* you'd been born into a strict Muslim family in an Arab country, you'd be posting about a very different "truth".  

The fact that you would argue the point with a Muslim, Zoroastrian, Zennist, Hindu or whatever means that your truth (_and theirs_) is just a product of a certain upbringing.  Such a relative "truth" can't be true.

Have you ever considered that your story of 'what is true' would be entirely different under different birth circumstances?  Imagine you as a baby girl instead of a baby boy.  Imagine you being born in Northern Africa instead of Australia.  Imagine you in basically _any other circumstance_ and your "truth" will change.  You believe it's real because you believe your thoughts.  But hundreds of enlightened people throughout history have advised us not to believe out thoughts; that they are just random neuronal firings conditioned by memory, desire and fear.

Here's another way to think of it - a thought experiment.  Six new born babies (identical sextuplets) are put up for adoption.  Each child is randomly assigned to be raised with one of six different religious families in six very different cultural contexts.  Imagine each of the children after 20 years in their family.  Imagine the six of them arguing with each other.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 November 2013)

GB don't ask where I've been born, or where anyone has been born. 
Take for instance China - communist country to having the most Christians worldwide. Born into a communist belief system yet Christianity spread like wildfire. 
Same with Rome in it's time.  
The centre of Christianity has gone from Middle East, Rome, Europe, South America, China. 
All cultures with contrary belief systems. 
Adopted Christianity because it makes sense. 
How is that for going against culture and preconditioned beliefs!!!

Simply look at the evidence before us and reach a conclusion. Irrespective of who is saying it, where they are from, and what they believe. 


Wasn't going to post that originally. 
Just came on to say please don't mistake my silence for rudeness or lack of ability to answer questions. 
I prefer to pop in every now and then and add my 2c, rather than engage in every single post directed back at me (which are numerous!!!). 

I enjoy the open dialouge with you guys. Interesting to have a bit of a discussion with Tech also, who it is usually mainly trading with (I'm not complaining!). 

Enjoy guys, might catch you soon. 
Will pop in randomly sometime I suppose.


----------



## tech/a (8 November 2013)

Evidence like religion is a man made realism.

I have no idea what it is we are actually trying to equate in this time and space.
Are we a continuum existing on a pin head within another continuum on a pin head---etc etc
then are we running parallel with infinite continuum's--blah blah

See the imagination is limitless.

The arrogance of the human species to believe that it alone knows that his perception of everything is explained by a GOD---his GOD---is astounding.
Not only that but you have to be special to be a part of his chosen group!

A Billion years ago there was no human race.
There was no perception or concept of GOD
Now there are humans who need a GOD so as there were SUN/RAIN/VOLCANO/FAMINE blah blah GODS
there is simply GOD.
In a Billion years time there wont be a human race.
There will be no perception or concept of GOD then.

But there will be something un related to a GOD---it will be what it will be.

See like trading I don't care if I'm right or wrong I just live in the reality of what I know---NOW.
That's all I actually DO KNOW.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> GB don't ask where I've been born, or where anyone has been born.
> Take for instance China - communist country to having the most Christians worldwide. Born into a communist belief system yet Christianity spread like wildfire.
> Same with Rome in it's time.
> The centre of Christianity has gone from Middle East, Rome, Europe, South America, China.
> ...




I know the Chinese are getting into Christianity big time.  It's like some sort of mass conversion.  However there's a very strong trend in China to mimic and desire anything Western (American, in particular).  Some asian people even have their hair and eyes surgically altered so as to look more Western.  Whilst birthplace and upbringing are very powerful determinants of belief, we can still be swayed to follow the crowd when it changes direction.  China is going through the same gyrations that America did during the industrial revolution.  It's all about consumerism, hedonism and accumulation - being "one up" on your neighbour at *absolutely any cost.*  America has been there and done that; now it is languishing in some sort of depressed and directionless state because it has seen that a society built around greed doesn't work too well.  The Chinese are yet to find out that greed isn't healthy for society.  The fire still burns.

Consider what sort of guilt it creates to have such a society where competition for money is so powerful.  *And how to allay this guilt?*  Eastern religions were never any good at allaying guilt, so they get forgotten.  But Christianity has the answer.   If I become a Christian, I can screw my fellow man for all he is worth and so long as I admit my sins and ask for forgiveness, I will be taken into heaven.

Jesus was not a Christian.  And if he was still alive today, he'd probably deride and discredit Christianity like we are here.  The whole set up is rotten.

Amen.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 November 2013)

I will add a final thought to but those posts. They are worth a response. 

Tech:
I partially agree with you. I am not arrogant enough to trust myself in determining what truth is. I do not trust a religion set up by man. I do not trust a book written by man (no one can prove the Bible is the Word of God). I do not trust in silly superstitions. I am very skeptical of all of this. I am a very skeptical person in this regard.
So I ask myself who do I trust? I trust the one who predicted his death and resurrection (and by applying a standard of historical evidence far stricter than the level of evidence accepted by historians for any other historical event from antiquity) rose from the dead. 
That is worthy of my trust. 
If anyone here did this, you can rest assured that I would listen to you very closely. 
This is why I listen to Christ, not myself, not other philosophers or scholars, to tell me what is truth. 

p.s. Christ offers an open invitation to everyone to trust in Him. Not an exclusive group!

GB:
So if I'm born into a Christian culture my Christian beliefs are invalid
And if I'm born into a non-Christian culture my Christian beliefs are invalid. 
It doesn't really have anything to do with what we are born into does it?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I will add a final thought to but those posts. They are worth a response.
> 
> GB:
> So if I'm born into a Christian culture my Christian beliefs are invalid
> ...




My point was that we are influenced by our surrounds far more than we realize.  I should have said: "we are influenced heavily be our parents, peer group or culture". 

Your point about the Chinese looks valid on the surface.  But the whole culture changed in China, and with it, people's attitudes.  Buddhism became perverted just like Christianity and only _very_ rare individuals became enlightened - most didn't. The ones that didn't lived off handouts and lead very bland uninteresting lives in monasteries.  Who wants that?  Hell, if I was a poverty-stricken Chinaman in the 1980's, there's no way an austere lifestyle is going to win my devotion.  But then again Buddhism doesn't have a rule where you are punished by a Father Figure-style God for looking elsewhere.  You won't see too many Muslims converting to Christianity.  The fear is too great.


----------



## bunyip (8 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> God would obviously be outside of time and is all knowing and all powerful. If there was a God do you think he would sit there with the clock running with a call centre of people in heaven answering calls frantically and sending the most important ones through to him?
> We take the words all knowing and all powerful so lightly! Think about that for a moment.




Here’s something for _*you*_ to think about.
You don’t even know that God exists. You think he does, but in all your posts in which you profess a profound knowledge of the subject, you’ve never once presented any evidence, let alone irrefutable proof, of the existence of God.
Yet you make authoritative statements such as ‘God would obviously be outside of time and is all knowing and all powerful.’



pavilion103 said:


> If anyone cares to genuinely explore evidence for the power of prayer, look up:
> 
> 1) Azusa street revival
> 2) Smith Wigglesworth




If anyone wants to be honest and realistic about the so-called ‘power of prayer’, they should ask themselves what response the Jews got when they asked God to save them from the Nazis. Then they should ask themselves what response the bushfire victims got when they asked God to spare their loved ones and their homes from the Black Saturday fires in Victoria a few years back, and numerous other fire disasters as well. 
Try praying for rain in the middle of a raging drought, and see if God delivers. Need I go on?

You seize on some idiotic claim from some clown who claims to fix stomach cancer by punching people in the stomach, and you stupidly present it as evidence of the power of prayer. You’re completely out of touch with reality, just like so many other religious fanatics.





pavilion103 said:


> You and others say that you don't believe that there is a God (any form of god), but my question is what evidence supports a self-existing universe?
> 
> 1) Where there is a beginning there has to be a cause. There are zero examples of something coming from nothing.
> 2) There are zero examples of life coming from non-life
> ...





Let’s see _*you*_ come up with a plausible explanation of how God came into existence. And don’t insult your intelligence by saying that God ‘_always was’. _

Anyway, I thought you said (for about the twentieth time) that this thread wasn’t for you. So why do you keep coming back in here with more posts?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 November 2013)

McLovin said:


> I could understand some poor villager in deepest, darkest Africa believing this cr@p...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




McLovin, belief is *extremely* powerful.  One can create "miracles" with or without a religious context.

One example of this is placebo, which everyone knows about.  Modern Western medicine would not readily admit to it, but the majority of the effect of *any* scientifically proven drug is due to the patient believing it will work.  Only a small percentage of the observed effect is due to the active molecule.  There's many such examples.  I can dig them up if anyone is interested.

Harvard Medical School have at last developed some interest in finding out why belief is many times more powerful than even the most 'powerful' drugs.  http://programinplacebostudies.org/tag/harvard-placebo-studies/

Even more powerful than belief is Presence or Awareness.  Few on the planet have it, but it is extremely powerful.  It leaves medicine for dead (both conventional and alternative).


----------



## DB008 (8 November 2013)

McLovin said:


> I could understand some poor villager in deepest, darkest Africa believing this cr@p...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks Mclovin.


----------



## Judd (9 November 2013)

Hodgie said:


> ...The theories behind quantum physics can be as hard to understand and more importantly to beleive as what is written in the bibble.




Yeah, it's  mind blowing trying to get one's head around quantum mechanics which discovered the virtual particle, (a virtual particle is something which is formed out of nothing and it's existence was discovered using quantum mechanics before experiments actually determined its existence.  Ergo, quantum mechanics is god - or a form of one?)


----------



## McLovin (9 November 2013)

DB008 said:


> Thanks Mclovin.





That's the one. I remember watching that doco about 15 years ago. There's a pretty good bit in it where he gives a bunch of students a personalised horoscope (or something similar) and they are all saying how accurate it is. Then he asks them to swap with the person next to them. They were all the same.



			
				bunyip said:
			
		

> If anyone wants to be honest and realistic about the so-called ‘power of prayer’, they should ask themselves what response the Jews got when they asked God to save them from the Nazis.




The "power of prayer" is a case study in confirmation bias. Anything positive is attributed to God, anything else is just glossed over.


----------



## bunyip (11 November 2013)

McLovin said:


> The "power of prayer" is a case study in confirmation bias. Anything positive is attributed to God, anything else is just glossed over.




Exactly.

Steady soaking rain makes the countryside green and picturesque – praise be to God.
An earthquake or tsunami kills tens of thousands of people – you won’t hear anyone saying it was God who caused it.

A severe drought is currently devastating western Queensland, killing tens of thousands of animals and trees, causing valuable topsoil to blow away, and devastating  family businesses to the extent that suicide rates have climbed dramatically in rural communities. Nobody is blaming God, or pointing out that he’s ignored prayers for rain. But when the rain comes, even if the coming wet season produces only ten or 20% of normal rainfall as happened last wet season in Queensland, causing the current drought, effusive praise will be heaped on God for answering the prayers for rain.

I remember being in a small country church about thirty years ago where the congregation was made up entirely of farmers and graziers. During a prayer session the minister asked the congregation if there was anything in particular they’d like him to pray for.
One man asked for prayers for his sister who was dying of cancer. A woman stood up and asked for prayers for rain to break the drought that was devastating the region. The minister responded with a heartfelt prayer to ‘_Our lord in heaven, maker of all things’ etc etc._

Well the rain came a few days later, about 8 ml of it, or 32 points in the old scale. Now, anyone with farming or grazing experience will know that 8 ml of rain during a drought is worse than useless. It muddies the soil, making it harder for weak cattle and sheep to move around, and draining their limited energy. It puts a green shoot on the grass for a week or two, making the stock scour badly as the sudden burst of green feed hits their drought-affected digestive systems. This sudden onset of diahorreah causes them to dehydrate and lose even more weight and get even weaker. It takes a couple of weeks until their digestive systems have adjusted to the new rich feed, and by that time the small amount of moisture in the soil is gone, and the green pick on the grass has gone with it.
Another disadvantage of a tiny amount of rain during a drought is that it germinates a new crop of weeks on the cultivation, many of which have deep tap roots and are therefore able to survive and thrive on limited soil moisture. So the cash strapped farmers have to spend money dealing with the weeds either by cultivating or spraying, otherwise they go to seed and create problems for next years crop.
Anyway, suffice to say that 8 ml of rain during a drought is all disadvantage and no advantage, except maybe to put a bit of water in rainwater tanks.

Next week in church, the woman who had requested prayers for drought-breaking rain stood up during the service and  thanked God for answering her prayer and sending us ‘that lovely rain’.
That same woman lost her 34 year old husband a couple of months later when he dropped dead from a heart attack. She was a very religious woman and I had on a number of occasions heard her thank God for our families, and keeping them all safe.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Steady soaking rain makes the countryside green and picturesque – praise be to God.
> An earthquake or tsunami kills tens of thousands of people – you won’t hear anyone saying it was God who caused it.
> ...




So you used to go to church and then when you tried to pray for stuff it didn't work?


----------



## bunyip (11 November 2013)

The Philippines is a strongly Christian country, with around 86% of the population being Roman Catholic.

Many millions of Philippinos prayed to their God to keep their homes and families safe as typhoon Hyan bore down on the Philippines last week.
Nevertheless, the typhoon destroyed millions of homes and business and farms, wiped out food crops, devestated the economy, and killed an estimated 100 thousand people.

I’ll let the Philippinos decide if the power of prayer worked for them.


----------



## MrBurns (11 November 2013)

I think religion is losing its grip in the west
Been to a few funerals lately and the sermons just seem antiquated.


----------



## bunyip (11 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> So you used to go to church and then when you tried to pray for stuff it didn't work?




I was born and raised in a Christian family, and I believed everything my parents, church ministers and Sunday school teachers told me about God and Jesus and prayer. But then as I started growing up and observing and thinking for myself, I saw no evidence to support what they’d taught me, and plenty of evidence that discredited their beliefs.

And GB – don’t even bother wasting your time giving me your views on all of this, regardless of how much you might feel you want to help me. I don’t even read those big long posts of yours, and I’m not looking for help. I’m a happy bloke with a fulfilling life, and I’m not searching for answers. 

My view is simply that there may or may not be a supreme being – personally I don’t think there is – but it doesn’t really matter anyway. What’s important is that we’re in this life and we’re in this world, and for all its shortcomings it’s still a pretty good world that we can enjoy to the full if we look after ourselves and our health, look after each other, and take pleasure in simple things. 
And that’s exactly what I do.


----------



## MrBurns (11 November 2013)

The meaning of life - 

You don't live forever so what's the point of it all ? money ? plenty of miserable wealthy people around.

No, you're here to look after others, help those less fortunate, if you can do that it's it's own reward and is a life well spent.

God or the "spirit" is present in those who do this, churches are increasingly irrelevant we should be worshiping the practice of helping others.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> I was born and raised in a Christian family, and I believed everything my parents, church ministers and Sunday school teachers told me about God and Jesus and prayer. But then as I started growing up and observing and thinking for myself, I saw no evidence to support what they’d taught me, and plenty of evidence that discredited their beliefs.
> 
> And GB – don’t even bother wasting your time giving me your views on all of this, regardless of how much you might feel you want to help me. I don’t even read those big long posts of yours, and I’m not looking for help. I’m a happy bloke with a fulfilling life, and I’m not searching for answers.
> 
> ...




I offered my views because I thought you were grappling with understanding it all.  Since I've looked into it all in great depth I thought I'd throw up what I'd learnt.  I misinterpreted your position on all this and don't want to be a 'helper' as such.

Since you don't read my _long _posts, I'll just say that _briefly_ that I did agree with the general sentiment that praying to God is not really going to help _most _people _most _of the time.  But if someone _did_ want to do it (not you, someone else), there have been people who have rigorously investigated the hows/whys and wherefores of prayer, including through the use of scientific experiments.  And such material is worth reading.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 November 2013)

Taken from https://www.scimednet.org/effects-of-prayer

I see this as the power of the consciousness + intent, rather than the power of God, but this might just be semantics in the end.  My personal and considered view is that God *is* pure consciousness (ie. consciousness stripped of mind).  If that's the case, God is 'no-mind' as the Zennists say, and that's where the power lies.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Scores of controlled studies have demonstrated the correlation of positive mental intent with physiological effects in distant human beings. This material has been the subject of several reviews (Benor, 1990, 1993; Dossey, 1993; Solfvin, 1984). Among the studies:

    In a double-blind experiment involving 393 persons admitted to a coronary care unit, intercessory prayer was offered from a distance to roughly half the subjects. Significantly fewer patients in the prayer group required intubation/mechanical ventilation (p<<0.002) or antibiotics (p<<0.005), had cardiopulmonary arrests (p<<0.02), developed pneumonia (p<<0.03), or required diuretics (p<<0.005). Subjects in the prayer group had a significantly lower "severity score" based on their hospital course following admission (p<<0.01) (Byrd, 1988).

    In a double-blind experiment involving 990 consecutive patients who were admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU), patients were randomized to receive remote, intercessory prayer or not. The first names of patients in the prayer group were given to a team of outside intercessors who prayed for them daily for 4 weeks. Patients were unaware they were being prayed for, and the intercessors did not know and never met the patients. The medical course from hospital admission to discharge was summarized in a CCU course score derived from blinded, retrospective chart review. The prayed-for group had about a 10 percent advantage compared to the usual-care group (P = .04) (Harris et al, 1999).

    In a double-blind experiment involving 40 patients with advanced AIDS, subjects were randomly assigned to a "distant healing" (DH) group or to a control group. Both groups were treated with conventional medications, but the DH group received distant healing for 10 weeks from healers located throughout the United States. Subjects and healers never met. At 6 months, blind chart review found that DH subjects acquired significantly fewer new AIDS-defining illnesses (P= 0.04), had lower illness severity (P = 0.03), and required significantly fewer doctor visits (P = 0.01), fewer hospitalizations (P 0.04), and fewer days of hospitalization (P =0.04). DH subjects also showed significantly improved mood compared with controls (P = 0.02) (Sicher et al, 1998).

    In thirteen experiments, the ability of sixty-two people to influence the physiology of 271 distant subjects was studied (Braud and Schlitz, 1983,1988,1989). These studies suggested that (1) the distant effects of mental imagery compare favorably with the magnitude of effects of one's individual thoughts, feelings, and emotions on one's own physiology; (2) the ability to use positive imagery to achieve distant effects is apparently widespread in the human population; (3) these effects can occur at distances up to twenty meters (greater distances were not tested); (4) subjects with a greater need to be influenced by positive mental intent - i.e., those for whom the influence would be beneficial -- seem more susceptible; (5) the distant effects of intentionality can occur without the recipient's knowledge; (6) those participating in the studies seemed unconcerned that the effect could be used for harm, and no such harmful effects were seen; and (7) the distant effects of mental intentionality are not invariable; subjects appear capable of preventing the effect if it is unwanted.


----------



## bunyip (11 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I offered my views because I thought you were grappling with understanding it all.  Since I've looked into it all in great depth I thought I'd throw up what I'd learnt.  I misinterpreted your position on all this and don't want to be a 'helper' as such.
> 
> Since you don't read my _long _posts, I'll just say that _briefly_ that I did agree with the general sentiment that praying to God is not really going to help _most _people _most _of the time.





Thank you GB for your willingness to help me and others.

I’ve made my position clear a number of times on here, including detailing my Christian upbringing and my gradual losing of faith in God and Christianity as I grew up and started thinking and observing for myself . I guess you just didn’t read all of my posts, just as I don’t read all of your’s. 

Regardless of my disagreement with many Christian beliefs, Christianity taught me honesty and integrity, consideration for others, and generally how to be a decent person. And best of all, how to appreciate simple things.
I have many Christian friends and I’ve generally found Christians to be nice and decent people. And you can’t help but admire the charity work done by Christian churches.

Here’s a final thought.....’‘_Nothing is more challenging than to become simple and nothing brings a greater reward.’_
Once you understand this and put it into practice in day to day life, it becomes unimportant whether or not a supreme being exists and created the world as we know it, or whether it was created by something else.


----------



## overhang (12 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I offered my views because I thought you were grappling with understanding it all.  Since I've looked into it all in great depth I thought I'd throw up what I'd learnt.  I misinterpreted your position on all this and don't want to be a 'helper' as such.
> 
> Since you don't read my _long _posts, I'll just say that _briefly_ that I did agree with the general sentiment that praying to God is not really going to help _most _people _most _of the time.  But if someone _did_ want to do it (not you, someone else), there have been people who have rigorously investigated the hows/whys and wherefores of prayer, including through the use of scientific experiments.  And such material is worth reading.




You seemed to have missed the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.
"1,802 subjects, all receiving the same surgery and who generally believed that prayer works, were divided into three groups:

    1. Patients who would be receiving prayers, but didn't know it.
    2. Patients who would be receiving prayers and were told about it ahead of time.
    3. Patients who would not be receiving prayers (the control group). 

Three groups of religious folk (two Catholic, one Protestant) from religious states (Kansas, Minnesota) provided prayers to the study subjects in groups 1 and 2 (whom they did not know) throughout the course of the study. 

Results

The results found no differences in the complications of groups 1 and 3, which a rational scientist would expect. Unexpectedly, however, patients in group 2 actually had more complications during surgery...a psychosomatic result of knowing about the prayers, perhaps? "

Prayer is merely a placebo effect and one that can have negative consequences as this experiment showed.  Many people have difficulty dealing with situations outside their control, particularly when it comes to life and death.  People cope in different ways but some require the hope that there is a higher entity that would somehow take some time out giving children AIDS in Africa and cure their cancer.


----------



## burglar (12 November 2013)

overhang said:


> ... giving children AIDS in Africa and cure their cancer.




 ... ?


----------



## overhang (12 November 2013)

burglar said:


> ... ?




Satire.  I'm implying how irrational prayer is, to think that their is some higher entity that can sit idle while atrocities occur by the second around the world but then assist someone that is in a Western hospital receiving the best possible care that is the result of years and years of research and science through trial and error.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2013)

overhang said:


> You seemed to have missed the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.
> 
> The results found no differences in the complications of groups 1 and 3, *which a rational scientist would expect.* Unexpectedly, however, patients in group 2 actually had more complications during surgery...a psychosomatic result of knowing about the prayers, perhaps? "
> 
> _*Prayer is merely a placebo effect and one that can have negative consequences*_ as this experiment showed.  Many people have difficulty dealing with situations outside their control, particularly when it comes to life and death.  People cope in different ways but some require the *hope that there is a higher entity that would somehow take some time out giving children AIDS in Africa and cure their cancer.*




I don't miss anything.

There are innumerable extraneous variables in such studies, the most powerful of which will be the experimenters' and participants' intentions; these always go unaccounted for.  It is impossible to neutralize such a powerful influence anyway, but they should at least be acknowledged.  In the studies I posted about, the *net* intention of all participants will have the most powerful effect on the outcome.  So if the experimenter was a religious man, then his intention will be for the study to show a positive effect.  He will be likely to choose participants who are also religious, and maybe even the patients are religious.  Right now we have a huge intention swing to the positive.  The other factor - the net degree of consciousness - will now determine how powerful the effect is.

The study you posted is just as valid as the ones I posted.  I underlined a few sentences in the study to show the negative intention.  The guy is bound up in scientism, and is not open to other possibilities as shown by the quote "which a rational scientist would expect".  So we know that his expectation and intention were negative.  *He got what he expected, which is what prayer is.  Expectation = faith + intention.*  He's actually showing us that if you're negative, you will get a negative result.  Then he goes on to say that prayer "can have negative consequences", which is quite laughable isn't it?!  I mean the guy is hell bent on saying there's no effect at all and no higher power but then comes out and says there's a negative effect and that people should be very careful about praying.  That's quite stupid on his part.  To finish off, he shows his full on negative bias and intention by saying "there is a higher entity that would somehow take some time out giving children AIDS in Africa and cure their cancer".  Can you see that there is a very bitter and disappointed guy talking?  He seems to believe in the Sunday School version of God (with a beard and robes up in heaven) and he wonders why his prayers don't work.  He is assigning the power to something fantastical outside of himself.

As I have stated above prayer doesn't need a "God" to work; it's about consciousness + intent.  If you want to throw in a God then that's fine by me.  Intention is easy.  Developing the necessary degree of consciousness is the hard part and that's why in most cases, and for most people, prayer is not going to work.


----------



## overhang (12 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I don't miss anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry I should have pointed out after the quotes was my 'bitter' words not that of the study. Actually the study was carried out by the Templeton Foundation who's goal is the "progress in spiritual discoveries" so it's fair to say they hoped for different results especially when most their funding comes from numerous religious groups.

As I said prayer can only benefit as a placebo effect.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2013)

Yes, I'd agree about 'placebo' but I would never use the word "only".  Placebo is hugely powerful.  It's actually been shown to be more powerful than most medicines, therapies and surgeries.  Ref:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655171/  As a systematic review and meta-analysis, this is about as scientific as you can get.

So if that study you posted was correct in its methodology and findings, then I would accept it.  My personal experience is that religious people tend to be fairly anxious types and so of course their prayers will reflect that negativity and not work.

[edited]


----------



## overhang (12 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes, I'd agree about 'placebo' but I would never use the word "only".  Placebo is hugely powerful.  It's actually been shown to be more powerful than most medicines, therapies and surgeries.  Ref:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655171/  As a systematic review and meta-analysis, this is about as scientific as you can get.
> 
> So if that study you posted was correct in its methodology and findings, then I would accept it.  My personal experience is that religious people tend to be fairly anxious types and so of course their prayers will reflect that negativity and not work.
> 
> [edited]




Yes I agree.
 I meant 'only' in the context of a deity as a placebo isn't as extravagant  , ironically both religion and placebo's are the manipulation of the mind.


----------



## fiftyeight (12 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> It's actually been shown to be more powerful than most medicines, therapies and surgeries.[edited]




Really, I must admit I have not read this study but it seems hard to believe it is MORE powerful.

Are surgeries, therapies and medicines more or less effective on very young children/babies or animals who would have no idea about a god or power of thought?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Really, I must admit I have not read this study but it seems hard to believe it is MORE powerful.
> 
> Are surgeries, therapies and medicines more or less effective on very young children/babies or animals who would have no idea about a god or power of thought?




Babies are known to spiral downwards extremely quickly, but also bounce back extremely quickly.  Ask any doc/nurse who works in a neonatal ICU or children's ward.  One minute they are close to death, next day they are happy and bouncing around as if nothing has happened.   To me, this suggests that a relatively blank slate can be influenced very easily, and studies on hypnosis confirm that children are far more easily hypnotized.

Intention will be operational mainly through the baby's parents and caregivers.  That will be having an effect.  The baby itself may have some sort of basic pre-verbal intention to survive (or die), and I imagine that would be in effect also.

I only know of one experiment with animals to show that intention can have an effect - Placebo effect in canine epilepsy trials. J Vet Intern Med. 2010 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI. 2013-03-25. Retrieved on 2013-08-25.


----------



## fiftyeight (12 November 2013)

Placebo is real but I am not convinced it is MORE powerful.

Are there studies that testing the opposite?

A highly effective treatment is applied that a patient strongly believes wont work and stops it from working? So not something subjective like a pain score but something objective like the size of a tumor maybe? Im sure there are better examples.

Or maybe told they have been given a placebo but have been given actual treatment?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Placebo is real but I am not convinced it is MORE powerful.
> 
> Are there studies that testing the opposite?
> 
> ...




Yes, all of these scenarios have been tested, and it's good that you think that way.  If you want, I can look it up but I have to go to work now.


----------



## bellenuit (12 November 2013)

It may have been mentioned already, but in many cases prayer can have a detrimental effect if it results in proper remedial action NOT been taken. All too sad when such decisions are made by those with a duty of care for the person in need.


----------



## trainspotter (12 November 2013)

Religion IS crazy !


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes, all of these scenarios have been tested, and it's good that you think that way.  If you want, I can look it up but I have to go to work now.




58, you mention that pain is subjective but the methods used to assess this (pain scales etc) are tested carefully for validity and reliability before they are used in research.   Here's one study which demonstrates that belief/expectation is more powerful than a powerful opiate drug.     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110226212356.htm

Your example about a serious condition being monitored would be a very good test.  I don't know of any such research but consider this, which is along similar lines:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23179742

The wikipedia site is pretty good too.  Here are some excerpts.  Highlights are mine:

Because the placebo effect is based upon expectations and conditioning, the effect disappears* if the patient is told that their expectations are unrealistic, or that the placebo intervention is ineffective.* A conditioned pain reduction can be totally removed when its existence is explained.[45] It has also been reported of subjects given placebos in a trial of anti-depressants, that "Once the trial was over and the patients who had been given placebos were told as much, they quickly deteriorated."[46]

*A placebo described as a muscle relaxant will cause muscle relaxation and, if described as the opposite, muscle tension.[47]* *A placebo presented as a stimulant will have this effect on heart rhythm, and blood pressure, but, when administered as a depressant, the opposite effect.*[48] The perceived consumption of caffeine has been reported to cause similar effects even when decaffeinated coffee is consumed,[49][50] although a 2003 study found only limited support for this.[51] Placebos represented as alcohol can cause intoxication[52] and sensorimotor impairment.[53] Perceived ergogenic aids can increase endurance,[54] speed[55] and weight-lifting ability,[56] leading to the question of whether placebos should be allowed in sport competition.[57] Placebos can help smokers quit.[58] *Perceived allergens that are not truly allergenic can cause allergies.*[59] Interventions such as psychotherapy can have placebo effects.[60]pp 164–173 The effect has been observed in the transplantation of human embryonic neurons into the brains of those with advanced Parkinson's disease.[61]


----------



## Snagglepuss (12 November 2013)

bellenuit said:


> It may have been mentioned already, but in many cases prayer can have a detrimental effect if it results in proper remedial action NOT been taken. All too sad when such decisions are made by those with a duty of care for the person in need.




Yes, some very sad cases referenced in this blog post.


----------



## fiftyeight (12 November 2013)

Cheers GB, but there is no way a pain scale is not subjective. That article does not claim this. "set so that each individual rated the pain at 70 on a scale of 1 to 100". My 70 and your 70 will likely be very different but will both show brain activity in similar areas.

Maybe I am arguing semantics but I was more getting at your general statement that placebo



> more powerful than most medicines, therapies and surgeries




I believe it is more accurate to say that placebos may be more powerful in specific neurological effects but not biological effects.

This article explains what I am trying to say much better than I can

http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2013/11/11/3888346.htm


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Cheers GB, but there is no way a pain scale is not subjective. That article does not claim this. "set so that each individual rated the pain at 70 on a scale of 1 to 100". My 70 and your 70 will likely be very different but will both show brain activity in similar areas.
> 
> Maybe I am arguing semantics but I was more getting at your general statement that placebo
> 
> ...




I think this is what you're saying (from the article): "This is not to say that a placebo can cure cancer or an infection. Placebos appear to be most effective at relieving the symptoms of disease, such as pain, but not the disease itself".

There are some examples of physiological/biological changes occurring through changes in expectation and belief.  Mostly these studies relate to skin conditions, but skin changes _*are*_ biological changes and they are easy to measure objectively.  It doesn't seem so strange really.  Consider this: I can change your heart rate, peripheral circulation and skin conduction by simply looking at you with an angry expression. These changes happen almost immediately and you won't be able to prevent it happening.  If I yell at you, I can change the circulating levels of stress hormones which then precipitate a whole host of changes that are damaging to the body in some small way.  If I yell at you every day, eventually the body's biology changes in response to this physiological insult and maybe disease starts somewhere in the body.


----------



## bellenuit (12 November 2013)

A bit of light relief from a time when comedy didn't mean every second word had to be the F-word.....


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I think religion is losing its grip in the west
> Been to a few funerals lately and the sermons just seem antiquated.






Yes it is, and I think it’s because young people these days tend to question things and make up their own minds about them, rather than just accepting age-old beliefs as being correct.

There was a time when most people brought up as Christians just accepted what was taught to them about God, such as..... _*He’s a God of love and compassion, and if you follow him and believe in him he’ll stand ready to help you if you bring your problems to him through prayer.*_

These days I think there are increasing numbers of people who find reason to question these beliefs when they look at what’s happening around the world. For example, the typhoon in the Philippines wiped out much of the country despite prayers from millions of Phillipinos asking God to keep their homes and loved ones safe. 
Thinking people ask themselves how their God could have let this happen if he’s so kind and compassionate.

Now heavy rain is hampering rescue efforts and bringing utter misery to people whose homes have been destroyed. Here again, thinking people look at this situation and ask how this compassionate God of theirs can be so callous and uncaring as to send rain to make things even tougher for the Philippinos.

In answer to these questions, some people may take the usual Christian line of_ ‘God works in mysterious ways – we can’t even begin to understand everything about him’._
Others may say ‘_God is an uncaring bastard – all this talk about how compassionate he is is just complete bull****’._
Others may form the opinion that God is simply a myth, and there’s no supreme power that can turn aside a typhoon or stop the heavy rain that usually follows these extreme events of nature.


----------



## MrBurns (14 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> Yes it is, and I think it’s because young people these days tend to question things and make up their own minds about them, rather than just accepting age-old beliefs as being correct.
> 
> .




I'm not young but when I hear these sermons I cringe, the church has failed to move with the times and they will lose followers as a result,


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'm not young but when I hear these sermons I cringe, the church has failed to move with the times and they will lose followers as a result,




Yes, you don’t need to be young to question age-old beliefs. 
It’s easy to believe something when there’s supporting evidence. But much harder to believe something when the facts don’t back it up.

A new couple bought the house down the end of my road a couple of years back. I called in and introduced myself, told them to give me a yell if I could ever help out in any way. The bloke said ‘_Same here, just sing out if you ever need a hand with anything.’_
He and I have become good mates since then, and have helped each other out on numerous occasions. We each know the other is reliable if called upon to help.
It’s pretty easy to put your trust in someone like that. But if either of us was all talk and no action, always making some excuse as to why we couldn’t help out this time, then the other bloke would soon lose faith in him.

That’s one of the reasons why I and many others like me have lost faith in the Christian god. We grew up hearing how a supreme being called God was more than willing to help us out if we believed in him. And yet time and again he just doesn’t deliver on that promise.
Sooner or later you become disillusioned and lose your belief in someone or something like that.
Couple that with proof of evolution as opposed to the creationist theory, and it’s not hard to see why people are drifting away from religion.


----------



## bunyip (17 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Pavillion, if *by chance* you'd been born into a strict Muslim family in an Arab country, you'd be posting about a very different "truth".
> 
> The fact that you would argue the point with a Muslim, Zoroastrian, Zennist, Hindu or whatever means that your truth (_and theirs_) is just a product of a certain upbringing.  Such a relative "truth" can't be true.
> 
> Have you ever considered that your story of 'what is true' would be entirely different under different birth circumstances?




Exactly.
Most people grow up believing what their parents and their culture taught them. Some continue to believe it for the rest of their lives, which is no doubt why religions drum their religious views into kids from an early age when they’ll simply believe without understanding what they’re believing. Many former Catholics have attested to this fact, including my wife who says she had little understanding of the various Catholic rituals she had to go through as a child. 

If Pav was born into an aboriginal family in some remote part of Australia, he’d quite likely believe that the rainbow serpent had a hand in creating various geographical features of the landscape, and that ferocious beasts called bunyips ate anyone who ventured into a billabong at night.
The primitive aboriginals ‘knew’ how the human race was created too. I can’t remember what their views were on that one, but Pav would have grown up believing it if he’d been born into a primitive aboriginal tribe.

Man has invented dozens, maybe even hundreds of gods throughout history. Some cultures had several. 
Each culture fervently believed their god/s had supernatural powers, despite a lack of evidence to support their beliefs, just as Christians do.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

Someone might be born into a fans that teaches the word is flat. Another family believe the world is round. Just because the person who believes the world is round was brought up believing it by their family doesn't take away from the truth of it.
You have to determine if something is truth, and this isn't based on whether someone was brought up with it or not.

Christianity is one philosophy that has been adopted by many cultures that were AGAINST it. Shows how open minded people have had to be to accept it. The centre of Christianity has been.
Middle East
Rome (the foremost persecutors of the faith originally)
Europe
South America
and now China (YES, communist China)

That debunks the whole "grown up with it myth"


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

PS - people who use the throw away line "no evidence" for Christianity/the resurrection are simply lazy and sloppy in their "research" if there was any. Many posting in here bunch it in with all other religions. It is ignorant.
Christianity is not based on mythical man made beliefs. It is founded and supported by historical evidence of an ACTUAL MAN and ACTUAL event with an abundance of historical evidence.

Anyone who equates Christ as a myth in the same way as the "sun god" or "rain god ", is displaying all their ignorance for the world to see. There is no comparison.


Then many who say there is no evidence for this (which is ludicrous) seem to believe that there is strong evidence for macro evolution -insanity!!!


----------



## noco (17 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> PS - people who use the throw away line "no evidence" for Christianity/the resurrection are simply lazy and sloppy in their "research" if there was any. Many posting in here bunch it in with all other religions. It is ignorant.
> Christianity is not based on mythical man made beliefs. It is founded and supported by historical evidence of an ACTUAL MAN and ACTUAL event with an abundance of historical evidence.
> 
> Anyone who equates Christ as a myth in the same way as the "sun god" or "rain god ", is displaying all their ignorance for the world to see. There is no comparison.
> ...




If you believe in Adam and Eve, you probably still believe in Santa Claus and the fairies.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

noco said:


> If you believe in Adam and Eve, you probably still believe in Santa Claus and the fairies.




Amazing. Again none of the specific points addressed. Yet a throw away line that has nothing to do with anything discussed is posted.

I'm glad that I can come on here and address specific point after specific point and post well reasoned arguments that follow a logic sequence. Even if we disagree at the end that is fine. Respect.

I respect the posting of many in this thread but nothing infuriates me more than some of the ass-clowns like the poster above who have nothing of worth to add. 

I could come on and post "if you think something came from nothing and that a complex human evolved from a rock, you probably still believe in Santa Claus and the fairies". But what a stupid thing to post (other than to illustrate the point).


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

If you can't handle the heat (the specific points raised) then get out of the kitchen.


----------



## Ves (17 November 2013)

Pav,  have you delved much into Western philosophy,  especially post-Greek,  and if so,  what is your favourite logical "proof of God"?    There's lots of them,  and whilst they may not be deemed conclusive,   and a lot of them have been shown to be logically unsound,  I still enjoy reading them as they can still teach you how to create an argument from first principles. Whether you believe in God or not,  philosophical thinking and reasoning has many ways of enhancing ones own thinking.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

Ves said:


> Pav,  have you delved much into Western philosophy,  especially post-Greek,  and if so,  what is your favourite logical "proof of God"?    There's lots of them,  and whilst they may not be deemed conclusive,   and a lot of them have been shown to be logically unsound,  I still enjoy reading them as they can still teach you how to create an argument from first principles. Whether you believe in God or not,  philosophical thinking and reasoning has many ways of enhancing ones own thinking.




I've delved into a lot of Eastern and Western philosophies including atheistic. Things from Emerson to Friedrich Nietzsche. Other atheists such as Anthony Flew, Dawkins. A lot of YouTube hour spent watching. In terms of more eastern philosophy I've read Eckhart Tolle, Krishnamurti etc. Interesting to get varying perspectives. 

I don't like the word proof. No one can prove anything. I can't prove this isn't a dream. Evidence however is the word. What does the evidence point to. 

The way I see it is there are two sides. Either we were created by some god. Or we came from no god. 
When we weight up the evidence:
- Can something come from nothing? (given that the universe is not eternal)
- Can life come from non-life?
For example, well... scientifically observable and repeatable) NO is the answer to both. Not difficult. 
Any other answer is personal philosophy. 

Then when you consider things like 
- Complexity of life
- The precision of universal laws
etc. I ask which is more logical? Does it appear more logical that it was a creator or by random chance? The answer points to a creator. 

When I delve into the theory of evolution which is put before me. I reject it as completely unscientific. 
- There are zero examples of life from non-life
- Zero examples of something coming from nothing
- Zero examples of genetic information increasing (only mutations and duplication)
- Irreducible complexity of the cell, DNA etc. 
- Genetic entropy
I cannot believe the theory of evolution purely on the lack of scientific evidence. It is blind faith to accept it based on this. 

As for the logically unsound comment - it is merely your opinion or others that it is logically unsound, holding that opinion does not actually make it logically unsound. 


Then Christianity is a whole new discussion. The evidence that leads to that is a topic in itself. 


In summary - what we observe about the universe (listed above) is evidence which points to a creator. It flies in the face of a materialistic world view. 

I am further comforted in my worldview when I look at the lack of substance behind the opposing one - evolution. 
I think it's quite bizarre that micro evolution (natural selection, which is a fact), is the decreasing of genetic information. We observe this. It's scientific. 
Yet the macro evolution of going from something lesser to something greater is actually CONTRARY to everything we observe and the complete opposite of natural selection. 


When determining if it is more likely that there is a god or no god, I have to be scientific in my approach. I cannot go against scientific observation, no matter how convenient it is for me. I am not afraid to go wherever the answers point. And they point to a creator. 
We can debate and go back and forward for the next 50 years, but one day we will all see this reality plain and clear.


----------



## tech/a (17 November 2013)

Why is it important to you?


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

tech/a said:


> Why is it important to you?




I want to know the truth. 
I want to know why I am here. 
I want to know where I came from.
I want to know where I am going. 

Am I going to make up or believe any old story to give me peace of mind? - NO
Am I prepared to face whatever the truth is based on where it leads me whether it be a god or no god? - YES

Some will argue that it is impossible to know the answer to these questions. 
Some will argue that many have debate this and this has never been resolved (however, truth doesn't require consensus)

How will I determine truth?
With all the scientific, historical, philosophical reasoning, existential evidence that is available to us. 


I believe that the answers have been revealed to us by the person of Jesus Christ. 
His life, death and resurrection make him ultimately worthy of my attentive ear.
I will listen to no man, church or any religious institution. Just the source, who is worthy of my trust. 
I would never be arrogant enough to think that I can make up the answers.  


We will all face death. 
I do not advocate an insurance policy.
But I do advocate a thorough search for the truth. Not as a mortal comforter. But as the reality of what is to come....


----------



## Ruby (17 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> PS - people who use the throw away line "no evidence" for Christianity/the resurrection are simply lazy and sloppy in their "research" if there was any. Many posting in here bunch it in with all other religions. It is ignorant.
> Christianity is not based on mythical man made beliefs. It is founded and supported by historical evidence of an ACTUAL MAN and ACTUAL event with an abundance of historical evidence.
> 
> Anyone who equates Christ as a myth in the same way as the "sun god" or "rain god ", is displaying all their ignorance for the world to see. There is no comparison.
> ...




Pav, there is NO evidence for the crucifixion, the resurrection or the claim that Jesus was God.  NONE.  There is general acceptance by biblical scholars that Jesus, the man, probably existed, but who exactly he was is not known.  He may have been crucified, but lots of people were in those days.  You are basing your claims on a few ancient texts, of dubious authenticity, written long after these events supposedly took place, and at a time when few people could read or write or had any education.  How can you call this proof?   And don't tell me I have done no research.  I have read many books on the subject by reliable authors.  Your so-called 'evidence' is nothing more than stories which grew as they were handed down orally, long before they were written down.  

If you want to find a modern day equivalent, read about the cargo cults and the messianic figure called John Frum.  Never heard of him?  Look him up.  

Evidence for evolution, on the other hand is massive, and mounting daily.   I think you are monumentally arrogant to dismiss it in the face of such overwhelming support, especially as you clearly have no scientific knowledge.  Have you ever read any books on evolution?  If not, try reading some, and remove a bit of your embarrassing ignorance.  "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins (an eminent specialist on the subject) is written especially for the layman (me and you) and describes an experiment which documents evolution taking place.    This is PROOF - empirical evidence, observed, verifiable.  It cannot be refuted.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

You're points on the resurrection and life of Christ are simply not true at all. 
Unfortunately I am having to go off and pack my bags for my travel to India at this minute. But I would be open to addressing every one of those points upon my return. 
Just as a brief outline. They were written in the lifetime of eye witnesses and two accounts by eye witnesses. Also the empty tomb. Also this was not a myth that developed over time, it has no time to. It was written in the lifetime of eye witnesses who would dispute any lies. Also the martyrdom of the apostles also verified by secular sources. They ran away after the death and thought Jesus had let them down. Then they see something and become fearless martyrs over something they KNEW 100% to either be true or a lie. You don't die for something you know 100% to be a lie, especially when in hiding days earlier. 
There is a stack of other evidences.
Why do you think people pay thousands to take history courses at Uni? Because it is a reliable source of knowledge.
The gospels - 5,200 Greek manuscripts. Far far more sources than anything in antiquity (Caesar - 10 sources).


As for evolution.
There would be no point discussing it with someone holding such a dogmatic opinion on it as you do.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 November 2013)

I'll be back after my India trip guys. 

Cya in about 3 weeks!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 November 2013)

Pavillion, if you're still there....did Jesus walk on water?

Not trying to set you up.  Just interested in your thoughts.

[edit]...although I do have a follow up comment, and that would be that there are "zero examples" of it.  One might say it's "unscientific".  Or...maybe there are some examples... I don't know.


----------



## lindsayf (17 November 2013)

Hopefully future discussion will look at what it is that each party believes constitutes evidence.  I am guessing there are wildly divergent views on this.

Even so, the discussion will probably end with agreement by each that the other is stupid, blinkered, ignorant or dogmatic or some combination thereof.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 November 2013)

I put this up as "evidence" that men aside from Jesus may have also had supernatural powers, including coming back to life.  This is not a Buddhism versus Christianity post - I have no affiliations with either religion.  Nor am I arguing the point of whether such powers are real because I have absolutely no idea.  Obviously the idea seems highly improbable to us, but I certainly don't close my mind to it.  Interesting reading anyway...

___________________________________________________

http://www.vanamaliashram.org/sri-ishta-siddhi-subramanya.jpg

Buddhism teaches that after a practitioner achieves a certain degree of realization, spiritual power develops. A person at the level of an Arhat is said to possess six supernatural powers. Even so, it is understood that it is through Enlightenment that supernatural powers are manifested, rather than that supernatural powers enhance Enlightenment. Furthermore, it is acknowledged as well that supernatural powers are not attainable exclusively JUST by Buddhists and Buddhists only. It is possible for anyone who has deep religious and spiritual cultivation to develop some kind of ‘super-normal powers.

SIDDHI (Sanskrit: “accomplishment,” “attainment,” “perfection”). The term Siddhi is most often applied to a variety of spritual-related psychic capabilities or powers manifested by adherents in the Hindu and Buddhist realms. Through recognizing emptiness, clarity and openness of the mind, different qualities arise naturally, since they are part of mind. The Buddha, whose personal name Siddharta is based in the root-word and means “he whose aim is accomplished,” distinguishes between two types:

Normal Siddhis: all those forces of the conditioned world that transform elements.

Extraordinary Siddhis: the ability to open beings up for the liberating and enlightening truths; to lead to Realization.

Siddhi is typically defined as “a magical or spiritual power for the control of self, others and the forces of nature.” The Siddhis described by occultists and yogis are in actuality Supernormal Perceptual States available to all human beings. These are absolutely natural abilities that can be explained in highly rational terms. There is nothing mysterious or magical about the Siddhis.

http://api.ning.com/files/obEQaZfwX...yfyMZtHjd7kfC43fvYM4jjbs-ZEe/laxminarayan.jpg

1. PARKAYA PRAVESH

Parkaya Pravesh means entering one’s soul in the body of some other person. Through this knowledge even a dead body can be brought to life.

Just about three thousand years back, Shankaracharya had to take help of this knowledge in order to defeat Mandan Mishra in a spiritual debate. But as time passed this knowledge became extinct in the society and today only a very few yogis have full practical knowledge of this unique practice.

http://www1.sulekha.com/mstore/ssubbanna/albums/default/rk-cows Balgowri.jpg

2. HAADI VIDYA

This Vidya or knowledge has been mentioned in several ancient texts. On acquiring this Vidya a person neither feels hungry nor thirsty and he can remain without eating food or drinking water for several days at a stretch.

Several Yogis of the Himalayas, remain engrossed in deep Sadhanas for months and years without eating or drinking anything. When they do not eat or drink, they do not even have to empty their bowels. Thus they are able to perform long penance for years and their bodies also remain healthy and fit, even without food. The mysterious wandering Digambara monk Trailanga Swami was proficient in this Vidya. Although not always counted among Siddhis per se’ several instances have been cited regarding Trailanga Swami’s ability to spend hours under the water of the Ganges as he sought to teach men that human life need not depend on oxygen under the auspices of certain spiritual conditions and precautions (Pranayama). It has been reported there is a yogi that lives on the peak of the holy mountain Arunachala that has not had anything to eat since 1990. See also Nirodha.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eWHV_XpBh...cuiE2YTQAm1T1UI6Cvu4Hy64ICgyB76Ft8waWS6PA.jpg

3. KAADI VIDYA

Just as one does not feel hungry or thirsty in Haadi Vidya similarly in Kaadi Vidya a person is not affected by change of seasons i.e. by summer, winter, rain etc. After accomplishing this Vidya a person shall not feel cold even if he sits in the snow laden mountains and shall not feel hot even if he sits in the fire. Thus a Sadhak can perform incessant penance without being affected by change of weather or seasons.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OCu_uIvUa...Des/C_E4PQFfZPw/s1600/shiv_ardhnarishwar8.jpg

 4. MADALASA VIDYA

On accomplishing this Vidya, a person becomes capable of increasing or decreasing the size of his body according to his wish. Lord Hanuman had miniaturised his body through this Vidya while entering the city of Lanka.

The average height of a human being is six feet. Through this Vidya a person can reduce the size of his body to the size of a mosquito and can even enlarge his body to a size of over hundred feet.

Anima Siddhi – The ability to decrease the size of one’s body and become smaller than the smallest particle. Through this siddhi one may enter into stone or change the density in one’s body, enabling one to pass through solid matter.

Mahima Siddhi – The ability to increase the size of one’s body, ultimately enveloping the universe.

http://www.palanitemples.com/images/siddhi1.gif

 5. VAYU GAMAN SIDDHI

Through this Siddhi a person can become capable of flying in the skies and traveling from one place to another in just a few seconds. The Jain scriptures speak of Jain ascetics who could fly from place to place in a few seconds. Although there are several occasions of individuals flying reported in the Sutras of classical Buddhism and Zen, the Venerable Pindola Bharadvaja is probably the person most commonly cited. For the movement or cross-transference of items between the conventional plane or physical plane and other possible environments see Apportation Revisited.

Swami Vishuddhanandji (d. 1937)(sometimes spelled: Vishuddhananda, Vishudhanandaaka; aka: Gandha Baba, Perfume Saint), well-known for his supernatural powers and said to be an adept associated with the mysterious Gyanganj (Jnanaganj) hermitage somewhere in Tibet ”” a secret place of great masters ”” demonstrated this practice in Varanasi and proved that it is not a myth.

Although throughout his life the Enlightened sage Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi never exhibited the slightest interest in Siddhis, occult abilities, or psychic powers to outsiders, he had a fully conscious bilocation experience he rarely discussed wherein he was translocated from his ashram in a matter of minutes to a devotee many, many miles away. Arthur Osborne, Ramana’s biographer writes in Ramana Maharshi And The Path of Self-Knowledge (York Beach: Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1995, pages 96-97):

“One day, some years ago, I (Sri Ramana) was lying down and awake when I distinctly felt my body rise higher and higher. I could see the physical objects below growing smaller and smaller until they disappeared and all around me was a limitless expanse of dazzling light. After some time I felt the body slowly descend and the physical objects below began to appear. I was so fully aware of this incident that I finally concluded that it must be by such means that Sages using the powers of Siddhis travel over vast distances in a short time and Appear and Disappear in such a mysterious manner. While the body thus descended to the ground it occurred to me that I was at Tiruvottiyur though I had never seen the place before. I found myself on a highroad and walked along it. At some distance from the roadside was a temple of Ganapati and I entered it.”

A second equally interesting incident, cast in in a similar vein, and involving the Maharshi but a little too long to put here, can be found by going to: THE MEETING: An Untold Story of Sri Ramana

Laghima Siddhi – The ability to make one’s body lighter than air and fly at will. The perfection of this siddhi enables one to travel on the sun’s rays and enter into the sun planet.

LAGHIMA: TO HAVE NO WEIGHT. Laghima is the control of the effect of the earth’s attraction on the body by developing in each cell the opposite (centrifugal) tendency. Said to be implemented for the performed act of levitation, the Vayu Gaman Siddhi and the Laghima Siddhi. According to one of the eighteen main Puranas, the Markandeya Purana, Laghima means “to have an extreme speed.”

Successful cultivation of even the earliest stages of Samadhi can result in entering into the sublime meditative states of the Five Jhana Factors of which one is called Piti. Inturn Piti is broken down into five levels. One of those levels is called Ubbenga Piti, known as the transporting rapture.

Ubbenga Piti can lift the body off the floor and doing so still occurs to meditators of current times both in Thailand and elsewhere. A strong rapture of this kind, as manifested through the higher Jhana states, is able to lift the body and transport it (fly) over great distances through the air.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_W8nwd2BpPPQ/TMWL0x4e5gI/AAAAAAAAAHM/a897ITWeZ_8/s1600/123.jpg 

6. KANAKDHARA SIDDHI

One can acquire immense and unlimited wealth through this Siddhi. It’s said that once Shankaracharya saw a very poor and destitute woman and with the help of the Kanakdhara Yantra he showered gold in her house. This Yantra is made on a silver plate and 36 squares are formed by drawing 7 lines each, horizontally and vertically. Then the Beej Mantra is written in these squares. Today only a very few people have full and authentic knowledge of this Siddhi.

7. PRAKYA SADHANA

Through this Sadhana a yogi can direct his disciple to take birth from the womb of a woman, who is childless or cannot bear children. Several Yogis have thus blessed infertile women with children. Swami Vishuddhanand had accomplished this Sadhana and had used it to bring happiness into the lives of several women. But today only two or three persons are accomplished in this Sadhana.

http://www.palanitemples.com/images/astama_siddhi.gif

8. SURYA VIGYAN

This Solar science is one of the most significant sciences of ancient India. This science has been known only to the Indian Yogis and using it, one substance can be transformed into another through the medium of sun rays.

Swami Vishudhananda had demonstrated the miracles of this science about 50-60 years ago, by transforming a paper into rose and a cotton ball into gold, otherwise it has become almost extinct.

http://www.palanitemples.com/images/siddhi.gif

9. MRIT SANJIVANI VIDYA

This Vidya was created by Adi Shankaracharya. Through it even a dead person can be brought back to life. This practice may seem to be a myth but it had been used by Guru Gorakhnath several times. Today only a few persons have practical knowledge of this Vidya.

Prapti Siddhi – The ability to manifest any object one desires within one’s hand. This siddhi removes the limitations of space which seperate two objects from each other. It is said one will even be able to touch the moon with one’s finger [i.e. the limitation of distance is removed].

Prakamya Siddhi – The ability to attain anything one desires.

I****a Siddhi – The ability to control the sub-potencies of the laws of nature. This enables one to control various energies and seemingly defy the laws of nature. The Swami Ramalinga, more popularly known as Vallalar is recorded to have moved a whole contingent of followers from the wrath of a terrible storm to the safe harbor of a distant shrine in an instant. See also la Catalina whose abilities allowed her, among other things, to turn into a wisp of smoke as though a blackened silhouette and sail through the air only to dissipate into the night sky.

Va****a Siddhi – The ability to bring others under one’s control.

Kamavasayita Siddhi – The ability to attain anything anywhere. This is the highest of the eight and contains most of the abilities of the other perfections.

For further exploration into these topics, I refer you to  The Sacred Books of the East Volume Xl ~ Full Book

Related Articles
Wilhelm Reich: Listen Little Man! ~ Full Book
OSHO LSD: A Shortcut To False Samadhi ~ Full Book
4 Natural Enemies of a Man of Knowledge


----------



## noco (17 November 2013)

I was once married to a Catholic turned Jewhova Witness...I am now agnostic... nuff said.


----------



## trainspotter (18 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I'll be back after my India trip guys.
> 
> Cya in about 3 weeks!




Give Swami F@ckujack Imalright my regards from Mr. Pearl. He will know what I am talking about. Its a beauitiful day.


----------



## bunyip (18 November 2013)

lindsayf said:


> Hopefully future discussion will look at what it is that each party believes constitutes evidence.  I am guessing there are wildly divergent views on this.
> 
> Even so, the discussion will probably end with agreement by each that the other is stupid, blinkered, ignorant or dogmatic or some combination thereof.




 Pav has already used the words 'insanity' and 'insane' in reference to those whose views are different to his.

Meanwhile, although he keeps pushing the line that something can't come from nothing (which I happen to agree with), he apparently thinks that the god he believes in came from nothing. 
Either that, or like many people who can't explain how this god was created, he'll tell us that god 'always was'.


----------



## MrBurns (18 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> I'll be back after my India trip guys.
> 
> Cya in about 3 weeks!




No internet in India ?


----------



## tech/a (18 November 2013)

Well I'm a little different to PAV

I don't *need* to know anything.


----------



## bunyip (18 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I put this up as "evidence" that men aside from Jesus may have also had supernatural powers, including coming back to life.  This is not a Buddhism versus Christianity post - I have no affiliations with either religion.  Nor am I arguing the point of whether such powers are real because I have absolutely no idea.  Obviously the idea seems highly improbable to us, but I certainly don't close my mind to it.  Interesting reading anyway...
> 
> ___________________________________________________
> 
> ...



GB – For once I’ve actually read one of your long posts in its entirety. 

These wild beliefs are nonsense, and just like the power of prayer, if you asked for a demonstration to support them, you’d get nothing. 

I acknowledge that you’re not presenting these views as fact, but rather have posted them for the interest of the forum.

The Buddhists have some pretty far out beliefs – a relative whose converted to Buddhism once showed me a booklet they put out about the nine (or is it ten) different hells that await sinners after we depart this life. 
It was so crazy that I formed the view that you’d just about have to be off your head to believe it. Do a Google search on it if you’re interested.


----------



## burglar (18 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> ... he apparently thinks that the god he believes in came from nothing.
> Either that, or like many people who can't explain how this god was created, he'll tell us that god 'always was'.




You say it so much better than me.


----------



## lindsayf (18 November 2013)

There is such a convenient blind leap of logic and rationality to go from 

...things exist...I wonder how it all works....to god created everything..to I know the 'truth' ..Jesus rose from the dead....and I have a relationship with god and my morality is very superior to yours because things are written in ancient manuscripts.

The way the avid religious dismiss counter arguments really leaves no room for further discussion.  Not because they have proven their points beyond refutation but because they make a series of assumptions within closed paradigms that serve to support each other..and because there is a deeply held ( and probably coached (by parents, church, conservative elements in society etc)) desire to believe in the ultimate universal force that will look after them in life and death ....and at a different level to be able to fit in with general community bents along these lines...ie access to community support and for reasons of political expedience.

Seems to me there are few completely honest, untainted stances on such things..but one is..I dont  know so lets get on with living this life well.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 November 2013)

tech/a said:


> Well I'm a little different to PAV
> 
> I don't *need* to know anything.




Letting go of the need to know this and know that is [imo] a very good way to free the mind.  In other words, it can be used to get into the zone (a spiritual practice).  The ego-mind loves to know everything, it loves logic and order and rationality and linearity and predictability.  But only the relative can be known, not the absolute.  The ego-mind is the event horizon.  Pavillion's insistence that he wants answers to all the big questions is exactly what will stop him (or me, or anyone else) gaining access.



bunyip said:


> Meanwhile, although he keeps pushing the line that something can't come from nothing (which I happen to agree with), he apparently thinks that the god he believes in came from nothing.
> Either that, or like many people who can't explain how this god was created, he'll tell us that god 'always was'.




This is the philosophical problem of "infinite regress".  If "something can't come from nothing" is made a rule, then it must apply to everything.  So who made God?  It's turtles all the way down, as they say.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> GB – For once I’ve actually read one of your long posts in its entirety.
> 
> These wild beliefs are nonsense, and just like the power of prayer, if you asked for a demonstration to support them, you’d get nothing.
> 
> ...




They're not presented as beliefs, but facts.  Whether they are facts or not, I have no idea, but I tend to agree you might wait a long time trying to find someone who can perform such feats.  By presenting them I was hoping to demonstrate that history has recorded such feats in non-Christians just as history has recorded resurrection and other miracles performed by Jesus.


----------



## bunyip (18 November 2013)

lindsayf said:


> There is such a convenient blind leap of logic and rationality to go from
> 
> ...things exist...I wonder how it all works....to god created everything..to I know the 'truth' ..Jesus rose from the dead....and I have a relationship with god and my morality is very superior to yours because things are written in ancient manuscripts.
> 
> ...




That’s pretty much how I see things. I don’t know for sure, I don’t need to know and it doesn’t rally matter anyway, so let’s just get on with living this life in the best way we can.

One thing I do know for certain though is that evolution is happening and has been for thousands of years, and the proof (not evidence, PROOF) is all around us to see every day. 
The creationist theory, as it was taught to me during my Christian upbringing at least, is that God created us and the world that we see around us in six days.
Clearly though, both the world and the human race are not the same as they were thousands or even hundreds of years ago – they’ve changed considerably and they’re still changing (evolving) even now.

I remember seeing footage of Jack Dempsey being mobbed by hundreds of fans a few weeks after he became the world heavyweight boxing champion in 1919. Jack stood 6 feet 1 inch tall, and he towered over just about all of his fans. Today a man of that height doesn’t even stand out from the crowd.

In a museum in the northern NSW town of Coonabarabran there’s a skeleton of a prehistoric wombat that was found in the local area. The skeleton is the size of a Shetland pony, compared to today’s wombats that are about the size of a large dog. 
Same story with kangaroos – prehistoric skeletons show that roos were commonly ten feet tall. Compare that to the roos of today that average maybe four feet.

Animals, insects, plants, humans, are all changing and evolving  - the evidence is indisputable.

Evolution refers specifically to changes in biological populations over time. But non-biological changes also occur in our world.

After the floods of 2011 the creek in my area changed course in a number of places. 

An undersea earthquake a few months ago caused a brand new island to rise out of the sea. 
Mountains get smaller each year due to erosion, and in some cases new hills and mountains are formed by volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. 

Clearly then, the evidence shows us that the world and the plant and animal species as we know them today were not created in six days of hard work by some supreme being, but have evolved over many millions of years.

As for how everything started in the first place - I don’t know, Pav doesn’t know, Christians don’t know, scientists don’t know, and neither does anyone else.
Science can tell us, for example, that life on earth stemmed from some cell or some organism, but they can’t tell us how that cell or organism was created.
Christianity tells us that God created everything as we know it, but it can’t tell us how God was created.

I doubt if we’ll ever know, but who cares anyway? Not me. As I said earlier, our best move it just to live this life in the best way we can, and not get too tied up in trying to discover the origin or the meaning of it all.


----------



## bunyip (18 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> They're not presented as beliefs, but facts.  Whether they are facts or not, I have no idea, but I tend to agree you might wait a long time trying to find someone who can perform such feats.




I have to say I’m amused by things that are presented and/or recorded as ‘facts’, but nobody seems to be able to demonstrate them.
The Buddhists, for example believing that a man can sit in a fire and not be harmed, or can live for years without eating or drinking, or can sit out in freezing conditions but not die from hypothermia.

Given that the more fanatical Buddhists spend pretty much all day every day in prayer, one would assume that they'd be able to reach that superhuman state whereby they’d be able to perform these amazing feats, if indeed it was possible to do so.

And yet not one Buddhist today, not a single one, would be able to give a practical demonstration of sitting in fire and being unaffected, or living for years without food and water. 
Therefore, the only reasonable assumptions we can make is that like a lot of things that are written in ancient texts, it’s a load of bulldust.
The only place we can find these amazing feats is in writings, and people can write whatever they want.


----------



## keithj (18 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> Science can tell us, for example, that life on earth stemmed from some cell or some organism, but they can’t tell us how that cell or organism was created.




Scientists are getting closer to creating the building blocks of life from just smashing rocks together.



> The ingredients for life are spread all across our Solar System and indeed the Universe. They include mundane and ordinary chemicals, like ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide.
> 
> Now new research has shown that all you need to turn these boring chemicals into amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, is a shockwave. Specifically, the kind of shockwaves you get when a comet crashes into a planet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ves (18 November 2013)

bunyip said:


> I remember seeing footage of Jack Dempsey being mobbed by hundreds of fans a few weeks after he became the world heavyweight boxing champion in 1919. Jack stood 6 feet 1 inch tall, and he towered over just about all of his fans. Today a man of that height doesn’t even stand out from the crowd.



I'm not in any way weighing into the discussion on evolution,  but I've read differently regarding human height over the centuries.

My understanding is that human height in certain areas of the world is in a constant state of flux that is influenced by all sorts of factors.  Racial miscegenation,  cultural practices of the time,  economic factors of the time etc.  Nutritional factors of the time are especially important. Have a look at some of the studies done on those countries that have experienced sustained famines and see how this effects the average height of the population there.

Compare the average height of the populations of the West in the mid-1800s when Industrialisation was starting to peak and the conditions prevalent in this rapid growth period  vs those of today.

There's plenty of stuff around the web on this subject if you're interested.

Not sure if this helps:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

Have you read anything to the contrary on this subject?


----------



## bunyip (19 November 2013)

keithj said:


> Scientists are getting closer to creating the building blocks of life from just smashing rocks together.





If crashing comets helped create the building blocks of life, where did the comets come from? Who or what created them?
And who or what created this god that some people believe in?
As Pav has told us, and on this point I agree with him, something can't come from nothing.

And while we ponder the beginnings of life on earth, and indeed the origins of Earth itself, how about all the other planets. Scientist believe there are hundreds more planets, maybe even thousands, that haven't been discovered yet. Who/what created them?
And the sun, said to be 100 thousand times the size of the earth - who or what created that?

Maybe I sound like I’m mighty interested in all this stuff, but I’m not really. I pose these questions simply to illustrate that both science and religion are a long way from having all the answers.
Science is at least searching for the answers, learning all the time as they discover new information. 
Religion is learning nothing and never will learn anything as long as it remains rigid and inflexible in its belief that God created the world and the human race as we know them, and that’s all there is to it.


----------



## bunyip (19 November 2013)

Ves said:


> I'm not in any way weighing into the discussion on evolution,  but I've read differently regarding human height over the centuries.
> 
> My understanding is that human height in certain areas of the world is in a constant state of flux that is influenced by all sorts of factors.  Racial miscegenation,  cultural practices of the time,  economic factors of the time etc.  Nutritional factors of the time are especially important. Have a look at some of the studies done on those countries that have experienced sustained famines and see how this effects the average height of the population there.
> 
> ...



No, I haven’t read anything to the contrary.
Increasing height in humans in developed countries may well be related to better nutrition. Poorer nutrition may well have the opposite effect in some countries.

What I was doing however is disputing the Christian belief that what we see in the world today was created by God. Look at a mountain range, and a Christian will tell you God created it. Look at a billabong, and Christians will tell you God created it.
Clearly though, the world and the creatures in it have changed dramatically over millions of years, irrespective of what caused the changes.
If we could go back a million years and see the world and its creatures as it all was back then, I doubt if we’d even recognize it.


----------



## noco (23 November 2013)

The French people are starting to rebel about the Islamic movement. The Muslim population in France is now 10% and growing.

Can this happen here in Australia.....you bet it can.



http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933


----------



## Ruby (24 November 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Just as a brief outline. They were written in the lifetime of eye witnesses and two accounts by eye witnesses. Also the empty tomb. Also this was not a myth that developed over time, it has no time to. It was written in the lifetime of eye witnesses who would dispute any lies.




Pav, there is not one biblical scholar, who has studied the ancient texts and who claims the gospels were eye-witness accounts.  In fact, they don't know who wrote them.  And as I think I can safely assume you are NOT a scholar of ancient texts, I don't think you can claim knowledge than contradicts accepted wisdom.

As for people dying for what they believe in.......... belief is not fact my friend.  History is littered with myths and legends that grew up because an uneducated and gullible population believed stories they were told, which were then passed on orally as fact...........  It happens all the time.  Even you must be aware of how a story can originate with one person, be passed to ten others and come back to the originator with the details vastly changed or embellished.  It's human nature, and what happens with any oral tradition.

Regarding evolution....... you are similarly unqualified to make the sweeping statements you do.   Read some books with an open mind.


----------



## burglar (24 November 2013)

When God created the butterfly, did he create the egg? Or did he create the butterfly?


----------



## Chris45 (29 November 2013)

_*The reincarnated children: New book tells the extraordinary story of the children who believe they are a WWII pilot, star golfer and a Hollywood agent from a past life – and have this scientist utterly convinced.
*_
_'The world just doesn't work as we think or assume it does. The cases I have examined don't come under a normal explanation of how we perceive the world,' said Dr Tucker, the Bonner-Lowry associate Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia.

What he has found is that each child reveals their past life at an extremely young age - at usually two or three - and the memories manifest themselves as unusual episodes of streams of consciousness, recollections and sometimes as intense, thrashing nightmares._

From The Daily Mail, admittedly not the most credible news source in the world, but let's not shoot the messenger.
*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html*

*Jim B. Tucker is the medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.
*
He sounds quite legitimate to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/cl...ychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/staff/jimbio-page

Assuming he's genuine, and this is not part of some elaborate hoax, then when added to all of the other stuff that has been emerging recently, including theories about multiverses etc ... this is definitely food for thought IMO! If he's correct, then again it begs the questions:
(1) Is there an undetected "spirit universe" interwoven with our material universe?
(2) If so, is there structure, law and order in the population of souls that inhabit this "spirit universe"?
(3) If so, is there a supreme leader / president / whatever of this population, and if there is, what is he called?

Perhaps Tech/a could ask Kris to explain Dr. Tucker's quantum mechanical explanation of reincarnation. I reckon that if you mention quantum mechanics in an explanation of something inexplicable, that will probably shut most of the skeptics up, especially the non-scientific armchair philosophers. 

*All parents, especially those of young children with birth marks, should take a keen interest in and record what their kids say about past lives and experiences during their first couple of years of life before their memories are overwritten and lost, instead of just dismissing it as childish nonsense as we usually do.*

It's also in the Bible ... we're told that Jesus Christ is going to be reincarnated sometime in the future. Maybe that's not so inconceivable after all. I wonder if he'll have birthmarks on his body in interesting places?


----------



## trainspotter (29 November 2013)

burglar said:


> When God created the butterfly, did he create the egg? Or did he create the butterfly?




When the butterfly created God, she forgot to put in the egg? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to witness it, did the tree really fall?

Existentialism I think it is called.


----------



## bunyip (30 November 2013)

The Korean girl who was bashed to death in the Brisbane CBD earlier this week was an only daughter and was big sister to twin brothers. She was just 22 years old and a devout Christian. Her family called her ‘Princess’. 
I have a 22 year old daughter myself – I can’t begin to imagine the anguish and heartache her family are going through.

Christianity taught me in early childhood that the Christian god is a god of compassion and love and infinite goodness and power. I learnt that he’ll protect and support you and stand by you in times of trouble if only you’ll believe in him and devote your life to him.
Unfortunately though, the reality is quite different, as the Korean girl and her family found out. 
I daresay there are some Christian folk who are throwing out the usual line about how God must have wanted her to be with him in heaven. I wonder if they can explain why he wanted her so badly that he allowed some mongrel to bash her head in at 4am on a deserted Brisbane street. 
I wonder if they can explain how this God of theirs showed compassion and love by allowing an innocent young girl to die a horrible death, and her family to suffer for the rest of their lives. 

If this Christian god exists - and it’s very doubtful that he does – then he certainly doesn’t possess the glowing qualities that Christianity credits him with.


----------



## Tink (1 December 2013)

Bunyip, thats how it was before the "ten commandments", maybe you want to go back to that lifestyle.

If this monster lived by the 10 commandments, which is now written in every Court, of 'Thou shalt not kill', this girl would still be alive.
This question has been answered a few times in here, if we all lived by those principles, what a perfect place it would be. 

Christianity has shaped the world to what it is today.


----------



## sails (1 December 2013)

Bunyip, I know she was going to work in the CBD but taking a short cut through a park at 4am which would have been dark and deserted of decent people seems a dangerous thing to do, IMO.  Would you be concerned if your daughter did the same?  

God gave us brains and my belief is that he expects us to use them to make sensible decisions.  If I stood in front of a speeding train would you also blame God when I was knocked down?  Being a Christian doesn't mean we can put ourselves into potentially dangerous situations and then blame God for not protecting us. 

Don't get me wrong in that I am sickened at this girl's brutal death and in a perfect world she should be able to walk safely through a deserted park before dawn.


----------



## bunyip (2 December 2013)

sails said:


> Bunyip, I know she was going to work in the CBD but taking a short cut through a park at 4am which would have been dark and deserted of decent people seems a dangerous thing to do, IMO.  Would you be concerned if your daughter did the same?



Of course – my wife and I have implored our daughters to avoid taking unnecessary risks like that. And they don’t.



sails said:


> God gave us brains and my belief is that he expects us to use them to make sensible decisions.  If I stood in front of a speeding train would you also blame God when I was knocked down?  Being a Christian doesn't mean we can put ourselves into potentially dangerous situations and then blame God for not protecting us.



I blame the vermin who bashed her to death, and the girl herself bears some responsibility for her fate by taking such a silly risk.
If I believed in God, which I no longer do, I wouldn’t blame him for her death, but I’d certainly blame him for not caring enough about her to at least tap her on the shoulder (so to speak) and let her know that walking through a park at 4am isn’t such a good idea.

I just don’t go along with this idea that God gave us all brains to think with, and if we don’t use them then we shouldn’t expect any help from him.
If we all adopted that attitude, then there would have been a lot more people drowned in my area in the floods three years ago, because those who helped save people would have said _‘Bugger them – if they’re stupid enough to build on a flood plain near a creek then they shouldn’t expect us to come running to their rescue.’_

My Christian upbringing taught that God is always there to help us and take care of us if we believe in him. I know now that he’s not, but that’s what I was taught and it’s what I believed before my experience of life taught me otherwise.
My beef with Christianity is that it makes so many false promises that just don’t stack up. One of these is the myth about the caring and compassionate God. A compassionate person doesn’t stand by and do nothing while innocent people are bashed to death, or while little kids are horribly abused in their hundreds or thousands by Catholic priests and others in positions of trust, or while innocent people are murdered in their millions because some deranged fascist dictator doesn’t like them or their religion.




sails said:


> Don't get me wrong in that I am sickened at this girl's brutal death and in a perfect world she should be able to walk safely through a deserted park before dawn.




Of course, but we don’t live in a perfect world, which is why decent compassionate people like you and I would have warned her, if we’d had the opportunity, of the dangers of walking through that park. I’d expect no less from God - _*if*_ he exists and if he’s as caring and compassionate as his reputation suggests.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> My Christian upbringing taught that God is always there to help us and take care of us if we believe in him. I know now that he’s not, but that’s what I was taught and it’s what I believed before my experience of life taught me otherwise.
> My beef with Christianity is that it makes so many false promises that just don’t stack up. One of these is the myth about the caring and compassionate God.




Yes, the church lied to you, but not in order to deceive you, they just don't know any better.  Obviously things don't work that way.  Out of great fear comes a desire for a "father figure" God who will protect you if you believe in him.  This is the Christian God.  It's not real.  

The more pressing questions are: Is God real?  Is God entirely different to the one you learnt about in church?  Does God require belief? Is God a person?  Does God have form?  What is the nature of God?  How do I access God (if it's even possible)?  Is God just love?  Is God a super duper form of love?  Is God truth?  Is God inside/outside me?  Where is God right now?  Can God provide for me and protect me?  There are decent answers to all these questions if you are willing to go looking.  Even though Jesus knew what he was on about, none of his followers did, and so the Christian churches have it totally ar$e up.  They are so far off the money it's ridiculous.


----------



## Chris45 (2 December 2013)

Hmmm, not one reaction to my post #1653 about reincarnation. I guess everyone's got me on "Ignore" .


----------



## burglar (2 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Hmmm, not one reaction to my post #1653 about reincarnation. I guess everyone's got me on "Ignore" .




I did ignore the content and/or the validity of said post.
But I have no posters on ignore at the present.


----------



## cynic (3 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Hmmm, not one reaction to my post #1653 about reincarnation. I guess everyone's got me on "Ignore" .



More likely that they found your post largely agreeable as I did.

You'll have to work much, much harder at being controversial in order to graduate to my ignore list!


----------



## bunyip (3 December 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes, the church lied to you, but not in order to deceive you, they just don't know any better.  Obviously things don't work that way.  Out of great fear comes a desire for a "father figure" God who will protect you if you believe in him.  This is the Christian God.  It's not real.





Yes GB, the church lied to me, but I don’t accept that they don’t know any better. They know alright, but they’re so much in love with the idea of this loving, powerful, compassionate friend which they call God, that they just push reality aside so they can go on believing what they want to believe.
People can be like that. Investment gurus are well aware of this quirk of human nature, and they take advantage of it by telling people how they can become wealthy by following some u-bute investment plan that the guru has put together. They reinforce the message with catchy phrases like ‘_your journey to __capitalism’_ (as used by Storm Financial), and in their promotional material they put up photos of expensive boats and cars and happy, smiling people.
In other words they sell a dream, and people fall for it in their thousands, only to find sooner or later that dreams and reality can be very different.

I believe religions are using basically the same strategy to sell the idea of this all-powerful being called God who, if you believe in him and live the life he expects of you, will look after you, show you compassion throughout your life, and give you eternal life in paradise once you depart this world. 
Who wouldn’t want a pal like that? It certainly appealed to me in my younger days when I believed in it all.


----------



## bunyip (3 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Hmmm, not one reaction to my post #1653 about reincarnation. I guess everyone's got me on "Ignore" .




I wouldn’t think so, Chris. You state your views in a courteous and reasonable manner, so I don’t think anyone has reason to put you on ‘ignore’.

As for reincarnation, if it’s for real then I hope I come back as a rainbow lorikeet. My wife and I sit on our deck and watch them with great pleasure as they come into our bird feeder. They’re beautiful to look at, their feisty nature makes them more than a match for the other birds that try to share their feeding space, they sit around and chatter among themselves in the cool leafy branches in the heat of the day, and only come down to feed in the cool of the morning and afternoon. All in all they’ve got a perfect life with no worries about wars or politics or religion or finance.
Eat, drink, sleep, socialise, and breed.....sounds pretty good to me!


----------



## Chris45 (3 December 2013)

cynic said:


> More likely that they found your post largely agreeable as I did.






bunyip said:


> I wouldn’t think so, Chris. You state your views in a courteous and reasonable manner, so I don’t think anyone has reason to put you on ‘ignore’.



Thanks Cynic and Bunyip. I was starting to think I'd become invisible. 

Bunyip, I largely agree with your view of churches. Like Ford and GM etc, they're businesses ... they own property, they employ people and they sell products and it's all a numbers game. Car salesmen (and priests) are naturally going to emphasise the upside of their products and put the finest gloss possible on them and are not going to dwell on the downsides of eg. depreciation and running costs, mechanical failures, accident injuries, etc... but would you abandon your car because it failed to live up to their hype? And would you dismiss an entire brand because one or two of the salesmen were inadequate?

After reading about Jim B. Tucker's research on reincarnation, I'm even more convinced there are two mysterious spiritual forces at work on us, God and Satan, and it's up to us to choose between them. Satan doesn't get mentioned much around here, I wonder why?

The murder of that Korean girl was an horrific crime, as were the recent king-hit killings of the guy in Maroochydore and the youth in Sydney, and I wonder what force drove those scumbag thugs to do what they did.

The rationalists argue that such violent behaviour is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, etc. but if it were that simple why haven't we developed pills to rebalance the chemicals and eliminate such behaviour? Surely such pills would be good earners for "big pharma" and we could save a fortune from being able to close down many of our prisons so wouldn't a pill to eliminate violent crime be a top priority?

Is it just a chemical imbalance, or is an evil force somehow urging these thugs to launch their vicious attacks on innocent people?

If a violent thug under Satan's control targets someone, I suppose God could intervene and vaporise him with a lightning bolt but that would be a bit obvious and simplistic, as would God intervening and saving people and their property every time nature performed one of its routine fire and flooding events.

If God answered everyone's prayers, we'd all be rich, fat and lazy ... and then we'd probably be praying to be made fit and healthy and other things. We'd never be happy, and I don't think that approach would work. Consequently, we're continually being tested and forced to choose between options, which is what I believe this grand experiment is all about.


----------



## trainspotter (3 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> If God answered everyone's prayers, *we'd all be rich, fat and lazy* ... and then we'd probably be praying to be made fit and healthy and other things.




Almost there Chris45 .... it would seem God is predominantly Anglo Saxon with a bit of Mexican and Chilean thrown in

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/517210/20131027/top-10-obese-countries-world-obesity.htm


----------



## Chris45 (3 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> Almost there Chris45 .... it would seem God is predominantly Anglo Saxon with a bit of Mexican and Chilean thrown in



Well there you go!   That's what happens when the false gods McDonalds and CocaCola step in and try to answer the prayers of the poor.


----------



## FxTrader (3 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> After reading about Jim B. Tucker's research on reincarnation, I'm even more convinced there are two mysterious spiritual forces at work on us, God and Satan, and it's up to us to choose between them. Satan doesn't get mentioned much around here, I wonder why?



Probably because the religious mythology surrounding the concept of a Satan is one of the more ridiculous and ludicrous creations of human imagination.  That tormentor of almighty God's creation whose most notable acts were becoming a serpent, tempting God "in the flesh" and of course leading a rebellion in the ether.

The illusion and delusion of a loving God is far more appealing as a concept to attract gullible believers into the cult of religious nonsense.  Fear of Satan's influence is only taken seriously by the most blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated of religious drones these days.  Stick to the infinite loving God theme, that will attract more gullible converts to the flock than any mention of Beelzebub or the magically conjured kingdom of hell.


----------



## burglar (3 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> ... Like Ford and GM etc, they're businesses ...



"A Car is a Car"!
Cars are useful compared to the toxicity of cigarettes, sugar or religion.


----------



## bunyip (4 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Thanks Cynic and Bunyip. I was starting to think I'd become invisible.
> 
> Bunyip, I largely agree with your view of churches. Like Ford and GM etc, they're businesses ... they own property, they employ people and they sell products and it's all a numbers game. Car salesmen (and priests) are naturally going to emphasise the upside of their products and put the finest gloss possible on them and are not going to dwell on the downsides of eg. depreciation and running costs, mechanical failures, accident injuries, etc... but would you abandon your car because it failed to live up to their hype? And would you dismiss an entire brand because one or two of the salesmen were inadequate?
> 
> ...



Chris, I won’t put it quite as bluntly as FxTrader has done, but I have to agree with him that the lack of discussion about Satan is probably because most people regard the concept as just too far-fetched to be worthy of comment.
That’s certainly why I didn’t comment on it, but anyway, I’ll comment now since you’ve broached the topic again. 

I believe that Satan is just another invention of religion to put fear into people for the purpose of keeping them in line. Much as some silly parents try to scare their kids into behaving by telling them the boogey man will come and get them if they don’t behave, religion somewhere along the line came up with the concept of Satan for pretty much the same purpose. And the gullible (no offence intended, Chris) have swallowed it as being true, and have passed it down through the ages in the teachings of Christianity.

This imaginary character Satan is conveniently blamed for everything that’s wrong in the world. People build in fire-prone areas – blame Satan. A Korean girl is killed in a park at 4am by someone who is clearly mentally unwell – blame Satan.
I could give you dozens of other examples, but there’s no need.
I suggest to you, Chris, that there’s not one shred of evidence, not a single one, of the existence of Satan. You think he causes people to build in high fire risk areas like the Blue Mountains. I think a more likely explanation is that people are well aware of the fire risk, but they consider the risk is worth it to live in a beautiful place surrounded by nature. They have fire insurance and they have an emergency plan in place to get them out of harms way if a fire comes through.

I spoke to a couple whose house went completely under water in the flood of January 2011. I asked them why they built right on the creek bank less than 40 meters from a creek that’s prone to flash floods.
They replied that they were at least thirty feet vertically above the creek, their study of flood history told them it would take a one in 100 year flood to reach them, they had insurance and an emergency evacuation plan. All things considered, they considered the risk was worthwhile to live in a beautiful serene setting overlooking the creek, surrounded by birdsong and prolific wildlife. I’m sure they would have burst out laughing if I’d suggested that Satan made them build there.
They could have taken their insurance money and built someone else, but they chose to rebuild their house right where it is, simply because they enjoy living in such a beautiful place.

Perhaps you think Satan’s evil influence was at play in the murder or that Korean girl in the park. I don’t. I think it more likely that the killer was mentally unhinged – his brain wasn’t functioning normally. Some people have hips or knees or feet that don’t function normally. Medical treatment is usually available to fix or at least alleviate the problem. But treatment can be more difficult when the problem is mental rather than physical.
You cast doubt on the theory that mental illness can be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and you suggest that if it was that simple we would have developed pills to restore the chemical balance and fix the mental illness.
Well Chris, you’ll be interested to know that we have in fact invented these pills, and yes, in many patients they do indeed fix up the chemical imbalance, thereby restoring them to people who can behave normally.
But just as you have to keep topping up your garden soil each season to keep a good nutrient balance, so do mentally ill people need chemical top ups to maintain the proper chemical balance in their brains.
That’s no problem when they’re constantly supervised by trained staff in a mental health hospital, but what happens once you let them out? Many of them forget to take their medication, some of them are of low intelligence and are just not capable of handling the responsibility of self-medication. And for some mentally unwell people, treatment just isn’t effective, just as a hip operation isn’t guaranteed to fix every dodgy hip.
Incidentally, I speak with a reasonable amount of knowledge on mental health issues, due to a close relative of mine having a mental health degree and having worked in psychiatric units in the past.


----------



## Chris45 (4 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> I spoke to a couple whose house went completely under water in the flood of January 2011. I asked them why they built right on the creek bank less than 40 meters from a creek that’s prone to flash floods.



Bunyip, I don't think I have ever suggested that Satan was responsible for people building their houses in fire or flood prone areas. The couple you spoke to made a considered decision that proved to be a bad one. People exercise their free will and make good and bad decisions all the time. I don't know what part, if any, God or Satan play in such decision making.

A while ago I walked to the shops to buy some food and got caught in a downpour and was thoroughly soaked. Was that Satan at work? No, it was my own bloody fault for making a stupid decision to ignore the dark clouds accumulating overhead and go for a walk without my umbrella or poncho. There's a vast difference between that and someone making an apparently random decision to brutally assault and kill an innocent person. You think that the Korean girl's killer was mentally unhinged – his brain wasn’t functioning normally. Rationalists like to think that there are logical explanations for everything, and that's one way of explaining it, I suppose.

Jim B. Tucker is the medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. He has a BA Degree in psychology and a medical degree and I presume he is a very intelligent and rational person and is well schooled in the scientific method.

Prof. Tucker is a board-certified child psychiatrist, and worked for several years on reincarnation research with Prof. Ian Stevenson, a Canadian American psychiatrist, who worked for the University of Virginia School of Medicine for 50 years, as chair of the department of psychiatry from 1957 to 1967, Carlson Professor of Psychiatry from 1967 to 2001, and Research Professor of Psychiatry from 2002 until his death in 2007.

Prof. Tucker has spent the past ten-years documenting children who claim to have lived past-lives and has come to the conclusion that reincarnation is real, and after hundreds of case studies, both men believe that unusual birthmarks might match fatal wounds suffered by the deceased.

Read about these men here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Their work seriously conflicts with our simple neat rational explanations of life and death, so do you just dismiss these men as deluded and irrational nutters whose work is of no consequence?

If reincarnation is real then surely that must mean that spirits/souls/whatever are real and not just "one of the more ridiculous and ludicrous creations of human imagination".

If that's the case, then doesn't that open the possibility that all of the other "religious mythology surrounding the concept of a Satan" along with "the illusion and delusion of a loving God" which is "taken seriously by the most blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated of religious drones these days" might not be so ridiculous after all?

Don't forget that there are some very intelligent and rational astrophysicists who are hypothesizing about parallel universes which defy simple logical explanations. Are they all nutters as well?

Thirty years ago, a couple of nutters suggested that peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria, and not stress, spicy foods, and too much acid as everyone knew to be the simple rational explanation. What a lot of nonsense!

A few hundred years ago, some nutters suggested that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. How could any rational person possibly believe such rubbish when the evidence was plain to see?

My point here is that sometimes it's the "blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated" skeptic rationalists with closed minds who are ultimately proven to be the nutters.


----------



## FxTrader (4 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Their work seriously conflicts with our simple neat rational explanations of life and death, so do you just dismiss these men as deluded and irrational nutters whose work is of no consequence?



A specious argument that ends with a rhetorical question.  These men, whatever their academic qualifications, are just another example of otherwise intelligent men pursuing metaphysical explanations for observations they can't currently otherwise explain.



> If reincarnation is real then surely that must mean that spirits/souls/whatever are real and not just "one of the more ridiculous and ludicrous creations of human imagination".



A conclusion based on a false premise.  The subject was Satan, a particularly ugly and imaginary creation of religious mythology for which there is NO evidence for existence.



> If that's the case, then doesn't that open the possibility that all of the other "religious mythology surrounding the concept of a Satan" along with "the illusion and delusion of a loving God" which is "taken seriously by the most blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated of religious drones these days" might not be so ridiculous after all?



Yet another conclusion based on a false premise built upon a previous false premise.



> Don't forget that there are some very intelligent and rational astrophysicists who are hypothesizing about parallel universes which defy simple logical explanations. Are they all nutters as well?



Indoctrinated religious minds frequently equate scientific hypothesis about our universe, it's structure and genesis, with the anti-intellectual and fantastic supernatural claims embodied in religious dogma.  The religious do not "hypothesize" about their beliefs, rather they are certain that they are in possession of absolute truth based on god inspired scribble in iron-age scrolls, a dangerous delusion.                   



> Thirty years ago, a couple of nutters suggested that peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria, and not stress, spicy foods, and too much acid as everyone knew to be the simple rational explanation. What a lot of nonsense!
> 
> A few hundred years ago, some nutters suggested that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. How could any rational person possibly believe such rubbish when the evidence was plain to see?
> 
> My point here is that sometimes it's the "blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated" skeptic rationalists with closed minds who are ultimately proven to be the nutters.



And this bit of silly confused drivel concludes a cacophony of faulty logic and non sequiturs intended to cast doubt on rational thought in favor superstition.  A good example of the flawed and simplistic reasoning deployed by a religious convert to deflect attention away from the absurd and fantastic religious beliefs he is certain must be true because they're written in a magic book.


----------



## Chris45 (5 December 2013)

FxTrader said:


> These men, whatever their academic qualifications, are just another example of otherwise intelligent men pursuing metaphysical explanations for observations they can't currently otherwise explain.



Well ... your mind is obviously firmly closed!


----------



## Tink (5 December 2013)

Agree Chris, I could never be so black and white, but then I have experienced much.
Our experiences are our logic.

There was an article in the paper the other day which I am sure people have seen similar through the years, of a father who lost his son. Four months later, he took a photo of his daughter, and with the highlights of the light, you could see his son behind her.

Dad sees dead son in photo
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/20038668/dad-sees-dead-son-in-photo/

Make of it what you will.


----------



## FxTrader (5 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Well ... your mind is obviously firmly closed!



LOL, and this accusation coming from a slave to religious superstition!  My "mind" is open to evidenced based belief, the stronger the evidence the more likely I will take a view that something is true or correct.  But let's suppose for a moment that reincarnation had a solid base of evidence supporting its existence (which is does not).  How would Christian leaders respond to such evidence I wonder since it's not "biblical".  Would they embrace it as a confirmation of the spirit world or condemn it as being of Satanic origin and a falsehood?  The latter I suspect.  

Even if reincarnation had validity this in itself would not validate ANY of the fantastic stories, claims and tales in the Bible and that should be self-evident to most believers.  I am always amazed that the religious roll out such arguments thinking that they are actually making a valid point in favor of their particular superstitious, faith based beliefs. 

The religious are susceptible to all manner of deception, falsehood and trickery due their willingness to be "open minded" about any supernatural or extraordinary claim as long as it does not overtly conflict with whatever religious doctrine they hold dear.  My life experience has shown me that being sceptical of such claims frees one from a life of servitude to relgious superstition, manipulation by others and false convictions about eternity and the existence of a celestial dictator.


----------



## bunyip (5 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip, I don't think I have ever suggested that Satan was responsible for people building their houses in fire or flood prone areas.




No?



Chris45 said:


> I'm told that Satan is very cunning and mischievous and maybe he puts thoughts into people's minds about where is a nice place to build their houses close to nature, so that when nature does a bit of routine cleansing and maintenance, God will get the blame.







Chris45 said:


> The couple you spoke to made a considered decision that proved to be a bad one. People exercise their free will and make good and bad decisions all the time. I don't know what part, if any, God or Satan play in such decision making.



I don't think they play any role at all, which is why I thought you were off track with your original suggestion that Satan may put thoughts into peoples minds about where is a nice place to build close to nature so that God gets the blame when they get wiped out by fire or flood.



Chris45 said:


> You think that the Korean girl's killer was mentally unhinged – his brain wasn’t functioning normally. Rationalists like to think that there are logical explanations for everything, and that's one way of explaining it, I suppose.




I can't say for sure, but I think  it's a distinct possibility given that mental health issues are frequently involved in violent crimes.



Chris45 said:


> Jim B. Tucker is the medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. He has a BA Degree in psychology and a medical degree and I presume he is a very intelligent and rational person and is well schooled in the scientific method.
> 
> Prof. Tucker is a board-certified child psychiatrist, and worked for several years on reincarnation research with Prof. Ian Stevenson, a Canadian American psychiatrist, who worked for the University of Virginia School of Medicine for 50 years, as chair of the department of psychiatry from 1957 to 1967, Carlson Professor of Psychiatry from 1967 to 2001, and Research Professor of Psychiatry from 2002 until his death in 2007.
> 
> ...




I do hope you realise that the words _'blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated'_ were not used by me.

I may read the works of those men you mentioned - if I can develop enough interest.


----------



## Chris45 (5 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> No?



Ahhh ... mea culpa Bunyip. My humble apologies. 

Upon reflection, that comment may have been off track as you say. 

As with Tink, and I assume many others, my thinking is influenced by my life's experiences and I'm still learning about and trying to understand the mysteries of life and the forces, if any, that influence our decisions and experiences.

Maybe Profs Stevenson and Tucker are also off track with their reincarnation claims, I don't know. I just thought it was intriguing that two prominent psychiatrists would risk their reputations by publishing their research into such a controversial topic.

Yes, I know the words 'blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated' were not yours. You are clearly a much more courteous and reasonable person than the aggressive and intolerant individual who inserted them into the thread (and whom I quoted), along with his other insults, "silly confused drivel concludes a cacophony of faulty logic" and "flawed and simplistic reasoning deployed by a religious convert" plus others that I won't waste time on repeating, but I did find them quite amusing and I had a vision of him hunched over his keyboard grinding his teeth and with puffs of smoke emanating from his ears as he typed. .


----------



## FxTrader (5 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> You are clearly a much more courteous and reasonable person than the aggressive and intolerant individual who inserted them into the thread (and whom I quoted), along with his other insults, "silly confused drivel concludes a cacophony of faulty logic" and "flawed and simplistic reasoning deployed by a religious convert" plus others that I won't waste time on repeating.



True to a degree, the days of my being courteous to those who arrogantly peddle religious myth and poison as reasoned thought here and sermonize in a thread titled "Religion IS crazy" are over.  What you call insults I call observations and a frank analysis of what you have written here.  I happily wear the intolerant tag in the context of the fantastic, supernatural and faith-based claims made by the religious and religion in general without a shred of credible evidence.  Finally, your thinking should be less influenced by pontification from the pulpit or claims made in magic books and more focussed on the pursuit of rational thought.  Until then, enjoy your journey in the fantasy land of religious expression and dogma.


----------



## trainspotter (5 December 2013)

God bless FxTrader for his acerbic wit


----------



## bunyip (5 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> As for the power of prayer, I'm finding that prayer does work well ... if my prayers are reasonable. Giving frequent thanks to God for all of the good things I enjoy in life helps maintain my optimism and inner peace and my reasonable prayers for help are usually answered positively



I too frequently give thanks for all the good things I enjoy in life. But not to God, because I don’t think it was God who provided them. 
I thank myself and my wife and kids for all the hard work we put in planting 100 trees in our garden when we bought an acreage block without a single tree on it 16 years ago. Now people drive into our place and say ‘_Gee you’ve got a lovely place here, it looks like a park’_. 
I think ‘_Yes it does, but a lot of sweat and hard work went into making it that way’. _
And I sure as heck didn’t see God out there raising a sweat with us.

I give thanks for more than 30 different bird species that inhabit our garden and bring us endless pleasure. Here again, I put it down to our hard work in planting lots of bird-attracting trees, and the fact that we feed them every day.
And I don’t go along with the religious view that God made the birds – there’s no evidence whatever to support that theory.

I give thanks that I’ve recovered from Leukemia, but not to God. I thank the medical researchers who developed the treatment that saved my life, and I thank the oncologist and nursing staff for their skill in administering it. And I thank myself for developing the positive attitude that made me hang a punching bag from a shady tree, draw a big ugly leukemia cell on the bag, and slam 5 thousand punches a day into it (yes, 5 thousand!) while I focused my mind on a mental picture of my illness getting hammered into submission at my hands.
I’d be dead by now if I refused medical treatment and relied on God to save me instead, just like many other people who’ve tried it.
When I was in the recovery phase there was one particularly religious relative who would ask me at least once a week how I was feeling. When I said ‘_I’m feeling better all the time’,_ her response would invariably be ‘_Thank God’_. 
I got so sick of it that one day I blew my top and said _‘Look, let’s get real here shall we – where do you think I’d be now if I’d refused medical treatment and relied on God to save me instead? I’d be dead, or close to it, and you and I both know it’!_
But still she insisted ‘_God played a part as well – you couldn’t have got better without his help’._
I got so sick of hearing her giving the credit to God, while giving none to the medical people, that I stopped telling her I was feeling better, and I started telling her ‘_About the same’_ whenever she asked me how I was feeling. At least that silenced her silly ‘_Thank God’_ responses.

I give thanks that my wife and I have children who have grown into mature and responsible young adults. It didn’t happen by accident – we put a lot of work and teaching into bringing up our kids. Without a decent upbringing they might have become junkies or hookers or no-hopers, and God if he exists would have stood by and done nothing to prevent it from happening.

I give thanks to the woman whose been married to me for more than 30 years, and for the way she’s stuck by me and helped us to build a good life together. A few blokes I grew up with chose the wrong woman for a partner, and God sure as heck didn’t tap them on the shoulder and warn them to choose someone else. 

All in all, Chris, you or I or anyone else will usually be thankful for the good things in our lives, and whether or not we believe in God, the good things would still be there anyway because we made them happen. 



Chris45 said:


> As with Tink, and I assume many others, my thinking is influenced by my life's experiences and I'm still learning about and trying to understand the mysteries of life and the forces, if any, that influence our decisions and experiences.



My thinking too has been influenced by my life experiences. But unlike you, I’m not searching for answers to explain the mysteries and the reasons behind it all. I’m not particularly interested, simply because I don’t think it’s important. As I’ve said previously, we’re here in this life regardless of how we or our world got here, and we might as well enjoy it and make the best of it while conducting ourselves as decent people. If we can manage to do that, then I think we can hold our heads up.



Chris45 said:


> Maybe Profs Stevenson and Tucker are also off track with their reincarnation claims, I don't know. I just thought it was intriguing that two prominent psychiatrists would risk their reputations by publishing their research into such a controversial topic.



The interesting thing about their reincarnation theories is that if they’re correct, they contradict the Christian view that if we’re decent people we'll head off to some place called heaven after we die, to enjoy eternal life in paradise.


----------



## burglar (5 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> I too frequently give thanks for all the good things I enjoy in life...




 +one


----------



## Tink (6 December 2013)

Chris, I am strong in my Christian faith, but good on you for expressing your thoughts.

From what I gather, reincarnation is Buddhism based, and where the old saying "He is a wise old soul" comes from.
They believe the soul reincarnates until the soul is perfect and it learns all it needs to learn here, then off it goes.


----------



## bunyip (6 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Chris, I am strong in my Christian faith, but good on you for expressing your thoughts.



I’ll second that. Expressing your view on a public forum can quickly make you a target of heavy criticism and rudeness. But that hasn’t fazed Chris – he (she?) expresses his views anyway, and always courteously and reasonably. I think we should acknowledge here that what Chris posted on reincarnation was not necessarily his view, but was just something that he found interesting and thought he’d share with the forum.
That's what makes forums such interesting places.



Tink said:


> From what I gather, reincarnation is Buddhism based, and where the old saying "He is a wise old soul" comes from.
> They believe the soul reincarnates until the soul is perfect and it learns all it needs to learn here, then off it goes.




The Buddhist belief is that every living creature was something else in a previous life. They won’t kill a single living creature because they believe that if you squash a spider or an ant then you might be squashing something that was once a person – maybe even a deceased family member! 
They also believe that after this life we could be reincarnated as a snake or an ant or a wolf or whatever. Sounds pretty weird to me, but I guess they’re entitled to their beliefs.

I once asked a recent convert to Buddhism what she’d do if termite infestation was ever found in her house - would she call in a pest control company to eradicate them, or would she sit back and do nothing while they ate her house?
Her response was ‘_I won’t get a termite infestation’._


----------



## Chris45 (6 December 2013)

FxTrader said:


> LOL, and this accusation coming from a slave to religious superstition!



What is your justification for that totally absurd and demeaning categorization?



FxTrader said:


> My "mind" is open to evidenced based belief, the stronger the evidence the more likely I will take a view that something is true or correct. But let's suppose for a moment that reincarnation had a solid base of evidence supporting its existence (which is does not).



Clearly your "mind" is *NOT* open to evidenced based conclusions that fall outside your tight little square of beliefs.

Two prominent scientists publish numerous papers and books on their extensive research covering 40 years of investigations into 3,000 cases of children around the world who claimed to remember past lives, and you dismiss them glibly as _"men, whatever their academic qualifications, are just another example of otherwise intelligent men pursuing metaphysical explanations for observations they can't currently otherwise explain."_

What insufferable arrogance you exhibit!!!

Since you are so quick to stereotype and condemn anyone who questions your totally inflexible atheism, any further discussion with you about this issue would obviously be futile.
.......

Thanks Tink. Yes, the Buddhists are strong believers in reincarnation, as are the followers of Eckankar. The Jain Monks even go as far as sweeping ants off their path, and wearing gauze face masks so they don't accidentally inhale and kill insects. That sounds a little extreme, although I must confess I also try to avoid walking on ants and breathing in insects so maybe I'm a reincarnated Jain Monk . If so, I'm failing dismally because I have no hesitation killing things that invade and threaten my house.

The Bible talks about Jesus returning to Earth and I seem to remember reading (or hearing) that Christians will be "raised from the dead" at some stage, but I stand to be corrected if wrong about that. The Bible calls it "resurrection" but I suppose that could be considered a form of reincarnation, don't you think? I'd better not go any further here otherwise I'll be accused of the heinous crime of proselytism.

Bunyip, congratulations for beating your leukemia. It sounds like you used a technique similar to that Dr. Ian Gawler used and you are one of the lucky ones who have survived the disease.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Thirty years ago, my mother developed leukemia and for the final few years of her life I lived immediately next door to her and witnessed her daily battle for survival, which sadly she lost. That was my first encounter with the death of a loved one and how I wish I could go back in time and change a few things! A guy said in a recent movie, "Sometimes we don't appreciate what we've got until we lose it", or words to that effect. How *VERY* true!!!

In addition to her conventional medical treatment, she tried every tactic available to beat it, including brewing and consuming some of the foulest tasting herbal concoctions I've ever encountered. Her efforts paid off and she seemed to be winning the battle until one day her doctor prescribed a blood "top up".

She acquired an infection (early 80s ... HIV, hep C?) and was given a powerful antibiotic which destroyed her hearing in both ears, after which she gave up the fight. At that stage I started to become an atheist.

For about three months, my sister and I took it in turns to sit beside her bed in hospital each night until closing time and give her what comfort we could. Initially we communicated via written notes, then the disease destroyed her vision so we tried maintaining communication by writing with our fingers on her hand and arm. That quickly became too tiring for her so the only option left was to hold her hand and squeeze it to indicate yes or no to her comments and questions.

For three to four hours every second night, I sat beside her and watched a much loved mother waste away as the insidious disease slowly destroyed her until she was little more than a skeleton. I vividly remember her wasted corpse lying on the hospital bed just a few hours after she passed away. One of the nurses had thoughtfully placed a red rose on her chest.

Four months later, I was sitting beside her brother, my much loved uncle, when he exhaled his last breath and died of a cancer. That was an eerie experience.

I disagree with your view of God and I am thankful that, to date, I have enjoyed excellent health and a relatively excellent life but I'm fully aware that at any moment, it could all go horribly pear shaped (like my current physique) but while my mind and body continue to function as normal, I'm thankful. I believe that being thankful to someone (your choice) is good for the mind.

While on the subject of "known unknowns", some years ago I attended a seminar on stock market cycles and it was suggested that cycles also exist in our lives (in addition to the obvious reproductive cycles) but we never bother to look for them. Recently, I decided to investigate this idea and dug out every piece of documentary history I had including photos, bank statements, etc and put the information onto a spreadsheet and then, as objectively as possible, went looking for my cycles. I found them, and I suggest that it's quite an interesting exercise if you can be bothered.


----------



## FxTrader (7 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> What is your justification for that totally absurd and demeaning categorization?




Captive, slave, bondage etc. (in the context of one's thoughts and actions) are terms that I think aptly apply to the religious and their unjustified strong belief in religious myth and superstition. Such faith based confidence in the existence of supernatural beings as depicted in iron-age scrolls and other fantastic claims therein causes many to order their lives according to the edicts written in these texts and, as mentioned previously, susceptible to all manner of deception and faulty reasoning (as you have demonstrated here time after time).  Of course many religious types dismiss the notion that they are captive to superstition and religious dogma but the things that say and do in response to religious teachings clearly reveal lives of religious servitude.



> Clearly your "mind" is *NOT* open to evidenced based conclusions that fall outside your tight little square of beliefs.



Let me help you out here, atheism is a state of non-belief on the basis of lack of credible evidence.  As to the question of so called "research" on reincarnation, if compelling evidence was presented on its existence it would be a very uncomfortable revelation for Christians in particular and throw their faith into turmoil.  In contrast, I would find it quite interesting.



> Since you are so quick to stereotype and condemn anyone who questions your totally inflexible atheism, any further discussion with you about this issue would obviously be futile.



What I am inflexible about is the importance of evidenced based belief.  I don't condemn the religious for disagreeing with me or questioning my logic or conclusions but unlike them I don't believe such disagreement has any consequences for my eternal soul.

It is generally true that discussion about the fallacies of religion with someone who is thoroughly indoctrinated in religious dogma is futile.  Such minds are not just closed, they are conditioned and continuously programmed to believe they have sole possession of absolute truth and only by believing certain things and living in a certain way will you be able to join them in eternal servitude to their particular celestial dictator(s).  This is more than just arrogance, it's a breeding ground for the insanity we see playing out in our world today where people are killing each other (and themselves) over disagreement about competing claims in magic books.


----------



## bunyip (9 December 2013)

Here’s an interesting question that I wonder if religious types have ever thought about.....

*If this place called heaven exists (and I maintain there’s no credible evidence that it does), and if all the good and godly people end up there, how the heck are you all going to get on together?*

We all know people who we simply don’t like - they may be of good character but they’re just not our type. Fortunately we don’t have to live with them. Different story though if we end up in this place called heaven –  there’s bound to be some personality clashes if we’re lumped in with folks who are simply not our type.
And it’s going to be mighty crowded, given that billions of good people are supposedly living there already, and the overcrowding problem will be worsening each day due to many thousands of new arrivals.
Eternal paradise in heaven? One big happy family? I wouldn’t be so sure – even if heaven turns out to be for real.

I once corresponded briefly with a very religious bloke who told me he was looking forward to heading up to heaven when he dies, _to ‘__sit at the right hand of God the father, and help him run his kingdom’._
I suggested to him that this heaven might be a mighty crowded place, maybe there would be many people there who weren’t his type, and there’d be so much competition for God’s attention that he’d be unlikely to even see God, let alone sit beside him and help him to run the show.
I never heard from him again after that – either he found my suggestions too confronting, or he wrote me off as a heretic who was beyond salvation and unworthy of his time.


----------



## trainspotter (9 December 2013)

What God really meant when he created homo sapiens.


----------



## burglar (9 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> ... What God really meant when he created homo sapiens.




Yes! Oliphant is awesome!!


----------



## Chris45 (9 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> Here’s an interesting question that I wonder if religious types have ever thought about.....



Bunyip, perhaps you should ask this guy:

http://www.newsweek.com/proof-heaven-doctors-experience-afterlife-65327

In an article, titled 'The Prophet' in the August 2013 issue of Esquire, contributing editor Luke Dittrich claims to have found inaccuracies in Dr. Alexander’s story. You have to pay to read it but there's a brief summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-debunked-doctor-treated-seven-day-coma.html

A real experience or a meaningless hallucination? You decide.

Trainspotter, see ... even Oliphant understands that intelligent design and evolution work conjointly .


----------



## bunyip (9 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip, perhaps you should ask this guy:
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/proof-heaven-doctors-experience-afterlife-65327
> 
> ...




I'll go with the latter.


----------



## Chris45 (9 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> I'll go with the latter.



Bunyip, have you ever compared the evolution of computerized robots to the evolution of life? The element Silicon is chemically similar to Carbon and there are some interesting similarities between how both life forms have and are evolving, including the concepts of "intelligent design" and "evolution by selection" working conjointly.

Robots have hardware bodies and software operating systems just as we have organic bodies and minds/souls/whatever. If the robot's computer brain or body malfunctions and dies, the software can be transferred from one body to another ... the silicon version of reincarnation perhaps? 

Have you seen what Honda's Asimo is capable of lately?
Soon we will have intelligent drones to deliver our pizzas and parcels.
The US military is currently working on autonomous killer robots.
3D printers are evolving that can print with stainless steel and other metals in addition to plastic.

Probably in the not too distant future, completely autonomous intelligent automatons may evolve that will be able to reproduce themselves inside 3D printers, and then the silicon based artificial life form will be complete.

If they then acquire consciousness and chat amongst themselves one day, I wonder who they will consider to be their God? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, maybe someone else, ... or will they ignore all of the "ancient texts" etc. and decide that they evolved from a primitive semiconductor diode that spontaneously assembled itself in a sand pit somewhere?


----------



## bunyip (10 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip, have you ever compared the evolution of computerized robots to the evolution of life?




No Chris, I haven't, but I'm surprised to hear a Christian like you talking about the 'evolution of life'.



Chris45 said:


> The element Silicon is chemically similar to Carbon and there are some interesting similarities between how both life forms have and are evolving, including the concepts of "intelligent design" and "evolution by selection" working conjointly.
> 
> Robots have hardware bodies and software operating systems just as we have organic bodies and minds/souls/whatever. If the robot's computer brain or body malfunctions and dies, the software can be transferred from one body to another ... the silicon version of reincarnation perhaps?
> 
> ...




To be honest I'm not all that interested. I'm just a pretty laid back sort of a bloke who's thankful for my life and the world I live in, and I try to make the most of it.
How we got here, how our world got here, where we're going - I find all that stuff pretty boring. As far as I'm concerned I got here because my parents had the ability and the desire to reproduce. I don't know where/how/why they got that ability, but I'm pleased they did.
As for where we're going - who knows, but I'm not going to make assumptions based on age old beliefs  that are not backed by credible evidence, and are written in a book that's full of contradictions and hypocrisy and double standards.


----------



## trainspotter (11 December 2013)

Just a thought ..... If God created the universe and everything in it and loves us all like we are his children why did He create our main light source to give us skin cancer?


----------



## burglar (11 December 2013)

I was peeling onions this morn.
This thought occurred to me.

God does exist ... and she is a comedienne!


----------



## Chris45 (12 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> Just a thought ..... If God created the universe and everything in it and loves us all like we are his children why did He create our main light source to give us skin cancer?



Good question!

Also, why did he create irresistibly delicious foods that make us fat and give us heart attacks?

Why didn't he give us a digestive system that just takes what it needs from what we put into our mouths and passes everything else through to the other end?

Why didn't he make our teeth from stainless steel?


----------



## trainspotter (12 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Good question!
> 
> Also, why did he create irresistibly delicious foods that make us fat and give us heart attacks?
> 
> ...




Now you are just being silly ! That is a freedom of choice matter. Adam did have a choice to not take a bite of the apple remember. I am suggesting we do not have a choice to be on this planet with a great big orange thing in the sky burning our skin. Or is it Gods why of saying we have a choice to wear clothes? Hmmmmmm ???


----------



## Chris45 (12 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> Hmmmmmm ???



So many "known unknowns". ... Does "ozone hole" ring a bell? 

An interesting documentary for those interested:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgOBfCrxS3U

Cameron, ever since he was just a toddler, talks about another family he used to live with, called the Robertsons. Cameron knows the names of his previous family, where they lived, and can even describe the house and the landscape of his previous home on the island of Barra, some 200 miles away. But Cameron has never been there. Doctor Jim Tucker, of the University of Virginia, and Cameron's mother travel to Barra with Cameron to find the house, exactly as Cameron described.

This six-year-old boy is called Cameron Macaulay. He is not much different from other boys of his age. What differentiates him from others is that he likes to talk about his "old mum", his former family and a white house standing on the bay. But none of them is related to his current life. The place he is talking about is a place where he had never been in this life and is on the Isle of Barra, 160 miles away from where he is living now. These things make Cameron's mother feel worried.

Cameron spoke about his former parents, how his dad died, and about his brothers and sisters in the previous life. He also said that his "old mum" was the one in his previous life. Cameron believes that he has a previous life and he worries that the family in his previous life misses him. His nursery school teacher told Norma all the things Cameron was saying about the Isle of Barra and how he misses his mummy and his brothers and sisters there.


----------



## bunyip (13 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Good question!
> 
> Also, why did he create irresistibly delicious foods that make us fat and give us heart attacks?




He didn't - these foods are the pies and cakes and pizzas and sugary drinks that are made in factories.
There are many delicious foods that help you to stay slim and avoid heart attacks and many other diseases – most vegetables and most fruits fall into this category.



Chris45 said:


> Why didn't he give us a digestive system that just takes what it needs from what we put into our mouths and passes everything else through to the other end?




We already have the efficient digestive systems you describe, but we cause them to malfunction by overloading them with excessive amounts of fats and sugars that they were never designed to handle.



Chris45 said:


> Why didn't he make our teeth from stainless steel?



No need for stainless steel teeth - tooth decay was unheard of in primitve cultures who ate the natural foods that humans were designed to handle.


----------



## bunyip (15 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> No need for stainless steel teeth - tooth decay was unheard of in primitve cultures who ate the natural foods *that humans were designed to handle*.




Perhaps I should have worded the underlined section as 'that humans were designed - *or evolved* - to handle.'


----------



## Chris45 (15 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> Now you are just being silly !



Of course I was.  I thought the stainless steel teeth would be the clue.

-------
Bunyip, I don't know if you bothered to watch the documentary: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgOBfCrxS3U*

If not, there's a summary here: *http://www.ianlawton.com/cpl2.htm*

One of Dr. Ian Stevenson's papers titled "Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons" is reproduced here: *http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm*

If there's a simple logical explanation for all of this, I'm keen to hear it.

The physicists have been hypothesizing about multiple universes and string theory and now they're telling us that the universe is just a hologram! *http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328*

I don't know about you but I believe our universe is far, far more complicated than we like to think it is and anything is possible.

Don't forget, creation and evolution work conjointly. Eg. people invent (create) things then the "things" evolve and mutate due to natural laws of supply and demand, etc.

Our "things" ... societies, governments, laws, weapons, vehicles, etc. have all been created and have evolved over time. If creation and evolution work conjointly with our creations, why not with life?


----------



## bellenuit (16 December 2013)

*Muslim protesters take to London's streets to demand shops stop selling alcohol*

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-brick-lane-protest-muslim-2926404


----------



## bunyip (17 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> *Muslim protesters take to London's streets to demand shops stop selling alcohol*
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-brick-lane-protest-muslim-2926404



Another step in their objective to convert the entire world to Islam.
And yet we still have the ‘head in the sand brigade’ who are in denial about it.


----------



## bunyip (17 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Of course I was.  I thought the stainless steel teeth would be the clue.
> 
> -------
> Bunyip, I don't know if you bothered to watch the documentary: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgOBfCrxS3U*
> ...




I didn’t Chris, no. Over the years I’ve heard so many fantastic claims regarding creation, reincarnation etc that these days I more or less just shrug my shoulders and walk away, so to speak.
I did read the summary though, since you took to trouble to post the link.
I can see you’re fascinated by this subject.


----------



## Chris45 (17 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> *Muslim protesters take to London's streets to demand shops stop selling alcohol*



After all of the "alcohol fueled" extreme violence that's been reported lately, I'm starting to wonder if maybe they've got a valid point.

On SBS last night there was a documentary about the marijuana experiment in Colorado. With so many young people addling their brains with drugs, what hope have we got?



bunyip said:


> I can see you’re fascinated by this subject.



Yes, when two reputable scientists discover evidence of paranormal activity and, after meticulous investigations and considerations of all possible alternative explanations, come to the conclusion of reincarnation, I'm very fascinated, especially when the other weird theories of strings, mutiverses, holograms etc. are considered. At this stage I don't see a conflict with my Christian beliefs, but all beliefs, scientific ones especially, should evolve and adapt as new discoveries are presented.

I just don't find the simplistic atheistic beliefs in "big bang" and autogenesis very convincing. But, each to his own and if you are happy with shrugging your shoulders and walking away from it all, then of course you are free to make that choice.


----------



## bunyip (17 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> I just don't find the simplistic atheistic beliefs in "big bang" and autogenesis very convincing. But, each to his own and if you are happy with shrugging your shoulders and walking away from it all, then of course you are free to make that choice.




The big bang theory doesn’t convince me either, Chris. But nor do the wild stories in the Bible about God creating the world and its creatures in just six days, Adam and Eve and the serpent in the garden of Eden, Jonah living in a whale as punishment from God, Noah building an ark in just two years that would had to have been bigger than the largest ships of today if it was to accommodate two of every living creature on earth, not to mention food for them for 40 days and nights, not to mention the impossibility of catching two of every living species and getting them aboard his boat, keeping them segregated so they didn’t kill each other...etc etc etc.

I don’t propose to spend my life searching for the truth or the meaning of it all. I’ll leave that to the scientists and the theologians and others whose interest lies in that area.


----------



## bellenuit (17 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> After all of the "alcohol fueled" extreme violence that's been reported lately, I'm starting to wonder if maybe they've got a valid point.




You must be kidding! Did you not read this bit......  _Dozens gathered on Brick Lane to voice their disapproval, and warned retailers they face 40 LASHES if they continue to sell the product._

Our Western freedoms have been hard won and your apparent willingness to throw them away at the behest of ignorant and backward fundamentalist seems strange to say the least.



> I just don't find the simplistic atheistic beliefs in "big bang" and autogenesis very convincing. But, each to his own and if you are happy with shrugging your shoulders and walking away from it all, then of course you are free to make that choice.




*Simplistic* would probably be the most inappropriate word in this case. Although the origin of the universe (or multiverses, should that be the case) is still an open question, those who propose the big bang theory could hardly be accused of adopting a simplistic explanation or worse still a simplistic belief (as the word belief implies there is no evidence to support their theories). Calling that an atheistic belief is ridiculous as many of the scientists who support the theory (or similar theories) are Christian or of other faiths. In fact one of the first to postulate that there may have been a Big Bang that started it all was Georges LemaÃ®tre, a Belgian priest. The Big Bang is, going by an interview with the Chief Vatican Scientist that I recently saw, also accepted as a plausible possibility by the Catholic Church, though they assume that their God instigated it. You can read more on Georges LemaÃ®tre here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_LemaÃ®tre

As to *simplistic*, the big bang explanation is the end result of the experimentation, calculations and discoveries of some of the greatest minds that the world has produced in the last 100 years and to properly understand their theories requires a knowledge of science that only few possess. I regard myself as having a pretty good understanding of science (for a well educated intelligent layman) and I read a lot on the subject of the origins of the universe, but find at best I only have a superficial understanding of what the scientists are saying

The only thing that comes across as simplistic to me is your casual dismissal of the body of knowledge on the subject that we have accumulated in the last 100 years or so.


----------



## Tink (18 December 2013)

Bellenuit, I agree with Chris sentiments regarding alcohol and drugs in society, with freedom comes responsibility and its not happening.

4 years for killing someone with alcohol fueled violence and drugs, whose freedom?
Not the law abiding ones..


----------



## Surly (18 December 2013)

Whether it is the big bang theory or that the universe was made by god, both leave questions begging.

What was before the big bang or who made god?

As an analogy, I am happy watching television with out needing to know the intricacies of how it works. I certainly don't need to read a fictional book written by someone who also does not know how TV works, trying to explain it. While I would prefer the words of a scientist from an age that does not know how TV works, but has at least applied scientific methods to his investigation, this is also not a real explanation just a theory.

Cheers,
Surly


----------



## Chris45 (18 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> nor do the wild stories in the Bible



Bunyip, I am also not convinced by those "wild stories" in the Old Testament and I tend to think of them more as myths rather than hard historical facts. I think they are open to interpretation and were probably designed to get some basic messages across to the unsophisticated people of the time, but I have not studied the Old Testament in detail so I can't speak with any authority.

When I went to church as a teenager, little time was spent discussing the Old Testament and the focus was on Christ's teachings in the New Testament which is what Christianity is all about. However, I wouldn't dismiss the entire Bible just because of the Old Testament.



bellenuit said:


> You must be kidding! Did you not read this bit......  _Dozens gathered on Brick Lane to voice their disapproval, and warned retailers they face 40 LASHES if they continue to sell the product._
> 
> Our Western freedoms have been hard won and your apparent willingness to throw them away at the behest of ignorant and backward fundamentalist seems strange to say the least.



Bellenuit, "alcohol fueled" violence is pervasive in our society these days due largely to alcohol vendors being able to sell their alcohol at all hours, so that irresponsible young people can binge-drink all night long and abuse it as a drug to "get off their faces". Given the facts that *one in eight deaths* of Australians aged under 25 is now related to alcohol consumption, and on average *four young people die each week* as a consequence of "alcohol fueled" violence, do you seriously say that's a *hard won freedom* we should cherish? What sort of person are you?

As Tink says, _"with freedom comes responsibility"_. A glass or two of red wine with a meal is healthy, but consuming alcohol as a drug is certainly not. The alcohol industry has far too much freedom in our Western society and excessive alcohol consumption is destroying people's lives, and our society. No longer can people go out for a joyous evening celebration with friends without the very real threat that they might end up being killed by someone under the influence of alcohol.

I did *NOT* say I agreed with the Muslim's demands to prohibit *all* sales of alcohol and punish retailers with 40 lashes, however since you mentioned the 40 lashes, the idea of thrashing those drunken violent thugs who go around mindlessly king-hitting people and stomping on their heads sounds quite appealing! At least it would deliver more justice to the unfortunate victims than our limp-wristed, bleeding heart legal system does.



> *Simplistic* would probably be the most inappropriate word in this case.



You are nitpicking about my use of *simplistic*. What I was referring to was that your average, largely uninformed, atheist believes it as *fact* that an unexplained Big Bang produced stars and planets, and then autogenesis mysteriously produced life and ultimately us here on Earth. These are still *theories*, but are being accepted by many people incorrectly as *facts*. Compared to what has been emerging lately about dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, the accelerating universe, multiverse, holographic universe, etc. ... and now reincarnation, don't you think the belief that your average atheist holds, that everything has been explained by these theories, is a little simplistic?

The Big Bang theory is certainly based on a huge body of scientific observation and thinking by the some of the greatest minds that the world has produced in the last 100 years, as you correctly say, but it's still only a *theory* and unfortunately is now starting to develop some inconvenient cracks. The Big Bang theory has some merit if you can handle the concept of all the matter in the universe commencing from a form smaller than a subatomic particle called a singularity, and time only coming into being as that primordial singularity expanded toward its current size and shape. But what I don't find at all convincing is the theory of autogenesis/abiogenesis/spontaneous generation, whatever you like to call it because, apart from the Miller-Urey experiment, there's no other evidence to support it.

*Simplistic* is a relative term. One hundred years ago when Niels Bohr introduced his shell model of the atom involving protons neutrons and electrons, which at the time were believed to be the fundamental particles of matter, it was a masterpiece of scientific thinking for which he won a Nobel Prize, and rightly so. However, in the light of current atomic and nuclear theory, doesn't the Bohr model now look a little simplistic, or do you still think of atoms as like little solar systems with electrons orbiting the nuclei like tiny planets?

Now, do you have anything intelligent to say about Stevenson's and Tucker's work on reincarnation, or is your focus on nitpicking?


----------



## Chris45 (18 December 2013)

Surly said:


> Whether it is the big bang theory or that the universe was made by god, both leave questions begging. What was before the big bang or who made god?



One of Donald Rumsfeld's greatest contributions was his classification system involving "known knowns" etc.

There are logically four categories in this system and the two I find most intriguing are "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns".

What was before the Big Bang is a "known unknown", but one suggestion I heard was that our universe came into being when two other universes collided resulting in a humongous release of energy that transformed into matter and antimatter. Another suggestion was that our universe is just an elaborate computer simulation. Pull together the ideas behind the movies "The Truman Show" and "The Matrix" to get the idea.

Questions about the creation of God fall into the category of "unknown unknowns" as far as I am concerned, but I don't accept the notion that God was created by man.


----------



## bunyip (19 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> I did *NOT* say I agreed with the Muslim's demands to prohibit *all* sales of alcohol and punish retailers with 40 lashes, however since you mentioned the 40 lashes, the idea of thrashing those drunken violent thugs who go around mindlessly king-hitting people and stomping on their heads sounds quite appealing! At least it would deliver more justice to the unfortunate victims than our limp-wristed, bleeding heart legal system does.



I agree, and the thrashing should be extended to the money-hungry politiciians who have progressively extended pub and club hours over the years so that more alcohol is sold, hence more revenue for government.
And another class of person who deserves a good thrashing is the judges who hand out lenient sentences to boozed up, violent idiots.



Chris45 said:


> Questions about the creation of God fall into the category of "unknown unknowns" as far as I am concerned, but I don't accept the notion that God was created by man.



Did I miss something here - I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that god was created by man. Or were you referring to the concept of god being dreamed up by men, just as various other gods have been dreamed up by various peoples over time?


----------



## Chris45 (19 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> Or were you referring to the concept of god being dreamed up by men,



Yes. "Man created God in his own image" is the atheist's twist of Genesis 1:27.


----------



## Tink (20 December 2013)

Hear Hear, Chris, great posts 

Agree with the 40 lashes, a better deterrent than whats happening now.


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2013)

*Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ncer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

Next it will be threats of 40 lashes for those muslim store staff who choose to serve alcohol or pork to supermarket customers. 

How stupid have our politically correct society become. Will vegans be allowed not to serve meat to customers? How about a female muslim cashier not serving an unrelated male customer? If it were a bookshop, could muslims refuse to sell a bible or perhaps a book by Richard Dawkins to a customer? Some Christians may take offence with selling books on evolutions to customers.

It is the same as the selling alcohol issue discussed above. Though many societal issues may be alcohol related, bowing to the demands of ignorant religious fanatics is not the solution. We should value our freedoms and tackle any problematic side effects in an intelligent manner consistent with our values as a society. Temporarily siding with the fanatics because one shares a common adversary (alcohol in this case) even though their objections are based on adherence to some barbaric book and our objections are related to potential social problems is not the way to go. Those who advocated giving 40 lashes to those who legitimately sell alcohol should be condemned, not encouraged by suggesting they may have a point.


----------



## McLovin (23 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> *Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork*
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ncer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html
> 
> ...




I'll file that under political correctness is crazy. Seriously, if you're uncomfortable selling a company's products, don't work for the company.

I'm in Germany now and it's been wurst and beer for the last few days.


----------



## Tink (23 December 2013)

Bellenuit, do you think the justice in this country is fair?

The rise of the 'untamed' is unsettling, and I am not just talking the young in society, its through all generations, even the politicians, namingly the labor party and their disgusting language and behaviour.

So do you tackle the company and punish everyone, or the people, that have no responsibilities or respect for others?

No one is talking about dishing out Muslim justice, but there needs to be changes somewhere, in my view.


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, do you think the justice in this country is fair?
> 
> The rise of the 'untamed' is unsettling, and I am not just talking the young in society, its through all generations, even the politicians, namingly the labor party and their disgusting language and behaviour.
> 
> ...




I agree and that is what I more or less said: _Though many societal issues may be alcohol related, bowing to the demands of ignorant religious fanatics is not the solution. We should value our freedoms and tackle any problematic side effects in an intelligent manner consistent with our values as a society._

However, everyone should take a stand against the erosion of our liberty by those who place no value on it whatsoever and in fact think our liberty abhorrent as it creates obstacles in the way of enforcing compliance with their stone age doctrines. Even though the end effect of their abhorrent actions may in some way be beneficial to society (e.g. diminished theft when punishment involves cutting off the hands of the thieves), they should be afforded no support whatsoever. This is not a situation where we should be saying "my enemies enemy is my friend". Islamic fanatics will never be your friend.


----------



## Chris45 (23 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> We should value our freedoms and tackle any problematic side effects in an intelligent manner consistent with our values as a society.



So, just how should we be intelligently tackling the increasing problems of drug and alcohol abuse and the sickening violence we are continually being confronted with, without eroding our liberties ... in your opinion? Do you have any workable solutions to offer?


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> So, just how should we be intelligently tackling the increasing problems of drug and alcohol abuse and the sickening violence we are continually being confronted with, without eroding our liberties ... in your opinion? Do you have any workable solutions to offer?




When I talk about liberties that we have obtained over time, I am referring to free speech, religious freedom, sexual and racial equality etc. Freedoms that do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. I do not regard the ability to inflict violence on others as a right (or a freedom we should have) nor is abusing the use of alcohol or drugs to the extent that it can harm others (or harm oneself in particular circumstances). 

We already know that existing laws  could be enforced better. Judges shouldn't be so lenient. This is something that we as a society have been arguing about for years. 

Do we do like they do in Singapore where corporal punishment is an accepted practice for such crimes? Maybe. In particular circumstances some form of corporal punishment administered humanely (if such a thing is possible) may be the right course of action. We as a society have to decide whether the means justify the ends. But even if we were to lean more towards the justice system in Singapore, that is vastly different to the point of this sub thread. We are talking about punishment for doing nothing other than going about ones legal business, not punishment for breaking the law.

To get back on point. If as a society we come to the conclusion that allowing alcohol to be sold through liquor stores  is detrimental to our society taking everything into account, then perhaps the intelligent answer is to ban the sale of alcohol through liquor stores. We are trading off the freedom to purchase alcohol when and where desired against the reduction in street violence. This is the same as the restriction on the purchase of guns. We reduce violent crime but restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens who might use guns responsibly. Whether the unrestricted sale of alcohol or the unrestricted access to guns is right or wrong is something we as a society must decide weighing up all the pros and cons. That is what I mean by intelligently tackling the issues in a manner consistent with our values as a society. However, if (as is currently the case) the sale of alcohol to adults is legal through registered liquor stores, then threatening to give 40 lashes to the owner and/or employees of the store who are simply doing their job is something that should be condemned. It is barbaric and the product of a value system that we left behind in the dark ages. It is not something that should be encouraged. And remember these are the same people who demand the beheading of people who insult (by their definition) Allah and the stoning of homosexuals. I, for one, have no qualms in condemning those who are making those threats.


----------



## burglar (23 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, I agree with Chris sentiments regarding alcohol and drugs in society, with freedom comes responsibility and its not happening.
> 
> 4 years for killing someone with alcohol fueled violence and drugs, whose freedom?
> Not the law abiding ones..




One can only hope they have a very bad 4 years!


----------



## Chris45 (23 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> When I talk about liberties that we have obtained over time, I am referring to free speech, religious freedom, sexual and racial equality etc. Freedoms that do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.



Well, I think we have found some common ground here. And for the record, while I sometimes make tongue-in-cheek comments, eg about the 40 lashes, I basically agree with your views of the Muslims and their archaic sharia law and I certainly do not endorse their extreme and barbaric punishments. (However 40 lashes for people selling Richard Dawkins books does have a certain appeal. ) 



> Do we do like they do in Singapore where corporal punishment is an accepted practice for such crimes? Maybe. In particular circumstances some form of corporal punishment administered humanely (if such a thing is possible) may be the right course of action.



Many "baby boomers" attended secondary schools where corporal punishment was used responsibly and would agree that it was an effective deterrent for misbehaviour ... it certainly worked for me! I had a maths teacher who used to strap any student who didn't complete the homework exercises he set. Consequently the highest grades I ever received in *any* subject were in his maths class. We all hated him at the time but when I look back now I see him as one of the most effective teachers I ever had.

I believe that a wide leather strap, not a hard cane, should still be available in high schools today for use by authorized teachers, and just the knowledge that it's there would deter a lot of the misbehaviour that is destroying the learning environment in today's classrooms. In the case of recurring and/or serious misbehaviour, obviously the underlying causes should be investigated rather than just escalating the punishment.

However the problem today is that many schools are now staffed almost entirely by women, many of whom strongly oppose corporal punishment under any circumstances and favour the "let's sit down and discuss this" approach. Added to that we have the current limp-wristed legal system that favours "soft sentences" and "suspended sentences", plus incompetent magistrates who rule that it is OK for hooligans to tell police to F*** OFF, and the criminal sanctions imposed on police who resort to imposing their own justice on deserving "suspects", etc. and you end up with the mess we're in today. How often have we heard of young hooligans grinning and high-fiving as they walk out of a court house after their slap-on-the-wrist.

I would like to know how Singapore's corporal punishment system is working for them. I saw a Malaysian caning on YouTube and it was very brutal and I'd like to know how effective it is, but not just from the bleeding-heart, leftist civil libertarians who just condemn everything but offer no realistic alternatives.



> If as a society we come to the conclusion that allowing alcohol to be sold through liquor stores  is detrimental to our society taking everything into account, then perhaps the intelligent answer is to ban the sale of alcohol through liquor stores.



Have we concluded that the problem is the sale of alcohol through liquor stores? I think many responsible consumers purchase their liquor from stores like Dan Murphy's and BWS because of the discounts they offer. Would you deny them that opportunity?

Given that most of the alcohol-fueled violence occurs after midnight, my understanding is that the problem is to do with the trading hours of pubs and nightclubs, and perhaps liquor stores, and their reluctance to restrict sales to their inebriated customers, added to the free availability of drugs in these establishments, perhaps even with their approval as part of some business arrangement with the dealers.

Do you agree or disagree and what solutions do you offer?


----------



## CanOz (23 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Given that most of the alcohol-fueled violence occurs after midnight, my understanding is that the problem is to do with the trading hours of pubs and nightclubs, and perhaps liquor stores, and their reluctance to restrict sales to their inebriated customers, added to the free availability of drugs in these establishments, perhaps even with their approval as part of some business arrangement with the dealers.




I don't want to take this too far off topic, however it just crossed my mind that in Phuket Province in Thailand, the party just gets going after midnight yet there is little in the way of violence. Is this because there is a reluctance to cause trouble while in another country? Honestly, I've been to Thailand over a dozen times by myself, with friends or with my wife...I've not seen so many happy people drinking themselves completely stupid...maybe its the Buddhist culture?


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Have we concluded that the problem is the sale of alcohol through liquor stores? I think many responsible consumers purchase their liquor from stores like Dan Murphy's and BWS because of the discounts they offer. Would you deny them that opportunity?




I was speaking hypothetically..... *If as a society we come to the conclusion that allowing alcohol to be sold through liquor stores is detrimental to our society taking everything into account, then perhaps the intelligent answer is to ban the sale of alcohol through liquor stores.* ...... and it was purely to differentiate between what might be an appropriate action consistent with our societal values (not allowing such sales) and what would be an inappropriate action (40 lashes to store employees) 



> Given that most of the alcohol-fueled violence occurs after midnight, my understanding is that the problem is to do with the trading hours of pubs and nightclubs, and perhaps liquor stores, and their reluctance to restrict sales to their inebriated customers, added to the free availability of drugs in these establishments, perhaps even with their approval as part of some business arrangement with the dealers.




That may be the case, but my postings on this thread have not been in relation to alcohol fuelled violence, but in relation to the threats from islamic fundamentalists which IMO are a separate issue. The threats are not in reaction to the issues you raised but are to enforce compliance with sharia law in a country that is basically secular and in which they are the minority. 



> Do you agree or disagree and what solutions do you offer?




Again, you may be right. It is not something I have paid much attention to as I have never come across it in real life other than through TV news items. I would not deem myself knowledgeable enough on the issue to suggest solutions.


----------



## burglar (24 December 2013)

CanOz said:


> I don't want to take this too far off topic, however it just crossed my mind that in Phuket Province in Thailand, the party just gets going after midnight yet there is little in the way of violence. Is this because there is a reluctance to cause trouble while in another country? Honestly, I've been to Thailand over a dozen times by myself, with friends or with my wife...I've not seen so many happy people drinking themselves completely stupid...maybe its the Buddhist culture?




I won't visit Thailand but ...

I do commend anyone who stops dreaming and just does it!
A Walter Mitty moment!!


----------



## Chris45 (24 December 2013)

CanOz said:


> I don't want to take this too far off topic, however it just crossed my mind that in Phuket Province in Thailand, the party just gets going after midnight yet there is little in the way of violence. Is this because there is a reluctance to cause trouble while in another country? Honestly, I've been to Thailand over a dozen times by myself, with friends or with my wife...I've not seen so many happy people drinking themselves completely stupid...maybe its the Buddhist culture?



Good point! There are frequent alcohol related deaths and injuries there, and also in Laos, but mainly due to drownings and accidents I think, not the sort of sickening violence we have here, although:

_"Australia has installed a consular presence at nearby Samui island to deal with the traffic in serious incidents: drug arrests, alcohol-related motorbike accidents, injuries from party activities, *physical and sexual assaults, fights,* spiked drinks, thefts, and ferry and boating accidents."_

_"Dr Nick Connor, who works at the Bandon clinic behind Haad Rin beach, confirms that drunkenness is the primary cause of disaster. “Hard drugs are difficult to get here. There’s been a crackdown. Heroin, cocaine, you just don’t see them."_

_"The worst thing I saw was a Thai guy violently kicking another man who was curled on the ground in a fetal position in the midst of drunk people, and no-one was stepping in to help"_

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/dark-side-of-the-moon/story-e6frg8h6-1226031381017

There is violence, but Asians tend to smile and laugh a lot, could that also be a factor along with the different culture and absence of hard drugs?


----------



## DB008 (27 December 2013)




----------



## cynic (27 December 2013)

DB008 said:


>




DB,

Thankyou for sharing yet another fine example of a pseudo scientist making bold declarations of ignorance.

If a person could demonstrate that there is at least one biblical passage that demonstrated the existence of scientific knowledge, millenia ahead of its rediscovery by the modern western scientist, would you be willing to entertain the possibility that there might be a lot more to religion than certain (not all) atheists would have you believe?


Would anyone here care to know of the error to which I allude? (An elementary understanding of biological and chemical concepts, coupled with analytical skills and an approach to enquiry that is devoid of cognitive bias, should suffice for this error's discernment.)


----------



## Chris45 (28 December 2013)

cynic said:


> Would anyone here care to know of the error to which I allude? (An elementary understanding of biological and chemical concepts, coupled with analytical skills and an approach to enquiry that is devoid of cognitive bias, should suffice for this error's discernment.)



I would certainly "care to know", or should that be, "like to know" ... I'm not quite sure what you mean by that question.

Would you please give us a few more clues?


----------



## cynic (28 December 2013)

Thanks for your interest Chris.

(It sure is nice to know that there's at least one member of ASF that is yet to place me on ignore.)

The next clue:

24 - 1 = 23

(Note the anatomical significance of those numbers and their presence in a certain biblical passage.)


----------



## bellenuit (28 December 2013)

cynic said:


> Thanks for your interest Chris.
> 
> (It sure is nice to know that there's at least one member of ASF that is yet to place me on ignore.)
> 
> ...




So you think the Biblical myth of Eve being made from the rib of Adam has significance?

Why don't you quit the teasing and say what you want to say.


----------



## cynic (28 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> So you think the Biblical myth of Eve being made from the rib of Adam has significance?
> 
> Why don't you quit the teasing and say what you want to say.




Yes! Highly significant!

I am hopeful that others will be able to appreciate the true intent of this account!  

As such I would prefer that others arrive at an understanding of it for themselves. That way it will be less likely to be dismissed out of hand (as has all too often been the case throughout history)!


----------



## bellenuit (28 December 2013)

cynic said:


> Yes! Highly significant!
> 
> I am hopeful that others will be able to appreciate the true intent of this account!
> 
> As such I would prefer that others arrive at an understanding of it for themselves. That way it will be less likely to be dismissed out of hand (as has all too often been the case throughout history)!




Adam and Eve have been dismissed by the Vatican as mythology. Even Cardinal Pell said it on Q & A when he and Dawkins were on it together early last year.

Are you suggesting the story is true and if so, why?

(BTW, I can see why you think people have you on ignore. If it takes you 3 or 4 posts just to get to the point of what you are trying to say, then people probably couldn't be bothered interacting with you. We still don't know what you are suggesting in these series of posts).


----------



## cynic (28 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Adam and Eve have been dismissed by the Vatican as mythology. Even Cardinal Pell said it on Q & A when he and Dawkins were on it together early last year.
> 
> Are you suggesting the story is true and if so, why?
> 
> (BTW, I can see why you think people have you on ignore. If it takes you 3 or 4 posts just to get to the point of what you are trying to say, then people probably couldn't be bothered interacting with you. We still don't know what you are suggesting in these series of posts).




There is truth expressed in a symbolic way within the account.

I understand the frustration that others experience in communicating with me, having experienced the same frustration when attempting to be understood plainly - hence my cryptic approach.

Thanks for persevering with me on this. 

What is your understanding of the significance of the number 23? How might this relate to a process whereby a male might be transmuted into a female? 

P.S. I have a fairly low opinion of the capacity of either Pell or Dawkins to engage in objective enquiry. Both of their respective religions (Catholicism and Science) deserve better representation.


----------



## bellenuit (28 December 2013)

cynic said:


> There is truth expressed in a symbolic way within the account.
> 
> I understand the frustration that others experience in communicating with me, having experienced the same frustration when attempting to be understood plainly - hence my cryptic approach.
> 
> ...




Don't worry, I am no longer persevering. I don't intent to discuss this further until you get to the point. And BTW, in case your are leading to it in some way, the Bible did not say Adam was transmuted into Eve.


----------



## cynic (28 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Don't worry, I am no longer persevering. I don't intent to discuss this further until you get to the point. And BTW, in case your are leading to it in some way, the Bible did not say Adam was transmuted into Eve.




Of course you're not going to persevere any further! You no longer need to! My last two questions directed you right to it!!

As to what existing translations of the bible actually say, on more than one occasion, I've observed conflicting translations of the same passages. It is important to bear in mind the timespan and chain of diverse societies through which this information has been conveyed.

My belief is that the passage in question was originally intended to convey something akin to the following:

"Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."

The ease with which such a statement could be mistranslated into things written in current day biblical texts will undoubtedly be apparent. 

As in many historical and/or philosophical texts, numbers can provide a valuable clue, one that often survives the corruption of mistranslation throughout the ages.


----------



## bellenuit (28 December 2013)

cynic said:


> "Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."




Actually the Bible refers to the removal of 1 item from a set of 24 components of this item that Adam had. 23 doesn't come into it other than as a left over quantity.

Perhaps you need to go back to the drawing board and reassess your mystical number 23.


----------



## cynic (28 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Actually the Bible refers to the removal of 1 item from a set of 24 components of this item that Adam had. 23 doesn't come into it other than as a left over quantity.
> 
> Perhaps you need to go back to the drawing board and reassess your mystical number 23.




Please give due consideration to my comments regarding translation throughout ages and societies!

Imagine a medieval monk translating an ancient language equivalent of my statement! 
There he is wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 23 components of a man. Bearing in mind that he has no knowledge of chromosomes, said monk erroneously concludes that the statement must be in reference to the human ribcage after removal of one of the ribs!


----------



## bellenuit (29 December 2013)

cynic said:


> Please give due consideration to my comments regarding translation throughout ages and societies!
> 
> Imagine a medieval monk translating an ancient language equivalent of my statement!
> There he is wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 23 components of a man. Bearing in mind that he has no knowledge of chromosomes, said monk erroneously concludes that the statement must be in reference to the human ribcage after removal of one of the ribs!




No, he wouldn't be wondering that. He can count his own ribs and know there is 24. So if the Bible said:

_"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept;  and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.  Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;  She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'"_ (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)

... he would not be wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 23 components of a man. He might be  wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 24 components of a man. Your statement is nonsensical. First you say he is wondering about the removal of an item from the 23 components of a man. Then you say that 23 is in reference to the ribcage after the removal of one rib. If you start with 23 and take away one, you end up with 22. 

You have obviously screwed up on the significance of 23, something which the Bible does not refer to at all in that passage (unless you can produce some text that was mistranslated).

However, if you think all that Bible text is not in relation to ribcages, then spell out what you are saying. You are becoming tedious to the extreme.


----------



## cynic (29 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> No, he wouldn't be wondering that. He can count his own ribs and know there is 24. So if the Bible said:
> 
> _"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept;  and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.  Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;  She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'"_ (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)
> 
> ...




As to the significance of 23, did you fail to notice the inclusion of the word "chromosomes" in my medieval monk hypothesis?

Which statement is more nonsensical?

My claims that this passage is simply a mistranslation of an otherwise accurate account of the chromosomal constitution of mankind,

or the insistence of certain (not all) atheists that an ancient account, predating modern English by many millenia, can somehow retain sufficient integrity to be debatable on the exact wording of one of its modern English translations?


----------



## Ruby (29 December 2013)

cynic said:


> As to the significance of 23, did you fail to notice the inclusion of the word "chromosomes" in my medieval monk hypothesis?
> 
> Which statement is more nonsensical?
> 
> ...




Cynic - no, I had not failed to notice you are trying to draw a correlation between the remaining 23 ribs and the 23 chromosomes contributed by the male and the female, but I think you are drawing rather a long bow!!  You  are trying to manipulate data to fit neatly into your hypothesis.


----------



## bellenuit (29 December 2013)

Ruby said:


> Cynic - no, I had not failed to notice you are trying to draw a correlation between the remaining 23 ribs and the 23 chromosomes contributed by the male and the female, but I think you are drawing rather a long bow!!  You  are trying to manipulate data to fit neatly into your hypothesis.




More than that, there is no 23 anywhere. Adam's contribution was 1 rib, not 23. If the monk was mistranslating, where is he getting this magical 23 from. Both man and woman have 24 ribs, 12 pairs of two. If the monk misunderstood rib when chromosome was meant, then it still does not explain why the Bible only mentions taking just 1 item of this chromosome to form a woman. Was that a mistranslation too?

Your mystical number is 1 and I am sure there are millions of genetically related examples of *1* of some item being contributed or passed on to subsequent generations that would be far more relevant than what you are alluding to.


----------



## Chris45 (29 December 2013)

cynic said:


> My belief is that the passage in question was originally intended to convey something akin to the following:
> "Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."
> The ease with which such a statement could be mistranslated into things written in current day biblical texts will undoubtedly be apparent.



Cynic, would you kindly give the Biblical reference behind your quote. I only know Genesis 2:21-23.

All normal humans, both male and female, have 12 pairs of ribs and 23 pairs of chromosomes. The only difference is in the 23rd pair of chromosomes, the sex chromosomes. The Y chromosome in males is shorter than the corresponding X chromosome in females, but both males and females have the same number of ribs and the same number of chromosomes.

However ... in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in 2001, two professors published a letter which describes their hypothesis that Genesis 2:21-23 doesn’t mean Eve came from one of Adam’s ribs, she came from his baculum.

The baculum is a bone found in the penis of many placental mammals. It is absent in the human penis, but present in the penises of other primates, including our nearest evolutionary neighbors, the *gorilla* and *chimpanzee*. The bone aids sexual intercourse by maintaining sufficient stiffness during sexual penetration.

The authors then continue to support their argument with alternate translations of the Hebrew word for “rib” (which they say could mean “support beam”) and claim the *raphe* of the human male scrotum is what Genesis 2:21 is referring to when it says “The Lord God ... closed up the flesh.” My knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is a bit rusty but mistranslation could indeed be the clue here!

So ... God took the baculum from Adam, and created Eve, and then gave us Viagra to compensate.

http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/28/gilbert_zevit.php


----------



## Chris45 (29 December 2013)

*TV news report: 11 year old boy reincarnated.* The mystery deepens!



Would anyone like to offer an alternative explanation?


----------



## bellenuit (29 December 2013)

A priest shows up at a monastery where the monks spend their time making copies of ancient books. The priest goes to the basement of the monastery saying he wants to make copies of the originals rather than of others' copies so as to avoid duplicating errors they might have made. Several hours later the monks, wondering where their new friend is, find him crying in the basement. They ask him what is wrong and he says "the word is CELEBRATE, not CELIBATE!"


----------



## bellenuit (29 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> *TV news report: 11 year old boy reincarnated.* The mystery deepens!
> 
> 
> 
> Would anyone like to offer an alternative explanation?





Here is one and it seems a lot more plausible than your reincarnation theory. TV shows don't always give the complete story, not when ratings are their main motivation. This relates to the same story shown on ABC (US) TV which I have not seen, but it is interesting that both omit the museum visit.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html

Also, remember the parents who caused a major rescue when they claimed that their son had been accidentally taken up in a weather balloon that wasn't properly secured. Their motivation was to get on some reality TV show (and make money from it). I wouldn't rule that out here too.

BTW, below is just one sceptics comment from the above link. There are many mundane interpretations that can be placed on things. However, it can be so easy to lead people as to "the only possible conclusion" 

_"In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check."...

..."At some point the child starts drawing pictures of planes, signing them 'James 3'"

*hmmm...so a 3 year old writes "3" after his name. Wow, it must mean he is reincarnated! What else could it possibly mean???*_


----------



## bunyip (29 December 2013)

Recently I was in a car in which one of the passengers was a woman who is a practicing Catholic, and she also frequently hangs out at the Buddhist establishment in her city.
We were approaching a storm that was about 20 km away – she closed her eyes and moved her lips and made the sign of the cross every time there was a lightning bolt.

Now, maybe I’m being a bit harsh or too hasty to judge, but her behavior seemed like religious nuttery to me.


----------



## Chris45 (29 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Here is one and it seems a lot more plausible than your reincarnation theory.
> http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html



Nice try! 
Firstly, it's not *MY* reincarnation theory.
Secondly, skeptics can easily fabricate an alternative hypothesis but that *doesn't disprove* the original claim, so really it means nothing.

Skeptico quotes these omissions from the TV report as objections:

_"At 18 months old, his father, Bruce Leininger, took James to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, where the toddler remained transfixed by World War II aircraft. A few months later, the nightmares began."_

If the child had been reincarnated from a WWII fighter pilot who died traumatically as claimed, it's logical that he would be transfixed, and of course he would experience nightmares as the memories came back. Skeptic *FAIL!*

_"With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories ”” and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started to become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said."_

As would be expected with counseling! I don't know why those details were omitted because they support the story! Poor editing perhaps? Skeptic *FAIL!*

_"I’d like to suggest a slightly different version of this story that is entirely consistent with the facts, but doesn’t require us to believe the extraordinary claim of reincarnation."_

So what follows is *entirely his fabrication*, unsupported by any evidence, to fit the known facts, ie. fiction based on fact. Proves nothing ... other than he's a poor fiction author. Skeptic *FAIL!*

He glosses over the "couple of inexplicable hits":
_"But “Natoma” is not quite “Natoma Bay”"_ ... Abbreviation of ships' names is common in the services. Skeptic *FAIL!*
_"First, James is not an unusual name."_ ... Neither is John, Chuck, etc. etc, but what's the probability of a correct guess? Skeptic *FAIL!*

I clicked on the http://www.ntcsites.com link and it's defunct and listed for sale. Skeptic *FAIL!* again 

As an attempted alternative explanation, Skeptico's effort is pathetic and totally unconvincing. Obviously, reincarnation will be impossible to prove conclusively, and anyone who wants to dismiss it all as nonsense is free to do so. But review the evidence and then make up your own minds.




> Also, remember the parents who caused a major rescue when they claimed that their son had been accidentally taken up in a weather balloon that wasn't properly secured. Their motivation was to get on some reality TV show (and make money from it). I wouldn't rule that out here too.



The incident about the weather balloon kid is irrelevant ... it was blatant fraud. Did the James kid's family tell their story for money? Where did it say that?


Bunyip, that guy who was struck by lightning on the beach yesterday obviously forgot to do something.


----------



## bellenuit (29 December 2013)

Sceptico was trying to look at alternative explanations to the reincarnation theory proposed. The museum visit would seem very relevant to the story and its omission is curious. A few people have discarded the relevance of the visit on the basis of what a 20 month old child would understand or recall. Yet, I distinctly remember being in a pram and some events surrounding it (where we crossed the road etc.). I wouldn't have been much older than that, if at all older. We need only look at some child prodigies to see what can be accomplished at a very young age, so it is not beyond possibility that certain aspects of the museum visit stuck in James' memory, even if the parents have no recollection of same.

You could say that the counsellor helped James understand what he was recalling, but she could equally be leading him in a direction that she wants the story to take. Her involvement too is very relevant and could explain a lot of what James subsequently recalled.  

Yes, there are many aspects of the story that cannot be explained, but then do we have the full story? How do we know what the family is telling us is true? Why should a hoax be ruled out? Aren't 60 Minutes style stories (I know it wasn't that particular show) full of these type of stories that fail to give the full picture but are intended to make headlines. 

Even if we accept everything as true, then it would appear that part of the memories of one individual were transmitted to another individual. Is that possible? That hasn't been ruled out by anyone, but putting names to this transmission, such as reincarnation, may be jumping the gun. Reincarnation as I understand it is the rebirth of the soul in another body. That is a big jump for what we know from this story.

This recent discovery suggests that phobias may be memories passed down from ancestors through genes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ries-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html

Maybe something similar is possible in this case (I am not advocating that, but not ruling it out as an explanation since so little is known in that area). Many have commented on the similarity between James when he was young and the dead pilot when he was young. Maybe there is a genetic link between the two that people are unaware of. Most reincarnation stores that I have come across have never required that both be similar in appearance, so the fact that they are may be relevant.

Again reiterating what I said: Even if we accept everything as true, then it would appear that part of the memories of one individual were transmitted to another individual. But what conclusions do we draw from that? That there must be a God? That evolution is false? That there was or was not a Big Bang? Perhaps simply, that we don't fully understand memory?


----------



## bellenuit (30 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Secondly, skeptics can easily fabricate an alternative hypothesis but that *doesn't disprove* the original claim, so really it means nothing.




I have no idea where you are leading to on this. Of course a sceptic looks at alternative hypotheses and if plausible they don't have to be proven. For instance, they cannot prove that all of this is a hoax as they would require the perpetrators to tell the truth which they may never do, but that it being a hoax is probably a better explanation than the reincarnation theory. How do you disprove that someone hasn't been abducted by aliens if they make that claim? However, past experience tells us what is the most likely explanation to be true.

The purpose of the sceptics approach is to seek out alternative explanations for you to consider. At the end of the day the sceptic may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they have failed in what they try to do. Their aim is to make you think and not blindly accept what others are trying to make you think.

I don't intend to go through each of your points, as I am really more interested in your Skeptic fail comments and want to use just one as an example. 



> _"With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories ”” and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started to become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said."_
> 
> As would be expected with counseling! I don't know why those details were omitted because they support the story! Poor editing perhaps? Skeptic *FAIL!*




You misunderstand the purpose of scepticism. 

Your explanation of what the results of the counsellor meeting did is quite valid. But by providing an alternative explanation, the Skeptic didn't fail. The Skeptic strives to make you think and consider other possibilities. That the counsellor was already a believer in reincarnation and had written a book on the subject could mean that she had an interest in promoting this reincarnation story and led James on a path that she wanted him to go in. The skeptic cannot prove that is the case, but it is a potential explanation to what happened following her involvement. It is a plausible explanation of this part of the story and if it makes one stop and think and not blindly follow just one possible explanation, that the sceptic had done his job. Not a fail.


----------



## cynic (30 December 2013)

Ruby said:


> Cynic - no, I had not failed to notice you are trying to draw a correlation between the remaining 23 ribs and the 23 chromosomes contributed by the male and the female, but I think you are drawing rather a long bow!!  You  are trying to manipulate data to fit neatly into your hypothesis.




Is the bow really that long?

Prior to offering my hypothesis, the numerical and symbolic correlations were already sufficiently strong to render them recognisable!

My medieval monk hypothesis was conveniently formulated to plausibly (and "neatly") demonstrate that one logical step is all that separates our, seemingly nonsensical, current day biblical account from a perfectly valid genetic statement of the creation of a woman from a man!


----------



## cynic (30 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> More than that, there is no 23 anywhere. Adam's contribution was 1 rib, not 23. If the monk was mistranslating, where is he getting this magical 23 from. Both man and woman have 24 ribs, 12 pairs of two. If the monk misunderstood rib when chromosome was meant, then it still does not explain why the Bible only mentions taking just 1 item of this chromosome to form a woman. Was that a mistranslation too?
> 
> Your mystical number is 1 and I am sure there are millions of genetically related examples of *1* of some item being contributed or passed on to subsequent generations that would be far more relevant than what you are alluding to.




All of the things that you're challenging here have already been addressed in my earlier posts!


----------



## cynic (30 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Cynic, would you kindly give the Biblical reference behind your quote. I only know Genesis 2:21-23.
> ...



Chris, I believe that you already have all the information that is required in order to appreciate my assertions. (i.e.the current day biblical passage, a basic understanding of the 23 chromosomal pairs and an awareness that the modern English language didn't exist at the time the underlying account was originally expressed.)

P.S. Thanks for offering that alternative theory. At this point I still prefer mine, but, it was comforting to see some members of academia are still willing to openly and earnestly explore the possibility that there may be more factual support for the account. So much more refreshing than witnessing the vehement dismissal that it so often receives.


----------



## cynic (30 December 2013)

bellenuit,

I find your accounts of the purposes and benefits of skepticism largely agreeable, however, I would ask that you cast your skeptical eye over the following excerpt and see whether there might be a logical flaw present in this part of your acclaimed skeptic philosophy. (To further narrow it down for you I offer the following word clue: "Pioneer").



bellenuit said:


> ...How do you disprove that someone hasn't been abducted by aliens if they make that claim? However, past experience tells us what is the most likely explanation to be true.
> ...


----------



## bunyip (30 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> Recently I was in a car in which one of the passengers was a woman who is a practicing Catholic, and she also frequently hangs out at the Buddhist establishment in her city.
> We were approaching a storm that was about 20 km away – she closed her eyes and moved her lips and made the sign of the cross every time there was a lightning bolt.
> 
> Now, maybe I’m being a bit harsh or too hasty to judge, but her behavior seemed like religious nuttery to me.






Chris45 said:


> Bunyip, that guy who was struck by lightning on the beach yesterday obviously forgot to do something.




Yes – he forgot to use a bit of common sense by staying indoors out of harms way when it was storming. I don't think praying would have kept him safe if he was silly enough to go out in a storm.
I know a Christian family whose 20 year old son was killed by lightning. 
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are complacent about storms. Former Ironman champion Grant Kenny had to shelter under his paddle board a few weeks ago to avoid getting his head caved in by hail stones the size of oranges. What was the silly bugger thinking of to be paddling around on the ocean while a storm was brewing!

Getting back to the woman in the car crossing herself and saying a silent prayer at each lightning bolt – I guess she was imploring her god not to take her out by a lightning strike. No doubt she thinks it worked since she came through the storm unscathed. It probably hasn’t occurred to her that hundreds of thousands of other people who didn’t pray came through the storm unscathed as well.


----------



## Judd (30 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> ....Getting back to the woman in the car crossing herself and saying a silent prayer at each lightning bolt – I guess she was imploring her god not to take her out by a lightning strike. No doubt she thinks it worked since she came through the storm unscathed. It probably hasn’t occurred to her that hundreds of thousands of other people who didn’t pray came through the storm unscathed as well.




Not only that but she obviously was unaware that the car acts as a Faraday Cage.  Even if it was an imperfect Faraday Cage, ie the window was down - which is an odd thing to do in a storm, the car would more than likely protect you as it still acts as a Faraday cage and electrons will travel the path of least resistance which would be through the car and not you.  Ergo, praying not required and ineffective in any case.


----------



## bellenuit (30 December 2013)

cynic said:


> All of the things that you're challenging here have already been addressed in my earlier posts!




No you haven't. You continue to vacillate between 23 being the original components and 23 being the leftover components as in these two statements from above.....

_"Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."_

*and*

_The next clue: 24 - 1 = 23_

However, lets skip the math for a moment and consider the original basis of your argument.

_Imagine a medieval monk translating an ancient language equivalent of my statement! 
There he is wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 23 components of a man. Bearing in mind that he has no knowledge of chromosomes, said monk erroneously concludes that the statement must be in reference to the human ribcage after removal of one of the ribs!_

But people today know what chromosomes are and the translations of the Bible are constantly being retested by scholars. Wouldn't they have picked up on it by now if that was a mistranslation. And what a whopper it would be of a mistranslation. It is not just making the wrong choice between two possible interpretations of one word (for instance it is claimed that the word that was translated to "virgin" in relation to Mary also meant "young girl").

This is the text as we know it today:

_"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)_

How on earth do you get a child receiving 23 chromosomes from each parent from that. What way could you reformulate that to convey what you are suggesting without pretty much discarding everything and writing something completely different. As I have said so many times, 23 does not come into it. 1 component was taken. That passage does not mention left over components anywhere.


----------



## CanOz (30 December 2013)

Court told two men committed random assault on Gold Coast after attending church camp

Seems they didn't catch the meaning of the church at the camp! Must be atheists


----------



## bellenuit (30 December 2013)

*Rabbi Sued For Accidentally Severing Baby's Penis During Bris*

http://gothamist.com/2013/12/29/rabbi_sued_for_accidentally_severin.php

*Polio vaccination workers shot dead in Pakistan*

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/18/polio-vaccination-workers-shot-pakistan


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

bunyip said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are complacent about storms. Former Ironman champion Grant Kenny had to shelter under his paddle board a few weeks ago to avoid getting his head caved in by hail stones the size of oranges. What was the silly bugger thinking of to be paddling around on the ocean while a storm was brewing!



Unbelievable! Also golfers who ignore the warning signs and insist on completing their games.

I saw a photo of the beach where the guy was killed. There were many other people also on the beach but the clouds didn't look too threatening. I suppose it shows how easy it is to be complacent.

Some years ago I went out onto my balcony to watch some distant lightning on the horizon. I was enjoying the spectacle from what I thought was a safe distance until a bolt struck a house less than a quarter of a km away. I nearly messed myself. You don't fully appreciate the awesome energy of lightning until you have a close encounter like that.

I wonder if your Catholic woman had had a similar or worse experience, or maybe had lost someone to lightning. Her prayers weren't hurting anyone and probably helped her cope with her perceived danger.


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> We need only look at some child prodigies to see what can be accomplished at a very young age,



It's interesting that you mention child prodigies, as it has been suggested that they support the reincarnation theory. 

Skeptico's alternative hypothesis credits the boy with an incredible imagination for a young child, that I didn't find at all convincing. I see your point about the "purpose of scepticism", but what troubles me is that many people will read his flawed explanation, will assume that the original hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited, and will close their minds and won't bother to explore further. I just don't believe that approach is helpful.

What we should do is consider ALL of the evidence presented, not only in this case but the other cases as well, with critical but open minds, looking for any flaws in the methodology and evidence, and then see where the evidence leads us. I believe that's what Stevenson and Tucker have been doing.

Our world is getting weirder and weirder. Try reading about Multiverse Theory:  *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse*

_"A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within string theory and its higher-dimensional extension, M-theory. These theories require the presence of *10 or 11 spacetime dimensions* respectively. The extra 6 or 7 dimensions may either be compactified on a very small scale, or our universe may simply be localized on a dynamical (3+1)-dimensional object, a D-brane. This opens up the possibility that there are other branes which could support "other universes". This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time."_

_"10 or 11 spacetime dimensions"_ ... mind boggling!

Now they're saying that evidence for the Multiverse has been found:  *http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907*

I also read, _"According to a New Scientist story just out, this hard evidence for the multiverse should be welcomed, since it (together with string theory) has just been shown to have the power to save us from “Legions of disembodied brains floating in deep space”."
_
Sounds like they're referring to reincarnation. I'm not yet a 100% believer in reincarnation, but I find the evidence for the theory I've seen so far pretty compelling, but who knows? We are still on the lower rungs of the very tall ladder of knowledge. One day someone might be able to make sense of it all for us lesser mortals.


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

CanOz said:


> Court told two men committed random assault on Gold Coast after attending church camp
> 
> Seems they didn't catch the meaning of the church at the camp! Must be atheists



They sound like Islanders.  https://www.facebook.com/leka24kaufusi
They need some of that "old time religion".


----------



## Ruby (30 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> No you haven't. You continue to vacillate between 23 being the original components and 23 being the leftover components as in these two statements from above.....
> 
> _"Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."_
> 
> ...




I'm with you, Bellenuit.


----------



## DB008 (30 December 2013)

With incoming cyclone in WA, hmm, this seems appropriate.....

(Some swearing [little bit], but nothing we can't handle)


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> No you haven't. You continue to vacillate between 23 being the original components and 23 being the leftover components as in these two statements from above.....
> 
> _"Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."_
> 
> ...



You are already well aware that our earliest, extant, written accounts for the book of Genesis, are not original accounts as they have been transcribed and/or translated from earlier times!

This leads me to question the rmotivation behind your continued protestations.

l've re-examined my posts several times in search of logical and/or numerical errors. Although I cannot claim impartiality, I've been unable to discern any logical omissions or unaccounted numerical discrepancies within my discourse. 
I do understand your comments regarding the numerical vacillation between numbers whether they be 24(ribs), 23 (chromosomal pairs) or 1(something removed). I maintain that my medieval monk hypothesis provides a simple and plausibly logical accounting of all numerical and literal anomalies. Please note said hypothesis could equally be applied to any translation predating our earliest available written records. Should the term "medieval monk" present a challenge to understanding, one may readily substitute other terms (e.g. "Iron Age Shaman" or similar) for adaptation to earlier epochs.

In the spirit of healthy skepticism, are you able to offer a more logical account for the existence of the biblical passage in question?

Speaking of skepticism, did you notice the logical flaw I hinted at(i.e. word clue: "Pioneer") in your earlier philosophical discourse?


----------



## bellenuit (31 December 2013)

cynic said:


> In the spirit of healthy skepticism, are you able to offer a more logical account for the existence of the biblical passage in question?




Heavens Cynic. A more logical account is blatantly obvious. It is simply a collection of stories written by fairly primitive people whose understanding of science was nothing more than superstition and mythology of the time. Why would you assume that the missing original text described the creation of Eve as involving the passing on of 23 chromosomes from Adam (which is wrong in any case as it requires 23 chromosomes from two parents, not one, and relates to an offspring not an unrelated female), when the best the same book can offer for an explanation of the creation of Adam is that he was created from dirt. Is that a mistranslation too, as we also know that men get 23 chromosomes from each of their parents too

_And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul_. Genesis 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

And you still haven't answered how the mistranslation could be so bad that they ended up with the text we associate with the creation of Eve as described in previous posts.

In fact whenever the Bible deals with not so obvious scientific facts, facts that would not be readily known by the people of the day, it usually gets it wrong. For example:

_After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree._

An almost spherical earth does not have 4 corners.

Can you name one scientific fact relating to any field of science that the Bible revealed that was not already known to those living at the time the various books were written. 

If you think it was revealing the inheritance of 23 chromosomes from each parent then surely there must be hundreds of other examples. And if there are no other examples, why would there be this one single item sitting there all on its own that describes a very complex and modern understanding of genetics? You have offered no explanation other than the number 23 being a common factor though only common by distorting its relevance to the text as we know it.


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

I state it plainly. 

I have given ample account of how easily the story of the creation of Eve is logically, and symbolically recognisable as a valid description of the genetic process whereby a female results from the removal of the "y" from one of the 23 chromosomal pairs of the male!
The medieval monk hypothesis is simply one of numerous constructs that I could have chosen to provide plausible account for any literal or numeric anomalies.
If you seriously expect me to accept your assertion that this story is solely the product of the wild imaginings of primitive people, then please tell me how you account for the extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries?


----------



## bellenuit (31 December 2013)

cynic said:


> I state it plainly.
> 
> I have given ample account of how easily the story of the creation of Eve is logically, and symbolically recognisable as a valid description of the genetic process whereby a female results from the removal of the "y" from one of the 23 chromosomal pairs of the male!
> The medieval monk hypothesis is simply one of numerous constructs that I could have chosen to provide plausible account for any literal or numeric anomalies.
> If you seriously expect me to accept your assertion that this story is solely the product of the wild imaginings of primitive people, then please tell me how you account for the extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries?




Cynic. You are referring to 23 items being left over after the removal of 1 item from 24 as offering *extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries*. I'm afraid you think on a very different plane to me, so I see no point in arguing as I have further. You keep ignoring every other issue I have raised as if it is irrelevant, such as to why there is no other piece in the Bible that hints at our modern understanding of genetics other than this single passage that has no relationship to how a woman is conceived other than there been a number 23 figure as a side calculation (1 is the relevant number in that piece when it comes to the number of donated items, 23 isn't mentioned) and you also particularly ignored why the author chose to describe the creation of Adam without conveying similar genetic insights, though that description is from the same book.  

However, since you believe that a mistranslation is a possible explanation, I would be interested in how you think the translation would have been if it was to convey what you believe it is conveying (I'm still not sure whether you think it is conveying the creation of the first woman in adult form or of a baby girl from its parents). This is the translation as we know it.

_"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'"_ (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)

It has under 100 words. We know you don't have the original text to be able to actually translate what was written, but if you believe it was mistranslated and you believe that it accurately described modern genetics, what do you think it might have said. You are not limited to 100 words, but unless the translators completely rewrote that passage, one would assume that the correct translation would be of similar length.


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Cynic. You are referring to 23 items being left over after the removal of 1 item from 24 as offering *extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries*. I'm afraid you think on a very different plane to me, so I see no point in arguing as I have further. You keep ignoring every other issue I have raised as if it is irrelevant, such as to why there is no other piece in the Bible that hints at our modern understanding of genetics other than this single passage that has no relationship to how a woman is conceived other than there been a number 23 figure as a side calculation (1 is the relevant number in that piece when it comes to the number of donated items, 23 isn't mentioned) and you also particularly ignored why the author chose to describe the creation of Adam without conveying similar genetic insights, though that description is from the same book.
> 
> However, since you believe that a mistranslation is a possible explanation, I would be interested in how you think the translation would have been if it was to convey what you believe it is conveying (I'm still not sure whether you think it is conveying the creation of the first woman in adult form or of a baby girl from its parents). This is the translation as we know it.
> 
> ...




For the record I state again that I cannot claim to total impartiality. However, I am still currently of the firm and honest belief that I have already provided adequate response to your repeated questions.

Bearing in mind that I consider us both equally capable of recognising our own personal capacities for error, I would ask that we both give due consideration to our personal motivations. Am I /are you attempting to arrive at an understanding of something that is potentially new? Or, am I /are you attempting to arrive at a misunderstanding in order to preserve my/your treasured personal philosophy?

On that note, I have noticed that you are yet to answer my question regarding a certain logical flaw (to which I have already alluded) found within your expressed views on the importance of skepticism:



cynic said:


> bellenuit,
> 
> I find your accounts of the purposes and benefits of skepticism largely agreeable, however, I would ask that you cast your skeptical eye over the following excerpt and see whether there might be a logical flaw present in this part of your acclaimed skeptic philosophy. (To further narrow it down for you I offer the following word clue: "Pioneer").






bellenuit said:


> ...How do you disprove that someone hasn't been abducted by aliens if they make that claim? However, past experience tells us what is the most likely explanation to be true.
> ...





			
				cynic said:
			
		

> ...
> Speaking of skepticism, did you notice the logical flaw I hinted at(i.e. word clue: "Pioneer") in your earlier philosophical discourse?




I believe that this represents a sufficient variance in our respective personal philosophy to adequately account our continued "Oh yes I have! Oh no you haven't" disagreement on the eventuation of the biblical passage under discussion.


----------



## bellenuit (31 December 2013)

cynic said:


> On that note, I have noticed that you are yet to answer my question regarding a certain logical flaw (to which I have already alluded) found within your expressed views on the importance of skepticism




No, I didn't notice the logical flaw. BTW, are you going to provide your opinion of what the translation should have said to lend support to your hypothesis that it provided insights into modern genetic discoveries.


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> No, I didn't notice the logical flaw. BTW, are you going to provide your opinion of what the translation should have said to lend support to your hypothesis that it provided insights into modern genetic discoveries.




Thankyou bellenuit.

Your revelation tells me that there is indeed a 


cynic said:


> ...sufficient variance in our respective personal philosophy to adequately account our continued "Oh yes I have! Oh no you haven't" disagreement on the eventuation of the biblical passage under discussion.




From your revelation, I now recognise the presence of a perspective that severely limits the possibility of any productive continuance of this discussion.

Given the curious tendencies of humanity, I find it interesting that whilst claiming not to have seen it, you have not asked me for an account of the "logical flaw" I discerned.


----------



## bellenuit (31 December 2013)

cynic said:


> Thankyou bellenuit.
> 
> Your revelation tells me that there is indeed a
> 
> ...




I assumed you would account for it without being asked. But you seem to avoid everything asked of you so perhaps I expected too much.


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I assumed you would account for it without being asked. But you seem to avoid everything asked of you so perhaps I expected too much.



Much as I suspected! You did indeed spot it!
Needless to say , we both know that you definitely don't want to own it!


----------



## bellenuit (1 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Much as I suspected! You did indeed spot it!
> Needless to say , we both know that you definitely don't want to own it!




As I said, I did not spot it. If you want to enlighten me, then please go ahead. But don't suggest I am a liar.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2014)

cynic said:


> I state it plainly.
> 
> I have given ample account of how easily the story of the creation of Eve is logically, and symbolically recognisable as a valid description of the genetic process whereby a female results from the removal of the "y" from one of the 23 chromosomal pairs of the male!
> The medieval monk hypothesis is simply one of numerous constructs that I could have chosen to provide plausible account for any literal or numeric anomalies.
> If you seriously expect me to accept your assertion that this story is solely the product of the wild imaginings of primitive people, then please tell me how you account for the extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries?




bellenuit, I note that you are yet to provide an alternative account for the symbolic similarities.
I also know that the observations I am making present sufficient challenges to numerous belief (and disbelief) systems. Those holding too dearly to such belief systems are unlikely to even want to understand what I am highlighting, as acceptance of such, would be, not only humiliating, it would force them to abandon their comfortable illusion of superiority.

Your desperate efforts to misunderstand what I am saying have not escaped my attention.


----------



## DB008 (1 January 2014)

*MONTY PYTHON STAR WON'T JOKE ABOUT ISLAM FOR FEAR OF VIOLENT BLOWBACK*



> Don't expect any wacky Islam-based skits when Monty Python reunites in the new year.
> 
> The British troupe is known for poking fun at all manner of subjects, including religion in films like Monty Python's Life of Brian. But Monty Python member Michael Palin says making even an innocent joke about Islam puts a comic in the cross-hairs, and he prefers to stay far, far away from that. Religion in general is a far more touchy subject than it was 30 years ago, he says, but one religion makes mockery a dangerous business.
> 
> ...




http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/30/monty-python-fears-islam


----------



## Chris45 (1 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> *MONTY PYTHON STAR WON'T JOKE ABOUT ISLAM FOR FEAR OF VIOLENT BLOWBACK*



I can certainly understand why he doesn't want to touch Islam, but I wonder why he feels they couldn't do Life of Brian now? Who is he frightened of?


----------



## bellenuit (5 January 2014)

*Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts*

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/burger-king-recalls-sacrilegious-desserts-1-1096308


----------



## DB008 (5 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts*
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/burger-king-recalls-sacrilegious-desserts-1-1096308




What a joke....


However, it is 9 years old.

Lid


----------



## bellenuit (6 January 2014)

*Thousands of books, manuscripts torched in fire at historic Lebanese library*

http://rt.com/news/library-fire-lebanon-violence-176/


----------



## bellenuit (7 January 2014)

*Eben Alexander’s bogus trip to heaven*

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/eben-alexanders-bogus-trip-to-heaven/


----------



## bunyip (7 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts*
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/burger-king-recalls-sacrilegious-desserts-1-1096308




Typical muslims - always looking for an excuse to be offended by something. What petty, pathetic people. 
They never seem to give a thought to how offensive _*their*_ behaviour is!


----------



## DB008 (8 January 2014)

4th Grade Science Test.....


----------



## burglar (9 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> 4th Grade Science Test.....




The next time someone says the earth is billions of years old, what can I say?
Pretty much anything, as I am not indoctrinated.

True or false. People lived with dinosaurs.
Yes, it is true or false!!


id 10 ts


----------



## CanOz (9 January 2014)

This is where logic just doesn't come into some peoples thinking...

To me, my life of 48 years has flown by so quickly so far. 100 years is really the blink of an eye. In that time there are rocks, mountains, trees, valleys etc., that have hardly even changed a bit unless affected by man.

So how can the earth be anything but at least many hundreds of thousands of years old? I don't get how anyone can think otherwise if thinking in a logical manner...


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2014)

the answer lies in the psychology of cult membership/indocrination.
The human brain is so adaptable.  It will certainly adapt to quite illogical paradigms if they are sufficiently
reinforced either postively or negatively.  It will just adapt in a way that promotes the (physical, social, emotional)survival of the entity.
For example, some children grow up with physical/emotional abuse and when removed from 'home' they want to return because that is what they know and they know the rules.  They have also developed various ways to cope/survive  ( many mal adaptions yes)  and when in a new environment they naturally are subject to anxiety/fear etc.  I think a cult can be a 'safe' place for the indocrinated and become very difficult to move away from.  So if the doctrinarres ( is that a word?) get the kids young, they may well have them for life. Getting them young, of course, is standard practice for most cults including mainstream religions.


----------



## CanOz (9 January 2014)

lindsayf said:


> the answer lies in the psychology of cult membership/indocrination.
> The human brain is so adaptable.  It will certainly adapt to quite illogical paradigms if they are sufficiently
> reinforced either postively or negatively.  It will just adapt in a way that promotes the (physical, social, emotional)survival of the entity.
> For example, some children grow up with physical/emotional abuse and when removed from 'home' they want to return because that is what they know and they know the rules.  They have also developed various ways to cope/survive  ( many mal adaptions yes)  and when in a new environment they naturally are subject to anxiety/fear etc.  I think a cult can be a 'safe' place for the indocrinated and become very difficult to move away from.  So if the doctrinarres ( is that a word?) get the kids young, they may well have them for life. Getting them young, of course, is standard practice for most cults including mainstream religions.




Thanks Lindsay, understand...


----------



## Judd (9 January 2014)

It is what happens when a sympathetic judicial court allows a proposal that definition of theory based on speculation (creationists) is as valid as the definition of theory based on a hypothesis confirmed by observation and experiment (science.)


----------



## basilio (9 January 2014)

The 4th Grade Science - Dinosaurs test is a fascinating addition to this thread.

I had to research how creationists come to the conclusion that all dinosaurs were created on the 6th day around 6000 years ago..

Great reading folks. 

But scary... Makes Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny look positively certain.




> *What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?*
> by Ken Ham
> October 25, 2007
> Layman
> ...




http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs


----------



## basilio (9 January 2014)

With regard to my last post.

You might have thought that Ken Ham was just another USA hard line creationist.  Over the pond like.

Nope.  He is a Queenslander  who graduated from a Science course and taught in public schools. Local boy made good. Fascinating but scary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/history

It is really worth reading the second reference to get an idea of how big Ken Ham has become


----------



## Judd (9 January 2014)

basilio said:


> With regard to my last post.
> 
> You might have thought that Ken Ham was just another USA hard line creationist.  Over the pond like.
> 
> ...




Doublethink in the Creationist Creed:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Umm, yeah riiiight. And those people who interpret the scriptures must therefore be above or equal to God perhaps as they must be infallible due to their ability to properly interpret the scriptures?  Wonder what God thinks about that?


----------



## bellenuit (9 January 2014)

basilio said:


> With regard to my last post.
> 
> You might have thought that Ken Ham was just another USA hard line creationist.  Over the pond like.
> 
> ...




Ken Ham is to debate Bill Nye (The Science Guy) I think today in the USA. Many think that this is a mistake by Nye as the debate will be on Ham's terms and in his Creationist Museum in front of a partisan audience. As someone mentioned above, Ham doesn't debate as he simply rejects any scientific fact presented to him if it conflicts with the Bible. He will also get a revenue boost from the debate which will help fund his Museum which is in financial trouble. You will probably find debate details if you do a Google search.


----------



## burglar (10 January 2014)

Who on earth would create "Anaphylactic Shock"?


----------



## cynic (10 January 2014)

burglar said:


> Who on earth would create "Anaphylactic Shock"?




Some "peanut" or other!


----------



## DB008 (10 January 2014)

So who made God, or where did he come from?


----------



## bunyip (10 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> So who made God, or where did he come from?




I've put this question to quite a few religious types over the years, and because they're unable to give a credible answer they simply say that God 'always was'!


----------



## cynic (10 January 2014)

Some people do like to make inordinate demands of a being that they do not even believe exists!

How does one account for the existence of anything at all?!!!

Big bang theory!? Where did the hydrogen originate from? If it was constructed of energy then from whence did the energy come?


----------



## Ves (11 January 2014)

David Hume in 3 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg


----------



## Chris45 (11 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> So who made God, or where did he come from?



Why don't you ask God?

Just go into a church, better still a *mosque*, stand in the middle with your arms extended and say loudly, _"God I know you don't exist and all of this religion IS crazy and all of the people who believe in you are nutters, but I wanna know, who made you or where did you come from?"_

If you're lucky, you might have a "religious experience". 



cynic said:


> Big bang theory!? Where did the hydrogen originate from? If it was constructed of energy then from whence did the energy come?



Now that is a *much* more intelligent question! Anyone who thinks that Big bang theory has provided all of the answers is seriously behind the times.

According to Big Bang theory, in the beginning around 13.7 billion years ago, was an "initial singularity". *Our* space-time began with this singularity.

Singularities defy our current understanding of physics but could be points at which energy is converted into matter. The energy may have come from some process in another universe, or from when two "branes", enormous membranes much larger than our Universe, interacted. It's all intelligent guesswork at the moment.

Could there be intelligent beings in other universes? Why is our universe the only one to contain intelligent life?

Where did ALL of the mass-energy in ALL of the universes and branes come from? Could it be that mass-energy doesn't have a beginning or an end ... it always has been and always will be ... it's infinite? Where does a circle begin and end?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm


----------



## DB008 (11 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Why don't you ask God?
> 
> Just go into a church, better still a *mosque*, stand in the middle with your arms extended and say loudly, _"God I know you don't exist and all of this religion IS crazy and all of the people who believe in you are nutters, but I wanna know, who made you or where did you come from?"_
> 
> If you're lucky, you might have a "religious experience".





LOL!

We have trouble with eye witness accounts in murder trials that are pretty fresh (ie, less than 1 year old), but religion expects us believe in something that happened 2000+ years ago. A person(s) [Jesus/Mohammed] was wondering around the desert, on his own, after a few days (probably dehydrated and hallucinating) and saw/came into contact with 'god'.

How do we know that the Bible (and other religious scripts), weren't a earlier version of Shakespeare/play? We don't.

l'm sorry, but unless it can be proven with science/physics, l don't buy a word of it.

Do rats/dogs/cats go to heaven? Probably not. Why not? Because they don't have an imagination like we do.
Do you really think that when you die, your body/soul, goes to 'heaven' ? Where is 'heaven' ?


----------



## Chris45 (11 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> l'm sorry, but unless it can be proven with science/physics, l don't buy a word of it.



I assume you "don't buy a word" of abiogenesis then.


----------



## cbc (11 January 2014)

I will rise....


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2014)

Only partially in the theme of this thread, but I came across this song today that I haven't heard in almost 50 years. It was written in 1877 by the Irish poet/songwriter Percy French and is here sung by Brendan O'Dowda. I came across this headline recently about Al-Qaede.

*Al-Qaeda Attacks Two Syrian Churches to Cries of ‘Allahu Akbar!’*

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/...two-syrian-churches-to-cries-of-allahu-akbar/

The song was written in 1877 and was a satire on the Russo-Turkish war, but has the words......

_Then this bold Mameluke drew his trusty skibouk,
With a cry of "Allahu Akbar!"_

How little things have changed.

It's quite a humorous and beautifully written song, so listen carefully to the words and I hope you enjoy....


----------



## cynic (12 January 2014)

DB008 said:


>






DB008 said:


> LOL!
> 
> We have trouble with eye witness accounts in murder trials that are pretty fresh (ie, less than 1 year old), but religion expects us believe in something that happened 2000+ years ago. A person(s) [Jesus/Mohammed] was wondering around the desert, on his own, after a few days (probably dehydrated and hallucinating) and saw/came into contact with 'god'.
> ...




Actually it gets even worse than that! 

Some religions actually expect us to believe in things that happened "at least 200,000 years ago"!


----------



## Chris45 (12 January 2014)

cbc said:


> I will rise....



Great song cbc!

I can remember as a kid, the little grey haired old ladies of my church condemning that type of music because they thought the heavy rhythm was inspired by African voodoo rituals. 

How times change!


----------



## bunyip (13 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> So who made God, or where did he come from?






Chris45 said:


> Why don't you ask God?




I did just that back in the days when I beleived in God, but I got no reply.

Tell you what, Chris - since you believe in God, how about *you* ask him and then come back and tell us what his answer was?


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Only partially in the theme of this thread, but I came across this song today that I haven't heard in almost 50 years. It was written in 1877 by the Irish poet/songwriter Percy French and is here sung by Brendan O'Dowda. I came across this headline recently about Al-Qaede.
> 
> *Al-Qaeda Attacks Two Syrian Churches to Cries of ‘Allahu Akbar!’*
> 
> ...





Excellent. A little levity can't go astray on his thread. This was the popular version of the poem when I was a boy and before political correctness put a gag on our humour.;

http://www.welsh-nutter.co.uk/songs/ivan.html


----------



## Chris45 (13 January 2014)

bunyip said:


> Tell you what, Chris - since you believe in God, how about *you* ask him and then come back and tell us what his answer was?



LOL. I'm not the one who wants to know. 

It could be that in God's universe, somewhere in the other 6+ dimensions of space-time, they're having a similar discussion.

So, Bunyip, how's your research into M-Theory, multiverses, reincarnation etc. going? Have you started to get a handle on it yet?


----------



## bunyip (14 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> LOL. I'm not the one who wants to know.
> 
> It could be that in God's universe, somewhere in the other 6+ dimensions of space-time, they're having a similar discussion.
> 
> So, Bunyip, how's your research into M-Theory, multiverses, reincarnation etc. going? Have you started to get a handle on it yet?




My research?? I didn’t know I was doing any - I’ll leave that sort of stuff to you blokes who are interested. It sounds way to heavy for me – it’d probably give me brain strain!  
I’d rather sit on the verandah and listen to the birds and watch the Rainbow lorikeets!


----------



## Chris45 (14 January 2014)

SBS are running science documentaries on Mondays at 8:30pm. Excellent one last night, "How Small Is The Universe?" ... good introduction to String Theory, Multiverses, etc. It's quite mind blowing what the top scientists are talking about these days.

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/110132291658/How-Small-Is-The-Universe

Next week, SBS Mon 8:30pm, "How Big is the Universe?" ... WARNING! ... only suitable for people with inquiring minds.  ... Bunyip???

"Astronomers and particle physicists have found new ways to probe the cosmos and are creating detailed maps that stretch almost all the way to the birth of time. The observable universe stands revealed as never before, in exquisite plots of size, shape, temperature and composition. This documentary introduces the key scientists who are drawing this new map of the universe. Using an innovative graphic that reveals the scale and wonder of the universe, this program travels from east to west, in to the setting sun and the wheeling cosmos, and all the way to the edge of existence, unlocking some surprising stories."


----------



## bunyip (14 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> SBS are running science documentaries on Mondays at 8:30pm. Excellent one last night, "How Small Is The Universe?" ... good introduction to String Theory, Multiverses, etc. It's quite mind blowing what the top scientists are talking about these days.
> 
> http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/110132291658/How-Small-Is-The-Universe
> 
> Next week, SBS Mon 8:30pm, "How Big is the Universe?" ... WARNING! ... only suitable for people with inquiring minds.  ... Bunyip???



Oh I have an enquiring mind alright Chris, if the subject interests me enough. I don't spend _*all *_my time bird-watching on the verandah! 
I actually find those science shows pretty interesting. Is that the one that's presented by the baby-faced Professor Brian Cox?


----------



## Chris45 (14 January 2014)

bunyip said:


> Oh I have an enquiring mind alright Chris, if the subject interests me enough. I don't spend _*all *_my time bird-watching on the verandah!



I'm very relieved to hear that Bunyip. I was starting to worry that you were going downhill ... one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel! 



> I actually find those science shows pretty interesting. Is that the one that's presented by the baby-faced Professor Brian Cox?



No. Narrated by some Scottish guy ... sounds a bit like a young Sean Connery.
*Really* well done with lots of computer graphics and fascinating stuff.
*Highly* recommended!


----------



## bunyip (15 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I'm very relieved to hear that Bunyip. I was starting to worry that you were going downhill ... one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel!




I hope not, Chris - I'd like to think I'm improving with age by growing our own food and eating healthy, walking two hours every morning of the week, and living a low stress lifestyle on rural acreage.
Hopefully the graveyard is a few decades away yet!




Chris45 said:


> No. Narrated by some Scottish guy ... sounds a bit like a young Sean Connery.
> *Really* well done with lots of computer graphics and fascinating stuff.
> *Highly* recommended!




I'll tune into the science show next Monday - thanks for the reminder. 

It seems pretty sure that there are other universes apart from the one we live in. And apparently hundreds of other planets as well. 
I wonder what the average run of the mill Christian thinks about it all - whether they think their god made all the other planets and universes as well as the one that we live in.


----------



## Chris45 (15 January 2014)

bunyip said:


> I wonder what the average run of the mill Christian thinks about it all - whether they think their god made all the other planets and universes as well as the one that we live in.



I'm sure most of them will have difficulty in comprehending the idea of multiple universes, but in believing in Heaven and Hell and souls etc. they're already part way there.

IMO, in any belief system the science must be given priority and if necessary the beliefs must adapt to the science, and I'm starting to see how these new scientific theories and religion can accommodate each other.


----------



## DB008 (15 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I'm sure most of them will have difficulty in comprehending the idea of multiple universes, but in believing in Heaven and Hell and souls etc. they're already part way there.
> 
> IMO, in any belief system the science must be given priority and if necessary the beliefs must adapt to the science, and I'm starting to see how these new scientific theories and religion can accommodate each other.




I also think that science should take precedent over blind faith. Try telling that to hard-core religious nutters, won't work.


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2014)

bunyip said:


> I wonder what the average run of the mill Christian thinks about it all - whether they think their god made all the other planets and universes as well as the one that we live in.




I don't think it would be a problem for run of the mill Christians. They believe their god created everything, so that would apply to other planets and universes if they exist. There being many universes is no more contradictory to the Bible than there being a single universe. It was not something that the Bible addressed specifically, thus a multi universe comes under the "heavens and the earth". 

Where there would be real problems IMO would be the discovery of intelligent life on another planer or in another universe.


----------



## bunyip (16 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think it would be a problem for run of the mill Christians. They believe their god created everything, so that would apply to other planets and universes if they exist. There being many universes is no more contradictory to the Bible than there being a single universe. It was not something that the Bible addressed specifically, thus a multi universe comes under the "heavens and the earth".
> 
> Where there would be real problems IMO would be the discovery of intelligent life on another planer or in another universe.




And the possibility of discovery of an intelligent life form on another planet/universe is something that can’t be ruled out.
It would surely ‘throw a cat among the pigeons’, as the saying goes.
However, my observation of human nature is that many people who strongly believe in something will continue to believe in it regardless of all evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that a hardcore of religious folk will stick rigidly to their views no matter what new information comes to light through research and exploration.


----------



## lindsayf (16 January 2014)

Religion can be quite conveniently adaptive when required to remain 'relevant' to the masses.
This convenience usually occurs via new spiritual revelations spontaneoulsy and miraculously recieved by various church leaders and/or updated interpretations of archaic texts.  This then results in new edicts/pronunciations etc that overturn previously accepted (and now clearly false/wrong) dogma.

No doubt these would come into play in the case of discovery of intelligent life on another planet.


----------



## Chris45 (16 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think it would be a problem for run of the mill Christians. They believe their god created everything, so that would apply to other planets and universes if they exist. There being many universes is no more contradictory to the Bible than there being a single universe. It was not something that the Bible addressed specifically, thus a multi universe comes under the "heavens and the earth".
> 
> Where there would be real problems IMO would be the discovery of intelligent life on another planer or in another universe.



The discovery of intelligent life, as we know it, on another planet would be a problem. The Bible is rather short on details and I don't know if it accommodates that possibility or not. You'd have to ask Ken Ham.

The real problem however would be someone proving abiogenesis in the laboratory. There are a lot of Muslims in this world and we've seen how they react when a Westerner insults their prophet. Can you imagine how they would react if a Westerner came forward and said he could prove their God doesn't exist? 

However, I believe it won't happen. We're spending $billions on searching for life elsewhere in our universe ... how much are we spending on researching abiogenesis? 

Life in another universe ... I think Stevenson's and Tucker's discoveries are possible evidence that there is.


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> The real problem however would be someone proving abiogenesis in the laboratory. There are a lot of Muslims in this world and we've seen how they react when a Westerner insults their prophet. Can you imagine how they would react if a Westerner came forward and said he could prove their God doesn't exist?




If scientists should prove that it can happen and/or did happen, I would hope they just stick to just stating that. That abiogenesis can and/or has happened and they have proof. I don't think they should extrapolate that proof to make claims about the existence or not of God.

It will then be up to each religion and each person to figure out how to come to terms with the finding. Whether the claims made by the religion should be scaled back, whether they abandon their particular religion all together or perhaps just bury their heads in the sand like the young earth creationists do in relation to what we know and is already proven about the formation of the universe and evolution of species.

One would hope that the extreme fringes who reject the scientists' finding apply their energy to proving them wrong, rather than physically attacking them because they don't like what they hear.


----------



## DB008 (17 January 2014)




----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2014)

*Nigerian Pastor Tries To Walk On Water Like Jesus, Then Drowns In Front Of His Congregation*

http://www.reportghananews.com/nige...sus-then-drowns-in-front-of-his-congregation/


----------



## Chris45 (18 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Nigerian Pastor Tries To Walk On Water Like Jesus, Then Drowns In Front Of His Congregation*
> 
> http://www.reportghananews.com/nige...sus-then-drowns-in-front-of-his-congregation/



Obviously, someone omitted telling him where the stepping stones were.


----------



## DB008 (19 January 2014)

*Richard Dawkins’ Tips for Debating Creationists*




> Richard Dawkins has gone on the record as saying he would never debate Creationists because “they’ve won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability.”






> 1) Focus on the fossils and the cosmological evidence for the age of the universe:
> 2) Remember: No fossil has ever been found out of place:
> 3) The evidence for evolution is overwhelming:
> 4) The geographic distribution of species is exactly as we would predict through evolution:
> 5) Most working scientists accept evolution and a multi-billion-year-old universe:




http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/18/richard-dawkins-tips-for-debating-creationists/


----------



## cynic (19 January 2014)

Who cares what Dawkins views are?

He's already proven himself to be too incompetent to conduct an intelligent debate on any topic other than how not to conduct a debate! 

In my opinion, he's so far behind the times, he belongs with his precious dinosaurs!


----------



## Tink (19 January 2014)

If it had not been for the influence of the Christian values in western society, would Richard Dawkins have resorted to the laws of the jungle or survival of the fittest to get his views across?


----------



## Chris45 (19 January 2014)

Dawkins is an "intelligent idiot".
Creation and evolution work conjointly.
Things are created, then they evolve.
The evidence is all around us.
Why not with life?


----------



## sydboy007 (20 January 2014)

It's a toss up between windfarms and homosexuality as to which causes more harm to society 

_The UK Independence Party has suspended a councillor who claimed recent floods were the result of the British government's decision to legalise gay marriage.

David Silvester claimed the country had been "beset by storms" since the passage of the new law on gay marriage because David Cameron had acted "arrogantly against the Gospel".

He said the new law, paving the way for the first gay marriages in Britain this spring, was the latest mistake which would anger God - following on from abortion laws, which he likened to the Holocaust.

In the radio interview, which followed his initial claims about the link between flooding and gay marriage in a letter to the Henley Standard, Mr Silvester said: "I don't have a problem with gay people.

"I believe as a Christian I should love gay people and indeed, I do. My prayer for them is they will be healed."

"One, for example, is the abortion laws in which something like six million children, as many as the people killed by the Nazis in the death camps, have been killed as a result of the abortion laws.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/uk-part...ay-marriage-20140120-hv956.html#ixzz2qtH3GKzf_


----------



## pavilion103 (20 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> Richard Dawkins Tips for Debating Creationists  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/18/richard-dawkins-tips-for-debating-creationists/




Wow that's weak if that's the best he has.


----------



## bunyip (20 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Nigerian Pastor Tries To Walk On Water Like Jesus, Then Drowns In Front Of His Congregation*
> 
> http://www.reportghananews.com/nige...sus-then-drowns-in-front-of-his-congregation/




LOL....Thinking he could walk on water without coming to any harm! And that other bloke who thought he could step into a pen full of lions without coming to grief!
Someone should have told these silly characters that just because something is written in a book, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. Quite a few people probably did in fact tell them that, but were ignored.
Ah well – live and learn. Or die and learn in the case of those two blokes!

It's a shame that religion attracts a percentge of complete nutters - some of the ridiculous things done in the name of religion just about beggar belief.

Having said that, I've seen some good things done in the name of religion too.


----------



## Chris45 (20 January 2014)

bunyip said:


> Having said that, I've seen some good things done in the name of religion too.



Could this be an example?   *http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...-drug-cartels-article-1.1581063#ixzz2qh6lANRe*

BBC documentary:   *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGsgZiCBgH8*

Reminder: SBS tonight 8:30, *"How Big is the Universe?"*.


----------



## bellenuit (20 January 2014)

Makes you think. 

If there was a God who created this incomprehensibly vast universe, how come, apart from some statements in Genesis regarding the creation of the heavens and the earth, that this God, as he was revealed to us in the Holy Books, confined himself to this small region ........


----------



## bunyip (21 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Could this be an example?   *http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...-drug-cartels-article-1.1581063#ixzz2qh6lANRe*




Exorcisms don't impress me or convince me of anything escept that humans are capable of believing just about anything no matter how far fetched it is.


----------



## Calliope (21 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Makes you think.
> 
> If there was a God who created this incomprehensibly vast universe, how come, apart from some statements in Genesis regarding the creation of the heavens and the earth, that this God, as he was revealed to us in the Holy Books, confined himself to this small region ........
> 
> ...




It is ironic that the three religions spawned in that little circle claim to share the same God, and yet, one of them can commit horrendous atrocities in the name of God, against the "infidels", while shouting "Allāhu Akbar".:screwy:


----------



## DB008 (21 January 2014)

*Humanity Is Becoming Increasingly Less Violent, with One Exception *



> Wherever you look in the world, there continues to be religious motivated violence. From the fighting that has plagued Palestine for the past six decades (Jews vs. Muslims), to the dispute over Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus). Also, there’s Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Philippines (Muslims vs. Christians), Iraq (Sunni Muslims vs. Shiite), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), and the Caucasus region (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims).
> 
> While most of the above examples have basis in disputes over land and political control, it’s religious belief that shapes the terms and the willingness of one party to negotiate with the other. War, by definition, suggests an all-or nothing conflict to determine a dispute against an enemy one believes in hell-bent on our destruction, and therefore cannot be placated via diplomatic means. In other words, war and violence becomes an excuse for not finding compromise. Religion provides the excuse to be violent.




http://www.alternet.org/belief/humanity-becoming-increasingly-less-violent-one-exception-religious-violence?page=0%2C1

And original paper
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/


----------



## bellenuit (21 January 2014)

*Police: Maryland mom kills 2 of her children during attempted exorcism*

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/19/justice/maryland-exorcism-deaths/index.html?hpt=us_c2


----------



## Chris45 (22 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Police: Maryland mom kills 2 of her children during attempted exorcism*
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/19/justice/maryland-exorcism-deaths/index.html?hpt=us_c2



The warning, "Don't try this at home" springs to mind.


----------



## DB008 (22 January 2014)

Full Show: Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Religion and the Universe

[video=vimeo;84349929]http://vimeo.com/84349929#embed[/video]


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2014)

Child abuse?


----------



## DB008 (24 January 2014)

Is Religion crazy? 

Yes


*2002 Mecca girls' school fire*



> On March 11, 2002, a fire at a girls' school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia killed fifteen people, all young girls. The event was especially notable due to complaints that Saudi Arabia's "religious police" (aka the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice) stopped schoolgirls from leaving the burning building and hindered rescue workers because the girls were not wearing correct Islamic dress.[1] As Hanny Megally, Executive Director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch put it, "Women and girls may have died unnecessarily because of extreme interpretations of the Islamic dress code. State authorities with direct and indirect responsibility for this tragedy must be held accountable."[2]





http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls%27_school_fire


----------



## bunyip (25 January 2014)

Religious quote of the day.......’God has to be the best inventor of all time - he took a rib from Adam and made a loudspeaker!’


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2014)

If this is true, the UK has gone mad!

*Muslim Nurses Complain Washing Hands Before Medical Procedures ‘Compromises Modesty’*

http://americanoverlook.com/outrage...e-medical-procedures-compromises-modesty/9656


----------



## DB008 (27 January 2014)

*Extremist religion is at root of 21st-century wars, says Tony Blair*

*Former prime minister will reignite debate on Iraq as he calls on governments to switch tactics*




> Tony Blair has reignited debate about the west's response to terrorism with a call on governments to recognise that religious extremism has become the biggest source of conflict around the world.
> 
> Referring to wars and violent confrontations from Syria to Nigeria and the Philippines, Blair, writing in the Observer, argues that "there is one thing self-evidently in common: the acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith."
> 
> ...




http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/25/extremist-religion-wars-tony-blair


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2014)




----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2014)

*Pig Photos Censored in Malaysia*

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/01/26/pig-photos-censored-in-malaysia/


----------



## noco (27 January 2014)

Islam is using religion as a cover for their political ideology.....it is all about world domination and the extremist will do everything in their power to exercise thier gain including terrorism creating a miaserable life for many people around the world.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_mention_the_war3/


----------



## DB008 (27 January 2014)

noco said:


> Islam is using religion as a cover for their political ideology.....it is all about world domination and the extremist will do everything in their power to exercise thier gain including terrorism creating a miaserable life for many people around the world.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_mention_the_war3/





*Debate: Atheist vs Muslim (Christopher Hitchens vs Tariq Ramadan)*


----------



## noco (27 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Debate: Atheist vs Muslim (Christopher Hitchens vs Tariq Ramadan)*





Thanks for that link DBOO8.......I did see it some months ago, in fact I think I may have posted it on this thread many months ago.

But thanks anyway.


----------



## bunyip (28 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Extremist religion is at root of 21st-century wars, says Tony Blair*
> 
> *Former prime minister will reignite debate on Iraq as he calls on governments to switch tactics*
> 
> ...




And yet Tony Blair, more than any other British PM, has the dubious reputation of having allowed mass Muslim immigration into Britain during his term as prime minister.
Britain is now starting to pay a heavy price for his folly!


----------



## bunyip (29 January 2014)

Looks like the Salvos have been just as bad as the Catholic religion in their abuse of innocent little kids, including covering up their crimes and taking no action against known offenders.
At least one of the vermin who carried out the abuse is still an officer in the Salvos.

I’ll never donate money to the Salvos again. I know they do a lot of good work too, as do the Catholics. But if an organization allows its highest members to rape and beat little kids while hiding behind the cloak of religion, then its lost my support.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/salv...em-royal-commission-hears-20140128-31k5u.html


----------



## bellenuit (29 January 2014)

bunyip said:


> Looks like the Salvos have been just as bad as the Catholic religion in their abuse of innocent little kids, including covering up their crimes and taking no action against known offenders.
> At least one of the vermin who carried out the abuse is still an officer in the Salvos.
> 
> I’ll never donate money to the Salvos again. I know they do a lot of good work too, as do the Catholics. But if an organization allows its highest members to rape and beat little kids while hiding behind the cloak of religion, then its lost my support.
> ...




I used to donate equally to the Salvos and Saint Vincent de Paul for their Christmas appeals but went completely off the Salvos when they sent a questionnaire out because they wanted to know more about their donors. This is several year ago now. I was miffed at the time because I valued my privacy and the questions made some assumptions about the donors and their motivations that were not true in my case and would have allowed false conclusions to be drawn if I answered. Since then I have doubled up and given almost everything to Vinnies.  

As to why I would donate through patently Christian organisations? I just believe they are the most effective at getting the funds to those who need, because of their low overheads and cost structure. The majority are also good people at heart and deserve support for that aspect of their mission.


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

Bunyip and Bellenuit, which charities are safe to donate to?

I'm not interested to send money to the Middle East or Africa so that rules out international organizations.


----------



## bellenuit (30 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip and Bellenuit, which charities are safe to donate to?
> 
> I'm not interested to send money to the Middle East or Africa so that rules out international organizations.




I would have thought both the Salvos and Vinies. I may be wrong, but I assume that the Red Shield Appeal of the former and the Christmas appeal of the latter are both for local causes.

I would never support organisations such as UNHCR (as they also have a political agenda - for example, their criticism of Abbotts boats policy) or any of the several other international organisations that have young collectors on the streets day in day out. These are usually paid commission, so I can see a large part of the donations going to overheads.


----------



## DB008 (30 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip and Bellenuit, which charities are safe to donate to?
> 
> I'm not interested to send money to the Middle East or Africa so that rules out international organizations.




OT - I donate to the Westpac Rescue Chopper each year.


----------



## Chris45 (31 January 2014)

Bellenuit and DB, thanks for your suggestions.

I agree that anything to do with the UN, *especially* the UNHCR, is not even up for consideration as far as I'm concerned.

The reason I'm against international charities is that I'm one of the mugs who got caught up with the wave of compassion after the Indonesian Tsunami, and donated generously to the appeal, but after seeing how they have responded ... *NEVER* again!!!

The Salvos and Vinies should be good. The vast majority of Salvos do great work and must be quite devastated by what has come out of the inquiry but I'm not going to condemn the entire organisation because of the actions of a few rotten members.

I suppose the Surf Lifesavers could be a worthy cause too.


----------



## artist (31 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bellenuit and DB, thanks for your suggestions..




Silver Chain:  a non-profit, "The Silver Chain Group’s purpose is to build community capacity to optimise health and wellbeing. This is the core of who we are as an organisation and will help shape the future of in home community care across Australia. . . . With well over 100 years' experience delivering care in the community, respectively, both Silver Chain and RDNS SA are committed to offering a range of services to assist people in their homes. . . These services include specialist nursing, palliative care, home care and support services, home hospital and home therapy/allied services, such as physiotherapy, podiatry and speech pathology. We also have a range of equipment like personal alarms and other technology based support to assist clients of all ages."
http://www.silverchain.org.au/group/about-us/
Their palliative care / home support has been first class in every dealing I have had with them. They now operate in Queensland.

Also RFDS http://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/default.aspx another not-for-profit


----------



## Julia (31 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> The Salvos and Vinies should be good. The vast majority of Salvos do great work and must be quite devastated by what has come out of the inquiry but I'm not going to condemn the entire organisation because of the actions of a few rotten members.



Agree.  I don't understand the perspective of people who have now resolved never to donate to either St Vinnies or the Salvos because of the perverted and dreadful actions in the past.

The evidence coming to light this week is sickening, almost unbelievable that anyone could inflict such cruelty on children who had already lost so much.  

But don't let's impede the work these charities do now.  It won't punish those long ago perpetrators.


----------



## bunyip (1 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip and Bellenuit, which charities are safe to donate to?
> 
> I'm not interested to send money to the Middle East or Africa so that rules out international organizations.




I have a soft spot for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, maybe because of my years living in outback Queensland where the nearest hospital was a long drive of several hours if you had a bad fall from a horse or got bitten by a snake or whatever. It was mighty comforting to know that the Flying Doctor was only a phone call away. I never had to use them myself but I know people who have. Apart from the invaluable service they provide to bush people, the RFDS also supplied each station property in their area with a comprehensive first aid kit at no cost to the recipient.
The RFDS is woefully underfunded by government and has to rely in large part on donations and fund raising functions to provide funding.


----------



## DB008 (6 February 2014)

*Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD*


----------



## DB008 (9 February 2014)

Goes like this does it?


​


----------



## burglar (9 February 2014)

DB008 said:


> Goes like this does it? ...




God uses a different measuring stick to me, ... so I am told!! :1zhelp:


----------



## cynic (9 February 2014)

burglar said:


> God uses a different measuring stick to me, ... so I am told!! :1zhelp:




Does it measure in cubits?


----------



## burglar (9 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Does it measure in cubits?




Cubits is a Shockwave interactive that encourages children to construct three-dimensional geometric sculptures online.

Alternatively:
An ancient unit of linear measure, originally equal to the length of the forearm from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow.


----------



## bunyip (11 February 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/w...y-kills-iraqi-pupils.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=1

More religious madness - one faction against the other, all in the name of Allah. 
That's why I don't want these lunatics in my country!


----------



## DB008 (11 February 2014)

*Satirical spaghetti monster image banned by London South Bank University as ‘religiously offensive’*



> Non-religious students at London South Bank University have had posters advertising their society banned for being ‘offensive’. The poster publicising the South Bank Atheist Society (SBAS) depicted Michelangelo’s famous ‘Creation of Adam’ fresco from the Sistine Chapel but with the character of god replaced with the satirical online deity the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ (FSM).
> 
> The British Humanist Association (BHA) and National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Students Societies (AHS), of which SBAS is a member, have expressed exasperation and condemned the decision as ‘utterly ridiculous’ and part of ‘rising tide of frivolous censorship that is curtailing the legitimate activities of our members.’
> 
> ...


----------



## bellenuit (11 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/w...y-kills-iraqi-pupils.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=1
> 
> More religious madness - one faction against the other, all in the name of Allah.
> That's why I don't want these lunatics in my country!


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Satirical spaghetti monster image banned by London South Bank University as ‘religiously offensive’*





It's not the first time in recent months that a UK tertiary college banned atheists' freedom of speech because it might offend others, even though there was actually nothing offensive apart from the fact that certain groups WANT to be offended. 

*LSE apologizes (sort of) to students forced to cover up their Jesus and Mo shirts*

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...forced-to-cover-up-their-jesus-and-mo-shirts/

This is an example of an "offending" t-shirt




To make matters worse, Maajid Nawaz, a prospective Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate in the UK and moderate Muslim tweeted the above image to show that not all Muslims take offence at such mundane things. Apparently he received death threats from fellow Muslims because HE WAS NOT OFFENDED and because of the tweet and there have been calls for him to be dropped as the Lib Dem candidate for Kilburn and Hampstead. Worse still, when discussing the story, the BBC would not allow two audience members to wear t-shirts with that image.

*Nick Clegg attacks death threats against Maajid Nawaz - Lib Dem candidate who tweeted a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus greeting each other*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ed-and-jesus-greeting-each-other-9086469.html

It is so sad to see a country like Britain who did so much for the cause of freedom in the 2nd world war throw their freedom away in the name of political correctness and misguided multiculturalism. I've seen this quoted and is so true: "Multiculturalism is the embrace of diversity not the acceptance of intolerance". It's a pity that the new left in particular have forgotten that.


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2014)

*TTP has 500 women suicide bombers: Aziz*

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086463


----------



## bellenuit (13 February 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Satirical spaghetti monster image banned by London South Bank University as ‘religiously offensive’*




At last, some common sense.....

*London South Bank University issue full apology over flying spaghetti monster censorship issue*

https://humanism.org.uk/2014/02/12/...gy-flying-spaghetti-monster-censorship-issue/


----------



## DB008 (14 February 2014)

*Destruction of the Idols*



> (Damascus) - Islamic fundamentalists in Syria have started to destroy archaeological treasures such as Byzantine mosaics and Greek and Roman statues because their portrayal of human beings is contrary to their religious beliefs.
> 
> The systematic destruction of antiquities may be the worst disaster to ancient monuments since the Taliban in Afghanistan dynamited the giant statues of Buddha at Bamiyan in 2001 for similar ideological reasons.
> 
> In mid-January the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), an al-Qa’ida-type movement controlling much of north-east Syria, blew up and destroyed a sixth-century Byzantine mosaic near the city of Raqqa on the Euphrates. The official head of antiquities for Raqqa province, who has fled to Damascus and does not want his name published, told The Independent: “It happened between 12 and 15 days ago. A Turkish businessman had come to Raqqa to try to buy the mosaic. This alerted them [Isis] to its existence and they came and blew it up. It is completely lost.”




http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2014/02/destruction-idols/


----------



## bellenuit (16 February 2014)

*Twenty five years on from Rushdie we are too frightened to say we are scared*

http://nickcohen.net/2014/02/15/twe...shdie-we-are-frightened-to-say-we-are-scared/


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

I'm sure something similar happened a few years back too.

*Snake-Handling Reality TV Pastor Dies After Snakebite*

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ign=nprnews&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=twitter

_"I feel in my heart, because God opened it up to me, if I stopped taking up serpents I would die and go to hell," Coots told NPR at the time. "It is in the Bible, and we tell people because it's in the Bible you must believe it."_

Say no more...


----------



## DB008 (17 February 2014)

*250 jihadis spark UK terror alert*



> THE full scale of the terrorist threat to Britain can be revealed today with the disclosure that about 250 British-based jihadis who went to train and fight in Syria have returned home.
> 
> Senior security officials say the high number of “returnees” ”” five times the figure that has been previously reported ”” underlines the growing danger posed by “extremist tourists” going to the war-torn region.
> 
> ...




http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1376586.ece


----------



## DB008 (18 February 2014)

*First case of polio discovered in Kabul since 2001*




> A three-year-old girl has been diagnosed with the first case of polio since 2001 in the Afghan capital Kabul, the Ministry of Public Health said on Tuesday.
> 
> The child, called Sakhina, was a member of the Kuchi nomadic tribe that moves freely across most provinces in Afghanistan and her family was living in the Kasaba district in eastern Kabul.






> The battle to eradicate polio is being undermined by the spread of the virus in Pakistan, where vaccinators are routinely killed by the Islamist Taliban, who see the program as part of a plot to sterilize Muslims. It is the only country in the world that recorded an increase in cases in 2013 according to the WHO.




http://www.dailyzone.com/articles/29/20140211/first-case-of-polio-discovered-in-kabul-since-2001.htm


----------



## DB008 (18 February 2014)

Back to the middle ages, go Saudi....


*Women’s visits to hospitals without male guardians banned*



> The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Haia) has officially prevented women from visiting medical clinics without male guardians.
> 
> This came after a member of the Council of Senior Scholars issued a “fatwa” (edict) prohibiting women from visiting male doctors without having male guardians present.
> 
> ...




http://www.arabnews.com/news/525696


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2014)

_“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”_ Steven Weinberg


----------



## bunyip (19 February 2014)

DB008 said:


> *First case of polio discovered in Kabul since 2001*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let the dumb bastards get ravaged by polio then - pull all aid out of their miserable country, they don't deserve help from the outside world.


----------



## bunyip (19 February 2014)

Yet another cover up by the Catholic church of child sexual abuse, this time at a Toowoomba Catholic school. 
After the school principal was informed of the abuse, it was more than a year before he reported it to police. And all the while, the offender who was employed as a ‘child protection officer’ at the school, continued to rape and abuse these little nine year old girls.
When asked why he took so long to inform the police, the principal stated that he acted on instructions form the Catholic education system to whom he reported it.

Meanwhile, a none too bright woman who is still employed at the school says she can’t understand why the abused girls ‘didn’t have the courage to come forward and report the abuse’. Clearly this foolish female can’t understand that little kids being abused are often threatened into silence by the abuser.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...use-toowoomba-catholic-school-teacher/5264230


----------



## Julia (19 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> Yet another cover up by the Catholic church of child sexual abuse, this time at a Toowoomba Catholic school.
> After the school principal was informed of the abuse, it was more than a year before he reported it to police. And all the while, the offender who was employed as a ‘child protection officer’ at the school, continued to rape and abuse these little nine year old girls.
> When asked why he took so long to inform the police, the principal stated that he acted on instructions form the Catholic education system to whom he reported it.



Furthermore, the same principal decided it would be useful to have one of the little girls re-enact what happened with the abuser by mimicking the event *with her father!!
*How obscene.   How is it possible that such people were (still are?) employed to care for and educate our children?


----------



## bellenuit (20 February 2014)

Evangelical Christians justifying mass slaughter (but seem not worried that it included innocent children)

*The slaughter of the Canaanites – was it justified?*

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-slaughter-of-canaanites-was-it.html


----------



## bunyip (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Furthermore, the same principal decided it would be useful to have one of the little girls re-enact what happened with the abuser by mimicking the event *with her father!!
> *How obscene.   How is it possible that such people were (still are?) employed to care for and educate our children?




In my opinion the principal should get fifteen years with a non-parole period of ten years, for covering up a crime like this. Only then might these morons understand that concealing crimes against children is just not acceptable.

As for the perpetrator of the actual crimes - castration, then life imprisonment with his file marked ‘never to be released’.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> In my opinion the principal should get fifteen years with a non-parole period of ten years, for covering up a crime like this. Only then might these morons understand that concealing crimes against children is just [not] acceptable.




Amazing how the bishops and everyone else who know about these crimes haven't been charged as accessories.


----------



## bunyip (20 February 2014)

And in yet another example of religious stupidity, an Australian missionary has been arrested after waltzing into North Korea and distributing Christian material.
Not that I think he should have been arrested, but nor do I think that he should have been stupid enough to embark on a course of action that would quite likely land him in a dingy prison cell for the rest of his life. 
His wife said he was just following what God wanted him to do. 
The silly bugger doesn’t even know that God exists, let alone knowing that God requires him to wade into a country like North Korea and take action that would almost certainly land him in hot water.
He apparently told his wife that if he got arrested, he’d ‘leave it in the hands of God’.
There appears to be no limit to the foolishness of some of these religious fanatics.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-korea-north-idUSBREA1I0AM20140219


----------



## Chris45 (20 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> And in yet another example of religious stupidity, an Australian missionary has been arrested after waltzing into North Korea and distributing Christian material.
> Not that I think he should have been arrested, but nor do I think that he should have been stupid enough to embark on a course of action that would quite likely land him in a dingy prison cell for the rest of his life.
> His wife said he was just following what God wanted him to do.
> The silly bugger doesn’t even know that God exists, let alone knowing that God requires him to wade into a country like North Korea and take action that would almost certainly land him in hot water.
> ...





> *All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.*




Four Corners showed people, presumably non-Christians, trying to help the North Koreans by smuggling USB sticks and DVDs of South Korean soap operas and entertainment shows into the North to help them discover that much of what they have been told about the outside world is lies, thereby encouraging open dissent and undermining the Kim regime. Are they also stupid?

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/02/17/3944138.htm

How are you enjoying those birds on your back verandah?


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> And in yet another example of religious stupidity, an Australian missionary has been arrested after waltzing into North Korea and distributing Christian material.
> Not that I think he should have been arrested, but nor do I think that he should have been stupid enough to embark on a course of action that would quite likely land him in a dingy prison cell for the rest of his life.
> His wife said he was just following what God wanted him to do.
> The silly bugger doesn’t even know that God exists, let alone knowing that God requires him to wade into a country like North Korea and take action that would almost certainly land him in hot water.
> ...




Too right bunyip!

That guy should at least have shown God the common decency of asking for Her guidance and intent before presuming to be able to embark on such a foolish endeavour with the expectation that God will automatically come racing to his rescue.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Too right bunyip!
> 
> That guy should at least have shown God the common decency of asking for Her guidance and intent before presuming to be able to embark on such a foolish endeavour with the expectation that God will automatically come racing to his rescue.



He will, however, undoubtedly expect the Australian government to come racing to his rescue.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> He will, however, undoubtedly expect the Australian government to come racing to his rescue.




lol, yep and if they do it will be because of god


----------



## Chris45 (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> He will, however, undoubtedly expect the Australian government to come racing to his rescue.



I don't think so. His wife has made it clear during an interview that they expect nothing from the Australian government or anyone else.


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> He will, however, undoubtedly expect the Australian government to come racing to his rescue.





Huh?  More important would be God looking our for him.


----------



## McLovin (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> He will, however, undoubtedly expect the Australian government to come racing to his rescue.




Indeed. There's no doubt, IMO, he'll be let out. He certainly won't be sent to one of those death camps they have and I imagine he will have an easier time than if he had been American or Japanese. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now though and who knows what will become of the guides who were escorting him. Interestingly, although Australia has pretty good *speaking relatively* relations with NK, the Australian embassy was forced to leave NK in, the 1970's because it was spying on NK.

Off topic: I watched that Four Corners doco, and it really looks like NK is opening up to the outside world, albeit very slowly. They even have a mobile phone network now, which didn't exist when I was there in 2006. And it was good to see those markets and some form of commerce taking place, until 2002 there wasn't even money in circulation.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> He will, however, undoubtedly expect the Australian government to come racing to his rescue.




God sure does work in mysterious ways! 

Not that I'd personally have any sympathy for such reckless and irresponsible behaviour.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> lol, yep and if they do it will be because of god




Maybe action man Tony can parachute into N.K. in his budgie smugglers (red for communism of course), say a few hail Mary's and while the NK's are laughing their heads off, make an escape with the Man of God to one of our Collins subs for the trip home. Actually that last bit is probably the most dangerous part of the mission.


----------



## Chris45 (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> God sure does work in mysterious ways!
> 
> Not that I'd personally have any sympathy for such reckless and irresponsible behaviour.



I admire his courage and conviction, but the skeptics will have a laugh whatever happens.

Two possible outcomes:
1. He goes to prison ... God failed him ... skeptics: 
2. He gets released ... win for diplomacy and God had nothing to do with it ... skeptics:


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I admire his courage and conviction, but the skeptics will have a laugh whatever happens.
> 
> Two possible outcomes:
> 1. He goes to prison ... God failed him ... skeptics:
> 2. He gets released ... win for diplomacy and God had nothing to do with it ... skeptics:





Lol,  pretty much.  Unbelieving bunch.


----------



## burglar (21 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Too right bunyip!
> 
> That guy should at least have shown God the common decency of asking for Her guidance and intent before presuming to be able to embark on such a foolish endeavour with the expectation that God will automatically come racing to his rescue.




You are right! : 

God exists and She is a comedienne!


----------



## DocK (21 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I admire his courage and conviction, but the skeptics will have a laugh whatever happens.
> 
> Two possible outcomes:
> 1. He goes to prison ... God failed him ... skeptics:
> 2. He gets released ... win for diplomacy and God had nothing to do with it ... skeptics:




Or.....
3.  God materializes  .... Kim Jong-un repents and releases all political prisoners .... skeptics see the light and admit God is real


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

DocK said:


> Or.....
> 3.  God materializes  .... Kim Jong-un repents and releases all political prisoners .... skeptics see the light and admit God is real




Don't be silly! True sceptics will never admit to anything for which an alternate explanation may be argued. Hoax, mirage, mass hypnosis, gas induced dementia, take a pick from their favourite deck of "trump everything bar contemporary science" cards!


----------



## bunyip (21 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Four Corners showed people, presumably non-Christians, trying to help the North Koreans by smuggling USB sticks and DVDs of South Korean soap operas and entertainment shows into the North to help them discover that much of what they have been told about the outside world is lies, thereby encouraging open dissent and undermining the Kim regime. Are they also stupid?




I'll let you make up your own mind about that, Chris. But I can tell you that I'm not silly enough to take the sort of risks that could land me in jail in NK, thereby destroying my life and causing immense heartache to my family and the people who care about me.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/02/17/3944138.htm



Chris45 said:


> How are you enjoying those birds on your back verandah?




I'm enjoying them immensely, thanks Chris. I'll guarantee that I get more pleasure from my home and family and simple activities like bird watching, than that missionary is getting from rotting in a North Korean jail cell.


----------



## bunyip (21 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I admire his courage and conviction, but the skeptics will have a laugh whatever happens.




Sometimes there's a very fine line between courage and conviction, and outright stupidity.

A man handles deadly snakes because he thinks that's what God has commanded him to do. Gets bitten nine times over the years but keeps doing it, finally a rattlesnake nails him good and proper and kills him.
Courage and conviction? Or outright stupidity?

A preacher tells his followers that he'll walk on water as Jesus is reputed to have done. He drowns in the attempt.
Courage and conviction? Or outright stupidity?

A Christian woman joins one of those foreign aid programs that aim to stamp out polio in third world countries. Gets shot dead by religious extremists who think she's trying to sterilize muslims.
Was it courage and conviction that caused her to risk her life? Or was it stupidity and irresponsibility?

A Christian missionary and his ten year old son were burnt alive in their car by religious extremists in India who didn't appreciate him trying to bring Christianity to them.
Was it courage and conviction that caused him to risk his life and the life of his son? Or was he just being stupid and irresponsible, without any consideration for the grieving family and friends he'd leave behind if he came to grief?


----------



## rumpole (21 February 2014)

Yes, religion is crazy.

Can we leave it there ?


----------



## bunyip (21 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> Yet another cover up by the Catholic church of child sexual abuse, this time at a Toowoomba Catholic school.




For the record - the school is St Saviours College.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> Sometimes there's a very fine line between courage and conviction, and outright stupidity.
> 
> A man handles deadly snakes because he thinks that's what God has commanded him to do. Gets bitten nine times over the years but keeps doing it, finally a rattlesnake nails him good and proper and kills him.
> Courage and conviction? Or outright stupidity?
> ...





Thanks for bringing those stories into the light.  I never even heard of them so it's good to see you telling christian stories instead of always fighting and arguing against it.


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> Sometimes there's a very fine line between courage and conviction, and outright stupidity.  A man handles deadly snakes because he thinks that's what God has commanded him to do. Gets bitten nine times over the years but keeps doing it, finally a rattlesnake nails him good and proper and kills him. Courage and conviction? Or outright stupidity?  A preacher tells his followers that he'll walk on water as Jesus is reputed to have done. He drowns in the attempt. Courage and conviction? Or outright stupidity?  A Christian woman joins one of those foreign aid programs that aim to stamp out polio in third world countries. Gets shot dead by religious extremists who think she's trying to sterilize muslims. Was it courage and conviction that caused her to risk her life? Or was it stupidity and irresponsibility?  A Christian missionary and his ten year old son were burnt alive in their car by religious extremists in India who didn't appreciate him trying to bring Christianity to them. Was it courage and conviction that caused him to risk his life and the life of his son? Or was he just being stupid and irresponsible, without any consideration for the grieving family and friends he'd leave behind if he came to grief?




Those risking their lives to spread the gospel would be extremely foolish and reckless if this was the only life that there was. It would make no sense.

If there was another life however, and their efforts to extend the gospel at personal risk, including death, lead to the eternal salvation of others, then it would be better than any risk to reward ratio that you'd ever see in trading.


----------



## Chris45 (21 February 2014)

burglar said:


> You are right! :
> 
> God exists and She is a comedienne!



Oh Burglar! ... You are SUCH a sexist!!! The feminazis will be after you if you're not careful. :

http://grammarist.com/usage/comedienne/


> The gendered noun comedienne””the female equivalent of comedian””has been growing in prevalence over the last few years, but its use in 21st-century English is questionable for a few reasons. First, most female comedians refer to themselves as comedians, not comediennes. Second, gendered terms can be distracting, especially where the traditionally male forms have long been standard for describing people of both sexes (as is the case with comedian). Third, such gendered terms can be interpreted as sexist, especially when the person’s sex is beside the point.


----------



## Chris45 (21 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> And in yet another example of religious stupidity, an Australian missionary has been arrested after waltzing into North Korea and distributing Christian material.



I wonder how your post (if any) would have read if it had been a guy selling DVDs of Richard Dawkins material or similar?

I notice you didn't condemn with the same vehemence the actions of the people in the Four Corners report.

John Short is a veteran Christian missionary who has been working in Asia for 50 years and no doubt he and his wife gave very serious thought to their actions before he embarked on his mission. He went in to NK with his eyes wide open because he thought he could do something to help the suffering and oppressed people of NK.

Or should everyone just sit on their hands and turn a blind eye to the indescribable tortures and cruelty going on there, and pour scorn on anyone who dares to try and do something?

It's very easy to sit in the comfort and safety of your home here in this "lucky country" and ridicule the actions of those who unselfishly risk their lives like that to try and help others, and I can see a big difference between what he did and those other cases you listed.

There are people risking their lives on the streets of Kiev at the moment, as well as in other countries around the world, not for their own personal benefit but to try and create a better life for others. Are they also being stupid and irresponsible?


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> their efforts to extend the gospel at personal risk, including death, lead to the eternal salvation of others, then it would be better than any risk to reward ratio that you'd ever see in trading.




So do people that haven't heard the gospel automatically go to hell?

If the answer is no, then aren't you putting them at risk by teaching them the gospel? Because if they were going to get a free pass because they hadn't been informed, then informing them is just taking that free pass away and putting them at risk, Sounds to me like spreading the gospel is gambling with peoples lives, perhaps the Christians should keep their religion to them selves.


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So do people that haven't heard the gospel automatically go to hell?  If the answer is no, then aren't you putting them at risk by teaching them the gospel? Because if they were going to get a free pass because they hadn't been informed, then informing them is just taking that free pass away and putting them at risk, Sounds to me like spreading the gospel is gambling with peoples lives, perhaps the Christians should keep their religion to them selves.




If you were unsure whether someone is going to heaven or hell the most rational, intelligent and compassionate thing would be to present the only way for them to be able to and then leave the choice with them.

I'm glad that these missionaries aren't playing Russian roulette and leaving it up to chance. They are presenting the single objective way and providing people with the choice, by their own free will, to accept it.

Having said that most people in these countries would be aware of Jesus (whatever their thoughts are about him) and thus be accountable to responding to him. Anyone who can present this in a clear and urgent manner is providing the opportunity for them to know the truth and accept it.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So do people that haven't heard the gospel automatically go to hell?
> 
> If the answer is no, then aren't you putting them at risk by teaching them the gospel? Because if they were going to get a free pass because they hadn't been informed, then informing them is just taking that free pass away and putting them at risk, Sounds to me like spreading the gospel is gambling with peoples lives, perhaps the Christians should keep their religion to them selves.






The answer is yes,  even if they havn't heard of Jesus they still get sent to hell.  Once you sin, you need to reconsile.  The only way to do this is faith in JESUS.

- - - Updated - - -



pavilion103 said:


> Having said that most people in these countries would be aware of Jesus (whatever their thoughts are about him) and thus be accountable to responding to him. Anyone who can present this in a clear and urgent manner is providing the opportunity for them to know the truth and accept it.




Good point.


----------



## burglar (21 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Oh Burglar! ... You are SUCH a sexist!!! ...




What do you say to a feminazi with two black eyes? ...

Nothing, ... she's been told twice already!!


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

CBC
I disagree.
It does not address the issue in the bible of those who have never heard.
We know that God's character is justice and he will never rip someone off or leave them without a chance.

Those who are in the bible and never heard of Jesus and are in heaven includes: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, King David etc.

If given the opportunity we must repent and believe. Those very few who don't hear about Christ..... I don't believe they are condemned to hell automatically. Those who have heard (almost everyone) have no excuse.


----------



## Chris45 (21 February 2014)

burglar said:


> What do you say to a feminazi with two black eyes? ...
> 
> Nothing, ... she's been told twice already!!



Good one, ... but what really made me laugh was the reason you gave for your edit.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> CBC
> I disagree.
> It does not address the issue in the bible of those who have never heard.
> We know that God's character is justice and he will never rip someone off or leave them without a chance.
> ...





Sory, obviously before Jesus came people went to heaven based on their works and was nothing to do with Jesus.


----------



## Chris45 (21 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> If given the opportunity we must repent and believe. Those very few who don't hear about Christ..... I don't believe they are condemned to hell automatically. Those who have heard (almost everyone) have no excuse.



I agree. 

It's all about "free will", but you must first be given the opportunity to choose. I believe the thief on the cross was an example.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

> We know that God's character is justice and he will never rip someone off or leave them without a chance.




giving somebody an infinite punishment (eternity in hell) for a finite crime is not Justice. Neither is punishing somebody for not believing in him when he doesn't show himself 



> Those who are in the bible and never heard of Jesus and are in heaven includes: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, King David etc.




according to cbc jesus did met those guys. so did he or didn't he?



> If given the opportunity we must repent and believe. Those very few who don't hear about Christ..... I don't believe they are condemned to hell automatically. Those who have heard (almost everyone) have no excuse




So you agree it is not a good thing to tell someone who doesn't know about Jesus already, since believe they have a free pass anyway.


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

No no no. They do not have a free pass. 
God places in our hearts the knowledge that there is a god. 
Only the very few who sincerely turn to god in this faith, live by the moral standards he places in their conscience and genuinely seek to live a selfless moral life and do what god wants.

There is no free pass. The majority who don't know of Jesus won't be going to heaven IMO. The irony is those who will are probably the plea who would most readily accept Christ if he is presented because they are seeking


----------



## DocK (21 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> CBC
> I disagree.
> It does not address the issue in the bible of those who have never heard.
> We know that God's character is justice and he will never rip someone off or leave them without a chance.
> ...




So to clarify - you believe that all those people who pray to Allah, or Buddha, or Mohammed etc are doomed to hell, because they're praying to the wrong God?  

Do you believe that a child born to pious parents in, say, Pakistan is doomed for eternity because his/her parents have a deep faith in an alternative religion to the one you believe to be the right one?


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

I'll take a God that has no tolerance for sin any day.

In the same way I'll take a judge who upholds the law and doesn't let those who break it run around willy nilly.

The fact that God doesn't tolerate it shows how holy and moral his character is. 

He reveals himself plain and clear for those who open their eyes. It's sad that most don't take he time to.

If you spent as much time seeking truth as you do debating your views in here, you'll find it too.


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

DocK said:


> So to clarify - you believe that all those people who pray to Allah, or Buddha, or Mohammed etc are doomed to hell, because they're praying to the wrong God?  Do you believe that a child born to pious parents in, say, Pakistan is doomed for eternity because his/her parents have a deep faith in an alternative religion to the one you believe to be the right one?




Everyone has a chance to choose to believe Jesus when presented with it.

In the same way that he centre of Christianity started in the the Middle East and then went to:
Rome
Europe
South America
China (yes communism China!)

The CENTRE of Christianity moving is evidence that people can make a choice for themselves if they genuinely seek the truth. 
But you need to seek the truth.
Weigh up the evidence.
A kid who grows up and accepts his Muslim faith on face value is as foolish as the Christian who believe 'just because.'

The evidence for Christ is incomparable greater than for the others. If someone really seeks they will find.


----------



## DocK (21 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I'll take a God that has no tolerance for sin any day.
> 
> In the same way I'll take a judge who upholds the law and doesn't let those who break it run around willy nilly.
> 
> ...




Not looking for a lecture Pav, just a simple answer to my question.


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2014)

I will explain myself in entirety.
I won't post more or less than I feel necessary in answering it.


----------



## artist (21 February 2014)

'twas only a matter of time before the thiests started fighting each other.


----------



## barney (21 February 2014)

cbc said:


> The answer is yes,  *even if they havn't heard of Jesus they still get sent to hell*. .





*If* there is a God (and I have personal views on that)  .....  

*Any* God who would send non-believers to eternal damnation and suffering for ANY reason is definitely not a God I could respect or worship! 

Any God that would let his own Son suffer/die to try and prove a point which could have been proven in so many other ways is NOT a God I could respect or worship.  

I challenge any Father to find a reason why he would consider sacrificing his own flesh and blood .....* No *Father would do that, and if he would, I would be disgusted; certainly not impressed by his "power"

We do "God" a disservice by trying to pigeon hole whatever or whoever he/she is  ......  I prefer to remain open minded about pretty much everything in the Universe  .... It keeps me humble.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

barney said:


> *If* there is a God (and I have personal views on that)  .....
> 
> *Any* God who would send non-believers to eternal damnation and suffering for ANY reason is definitely not a God I could respect or worship!
> 
> ...





Barney!  Jump on in M8 ur more than welcome.  

God loves us so that he sent his son to die for us.  That is the reason.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

Ur right valued,  Pav and myself stuffed up.  Jesus did meet with those people.  I completely forgot.

Things were different then.  Because there was no cross.  The way to life way to do good and by your works.  Back then it was holy people and sinners.  That was salvation.  When Jesus came he changed that.  He took our sins upon the cross so we could be before God.


Not a bad pick up by the way val.....  I take back what I said in earlier threads about your Iq.  Although this mbey just a short burst from you.  So time shall tell........

You should read the bible a tad more val...

It says the punishment for sin is death.  When you die here on earth you are then subject to the laws of heaven / spiritual.  In the spiritual, death is been sent to hell.  Not like here where you just disappear.


----------



## bunyip (21 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I wonder how your post (if any) would have read if it had been a guy selling DVDs of Richard Dawkins material or similar?
> 
> I notice you didn't condemn with the same vehemence the actions of the people in the Four Corners report.




My view is that if anyone goes into a country like North Korea and does _*anything*_ which they know could land them a lengthy jail sentence, thereby causing immeasurable trauma and suffering to their families and loved ones, not to mention themselves, then that person is not only a damn fool, but very inconsiderate to his or her family.



Chris45 said:


> John Short is a veteran Christian missionary who has been working in Asia for 50 years and no doubt he and his wife gave very serious thought to their actions before he embarked on his mission. He went in to NK with his eyes wide open because he thought he could do something to help the suffering and oppressed people of NK.




I wonder how much good he's achieved in 50 years of missionary work, or has he just largely wasted his time and maybe even stuffed up the lifestyle and culture of some of the people he set out to help. You don't necessarily help people by introducing them to Christianity.
Sometimes the introduction of Christianity and western values and ideas have a detrimental effect on primitive people and cultures.



Chris45 said:


> Or should everyone just sit on their hands and turn a blind eye to the indescribable tortures and cruelty going on there, and pour scorn on anyone who dares to try and do something?



Pouring scorn?  I'm simply being realistic in saying that it's pretty damn stupid to embark on a course of action that lands him in trouble, causes himself and his family great suffering, and all for the purpose of trying to let North Koreans know about some being called God when there's no proof whatever that there is any such being.



Chris45 said:


> It's very easy to sit in the comfort and safety of your home here in this "lucky country" and ridicule the actions of those who unselfishly risk their lives like that to try and help others, and I can see a big difference between what he did and those other cases you listed.



My wife and I have often watched journos and other professionals working in dangerous places, and hoped like hell that none of our kids would ever work there in any capacity.

I take it though, Chris, that you have other ideas. Can I assume that you'd be comfortable with your son or daughter working for an outfit like 'Doctors Without Borders'? (Several doctors with this organization were recently kidnapped in Syria). 
Can I assume that you'd be happy enough to have a son or daughter working as a journo in Syria or some other dangerous country?

If do-gooders want to help their fellow humans, then there's plenty of opportunity for helping underprivileged people right here in Australia, without taking silly risks overseas to help people.


Chris45 said:


> There are people risking their lives on the streets of Kiev at the moment, as well as in other countries around the world, not for their own personal benefit but to try and create a better life for others. Are they also being stupid and irresponsible?





Oh, I think it's reasonable to say that the people in Kiev are risking their lives for what they see as the benefit to *themselves* and their country, not just entirely for selfless reasons.

I'll all for helping other people - that's why I've been an active member of a number of community service organizations over many years, that's why I punched above my weight in the floods that devastated my area three years ago.
But you don't help people by going into the midst of religious fanatics in places like India, and telling them your religion is better than theirs, therefore they should abandon their beliefs in favor of yours. 
And you don't help people by causing such offence to a dictatorial government that they silence you and devastate your family by throwing you in the gulag to rot.

But anyway Chris, if you can see merit in doing these things then by all means go for it. I'm sure there are lots of organizations that would welcome your help in Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, or a dozen other places around the globe that are less fortunate than ourselves.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

Whatever bunyip....

There is no negative side effect to introducing Jesus to anybody.


----------



## bellenuit (21 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Whatever bunyip....
> 
> There is no negative side effect to introducing Jesus to anybody.




It depends how Jesus is introduced. 

If introduced by Young Earth Creationists and evangelists of the southern US type who regard the bible as literal then it can do enormous damage to gullible people who may believe that all you need do is pray and Jesus will take care of you. How many stories have we heard of people dying because they failed to take readily available vaccines or refused to see a doctor because they thought praying was sufficient to take care of all earthly ills.

Of course you do realise that in many Islamic countries apostasy is punishable by death. So introducing an Islamic person to Jesus could be like giving him a death sentence and even though he/she might regard that as something not worth fearing because of his/her new faith, consider other members of his family who at best will be left just bereaved but could possibly suffer the same fate even though they themselves have not changed religion.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> It depends how Jesus is introduced.
> 
> If introduced by Young Earth Creationists and evangelists of the southern US type who regard the bible as literal then it can do enormous damage to gullible people who may believe that all you need do is pray and Jesus will take care of you. How many stories have we heard of people dying because they failed to take readily available vaccines or refused to see a doctor because they thought praying was sufficient to take care of all earthly ills.




That's is exactly how Jesus is meant to be taught.  Earth made in 6 days just like the bible says.

Good on those preachers for preaching it.


----------



## Chris45 (21 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> My view is that if anyone goes into a country like North Korea and does _*anything*_ which they know could land them a lengthy jail sentence, thereby causing immeasurable trauma and suffering to their families and loved ones, not to mention themselves, then that person is not only a damn fool, but very inconsiderate to his or her family.



Bunyip, we obviously see things differently. People will do what their hearts and minds tell them to, whether it be journos, doctors, or missionaries, and I don't criticize them for that and it takes all kinds to make the world.

If people risk their lives for personal gain like smuggling drugs, or exploiting the desperately poor, or getting their names into the record books, etc., I have NO sympathy for them, but if they do it for altruistic purposes, I won't criticize them and John Short certainly has a lot more courage than I have and I admire him for it.



> Oh, I think it's reasonable to say that the people in Kiev are risking their lives for what they see as the benefit to *themselves* and their country, not just entirely for selfless reasons.



I saw a report on News24 about Kiev and they were interviewing a young protester and asked him about risking his life, and his reply was that if he died it wasn't important because he wanted to create a better life for others.

Obviously he was hoping to live, but he was prepared to sacrifice himself for others, and I imagine there would be many others like him.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I'll take a God that has no tolerance for sin any day.
> 
> In the same way I'll take a judge who upholds the law and doesn't let those who break it run around willy nilly.
> 
> ...




But he does tolerate it, he sits there watching children being raped and just says you'll pay for that later. 

In fact your god would let a child rapist into heaven as long as he repented later, but the child victim may go to hell for not believing, where is the justice.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Whatever bunyip....
> 
> There is no negative side effect to introducing Jesus to anybody.




Yes the most certainly is, if they are gullible enough to believe your religious b.s they can end up discriminating against other groups, alienate them selves from their family, destroy friendships etc etc.

They could end up dying from curable diseases or let their children die, lose money to religious hucksters

 There are lots of bad side effects of religion.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But he does tolerate it, he sits there watching children being raped and just says you'll pay for that later.
> 
> In fact your god would let a child rapist into heaven as long as he repented later, but the child victim may go to hell for not believing, where is the justice.




But he does tolerate it????????

One moment ur saying its a load of rubbish.  Now ur saying that God does this, God does that.......

Sorry, can u please clarify whether ur a believer?  Sorry about the stuff Iv said to you.... U know..... If you believe that God does this and God does that.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

cbc said:


> But he does tolerate it????????
> 
> One moment ur saying its a load of rubbish.  Now ur saying that God does this, God does that.......
> 
> Sorry, can u please clarify whether ur a believer?  Sorry about the stuff Iv said to you.... U know..... If you believe that God does this and God does that.




I am an atheist, talking to a believer about his god that he believes in.

He says his god doesn't tolerate sin, so i am pointing out that if he were real he certainly does tolerate it because he does nothing to stop the actions.

I can make a comment about what your god does and doesn't do, just the same as i can make a comment about what superman does or doesn't do based on his comic books. I am not saying your god or superman exist, just commenting on the character as you guys are describing him.


----------



## cbc (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am an atheist, talking to a believer about his god that he believes in.
> 
> He says his god doesn't tolerate sin, so i am pointing out that if he were real he certainly does tolerate it because he does nothing to stop the actions.
> 
> I can make a comment about what your god does and doesn't do, just the same as i can make a comment about what superman does or doesn't do based on his comic books. I am not saying your god or superman exist, just commenting on the character as you guys are describing him.





Sorry val,  I was just getting a bit excited.  I thought I might have converted you.  

Obviously not.



There are many things about God I don't understand.  I can't answer that question / what your trying to say.

Are you sure you don't want to convert?


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

barney said:


> ...
> We do "God" a disservice by trying to pigeon hole whatever or whoever he/she is  ......  I prefer to remain open minded about pretty much everything in the Universe  .... It keeps me humble.



+1



cbc said:


> Barney!  Jump on in M8 ur more than welcome.
> ...



+1 

This thread can certainly benefit from offerings of tempered wisdom as evidenced by the contents and manner of your post.



Value Collector said:


> ...
> There are lots of bad side effects of religion.



Yes! Sadly, this is true of many religions, but, let's not forget that their are babies to be found amidst the muddy bathwater!


cbc said:


> ...Sorry val,  I was just getting a bit excited.  I thought I might have converted you.
> 
> Obviously not.
> 
> ...




cbc, 

I'm sure I share your surprise at the number of posters failing to recognise your angle.

I find your approach to this debate hysterical!

The failure of certain contributors to notice what you're doing simply adds to the hilarity!

I am genuinely impressed - Well done!


P.S. Allah Akbar!


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

> Yes! Sadly, this is true of many religions, but, let's not forget that their are babies to be found amidst the muddy bathwater!







Can you name one good thing religions do that can not be achieved through other means. 

I think it is quite possible to throw out the muddy water while retaining the babies.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

cbc said:


> .
> 
> Are you sure you don't want to convert?




You would have to do three things to covert me.

1, prove that a god exists

2, and then, the hard bit. Prove that this god that exists is actually your version of god, and actually cares about the things you say he does. 

3, and then convince me that this god deserves my worship.


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name one good thing religions do that can not be achieved through other means.
> 
> I think it is quite possible to throw out the muddy water while retaining the babies.




I believe it is possible to gradually cleanse the waters and remove some of the mud. Before doing so, one needs sufficient wisdom to discern the babies from the bathwater. Whereas awareness of our personal fallibility generally gives rise to the prudence that limits mistakes, the arrogant presumption of "knowing" better than others tends to give rise to hasty actions with potentially harmful consequences for all concerned.

As you are already aware, mankind is enjoying many good things that have arisen from a variety of the religious pursuits of mankind.

Whether such things might have been achievable absent religion is a matter of which I am sincerely doubtful and choose not to speculate.

My preference is to work with the best of our accumulated knowledge base in the expectation of gradually improving it.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cynic said:


> I believe it is possible to gradually cleanse the waters and remove some of the mud. Before doing so, one needs sufficient wisdom to discern the babies from the bathwater. Whereas awareness of our personal fallibility generally gives rise to the prudence that limits mistakes, the arrogant presumption of "knowing" better than others tends to give rise to hasty actions with potentially harmful consequences for all concerned.
> 
> As you are already aware, mankind is enjoying many good things that have arisen from a variety of the religious pursuits of mankind.
> 
> ...




Well since even the religious admit the many, many bad side effects of religion, and seem to have trouble naming positive effects that couldn't be achieved by other means, it would seem to me that the move away should be rapid. A doctor wont prescribe a pill with the side effects of religion if he thought the positive effects could be achieved through other methods. 

Off course the people selling the pill with the bad side effects would resist any change and the ones duped into thinking the pill gave them eternal life would also resist.

John Lennon said it best " Imagine no religion, its easy if you try"


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> No no no. They do not have a free pass.
> God places in our hearts the knowledge that there is a god.




Then why is it that i have so much trouble believeing there is a god


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well since even the religious admit the many, many bad side effects of religion, and seem to have trouble naming positive effects that couldn't be achieved by other means, it would seem to me that the move away should be rapid. A doctor wont prescribe a pill with the side effects of religion if he thought the positive effects could be achieved through other methods.
> 
> Off course the people selling the pill with the bad side effects would resist any change and the ones duped into thinking the pill gave them eternal life would also resist.
> 
> John Lennon said it best " Imagine no religion, its easy if you try"




Seriously?!!

Have you already forgotten the historical origins of surgery and pharmacology?

Can you see how my statement about personal fallibility, and the actions taken by one arrogantly presuming to "know" better, applies to the sentiments you're expressing?


----------



## Tink (22 February 2014)

Excellent posts, cynic.

I think people tend to forget that religion/God stands up for the common good in society, regarding humanity.
You know what happens when there is no leader for peace, and no one debating for all life.
Survival of the fittest becomes first in line, not to mention, laws of the jungle.

You just have to look at how society is changing now. 
Drugged to the eyeballs, they wouldn't know how to work through something spiritually, there is a pill for every occasion.

Atheism is a religion, so yes, I agree, their religion is crazy.

Trying to completely wipe out religion/God just shows how idiotic they are.
No idea of what damage they can cause and what benefit there is to a spiritual experience. 
Completely closing the door on these children to even learn.
Its not only about the moral compass, the benefits of spiritual enlightment for all these people/children has been taken away, sadly.


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But he does tolerate it, he sits there watching children being raped and just says you'll pay for that later.
> 
> In fact your god would let a child rapist into heaven as long as he repented later, but the child victim may go to hell for not believing, where is the justice.





Those are excellent points.
I've always thought it's pathetic the way religious teachings insist that the most horrible crimes and horrible people are forgiven once the perpetrator 'finds God'.

Everyone on this forum should read 'Unholy Trinity', written by former Victorian police detective Dennis Ryan - the story of Ryan's decades long struggle to bring pedophile priest Father John Day to justice for his horrific crimes against children. 
Dennis Ryan first came across Day after pulling over a car being driven by a known prostitute. In the back were two more known prostitutes, and a man naked from the waist down, his genitals showing, wearing a clerical collar, and as drunk as a monkey. Such was Ryan’s introduction to Father John Day. 

In the end Dennis Ryan failed in his campaign to bring Day to justice, and the Catholic church destroyed Ryan for his efforts to do so.

If Father John Day repented of his sins before he died, and as a result has ended up in this place called Heaven, I doubt if I'd feel very comfortable being there and having to put up with Day's stench every day, no matter how favorably God looks on him.
Can you imagine the little kids that Day raped and abused, ending up in Heaven themselves, and coming face to face with Day. They'd feel like killing the mongrel!

http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/67


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Seriously?!!
> 
> Have you already forgotten the historical origins of surgery and pharmacology?




Can You explain how those things rely on religion, and rely on people believing in the scriptures or rely on the truth of the super natural claims. Those things are good examples of things that do not require religion, Infact there are good examples of how religion has held those things back.


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> That's is exactly how Jesus is meant to be taught.  Earth made in 6 days just like the bible says.
> 
> Good on those preachers for preaching it.





The bible says lots of things, some of them evil enough to make a decent person's skin crawl with revulsion. Do you believe them too, and support/condone them?
Or is it easier to talk about the parts you like, while ignoring the parts you don't like?

That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses do when they come to your place uninvited and try to shove their religious views down your throat. They invariably haul out their bibles to read/show you passages that impress them and are supposed to impress you too. But they never show you any of the horrible things in the bible, such as the glorification of mass murder. 
And don't make the mistake of telling me that's not in the bible, because I can assure you it is.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

> I think people tend to forget that religion/God stands up for the common good in society, regarding humanity.




No, he just unfairly gets the credit for things people consider good. 

eg, A person survives a collapsed building, Miracle from god. 10 others die in same building its just bad luck or god is mysterious. you get the new job you prayed for, god is good, a mothers child dies of a disease she prayed he would survive, god is mysterious.



> You know what happens when there is no leader for peace,




There are people being killed in religious wars and for religious reasons all over the world.



> and no one debating for all life.
> Survival of the fittest becomes first in line, not to mention, laws of the jungle.




atheist humanist groups work to improve the lives of all of humanity. 




> Atheism is a religion, so yes, I agree, their religion is crazy.




Nope, its the absence of a religion. Off is not a TV channel and Bald is not a hair colour.

Atheism is one opinion on one topic, If some asks "do you believe in a god" and you say "no" you are an atheist. that's it, its nothing more than that. everything else is something else.



> Trying to completely wipe out religion/God just shows how idiotic they are.




The vast majority of atheists don't want to wipe out religion. I support your right to practice your religion.

I just don't want you to force your religion on to the government or through public schools, because then you are taking away other peoples rights to their religions, or their right to not have a religion. I also don't want children to be hurt by religion, so I don't want medical care denied to children until they are old enough to make up their own mind.




> No idea of what damage they can cause and what benefit there is to a spiritual experience.
> Completely closing the door on these children to even learn.




The the men that flew the planes into the world trade centres hadn't been taught there was a god from a young age they would not have done what the did. thousands of deaths and a long war could have been avoided if reason was taught instead. 



> Its not only about the moral compass, the benefits of spiritual enlightment for all these people/children has been taken away, sadly




you don't need a god to be good, 

please explain what spiritual enlightment is and name some of the benefits of spiritual elightment


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> I doubt if I'd feel very comfortable being there and having to put up with Day's stench every day, ]




Yes, as Hitch said "Some peoples idea of Heaven would be my idea of hell"


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses do when they come to your place uninvited and try to shove their religious views down your throat. They invariably haul out their bibles to read/show you passages that impress them and are supposed to impress you too. But they never show you any of the horrible things in the bible, such as the glorification of mass murder.
> .




And they won't read luke 14-26, where Jesus says

 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.



Although that is eventually what they want, they are happy for you to turn you back on your family in the name of your faith.

My Uncle and Aunty are devote Jehovahs witnesses, Having been preyed upon when they went through a rough time in the 1980's. They have since turned there back on the rest of the family, even their own children.

My Uncle has never been to his daughters house, simply because she is unmarried and living with her partner of 10years, He didn't even go to the funeral of his grand daughter because she was born outside of marriage, None of the rest of the family can understand his actions.

They say they preach love, But unfortunately its conditional love based on you accepting their beliefs.


----------



## cbc (22 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> The bible says lots of things, some of them evil enough to make a decent person's skin crawl with revulsion. Do you believe them too, and support/condone them?
> Or is it easier to talk about the parts you like, while ignoring the parts you don't like?
> 
> That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses do when they come to your place uninvited and try to shove their religious views down your throat. They invariably haul out their bibles to read/show you passages that impress them and are supposed to impress you too. But they never show you any of the horrible things in the bible, such as the glorification of mass murder.
> And don't make the mistake of telling me that's not in the bible, because I can assure you it is.




Oh really.  Where in the bible does it say all this evilness?? There is none.

Where is this mass murder?  The bible doesn't consider war to be murder.  So you can rule that out.  There is nowhere in the bible where God issues an order to commit mass murder.  

Do you honestly think that Jehovas Witness are going to knock on ur door and start talking about all the wars and blood and gore of war?

No, they are going to tell what is most importart to you and that is the forgiveness of sins through Jesus dying on the cross for you.


----------



## cbc (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, as Hitch said "Some peoples idea of Heaven would be my idea of hell"




YET AGAIN showing no concern for urself.  


"I don't want to go to heaven cauz this person is there"


----------



## Tink (22 February 2014)

Value Collector - You can call atheism whatever you like, its a religion.

Here is some history --

_It was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … .

 “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined._


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> No, they are going to tell what is most importart to you and that is the forgiveness of sins through Jesus dying on the cross for you.




Here is another immoral part of the Christian teaching. Its called scapegoating.

It is immoral to believe that you can pile all your sins on jesus and have him wash them away.

If you have committed a crime, the only person that can forgive you are the victims of that crime. 

If you burn my house down, then two days later go and pray for forgivness, that is immoral, You should be seeking forgiveness from me, praying may make you feel better about it, but it does nothing to rectify the situation.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Value Collector - You can call atheism whatever you like, its a religion.
> 
> Here is some history --
> 
> ...




Some being unconvinced a god exists does not make them religious. If you you can understand one thing about atheism, please understand that is only an opinion on one topic nothing else, everything else is something else.

Atheism is not communism

the guys you mentioned such as stalin, did not kill people in the name of atheism. they killed to enforce their own power and instill their own governments and economic ideas.

You simply can't get to the idea of killing someone from the idea that god doesn't exist. You would need other existing beliefs to do that. 

where as you can get to the idea of killing people directly from the religious scriptures of many religions.

In the bible it says "thy shalt not suffer a witch to live" this passage has been used up to present times to justify killing people suspected of being witches. Atheism has no such texts that prescribe such things.

Saying that the communists did their killing because they were atheists is like saying the did it because they had moustaches.

I notice that you failed to mention hitler by the way, he was a roman catholic who said he was doing gods work, wiping out another religious group, and he also had a moustache.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Oh really.  Where in the bible does it say all this evilness?? There is none.
> 
> .




I consider slavery evil, and the bible condones slavery.


----------



## cbc (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Here is another immoral part of the Christian teaching. Its called scapegoating.
> 
> It is immoral to believe that you can pile all your sins on jesus and have him wash them away.
> 
> ...




Huh? Immoral having your sin taken away? How is that immoral?  That is purity.

All sin that is commited is punishable.  Doesn't matter who it is toward.  You need forgivness from God.

How are you supposed to stand before a holy god with sin in your life?


----------



## Tink (22 February 2014)

Value Collector - That's what I said about having a healthy dose of both in the other thread.


----------



## cbc (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I consider slavery evil, and the bible condones slavery.






Actually it was the religious groups that got rid of slavery


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Actually it was the religious groups that got rid of slavery




You asked for an example of evil in the bible, I gave one.

The fact that some religious people along with non religious wanted to change the slavery laws to a better system is a credit to them as people, good people do good things, It is not a credit to their religious scriptures which they were going against.

The people that supported the slavery laws, used bible versus to support their position, and no doubt the fact that slavery is condoned in the bible made it harder to change the laws and made slave owners feel they were doing no wrong for a very long time.


----------



## burglar (22 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> No no no. They do not have a free pass ...




Yes yes yes. They do have a free pass. 

No no no. They do not have a free pass. 

Yes yes yes. They do have a free pass. 

Why would you even want it both ways?


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Value Collector - That's what I said about having a healthy dose of both in the other thread.




As I said in another post, due to the side effects of religion, I don't think the positives are enough to condone its use, given that all the positive aspects can be achieved though other means.

I could be wrong, that's why I asked anyone here to name some positive benefits to religion that can't be done using other means.

Do you know any positive aspects of religion that can't be achieved in other ways?


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Huh? Immoral having your sin taken away? How is that immoral?  That is purity.
> 
> All sin that is commited is punishable.  Doesn't matter who it is toward.  You need forgivness from God.
> 
> How are you supposed to stand before a holy god with sin in your life?




It's immoral to pile your sin on a scapegoat.

It is immoral to think you can free yourself from your crimes just by asking a god for forgiveness. 

It's immoral to think that anyone else except the victims of your crimes can offer you forgiveness.

It's immoral to think once you have gods forgiveness you are free and clear and have no responsibility to make true amends with the victims.

the one this lady seems to think she is ok because she asked gods foregiveness sickens me, they way she says shes moved on and it doesn't matter.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It's immoral to pile your sin on a scapegoat.  It is immoral to think you can free yourself from your crimes just by asking a god for forgiveness.  It's immoral to think that anyone else except the victims of your crimes can offer you forgiveness.  It's immoral to think once you have gods forgiveness you are free and clear and have no responsibility to make true amends with the victims.  the one this lady seems to think she is ok because she asked gods foregiveness sickens me, they way she says shes moved on and it doesn't matter.  YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4qCSFF11UY




Genuine repentance isn't a casual excusing yourself from your sin.

I'm so glad that God judges by our heart and not out actions and that a GENUINE change of heart will never be ignored by God. But repentance is a turning away from sin, not just saying "ah who cares".

I'm glad it is the one who sees our HEARTS and MOTIVES who is the ultimate judge, not some judge that has no idea and has to guess!


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Then why is it that i have so much trouble believeing there is a god




Maybe the same reason why people struggle to grasp an understanding of any field eg trading. Either they aren't looking for a profitable strategy but a quick dollar, not looking in the right places for the right information or they choose to ignore certain information in favor of already held ideas, not willing to pay the price of what it will cost them etc.

It doesn't mean that profitable trading strategies don't exist. Also doesn't mean that anyone at all can't be profitable at trading. Also doesn't mean that the opportunity to be profitable isn't open to everyone if they pursue it diligently.

The information and philosophical reasoning is all there plain and clear. But just like trading, maybe you need to genuinely look to uncover it.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Genuine repentance isn't a casual excusing yourself from your sin.
> 
> I'm so glad that God judges by our heart and not out actions and that a GENUINE change of heart will never be ignored by God. But repentance is a turning away from sin, not just saying "ah who cares".
> 
> I'm glad it is the one who sees our HEARTS and MOTIVES who is the ultimate judge, not some judge that has no idea and has to guess!




It does nothing to help the victim though, and in my opinion the victim is the only one who can truly give you forgiveness.

Not to mention that you seem to think accepting jesus to scape goat your sins is more important than your actions and the goodness of your heart. You think someone can live an evil life destroying lives and as long as they have a change of heart and accept gives they are fine, where as I can live a life doing good and being a good person but if I am not convinced of Jesus I go to hell. there is no justice in that.

How is remaining unconvinced, deserving of eternal hell fire


----------



## Chris45 (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, its the absence of a religion. Off is not a TV channel and Bald is not a hair colour.




_"Off is not a TV channel"_ - Off is equivalent to brain dead. Are you suggesting atheists are brain dead?
"Snow" is an analogue TV channel not receiving an intelligent message ... that's a better analogy for atheists.

_"Bald is not a hair colour"_ - Bald is a head of extremely short hair ... a good analogy for the thinking of atheists.

And so the debate continues to go around in circles ad nauseam.

However you want to spin it, atheism has become a religion ... a religion of hate towards theists. It is a strong belief system or doctrine that there is no God, which is exactly what Satan wants.

Atheism has its church: http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/09/godless-congregation-coming-to-the-city-of-churches/
Atheism has its messiahs: http://www.atheistmessiah.com/ plus the late Christopher Hitchens
Atheism has its preachers: http://www.richarddawkins.net/
Atheism has its bible: http://atheistbible.net/
Atheism's message it hatred towards Christians: http://www.atheistmessiah.com/march_against_Bush.JPG

Atheism has all of the hallmarks of a religious cult, and a very dangerous one at that. Don't try and pass yourselves off as gentle, loving, caring people who just want to live and let live.

The more strident atheists want to push their anti-Christian ideology down everyone's throat and deny young people from atheist environments the opportunity to hear Christ's message.

How can you support people's right to practice their religion but deny them the opportunity to learn about it in the first place in schools, which are the only places most children learn anything about their world (apart from Facebook and Twitter)? How can someone practice something they know nothing about?

You don't seem to have got the message that there is a spiritual battle for our souls raging around us, and everyone who has heard Christ's message has to make a choice between God and Satan. Sitting on the fence is a win for Satan and by subscribing to the atheist's views, you are playing right into Satan's hands.

Atheists continually raise the example of 911 as theism at work. Theist religions are not perfect, no human organization is, and because everyone has been given the free will to choose between good and evil, some will inevitably be seduced by Satan to commit evil.



Value Collector said:


> Not to mention that you seem to think accepting jesus to scape goat your sins is more important than your actions and the goodness of your heart. You think someone can live an evil life destroying lives and as long as they have a change of heart and accept gives they are fine, where as I can live a life doing good and being a good person but if I am not convinced of Jesus I go to hell. there is no justice in that.



Do you really think that if a violent criminal says "sorry" in his last dying breath, he will go straight to heaven? Do you really think God is that stupid? As Pav said, God can see into everyone's heart and soul and he knows how sincere one is when one claims repentance. God is not a fool.

We now have strong evidence for reincarnation (google "reincarnation research") and the Bible talks about "eternal life" (John 3:16). The Bible is short on details but "eternal life" may involve being given a second chance via reincarnation before final acceptance into Heaven.

Re. Luke 14:26-27, for an explanation, try reading http://christianity.net.au/questions/luke-14-26


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Where in the bible does it say all this evilness?? There is none.
> 
> Where is this mass murder?  The bible doesn't consider war to be murder.  So you can rule that out.  There is nowhere in the bible where God issues an order to commit mass murder.




Repeating what cbc wrote: *There is nowhere in the bible where God issues an order to commit mass murder.*

Maybe you should read the Bible and 1 Samuel 15 is just one of many examples .........

*1 Samuel 15 - New International Version -(emphasis mine) *

_15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 *This is what the Lord Almighty says*: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 *Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.*’”

4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 *But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good.* These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “*I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions*.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night._

etc.....


----------



## lindsayf (22 February 2014)

there will of course be a reply that offers an interpretation of this passage that will somehow conveniently exonerate god from this slaughter.


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2014)

*Exodus 12:29-51 (New International Version)*

_29 At midnight the* LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt*, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for *there was not a house without someone dead.*_


*Exodus 21:20-21 King James Version (KJV)*

_20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, *if he continue a day or two*, he shall not be punished: *for he is his money*._


*Exodus 32:27 King James Version (KJV)*

27 _And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and *slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.*_


*Leviticus 26:22 King James Version (KJV)*

_22 I will also send wild beasts among you, *which shall rob you of your children*, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate._


*Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)*

17 Now therefore *kill every male among the little ones*, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 *But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves*.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Maybe the same reason why people struggle to grasp an understanding of any field eg trading. Either they aren't looking for a profitable strategy but a quick dollar, not looking in the right places for the right information or they choose to ignore certain information in favor of already held ideas, not willing to pay the price of what it will cost them etc.




But you said god puts the knowledge in our hearts and so we all already should know, why is it that i doubt the religious stories.

also if god really cared and wanted us to believe, why does he hide and why did he make the world appear to have formed in a way that goes against the creation story in e bible.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But you said god puts the knowledge in our hearts and so we all already should know, why is it that i doubt the religious stories.  also if god really cared and wanted us to believe, why does he hide and why did he make the world appear to have formed in a way that goes against the creation story in e bible.




He doesn't make the world appear that way at all.

You only have to study anthropology to see that people know inside themselves that there is some form of creator.
But people like yourself can block out that inherent knowledge by turning away from it. Conditioning, choice etc

Like anything you have to pursue it


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Can You explain how those things rely on religion, and rely on people believing in the scriptures or rely on the truth of the super natural claims. Those things are good examples of things that do not require religion, Infact there are good examples of how religion has held those things back.




Must I repeat Myself?!!




cynic said:


> I believe it is possible to gradually cleanse the waters and remove some of the mud. Before doing so, one needs sufficient wisdom to discern the babies from the bathwater. Whereas awareness of our personal fallibility generally gives rise to the prudence that limits mistakes, the arrogant presumption of "knowing" better than others tends to give rise to hasty actions with potentially harmful consequences for all concerned.
> 
> As you are already aware, mankind is enjoying many good things that have arisen from a variety of the religious pursuits of mankind.
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> Seriously?!!
> 
> Have you already forgotten the historical origins of surgery and pharmacology?
> 
> Can you see how my statement about personal fallibility, and the actions taken by one arrogantly presuming to "know" better, applies to the sentiments you're expressing?




Firstly, the definition of religion has already been provided during our discourse on another thread.

Secondly, I make no claim to the infallibility of any religion, and whilst I prefer some religions over others (science happens to be right up there amongst my favourites), I endeavour to make optimal use of all available knowledge irrespective of origin. 

Thirdly, the foundations of our modern chemistry, mathematics and physics were pioneered by mystics engaged in the investigation of purportedly "supernatural"* concepts.

(*Please note: I do not personally subscribe to the view that anything occurs outside of nature.The word "supernatural" is often misconstrued as phenomena for which contemporary science is unable to proffer explanation. In the interests of expediency, I will usually entertain such words in the given context despite improper usage.)


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

> However you want to spin it, atheism has become a religion ... a religion of hate towards theists. It is a strong belief system or doctrine that there is no God, which is exactly what Satan wants



.

Nope, its just a rejection of the idea that a god exists, everything else is something else.

Atheists dont hate religious people, we just think your a bit silly. The only thing we hate is having religious nonsense being pushed onto society through schools or government, we will never stop you building church's or having groups and teaching your kids what you want. We will step in if you cross a line and are harming children openly though



> Atheism has all of the hallmarks of a religious cult, and a very dangerous one at that. Don't try and pass yourselves off as gentle, loving, caring people who just want to live and let live.




Most of us are gentle and loving. There is no cult. And we are happy to live and let live, but part of living and let live is not having the religious shove their ideas on us.



> The more strident atheists want to push their anti-Christian ideology down everyone's throat and deny young people from atheist environments the opportunity to hear Christ's message.




If your beating a man with a stick, and i take your stick away and tell you that you can't beat him, i am not denying you rights, i am protecting the other guys rights not to be beaten. You can have your stick you can worship your stick, but dont bring it into government and schools.



> How can you support people's right to practice their religion but deny them the opportunity to learn about it in the first place in schools, which are the only places most children learn anything about their world (apart from Facebook and Twitter)? How can someone practice something they know nothing about?




So would you be happy for the Hindu and Muslim religions to be taught as fact in schools to your kids, No. So you should understand why people of other faiths and those of no faith in religion would object to having your religion taught.

By all means have your faith schools, but in public schools where many different faiths attend along with those of no faith, it is wrong to pick one faith and teach it over another.

I am happy for a broad based history of religions be taught, where kids learn the backgrounds of a range of religions, but preaching Jesus, or Muhammad or Buddha or any other as fact is wrong



> You don't seem to have got the message that there is a spiritual battle for our souls raging around us, and everyone who has heard Christ's message has to make a choice between God and Satan. Sitting on the fence is a win for Satan and by subscribing to the atheist's views, you are playing right into Satan's hands.




I dont believe in satan either, hearing you talk about this battle for souls is just like hearing somebody talk about Spider-Man or Star Wars, i dont believe its a real thing. I dont even believe in souls to start with.



> Atheists continually raise the example of 911 as theism at work. Theist religions are not perfect, no human organization is, and because everyone has been given the free will to choose between good and evil, some will inevitably be seduced by Satan to commit evil.




Yes i do blame theist religions for 911 and the others, if those guys were not raised to believe in the after life they wouldn't have done it, simple as that. all it would have taken was a little doubt in their mind and they wouldn't have done it. Doubt is good, when you know, that you know, that you know there is a god and what he wants, you can do all sorts of crazy, and no one can convince you otherwise.


> Do you really think that if a violent criminal says "sorry" in his last dying breath, he will go straight to heaven? Do you really think God is that stupid? As Pav said, God can see into everyone's heart and soul and he knows how sincere one is when one claims repentance. God is not a fool



.

I am not talking about a fake sorry, i mean the guy is really sorry, genuinely regrets raping and killing the dozens of children. According to you and pav god lets him into heaven without punishment.

However, if one of his victims, after living a destroyed life, dies without ever  believing, in Jesus, or chose another religion over Christianity, he goes to hell, regardless of whether he was a good person or not.



> We now have strong evidence for reincarnation (google "reincarnation research") and the Bible talks about "eternal life" (John 3:16). The Bible is short on details but "eternal life" may involve being given a second chance via reincarnation before final acceptance into Heaven.




Nope there is no evidence of reincarnation


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> He doesn't make the world appear that way at all.
> 
> You only have to study anthropology to see that people know inside themselves that there is some form of creator.
> But people like yourself can block out that inherent knowledge by turning away from it. Conditioning, choice etc
> ...




He does make it look billions of years old, not the 6000 years some bible scholars claim. Also he made it appear as if was formed through the gradual accretion of matter left behind from an exploding star rather than just being snapped into existence in a day, and he made it look like the diversity of life bloomed over many millions of years, not a single day.


----------



## cbc (22 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Exodus 12:29-51 (New International Version)*
> 
> _29 At midnight the* LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt*, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for *there was not a house without someone dead.*_
> 
> ...








Well... Well... Well..   Belenuit.  Good to see you up to a bit of ol fashion bible study.



Like I said.  Any death relating to war isn't murder.  So you rule a few verses out there.

God is a God of justice.  So if you sin, like a few examples there, then people get put to death / cursed.  That's the way things were back then.  Mbey you consider the death penalty murder.  I don't.  I consider it the strongest form of justice.  

You also need to understand that once people left god or weren't seeking god that was punishable by death.  In fact, seeking other Gods was  considered by God to be very evil.  Most of the times the result was death.  

Soooooooo.  Keep digging belenuit.  See if you can track down some verses involving death in the bible, and I mean where no sin had been committed.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> YET AGAIN showing no concern for urself.
> 
> 
> "I don't want to go to heaven cauz this person is there"




I dont actually believe heaven is real, so its irrelevant whether i want to go there or not, but based on the way the religious describe it, I dont think there will be many people there anyway, certainly most of the worlds greatest thinkers will not make it there. So it would seem its going to be a place full of endless worship for a tyrannical egotistical god, filled with gullible people willing to believe fairy tales. You can count me out.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> He does make it look billions of years old, not the 6000 years some bible scholars claim. Also he made it appear as if was formed through the gradual accretion of matter left behind from an exploding star rather than just being snapped into existence in a day, and he made it look like the diversity of life bloomed over many millions of years, not a single day.




You're entitled to believe whatever you want.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Like I said.  Any death relating to war isn't murder.




Not true, genocide is murder. War is not a valid reason for genocide and rape.

Any general who ordered his army to carry out those actions would be put on trail and sentenced to death or life in prison. 

it just goes to show that you people can justify all sorts of immoral actions, as long as the orders come from a god.

The only thing is gods probably dont exist, so you have all these people committing crazy actions involving murder and thinking its ok because their imaginary friend is a god, i am lucky that my imaginary friend was a puppy, and i eventually grew up, but you guys are adults still walking around thinking your imaginary friend is real, and the worst part is you think he is a god.


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

Isaac Newton said:
			
		

> He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.



I'm not sure what to make of this one!!

Is Isaac a thinker? 

Does heaven exist? 

If so will Isaac Newton make the cut?


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Not true, genocide is murder. War is not a valid reason for genocide and rape.
> 
> Any general who ordered his army to carry out those actions would be put on trail and sentenced to death or life in prison.
> 
> ...



Did you forget to feed your puppy?

They usually die if you don't feed them. 
(Poor neglected innocent little puppy!)


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Well... Well... Well..   Belenuit.  Good to see you up to a bit of ol fashion bible study.




I have probably read more or the bible, studied more of the bible and understand more of the bible than you or Pav. That is why I am an atheist. I can see what it is saying about the God of Abraham, not some make believe story that you want to placate yourself with of someone all loving and all forgiving. 



> Like I said.  Any death relating to war isn't murder.  So you rule a few verses out there.




What a pathetic apologist and total hypocrite.



> God is a God of justice.  So if you sin, like a few examples there, then people get put to death / cursed.  That's the way things were back then.  Mbey you consider the death penalty murder.  I don't.  I consider it the strongest form of justice.
> 
> You also need to understand that once people left god or weren't seeking god that was punishable by death.  In fact, seeking other Gods was  considered by God to be very evil.  Most of the times the result was death.
> 
> Soooooooo.  Keep digging belenuit.  See if you can track down some verses involving death in the bible, and I mean where no sin had been committed.




How pathetic and blind you are. Were the children slaughtered by Saul sinners too? And the new born infants?  And did you notice God condoning slavery? And worse still condoning the rape of children. _*But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.*_



> That's the way things were back then.




And you, Tink and Pav says the Bible is the source of absolute morality rather than subjective morality. That is your God talking and if absolute, then it doesn't change.

CBC, you don't have the honesty or integrity to admit what you are reading is a God calling for the genocide of innocents. It is there in black and white and you are the one that said a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. You are the typical Lying for Jesus mob.


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

Is it just me or has somebody else noticed?

Purloined urine anyone?

P.S. Keep up the good work cbc! They still haven't caught on!!


----------



## Julia (22 February 2014)

Value Collector and bellenuit:  I am in awe of your capacity to continue to offer reasoned responses in this thread.


----------



## lindsayf (22 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> there will of course be a reply that offers an interpretation of this passage that will somehow conveniently exonerate god from this slaughter.





..and here it is....impressive.... if only in the degree and scope of heartless and hypocritical stupidity




cbc said:


> Well... Well... Well..   Belenuit.  Good to see you up to a bit of ol fashion bible study.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> ..and here it is....impressive.... if only in the degree and scope of heartless and hypocritical stupidity




It is indeed an impressive style of argument. If I had atheist leanings I'd be nothing short of extremely grateful for cbc's contributions to this and other religious threads.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Value Collector and bellenuit:  I am in awe of your capacity to continue to offer reasoned responses in this thread.




Your opinion.
Purely your opinion.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I have probably read more or the bible, studied more of the bible and understand more of the bible than you or Pav. That is why I am an atheist. I can see what it is saying about the God of Abraham, not some make believe story that you want to placate yourself with of someone all loving and all forgiving.  What a pathetic apologist and total hypocrite.  How pathetic and blind you are. Were the children slaughtered by Saul sinners too? And the new born infants?  And did you notice God condoning slavery? And worse still condoning the rape of children. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.  And you, Tink and Pav says the Bible is the source of absolute morality rather than subjective morality. That is your God talking and if absolute, then it doesn't change.  CBC, you don't have the honesty or integrity to admit what you are reading is a God calling for the genocide of innocents. It is there in black and white and you are the one that said a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. You are the typical Lying for Jesus mob.




Here is another stupid unsubstantiated claim.
You've read and studied more of the bible than me?
Bullcrap! Blatantly untrue.
I read my bible every day.
I have studied bible college.
I have studied various interpretations, the history, archeology.

But hey don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

That post alone shows the stupid assumptions you make in your arguments.

You are an atheist.
One day you won't be.
No one remains an atheist beyond this life .


----------



## pavilion103 (22 February 2014)

God did being judgement on the people in the Old Testament.

A people who were given numerous opportunity to repent but didn't. A ridiculously long opportunity to repent but didn't. After prophets, miraculous signs etc.

God is just in administering his judgement.
Any God who leaves unrepentant sins unpunished is a monster.

God gave the opportunity to repent. It didn't happen.

Obviously it would eventually have severe consequences for them and their descendants.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cynic said:


> I'm not sure what to make of this one!!
> 
> Is Isaac a thinker?
> 
> ...




Not if the Muslims are right, he worshipped a false god called Jesus. Isaac will be in the fire with me.

But you have to give some slack to Isaac, he lived hundreds of years before a lot of discoveries that would have filled the gaps in understanding he filled with god.

As amazing as he was, he had a lot of crazy ideas, we only accept his ideas that can be proven, just because you are extraordinary some fields does not make you an authority in all fields.


----------



## FxTrader (22 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Must I repeat Myself?!!



Why not, let's hear once again how scientists are actually religious worshipers and somehow comparable to the hoards of gullible sheep who flock to churches every Sunday to hear pontifications from the pulpit.  It's yet another taste of the linguistic magic you try to perform here to drag down science and scientists to the level those who put faith in the inerrancy of iron-age scrolls and declare invisible, morally bankrupt beings as factual reality and their magic books as the sole source of moral authority in society.



> Secondly, I make no claim to the infallibility of any religion, and whilst I prefer some religions over others (science happens to be right up there amongst my favourites), I endeavour to make optimal use of all available knowledge irrespective of origin.



Religion is more than just fallible, it's a dangerous mythology that gives millions a false confidence and surety that they know something for certain that they don't (amply demonstrated in these threads). If religion is knowledge then it's best described as insight into a brand of superstition, largely useless "knowledge".



> Thirdly, the foundations of our modern chemistry, mathematics and physics were pioneered by mystics engaged in the investigation of purportedly "supernatural"* concepts.



A highly debatable statement that seems to imply mysticism (of the spiritual kind) should somehow be credited with the birth of modern science.  Yet we know from history that religion has been a significant impediment to the advancement of science and still is to this day.

You cleverly cloak yourself in a veil of objectivity and play games with semantic argument but your clear intention throughout is to be an apologist for religion and the religious here.  If your favorite "religion" is science, then you should invest more time here elevating it above the religious superstition scribed in magic books.



> If I had atheist leanings I'd be nothing short of extremely grateful for cbc's contributions to this and other religious threads.



True, the moronic drivel coming from this religious slave is a testament to how mind numbing and obnoxious a captive to religious myth can be.  Just a total embarrassment to those who can intelligently argue the case for religion.  Perhaps cbc is just a troll but the continued pathetic attempts to mount a coherent and factual argument suggests otherwise.


----------



## artist (22 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Here is another stupid unsubstantiated claim.
> You've read and studied more of the bible than me?
> Bullcrap! Blatantly untrue.
> I read my bible every day.
> ...




Now it is my turn to say WOW. Just WOW. I am shocked.

For someone who vaunts his reliance upon, and his skilled application of logic, and his diligence and competence in research, and his dedication to pursuing the truth no matter where it leads, and who accuses others of making stupid assumptions, does it not occur to you that there may be others here who have also attended bible college, or seminary, and who have also studied various interpretations, the history, archeology AND a lot more besides AND have done it for more years than you have lived?

Still, that is your opinion. Purely your opinion.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Did you forget to feed your puppy?
> 
> They usually die if you don't feed them.
> (Poor neglected innocent little puppy!)




Imaginary dogs don't eat food

Just as the gods never took any of the children sacrificed to them.


----------



## Value Collector (22 February 2014)

> No one remains an atheist beyond this life




No one remains a theist either.


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Imaginary dogs don't eat food
> ...




Mine do! They even lick the dinner plates after I've finished eating!


----------



## bellenuit (23 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> God did being judgement on the people in the Old Testament.
> 
> A people who were given numerous opportunity to repent but didn't. A ridiculously long opportunity to repent but didn't. After prophets, miraculous signs etc.
> 
> ...




Yes, you read the bible everyday and absorb nothing. Just like this pathetic post now from you that talks about sin and repentance and ignores where I highlighted newborn infants and children being slaughtered (and repeated twice since). If you are so familiar with the bible then how did you miss that? Can't see with the blurry rose coloured vision that you and your happy clappy friends have? Did these newborns and young children have the opportunity to repent? And repent what. And nothing to say about whipping slaves and raping children? That's OK by your absolute morality.

You know if this wasn't a discussion about religion, but about some conflict in another country and someone said plans from the leader of one side had been discovered that included doing to the other side some of the things mentioned in the previous posts, we would all be shocked and disgusted. We would see that leader on a par with Kim Jong-un or Hitler or Stalin. And if someone on this board were to try and defend such actions, we too would be disgusted and shocked with that person, particularly if we had known that person through other discussions and he/she appeared to be a normal considerate person in every respect. But put it in a religious context and such actions are then regarded by some as not only OK, but not to do such actions are seen as making the perpetrator a monster should he hold back. 

These responses from the Christian side, again prove the point of what Steven Weinberg said, that I posted just a few days ago. “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” 



> Any God who leaves unrepentant sins unpunished is a monster




And you people talk about an all forgiving all loving God. It is clear from that quote that you don't even understand the meaning of the words you use.

I don't particularly care what anyone believes, but to see people who try to defend such atrocities and behaviour come and tell us that our morality comes from this same God, that it is an absolute morality and without it the world would descend into chaos and debauchery is pathetic.


----------



## barney (23 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> God is just in administering his judgement.
> Any God who leaves unrepentant sins unpunished is a monster.
> 
> .





Interesting that your "God" finds it necessary to punish humans for their imperfections when "he" was the one who designed and created us imperfect in the first place

Also interesting that "his" (old testament) punishment was as severe as condoning murder and rape of innocent women and children.

Commandment 6. Thou shalt not kill.   

This does not strike you as just a little hypocritical? 

If the above were true, this particular "God" should feel shame.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Not if the Muslims are right, he worshipped a false god called Jesus. Isaac will be in the fire with me.



Not according to the muslims I've spoken to! The last one that I discussed theism with explained the difference in religions as different people standing in a circle around the base of a mountain. Each person needed to travel a slightly different path to reach the pinnacle. All were aspiring to the same point!!



Value Collector said:


> But you have to give some slack to Isaac, he lived hundreds of years before a lot of discoveries that would have filled the gaps in understanding he filled with god.




Most of those unfilled gaps are still present today! 



Value Collector said:


> As amazing as he was, he had a lot of crazy ideas, we only accept his ideas that can be proven, just because you are extraordinary some fields does not make you an authority in all fields.




Many of his ideas certainly seemed crazy. Calculus, gravity and his other laws of motion were totally outre, (and let's not forget his passion for astrology!).

The good thing here is that we are now in partial agreement. Extraordinary people cannot be assumed to hold superiority over all fields! Even extraordinary people are capable of error!

Given that you already know this, what entitles you to presume exemption from fallibility, and how can you justify the automatic disavowal of alien belief systems?


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No one remains a theist either.




Without actually dying how could we possibly know?

Last century, a deceased friend of mine visited me a couple of times. On the second occasion I became concerned because he was behaving as though he were still alive!

I cautiously broached the subject with him by gently enquiring if he realised that he had died. Thankfully he received the question with a good humoured nod and grin and then continued recounting his recent visit to his brother in Canada.

That was the last time I saw him. A very good man plucked from this earth years before his time. Sometimes things just happen!

I do not claim that apparitions of this nature are proof of an afterlife, but I am certainly not alone in having such experiences. 

A couple of atheist friends of mine had a similar experience after the passing of their mother/mother-in-law.

Although they were shaken by the experience, neither changed their views on the afterlife. When asked what they believed they had seen they both said they saw their mother/mother-in-law.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Last century, a deceased friend of mine visited me a couple of times. On the second occasion I became concerned because he was behaving as though he were still alive!
> 
> I cautiously broached the subject with him by gently enquiring if he realised that he had died. Thankfully he received the question with a good humoured nod and grin and then continued recounting his recent visit to his brother in Canada.



Did you shake his hand and invite him to stay for dinner as well?  Perhaps, since this apparition heard your voice and responded you should have seized the opportunity to ask him about which sky God inhabits the afterlife so you could declare to one and all here that a God is real based on this experience.  Oh well, lost opportunity.



> That was the last time I saw him. A very good man plucked from this earth years before his time. Sometimes things just happen!



Take a few more meds and you may yet see him again.



> I do not claim that apparitions of this nature are proof of an afterlife, but I am certainly not alone in having such experiences.



Everyday by the thousands, it's called hallucination - usually drug or fever induced.  And you're right, it's definitely proof of nothing but your telling of this story is quite revealing with respect to your defense of religious superstition here.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Did you shake his hand and invite him to stay for dinner as well?  Perhaps, since this apparition heard your voice and responded you should have seized the opportunity to ask him about which sky God inhabits the afterlife so you could declare to one and all here that a God is real based on this experience.  Oh well, lost opportunity.



Certainly was! However, as I am generally content with my perspective on divinity it didn't even occur to me at the time to seek validation.


FxTrader said:


> Take a few more meds and you may yet see him again.



I sincerely doubt it. It's been over 20 years since that last visit! I've moved residence 6 times since then!
On the subject of medication can you recommend anything? Whatever it is that you're taking must be really potent! 


FxTrader said:


> Everyday by the thousands, it's called hallucination - usually drug or fever induced.  And you're right, it's definitely proof of nothing but your telling of this story is quite revealing with respect to your defense of religious superstition here.




It's interesting that my atheist friends had a similar experience with a bereavement in their family. I can assure you that they certainly do not subscribe to theism and are certainly not superstitious!

edit: The usual "trump everything bar contemporary science" cards are again being brought into play. The evidence of my experience along with others simply had to be dismissed as drug or fever induced hallucination. How can such a dismissive atttitude be considered scientific? Nothing has been conclusively proven one way or the other. Where's the science in such narrowmindedness?


----------



## bellenuit (23 February 2014)

*Make Someone An Atheist - With A Bible*

_A NEW survey in the US has found that, while Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, they are also lamentably ignorant about the faiths they profess.

According to this report, researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions.

On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flunked questions about their own faith.

*Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics*, but two religious minorities – Jews and Mormons – also did quite well.

That finding might surprise some, but not Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, an advocacy group for non-believers founded by the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was murdered.

I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people. *Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge.* I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.

Among the more startling findings were:

–  Fifty-three per cent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation.

–  Forty-five per cent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols but actually become the body and blood of Christ._

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/09/29/make-someone-an-atheist-–-with-a-bible/


----------



## bellenuit (23 February 2014)

*Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist*


----------



## bellenuit (23 February 2014)

Sudan court convicts Ethiopian woman over 'gang-rape'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26286264

I wonder where such barbaric thinking comes from. The ignorant Islamic courts take their direction from the Quran and that in turn included large chunks of the Bible verbatim.

*Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)*

_17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves_.

So if the woman hath known man by lying with him, she is to be killed. But if not because she is just a young child, she is to be kept alive to be raped by the conquering tribe. But what happens when a woman child is raped (apart from the obvious). She now moves to the category "hath known man by lying with him", so now can be killed.  

Fortunately most Christians have moved beyond that type of thinking, but some will still justify it. Why? Because the Bible says so. If the God of the New Testament exists, I am sure the last people he would want to join him in Heaven are evangelical Christians and Young Earth Creationists.

In fact, the God of the new and old testaments are so different, that it should be fairly obvious that they are not the same entity.


----------



## Tink (23 February 2014)

I can see they are still standing up for their religion  -- ATHEISM.

I thought this sums up a lot.

_It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God._

_Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation -

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' 
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat:_

*'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened'*


----------



## cbc (23 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I have probably read more or the bible, studied more of the bible and understand more of the bible than you or Pav. That is why I am an atheist. I can see what it is saying about the God of Abraham, not some make believe story that you want to placate yourself with of someone all loving and all forgiving.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





POINT ME TO THE VERSE WHERE GOD SAYS TO GO AND RAPE WOMEN??????

Like I said.  Once people start worshipping foreign gods that's it.  God can issue judgement.  I believe that Saul attacked those people because of their foreign worship.  God even issued the judgement.  

IM sure ur well aware of the unforgivable sin of teaching there is evil in the Holy Spirit.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> The usual "trump everything bar contemporary science" cards are again being brought into play. The evidence of my experience along with others simply had to be dismissed as drug or fever induced hallucination. How can such a dismissive atttitude be considered scientific? Nothing has been conclusively proven one way or the other. Where's the science in such narrowmindedness?



Let's dissect such rhetoric, the faulty logic deployed being typical of religious argument.  Firstly you provided evidence of nothing, rather you made a totally unsubstantiated and fantastic claim that you somehow expect others to accept as valid experience.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you provided none.  

Your claim is untestable, unverifiable, unobservable and hence unscientific.  Such claims made without evidence can and should be dismissed without evidence to the contrary.  The charge of being narrow minded is a specious argument intended to suggest that any fantastic claim made without supporting evidence should be considered true and valid until proven otherwise - pure nonsense.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

Tink said:


> I can see they are still standing up for their religion  -- ATHEISM.



The semantic argument that atheism is a religion is tiresome and fallacious in the extreme.  But let's revisit it one more time.  

To avoid nebulous definitional dispute I will assert that, as a minimum, religion must include something you have to accept on faith and without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.

Atheism is simply non-belief in God(s) due to lack of evidence to the contrary, nothing more and nothing less.  There is no faith component and no fantastic, supernatural claims being made.  On this basis then atheism bears no resemblance to religion. Non-belief qualifies as a type of belief - just silly.  As someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If atheism could be considered a religion is that supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one?  Truly a strange argument on the part of the theists here.



> _Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation...
> 
> *'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened'*_



_
I would contend that, given the close ties the Russian monarchy had with the Orthodox church, the communists understood what had to be done to establish control. The church's spell on the masses had to be smashed and  one totalitarian ideology substituted with another.  Theocracy and totalitarian ideology have much in common._


----------



## cbc (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Atheism is simply non-belief in God(s) due to lack of evidence to the contrary, nothing more and nothing less.




The evidence is all there.  Your just refusing to believe it.

Xplain the population to me then?  If you put 6 people on the planet 4000 years ago and they breed out you would end  with the same number of people as you currently have now.

But if you put 6 people on the earth 30,000 years ago and they breed out.  God only knows what number you would end up with. 

So how many would you end up with?


----------



## lindsayf (23 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> there will of course be a reply that offers an interpretation of this passage that will somehow conveniently exonerate god from this slaughter.





this was some form of an exoneration of rape, slaughter and slavery....and quite impressive in it's own way...





cbc said:


> Well... Well... Well..   Belenuit.  Good to see you up to a bit of ol fashion bible study.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





..but this is not only an exoneration but a celebration!
quite incredible at one level,but not so at another.
Seems to be often the case that believers can present themselves as quite reasonable in most contexts of life
but a little scratching will reveal the fundamentalist/literalist/magical/archaic and abhorrent moral framework
at play.

At least these days beleviers feel the need to ( have been forced to) assimilate to general community standards most of the time.  This has historically not been quite as necessary.





pavilion103 said:


> God did being judgement on the people in the Old Testament.
> 
> A people who were given numerous opportunity to repent but didn't. A ridiculously long opportunity to repent but didn't. After prophets, miraculous signs etc.
> 
> ...





I find the attempts of some to equate science with religion as fascinatingly disingenuine and intellectually dishonest at the deepest of levels.
But then on reflection, if one is to embrace doctrinal teachings then that is exactly what is required.  That is, They must and will find a way to work-around/accommodate a multitude of horrific moral contradictions and still be glad to identify with the teachings-so the intellectual skillset is already in place and this is just another manifestation of that-ie a moral work-around to avoid the existential consequences of admitting to self that the 'moral' framework is untenable.

FX could articulate this a lot better than me.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> I find the attempts of some to equate science with religion as fascinatingly disingenuine and intellectually dishonest at the deepest of levels.



Indeed, yet at the same time many theists (those who are non-fundamentalist and not biblical literalists) like to suggest a harmony between science and religion in an attempt to adapt their theological framework to accommodate scientific discoveries that invalidate religious doctrine (like the earth is 6,000 years old or the 7 day creation myth).

We know however that claims about virgin birth, talking serpents, walking on water, raising people from the dead etcetera directly contradict our scientific understanding of biology and the laws of physics which are temporarily suspended when a magician sky God so deems necessary to prove a point.  Where science does not overtly tread on religious myth it receives less opposition from the faithful.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

> Not according to the muslims I've spoken to! The last one that I discussed theism with explained the difference in religions as different people standing in a circle around the base of a mountain. Each person needed to travel a slightly different path to reach the pinnacle. All were aspiring to the same point!!




 Well he is obviously not taking literal interpretation of the Qur'an, many would disagree with him. Just like many Christians would disagree with pav and CBC that atheists will go to heaven. There are as many opinion as there are religious people. 



> Most of those unfilled gaps are still present today



! 

There are some specific things that Newton gave god credit for that have since been proven, for example his calculations were not perfect as to the movements of the planets, so based on his calculations after a number of the planets orbits would have changed and been thrown out of balance. He assumed god stepped in to fix it every few hundred years, however modern calculations show they are kept in balance by the planets gravitational pull on each other. So that a big god gapped filled. 



> Many of his ideas certainly seemed crazy. Calculus, gravity and his other laws of motion were totally outre, (and let's not forget his passion for astrology!)



.

Astrology is crazy, so was his passion for alchemy. Hence we accept his discoveries about gravity, calculus, motion and astronomy and telescopes. But we don't accept his ideas about alchemy, astrology or gods



> The good thing here is that we are now in partial agreement. Extraordinary people cannot be assumed to hold superiority over all fields! Even extraordinary people are capable of error
> 
> Given that you already know this, what entitles you to presume exemption from fallibility, and how can you justify the automatic disavowal of alien belief systems?




What do you mean by "alien belief systems"


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

> Without actually dying how could we possibly know?




Well i am not claiming an absolute knowledge here, but generally things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So without evidence that any part of our personality can survive the decay of our brains I will assume that we do not live on after the death of our brains.



> Last century, a deceased friend of mine visited me a couple of times. On the second occasion I became concerned because he was behaving as though he were still alive!
> 
> I cautiously broached the subject with him by gently enquiring if he realised that he had died. Thankfully he received the question with a good humoured nod and grin and then continued recounting his recent visit to his brother in Canada.
> 
> ...




I have no doubt that you may think that is what happened, but i fear you are probably delusional. Thats all i can say on that topic. 

I mean i think its all in your head, because if spirits were real, why has Ellen never interviewed one on her show? Surely they would be much more common place.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

cbc said:


> The evidence is all there.  Your just refusing to believe it.
> 
> Xplain the population to me then?  If you put 6 people on the planet 4000 years ago and they breed out you would end  with the same number of people as you currently have now.
> 
> ...




Population growth is not steady, there is natural limits to population. A wild population of any animal will boom and bust and can be steady for hundreds of thousands of years, its only the advent of modern farming techniques, sanitation and healthcare that has let the human population get where it is today, if we all still lived like aboriginals, we wouldn't have 7 billion people.


Think of it like this, if you put 2 rabbits on a football field and fenced them in, their population would double every 3 months, but that doesn't mean eventually you would have a million rabbits, because the football field can not grow enough grass and the population would collapse.

The rabbit population would boom and bust around a certain max population size, unless the rabbits learned new technogly they would never increase


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2014)

cbc said:


> POINT ME TO THE VERSE WHERE GOD SAYS TO GO AND RAPE WOMEN??????




6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)



    Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

    Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]



*    This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible.  God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist.  What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil?  And then he kills a child!  This is sick, really sick!*

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> The bible says lots of things, some of them evil enough to make a decent person's skin crawl with revulsion. Do you believe them too, and support/condone them?
> Or is it easier to talk about the parts you like, while ignoring the parts you don't like?






cbc said:


> Oh really.  Where in the bible does it say all this evilness?? There is none.



Here you go - enjoy the read! http://www.evilbible.com/





cbc said:


> Do you honestly think that Jehovas Witness are going to knock on ur door and start talking about all the wars and blood and gore of war?



No – what I think the JW’s will do is what they and other Christians always do, which is to focus on what they see as the good parts of the bible, while ignoring the bad parts. In other words, doing their best to mislead me. But then I’m used to that, having grown up in  Christian family that had me attending church and Sunday school and bible classes every week. Of course I swallowed it all, hook line and sinker like little kids tend to do, but only until I was old enough to think for myself and see through the bulls**t that is Christianity.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Why not, let's hear once again how scientists are actually religious worshipers and somehow comparable to the hoards of gullible sheep who flock to churches every Sunday to hear pontifications from the pulpit.  It's yet another taste of the linguistic magic you try to perform here to drag down science and scientists to the level those who put faith in the inerrancy of iron-age scrolls and declare invisible, morally bankrupt beings as factual reality and their magic books as the sole source of moral authority in society.
> Religion is more than just fallible, it's a dangerous mythology that gives millions a false confidence and surety that they know something for certain that they don't (amply demonstrated in these threads). If religion is knowledge then it's best described as insight into a brand of superstition, largely useless "knowledge".



How often do I hear someone insisting that their chosen beliefs are grounded in fact, truth, evidence or dependable practices and that any contrary belief must therefore be assuredly wrong, dangerous and sinful?
(See what I mean?!! You are just like so many other feligious folk!)


FxTrader said:


> A highly debatable statement that seems to imply mysticism (of the spiritual kind) should somehow be credited with the birth of modern science.  Yet we know from history that religion has been a significant impediment to the advancement of science and still is to this day.



Virtually everything is debatable! 
However, in this case the historical facts can certainly be an embarrassment to those arrogantly claiming the superiority of science over all other religions!


FxTrader said:


> You cleverly cloak yourself in a veil of objectivity and play games with semantic argument but your clear intention throughout is to be an apologist for religion and the religious here.  If your favorite "religion" is science, then you should invest more time here elevating it above the religious superstition scribed in magic books.




That's exactly what I am doing! How did you fail to notice?

P.S. Thanks for crediting me with the "veil of objectivity". Personally, I do not consider myself sufficiently conceited to claim absence of prejudice.

In relation to the various comments from posters about my disclosed experiences of apparitions, I reiterate:


cynic said:


> ...I do not claim that apparitions of this nature are proof of an afterlife, but I am certainly not alone in having such experiences.


----------



## cbc (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Population growth is not steady, there is natural limits to population. A wild population of any animal will boom and bust and can be steady for hundreds of thousands of years, its only the advent of modern farming techniques, sanitation and healthcare that has let the human population get where it is today, if we all still lived like aboriginals, we wouldn't have 7 billion people.
> 
> 
> Think of it like this, if you put 2 rabbits on a football field and fenced them in, their population would double every 3 months, but that doesn't mean eventually you would have a million rabbits, because the football field can not grow enough grass and the population would collapse.
> ...




Sorry val,  mbey I didn't bring this up properly.  What I meant was the population curve (graph) ends roughly around 4000 years ago.  This is very simple evidence that points directly to the fact that Noah started repopulating the earth about 4000 years ago.

But you said there is a complete lack of evidence.  What about this evidence?  If you said there was none?


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Sorry val,  mbey I didn't bring this up properly.  What I meant was the population curve (graph) ends roughly around 4000 years ago.  This is very simple evidence that points directly to the fact that Noah started repopulating the earth about 4000 years ago.
> 
> But you said there is a complete lack of evidence.  What about this evidence?  If you said there was none?




I understood exactly what you were saying,

Now, try to understand what i am saying.

Do, you think it is possible for people living like aboriginals, to populate the earth to 7 billion people?

The answer is no, 7 billion is only possible because of all the technolgy advances that have happened in the last 4000 years, in farming, water management, sanitation health, food distribution etc etc.

Without these advances hunter gather population would never grow this large even if you gave them a million years,


----------



## cbc (23 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> 6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Really bel?   David sinned and God gave his wives to som1 else?

So what?

Every time a woman changes partner that is rape is it?  Since when did this start happening?


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> ...Seems to be often the case that believers can present themselves as quite reasonable in most contexts of life
> but a little scratching will reveal the fundamentalist/literalist/magical/archaic and abhorrent moral framework
> at play.
> 
> ...



Too right Lindsay!
Damn those heretics for their sacriligious acts! Stamp those pagans out! How dare they embrace teachings other than science!



			
				King James Bible "Authorized Version" said:
			
		

> For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:




Am I the only one that recognises the parrallel here?!!


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bunyip, we obviously see things differently. People will do what their hearts and minds tell them to, whether it be journos, doctors, or missionaries, and I don't criticize them for that and it takes all kinds to make the world.
> 
> If people risk their lives for personal gain like smuggling drugs, or exploiting the desperately poor, or getting their names into the record books, etc., I have NO sympathy for them, but if they do it for altruistic purposes, I won't criticize them and John Short certainly has a lot more courage than I have and I admire him for it.




Yes Chris, we see things differently in some ways, but on the other hand we see things pretty much the same as well. For example, we both admire people who try to help others. But while you admire those who are willing to take unnecessary risks to do it, I regard these people as foolish and inconsiderate to their families and loved ones.

The sort of people I admire are those who devote their lives, or even a small part of their lives, to helping others while at the same time having regard for their own safety, and consideration for their families. 

Examples...

Volunteer firemen/women 

SES volunteers

Volunteer coastguard personnel and surf lifesavers

Mother Theresa

Dr Fred Hollows – famous for his volunteer work in restoring sight to thousands of people

Dr Mark Loane – spends time doing similar work to Fred Hollows, but does it for aborigines in North Queensland. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/mark-loane/story-e6frg8h6-1111114101544

Dr James Morton (my oncologist who saved my life after I was diagnosed with Leukemia, I see him every six months for a blood test and checkup – a really decent and likeable man) has spent more than a million dollars of his own money in setting up the not for profit AEIOU organization for autistic children) http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/honour-roll/?view=fullView&recipientID=332

The thousands of men and women around Australia who are in community service clubs that raise money for such worth causes as hospitals, building of public parks etc.

The many people who work voluntarily with disadvantaged people to improve their lives. One such woman is a regular contributor to this forum, Julia -  she has for many years taught literacy, numeracy, and budgeting skills to people from disadvantaged backgrounds so they’re better equipped to gain employment and live decent lives.

No need for me to go on further – I’m sure you get the idea. There's no need to get yourself thrown into a North Korean jail cell in your efforts to help others, thereby leaving your family in a constant state of heartache. No need to get yourself murdered by Islamic whackos who can’t accept that you’re trying to help them get rid of killer diseases.
There’s plenty of opportunities right here in your own country for anyone who wants to help their fellow humans.


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Really bel?   David sinned and God gave his wives to som1 else?
> 
> So what?
> 
> Every time a woman changes partner that is rape is it?  Since when did this start happening?




Oh, I think you know that these women wouldn't have voluntarily changed partners or voluntarily had sex in broad daylight with whoever god gave them to. Clearly it was forced upon them.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> How often do I hear someone insisting that their chosen beliefs are grounded in fact, truth, evidence or dependable practices and that any contrary belief must therefore be assuredly wrong, dangerous and sinful?



You mean my chosen non-beliefs I presume.  That religion is a dangerous mythology is self-evident by observing what's happening in the world around you.  Must I spell it out for you with countless examples?  Thankfully bellenuit is quite good at highlighting the insanity of people taking religion to seriously and acting on their "chosen" beliefs to the detriment of human society.



> However, in this case the historical facts can certainly be an embarrassment to those arrogantly claiming the superiority of science over all other religions!



Science is clearly not a religion, but I grow weary of refuting such nonsense.  Science provides a methodology for discovery and the acquisition of knowledge.  Religion provides us with various interpretations of the dogma handed down in iron-age scrolls.  Is one superior to the other, I would say clearly so.  Scientific conclusions are under constant scrutiny by other scientists but, just as in all human endeavor, vulnerable to corruption.  That does not however invalidate the scientific method. 



> P.S. Thanks for crediting me with the "veil of objectivity". Personally, I do not consider myself sufficiently conceited to claim absence of prejudice.



I should have said "try" and cloak yourself in a veil of objectivity, clearly you are not objective on the subject at hand and one who revels in semantic arguments.  Correction lodged.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> You mean my chosen non-beliefs I presume.  That religion is a dangerous mythology is self-evident by observing what's happening in the world around you.  Must I spell it out for you with countless examples?  Thankfully bellinut is quite good at highlighting the insanity of people taking religion to seriously and acting on their "chosen" beliefs to the detriment of human society.



Unsurprisingly, you've presumed wrongly! Must I reiterate that I do not claim to the infallibility of any religion? Must I counter with the countless examples of mystical contributions to the foundations of your science?


FxTrader said:


> Science is clearly not a religion, but I grow weary of refuting such nonsense.  Science provides a methodology for discovery and the acquisition of knowledge.



As do many other religions!


FxTrader said:


> ...Religion provides us with various interpretations of the dogma handed down in iron-age scrolls.  Is one superior to the other, I would say clearly so.  Scientific conclusions are under constant scrutiny by other scientists but, just as in all human endeavor, subject to corruption.  That does not however invalidate the scientific method.



Again you're describing behaviours that are not unique to the religon of science! Also, much of our science was handed down throughout the ages in "scrolls" and "tablets".


FxTrader said:


> I should have said "try" and cloak yourself in a veil of objectivity, clearly you are not objective on the subject at hand and one who revels in semantic arguments.  Correction lodged.




Thanks for that. Much appreciated. 

Please ensure that you also do yourself the kindness of acting on your own advice.


----------



## Chris45 (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> .Nope there is no evidence of reincarnation



You obviously didn't bother to google "reincarnation research". ... I'll spoon feed you.



Chris45 said:


> I wonder how many here have bothered to actually study the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls?
> 
> I originally posted about reincarnation in the "Religion IS crazy!" thread but for the benefit of those who didn't see it, and since this is a new thread I'll provide the links again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> You obviously didn't bother to google "reincarnation research". ... I'll spoon feed you.




Anecdotal reports is not real evidence.

And since it has never been demonstrated that souls exist, i can not see how it can be demonstrated that they get recycled.

What you reading is suedo science, not real scientific evidence, you can find similar claims of people researching big foot, ufo's, Loch Ness monster etc, they all have many anecdotal claims, no real evidence though.


----------



## cbc (23 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> spoon feed you.





Lol


----------



## cbc (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I understood exactly what you were saying,
> 
> Now, try to understand what i am saying.
> 
> ...





I wasn't talking about ur theory, my theory or what might have possible happened.  My point was that the population curve ends roughly when Noah was around.  Now that curve could have ended anywhere but it ended around the time of Noah.  

U said there was a COMPLETE lack of evidence.  But here is some in the curve pointing directly at Noah.  

Mbey just rephrase to there is evidence but you don't believe it.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Unsurprisingly, you've presumed wrongly! Must I reiterate that I do not claim to the infallibility of any religion? Must I counter with the countless examples of mystical contributions to the foundations of your science?



Since I don't accept your specious and errant argument that science is just another religion and have explained why it seems pointless to continue down this path.  You have not invalidated, adequately addressed or challenged any of my arguments against religion at any point in this discussion but instead seek to renew your assault on science as just another religion, a useless diversion typical of religious apologists.

I do not worship science neither do I think it perfect, but I am not going sit here and fulfill your desire to obfuscate the debate about religious myth and its impacts with silly notions that science is no better at discovering truths about the nature of our world than religion.  If you can't or won't directly address my challenges to the collective insanity arising out of human invented religion that's fine, but don't pretend that your linguistic diversions here amount to substantive counter argument.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Anecdotal reports is not real evidence.
> 
> And since it has never been demonstrated that souls exist, i can not see how it can be demonstrated that they get recycled.
> 
> What you reading is suedo science, not real scientific evidence, you can find similar claims of people researching big foot, ufo's, Loch Ness monster etc, they all have many anecdotal claims, no real evidence though.




It seems that some people are becoming confused about "proof" and "evidence". They are definitely not synonymous!

Whilst the nature of the evidence (whether it be anecdotal records,video footage etc.) may call its strength and reliability into question, it is definitely evidence in the true sense of the word. The choice about whether or not to entertain evidence could be considered to be highly subjective.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Since I don't accept your specious and errant argument that science is just another religion and have explained why it seems pointless to continue down this path.  You have not invalidated, adequately addressed or challenged any of my arguments against religion at any point in this discussion but instead seek to renew your assault on science as just another religion, a useless diversion typical of religious apologists.
> 
> I do not worship science neither do I think it perfect, but I am not going sit here and fulfill your desire to obfuscate the debate about religious myth and its impacts with silly notions that science is no better at discovering truths about the nature of our world than religion.  If you can't or won't directly address my challenges to the collective insanity arising out of human invented religion that's fine, but don't pretend that your linguistic diversions here amount to substantive counter argument.




Oh boo hoo!

That horrible cynic has popped my illusion of superiority over others! 
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

The English language doesn't mean what cynic says it means and cynic's dictionary is wrong! 
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

Cynic keeps unfairly directing my attention to historical facts and parallels in human behaviours. 
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

Cynic keeps saying I'm just like those horrible bullies in the playground and I know I'm not because I know those bullies have gotten it wrong and that entitles me to bully them! 
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

I know I'm right but cynic hasn't played fair! It's so unfair! I don't want to play anymore!

Mommee!!!! Protect me from that nasty cynic on the internet!!!!!

(Judge not lest ye be judged!)


----------



## Julia (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> If you can't or won't directly address my challenges to the collective insanity arising out of human invented religion that's fine, but don't pretend that your linguistic diversions here amount to substantive counter argument.



This discussion has been most interesting to read, essentially because the opinions put forward have for the most part been expressed intelligently and articulately.

It does seem, however, that we're now seeing a disappointing descent into sophistry.


----------



## Chris45 (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Oh boo hoo!
> 
> That horrible cynic has popped my illusion of superiority over others!
> It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!
> ...



*Brilliant!!! *


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well he is obviously not taking literal interpretation of the Qur'an, many would disagree with him. Just like many Christians would disagree with pav and CBC that atheists will go to heaven. There are as many opinion as there are religious people.




The fact of a muslim expressing sagacity mightn't suit your preferred perception of theism. The fact that you've chosen to discount his circumspection from consideration could even be seen to be comparable to the "pruning" of evidence in order to favour a hypothesis. It would seem that only the most questionable beliefs from the sacred texts may be included in the dataset under consideration, as to do otherwise might serve to undermine the foundations of personal opinion!



> There are some specific things that Newton gave god credit for that have since been proven, for example his calculations were not perfect as to the movements of the planets, so based on his calculations after a number of the planets orbits would have changed and been thrown out of balance. He assumed god stepped in to fix it every few hundred years, however modern calculations show they are kept in balance by the planets gravitational pull on each other. So that a big god gapped filled.




I believe that gap still exists! Current day scientists are currently speculating about the possible existence of "dark matter" in an effort to account for anomolous planetary behaviours.



> Astrology is crazy, so was his passion for alchemy. Hence we accept his discoveries about gravity, calculus, motion and astronomy and telescopes. But we don't accept his ideas about alchemy, astrology or gods




Do you seriously believe that Newton's passion for astrology and motivation for discovery of a means of accounting the movement of planetary bodies was a pure coincidence?



> What do you mean by "alien belief systems"




Alien: different in nature

Belief: that which is held as true

System: a number of things arranged with a view to some end or purpose.


----------



## lindsayf (23 February 2014)

Mr cynic is clearly very enarmoured with his own light.
He may be able to gather a following?


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Mr cynic is clearly very enarmoured with his own light.
> He may be able to gather a following?



I'm certain that I am not alone in preferring my personal opinions to those of others, however, I definitely do not want to be responsible for a string of zealous drones sanctifying my name, declaring my words infallible and embarking on crusades!

I don't want that for science either!


----------



## Chris45 (23 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> The sort of people I admire are those who devote their lives, or even a small part of their lives, to helping others while at the same time having regard for their own safety, and consideration for their families.



According to:  http://www.news.com.au/national/aus...lled-upon-by-god/story-fncynjr2-1226832709998


> THE wife of an Australian man feared missing or detained in North Korea has said her husband was called upon by God to help the people of the totalitarian country.
> 
> Karen Short told news.com.au North Korea had been in husband John’s heart “for the last several years” after “God called” him to help those in need.
> 
> ...



He's doing what his faith has called for him to do. His wife supports him, and I imagine his three children probably do too ... unless they're estranged and don't give a damn. He and his wife have been living in Hong Kong for the last 50 years and he was in the army before that, so we don't know what the story is there. I imagine they're prepared.

You think he's foolish, but I think he's incredibly brave and I'll be hoping his self-sacrifice will have a positive outcome and that the Nth Koreans will be further inspired to rise up against their tyrannical leaders and fight for their freedom.

Do you remember Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010 and triggered the Arab Spring?

I bet he didn't anticipate the full outcome of his self-sacrifice, but sometimes those who are "foolish and inconsiderate to their families and loved ones" and sacrifice themselves for a higher cause can produce remarkable results.

The world needs both kinds. Anyway, "que sera sera".


----------



## CanOz (23 February 2014)

Lol...



Activists in Malaysia seek fatwa ruling on 'apocalyptic' Silk....

http://http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/activists-malaysia-seek-fatwa-ruling-apocalyptic-silk-20140221


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

cbc said:


> I wasn't talking about ur theory, my theory or what might have possible happened.  My point was that the population curve ends roughly when Noah was around.  Now that curve could have ended anywhere but it ended around the time of Noah.
> 
> U said there was a COMPLETE lack of evidence.  But here is some in the curve pointing directly at Noah.
> 
> Mbey just rephrase to there is evidence but you don't believe it.




Its not evidence at all, because you have no way of knowing what the global population was 4000 years ago, and you have no way of knowing the global population growth rate over the last 4000 years.

All the creationists are doing is assuming the population was 8people, and then finding a growth rate that matches it to today's population.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

> The fact of a muslim expressing sagacity mightn't suit your preferred perception of theism. The fact that you've chosen to discount his circumspection from consideration could even be seen to be comparable to the "pruning" of evidence in order to favour a hypothesis. It would seem that only the most questionable beliefs from the sacred texts may be included in the dataset under consideration, as to do otherwise might serve to undermine the foundations of personal opinion!




It's not up to me to define the beliefs of theists, you made a comment that Isaac Newton would be in heaven, i just gave an example of other theists who would say that he most certainly won't be.




> I believe that gap still exists! Current day scientists are currently speculating about the possible existence of "dark matter" in an effort to account for anomolous planetary behaviours



.

Dark matter is not required in this particular calculation, I am not an expert, but i believe his slight error has been fixed by just taking into consideration the planets gravity on each other, rather than just the suns on them




> Do you seriously believe that Newton's passion for astrology and motivation for discovery of a means of accounting the movement of planetary bodies was a pure coincidence



?

Who knows, which was the chicken and which was they egg, But it doesn't matter. Say someone believed in Loch Ness monster, and while researching it came up with a bunch of other amazing biology discoveries, the fact they had crazy ideas that lead to real breakthroughs doesn't mean the crazy ideas were valid. 

And saying this guy made awesome discoveries and he also believed in Loch Ness monster, so maybe you should believe in Loch Ness is false logic.


.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> According to:  http://www.news.com.au/national/aus...lled-upon-by-god/story-fncynjr2-1226832709998
> 
> He's doing what his faith has called for him to do. .
> ".




Thats the problem with faith, it can make you do silly things, some peoples faith leads them to preach others causes them to shoot people or blow them up or cut peoples head off.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It's not up to me to define the beliefs of theists,...



Good to hear! Now will you please stop doing it!
Theists are perfectly capable of formulating their own beliefs and certainly do not require the assistance of those whom seek to only recognise their failings in the hope of debunking an entire religion.


Value Collector said:


> ... you made a comment that Isaac Newton would be in heaven, i just gave an example of other theists who would say that he most certainly won't be.



I made no such comment on Isaac Newton! 
I provided three questions accompanied by a quote from Isaac. You rightly recognised this as a counter to some of your earlier comments.


Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> Dark matter is not required in this particular calculation, I am not an expert, but i believe his slight error has been fixed by just taking into consideration the planets gravity on each other, rather than just the suns on them
> ...



Earlier in this discourse I was asked to provide some examples of the benefits of religion. I've directed attention to at least two (of the many) historical examples of the foundations of our modern science being pioneered by the mystical pursuits of theists.
It seems that each time I address such arguments, I am simply greeted with newly created excuses. (eg. "it was centuries ago , a lot's changed since then, I'm sure he wouldn't be saying that if he were alive today, his discoveries were coincidental to his beliefs").

Oh! I was forgetting, the dog probably ate his homework also!

P.S. "Coincidence" very closely rivals the popularity of "hoax" within the deck of "trump everything bar contemporary science" cards.

Edit: The "coincidence" card could be used to trump the outcomes of all repeatable experiments! Yikes!!! Please for the sake of all that is true, think very carefully before playing that card!!!


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2014)

bunyip said:


> Everyone on this forum should read 'Unholy Trinity', written by former Victorian police detective Dennis Ryan - the story of Ryan's decades long struggle to bring pedophile priest Father John Day to justice for his horrific crimes against children.
> Dennis Ryan first came across Day after pulling over a car being driven by a known prostitute. In the back were two more known prostitutes, and a man naked from the waist down, his genitals showing, wearing a clerical collar, and as drunk as a monkey. Such was Ryan’s introduction to Father John Day.
> 
> In the end Dennis Ryan failed in his campaign to bring Day to justice, and the Catholic church destroyed Ryan for his efforts to do so.
> ...



Even more intriguing is the prospect of Dennis Ryan coming face to face with Father John Day in heaven. I doubt if Dennis will feel anything but contempt for the piece of vermin called John Day, regardless of how forgiving God might be of Day’s atrocious crimes.

_‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’. _
So says the bible. But apart from little children being welcome in heaven, so apparently are pedophile priests, Mafia thugs, murderers and rapists – you name it - nobody is too evil to get through the pearly gates as long as he or she says sorry to God and asks for forgiveness. 

What a ridiculous load of nonsense are so many of the teachings of Christianity.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

> Good to hear! Now will you please stop doing it!
> Theists are perfectly capable of formulating their own beliefs and certainly do not require the assistance of those whom seek to only recognise their failings in the hope of debunking an entire religion



.

I am not defining theist ideas, i am commenting on the ideas that have been presented to me, you then try to play down those ideas, and install your own, which is taking away from the fact that millions believe those ideas, so it is you who is trying to prune. 




> I made no such comment on Isaac Newton!
> I provided three questions accompanied by a quote from Isaac. You rightly recognised this as a counter to some of your earlier comments



.

Your three questions were poised in a way that sounded like you were suggesting Isaac would be in heaven, i simply said he wouldn't according to Muslims.



> Earlier in this discourse I was asked to provide some examples of the benefits of religion. I've directed attention to at least two (of the many) historical examples of the foundations of our modern science being pioneered by the mystical pursuits of theists.




Not just benefits, i asked you to provide examples of three benefits the couldn't be achieved in other ways. Isaac newtons discoveries did not rely on religion, either way those facts would have been discovered, and if the church's hadn't shutdown guys like Galileo they may have been discovered earlier.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Oh boo hoo!
> 
> That horrible cynic has popped my illusion of superiority over others!
> It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!
> ...



I would have thought such a childish rant and outburst would have been beneath you, how disappointing!  You misinterpret my post, I am not withdrawing from the discussion just declining to play the word games that you revel in here, it's pointless and you know it.  You seem the think that continual repetition of fallacious, unsubstantiated arguments and self-styled definitions adds credibility and weight to them - it doesn't.

Your intention here is clear, to obfuscate argument with minutia and distraction in a vain attempt to validate the whacky, fantastic claims and beliefs of your fellow brotherhood of the supernatural here.

As for the rest of the BS you've posted here, I claim no superiority over others nor, unlike the religious, do I claim to have access to certain knowledge and absolute truth about the afterlife and eternity - the ultimate in arrogance.

As far as I can recall you have not presented any historical "facts" here, just unsubstantiated claims and false comparisons.  As to the charge that I am a bully, I was unaware that you thought of yourself and fellow apologists for religious nonsense here as smaller, weaker people - they seem quite inclined to assert and defend themselves and hurl insults as others have noted in this thread and others.  Weak argument invites refutation and rebuttal and fantastic faith based claims without evidence deserve and are given no respect.

I note that, once again, you fail to address my arguments and instead engage in a juvenile tirade.  I'll let others "judge" who is doing the blustering and badgering in this post.


----------



## Chris45 (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Thats the problem with faith, it can make you do silly things, some peoples faith leads them to preach others causes them to shoot people or blow them up or cut peoples head off.



What a ridiculous comment. You are not a very deep thinker are you? 

Two examples from today's news of what people without faith can do.

http://www.news.com.au/national/tee...ng-in-cranbourne/story-fncynjr2-1226835252326

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...-on-friday-night/story-fnii5v6w-1226834954314


----------



## rumpole (23 February 2014)

I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?

The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.

As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> What a ridiculous comment. You are not a very deep thinker are you?
> 
> Two examples from today's news of what people without faith can do.
> 
> ...




Good people do good things, bad people do bad things,

But the only way to get good people to do bad things is by convincing them god wants them to.


I never said only religious people do bad things, thats not the case at all, but many, many good people have done bad things because of faith.


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?
> 
> The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.
> 
> As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.




Did you ever go to university?


----------



## rumpole (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Did you ever go to university?




Tell me about it


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Tell me about it



Our modern universities are descended from monasteries.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?
> 
> The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.
> 
> As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.




But the time to believe something is when you have evidence it exists,

The laws of physics didn't necessarily need a designer, they could just be, 

There are lots of unknowns, but saying "I dont know, there fore god" is silly, its best to say " I dont know, maybe we will find out"


----------



## lindsayf (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Our modern universities are descended from monasteries.




Which did you attend?


----------



## burglar (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Our modern universities are descended from monasteries.




Agree, there is evidence.
Adelaide University Cloisters:


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> I would have thought such a childish rant and outburst would have been beneath you, how disappointing!  You misinterpret my post, I am not withdrawing from the discussion...



So you do want to play then!


> ...just declining to play the word games that you revel in here, it's pointless and you know it...



Will you please make up your mind! (To play or not to play, that is the question!)


> ...You seem the think that continual repetition of fallacious, unsubstantiated arguments and self-styled definitions adds credibility and weight to them - it doesn't.



I am simply repeating the truth as I understand it. The fact that the things I've posted represent a challenge to your personal religion does not entitle you to denigrate, myself, my honesty nor my mental faculties!


> Your intention here is clear, to obfuscate argument with minutia and distraction in a vain attempt to validate the whacky, fantastic claims and beliefs of your fellow brotherhood of the supernatural here.



On the contrary I am attempting to bring clarity to the argument!


> As for the rest of the BS you've posted here, I claim no superiority over others nor, unlike the religious, do I claim to have access to certain knowledge and absolute truth about the afterlife and eternity - the ultimate in arrogance.



You could've fooled me! 
Do I need to sift through your posts in order to alert you to the theme of theistic intolerance that can be seen to permeate your posts to this thread?


> As far as I can recall you have not presented any historical "facts" here, just unsubstantiated claims and false comparisons.  As to the charge that I am a bully, I was unaware that you thought of yourself and fellow apologists for religious nonsense here as smaller, weaker people - they seem quite inclined to assert and defend themselves and hurl insults as others have noted in this thread and others.  Weak argument invites refutation and rebuttal and fantastic faith based claims without evidence deserve and are given no respect.
> 
> I note that, once again, you fail to address my arguments and instead engage in a juvenile tirade.  I'll let others "judge" who is doing the blustering and badgering in this post.



Yes! I see what you mean, Newton, the druids, alchemy, monasteries, Pythagoras etc. What would they have to do with historical facts? Must be all just religious superstition eh!!?


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Which did you attend?




My highest academic qualification is form 6/year 12/ matriculation/HSC (or whatever it is that they happen to call it these days).


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

From one of the other religious threads:


cynic said:


> According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
> "any mode of faith and worship"
> is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
> Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
> ...




Given that some are accusing me of word games I thought I'd mention that the definitions of the terms "religion", "faith" and "worship" have all been taken from the same dictionary. As I was not the author of said dictionary I cannot be rightfully accused of redefining the language in respect to those words!

Furthermore it may interest some to know my reasons for preferring this dictionary. The first paragraph of the preface amply reflects the reasoning behind my choice:



			
				The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9) said:
			
		

> PREFACE
> 
> This work is intended for the use of young people, and the definitions and meanings are accordingly given in a very simple manner.
> Words from the same root have been grouped in paragraphs, so as to bring out the family relations of the words. The commonest roots, sepecially those used as prefixes, have been put in small capitals (thus: PRO-,TELE-). These will give interest to the study of the language and help to a clear and accurate understanding of the meanings.
> ...




P.S. Aforementioned dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a defintion of "worship".


----------



## rumpole (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> There are lots of unknowns, but saying "I dont know, there fore god" is silly, its best to say " I dont know, maybe we will find out"




No I say "we don't know therefore all possibilities are still open", but your last statement is fine as well. (maybe we won't find out is also a possibility)


----------



## burglar (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> My highest academic qualification is form 6/year 12/ matriculation/HSC (or whatever it is that they happen to call it these days).




The discussion has long since passed the point where gentlemen would agree to disagree.
So what say you, gentlemen?


----------



## cynic (23 February 2014)

burglar said:


> The discussion has long since passed the point where gentlemen would agree to disagree.
> So what say you, gentlemen?




Can we disagree to agree?
(cbc appears to have mastered this unconventional art.)


----------



## rumpole (23 February 2014)

burglar said:


> The discussion has long since passed the point where gentlemen would agree to disagree.
> So what say you, gentlemen?




I agree


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?



 - An intelligent and thoughtful argument, how refreshing.  There are two issues here, one of existence and one of necessity.  The laws that govern our universe and the universe itself (however composed)  don't seem to require a creator as a necessity to exist or function.  That our universe, as we currently understand and observe it, requires a beginning seems evident based on current scientific evidence. The pattern of nature is the development of simple structure to the more complex over vast periods of time with randomness also evident.  God the architect implies order and purpose without randomness. 

If an expansive God concept does exist, it's highly improbable that such a God would manifest itself in any of the ways described in human religious myth.



> The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.



The question of infinite regression is a valid one, asserting no origin for a God assumes a form of existence that requires no beginning, contrary to everything we observe in our universe.  If a God always existed transcending time, then it's quite reasonable to argue that our universe has always existed in some form as well.



> As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.



Agreed.


----------



## rumpole (23 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> God the architect implies order and purpose without randomness.




I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of God, but randomness could be part of the purpose, giving a form of freewill to the Universe's inhabitants. The Laws of physics give the order and the randomness gives an enjoyment of the variety and diversity of life, and the ability to make decisions and change one's own destiny. Otherwise our fates will be predetermined, and I see no point in that.



> If a God always existed transcending time, then it's quite reasonable to argue that our universe has always existed in some form as well.




I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. If you view the universe as some sort of computer simulation designed by a programmer God, the the Universe can only come into existence when the programmer presses [Enter]. The universe then has laws defined by the program as to how it operates and initial conditions (time=0). 

The program then advances at a time rate determined by the programmer, so the universe is then subject to the built in time factor, it doesn't create its own.


----------



## FxTrader (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Will you please make up your mind! (To play or not to play, that is the question!)



I have, that is not to play by your rules and dictates here.



> I am simply repeating the truth as I understand it. The fact that the things I've posted represent a challenge to your personal religion does not entitle you to denigrate, myself, my honesty nor my mental faculties!



 More baseless repetition and assertion, I have no personal religion period and no amount of semantic trickery on your part can successfully argue that I do.  I have given your supernatural claims here the lack of respect they deserve as they are asserted without evidence. 



> On the contrary I am attempting to bring clarity to the argument!



Oh please, your sophistry here is saturated with obfuscating argument.



> You could've fooled me! Do I need to sift through your posts in order to alert you to the theme of theistic intolerance that can be seen to permeate your posts to this thread?



If by theistic intolerance you mean my focus on the falsehoods and fantastic supernatural claims embodied in religion and the gullibility of those who believe such things on faith then yes, guilty as charged.



> Yes! I see what you mean, Newton, the druids, alchemy, monasteries, Pythagoras etc. What would they have to do with historical facts? Must be all just religious superstition eh!!?



No, you don't.  Whatever mystical origin you attach to any branch of science, it does not logically lead to the conclusion that all scientific endeavor is therefore a religious activity or that those who ascribe credibility to the scientific method are practicing religious worship.  This is clearly a non sequitur.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> I have, that is not to play by your rules and dictates here.



Rightio then!

I'll leave you to play by yourself.

Farewell and god bless!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> No I say "we don't know therefore all possibilities are still open", but your last statement is fine as well. (maybe we won't find out is also a possibility)




That opens up the discussion of possibilities, how do we know whats possible. Is it even possible for a god to exist, is it even possible for "nothing" to exist. 

This is a great video that quickly outlines probabilities and possibilities,

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LqNDrOxhZho[/video]


----------



## Tink (24 February 2014)

Excellent posts, cynic


----------



## lindsayf (24 February 2014)

Tink

It appears that you and others achieve some level of gain/satisfaction  by equating athiesm with religion.  Can you tell me how this actually helps you?


Lindsay


----------



## cbc (24 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?




Sounds like your starting to believe.  I've heard of lots of evolutionists who talk like that before they became christians.  Struggling to believe how everything could have evolved.

So if cells needed DNA to reproduce.  How did the first cells reproduce without DNA, or even know how to reproduce?

How many of these simple cells formed before they started mysteriously reproducing?


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> From one of the other religious threads:
> 
> 
> Given that some are accusing me of word games I thought I'd mention that the definitions of the terms "religion", "faith" and "worship" have all been taken from the same dictionary. As I was not the author of said dictionary I cannot be rightfully accused of redefining the language in respect to those words!
> ...




You have to admit you are really stretching the definition though, In common usage I don't think that many people would assume that when you used the word "worship" you were just talking about something you hold dear.

I still think you are muddying the water by insisting on these alternate definitions when it is clear that they do not represent what the people in the discussion are trying to describe.

Some words can have up to 7 meanings listed, but when your involved in a conversation you have to keep to the context the person is using, as I explained its useless to bring out the meaning of gay as happy when it is clear the person is talking about same sex relationships.

So if I am talking about religious faith, being faith that something is true despite the evidence against it or believing something without evidence, It is different to me describing a blind man having faith in his guide dog.

Faith to the religious person is believing without evidence.

faith to the blind man is reasonable expectations based on evidence and earned trust.

the religious people say, "I don't need evidence because I have faith"

the blindman would say. "I have faith in my dog because I have been shown evidence he knows what to do"


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> So if cells needed DNA to reproduce.  How did the first cells reproduce without DNA, or even know how to reproduce?
> 
> How many of these simple cells formed before they started mysteriously reproducing?




DNA developed after the first self replicating molecules had already been replicating.

Not everything that reproduces has dna, and not everything that reproduces is alive.

Its not as simple as living matter vs non living matter. There is a grey area, where some non living matter has many properties of living matter.

It is from these very early nonliving self replicating material that the first life probably came from.

at the end of the day we are all chemistry, life is just a long chain of unbroken chemical reactions, If you don't believe me see how long you can hold your breath, you rely on a constant chain of chemical reactions and without oxygen, carbon and hydrogen life ends.


----------



## rumpole (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Sounds like your starting to believe.




Believe what ? That God created the world and all living creatures in seven days ? 

I don't think so.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> DNA developed after the first self replicating molecules had already been replicating.  Not everything that reproduces has dna, and not everything that reproduces is alive.  Its not as simple as living matter vs non living matter. There is a grey area, where some non living matter has many properties of living matter.  It is from these very early nonliving self replicating material that the first life probably came from.  at the end of the day we are all chemistry, life is just a long chain of unbroken chemical reactions, If you don't believe me see how long you can hold your breath, you rely on a constant chain of chemical reactions and without oxygen, carbon and hydrogen life ends.










Living matter has similar properties to non-living matter. That is all. It means nothing more than me having similar features to a statue.

You're just connecting dots that aren't their. Not using science but building your own bridge and walking over it.

I love people using science. 
But it is intellectually dishonest when they use science and then join their own dots and call that science. 

Silly.


----------



## cbc (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> DNA developed after the first self replicating molecules had already been replicating.
> 
> Not everything that reproduces has dna, and not everything that reproduces is alive.
> 
> ...




Oh....  Dna forming in matter that was replicating itself?


So howz that work?  Cells started forming around this DNA that was replicating itself from matter that was replicating itself.  Then started forming into these highly advanced molecular structures.  Which somehow knew that they had to split in half each time. 

Ul believe anything....

I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins.  That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.


----------



## bunyip (24 February 2014)

Here’s some more ‘light reading’ that shows just how ugly and repulsive some of the bible really is. This should be of particular interest to women who understandably don’t like the sexism that females are frequently subjected to.

http://www.evilbible.com/sexism_in_the_torah.htm

But it's not all ugly and repulsive - there's some amusement to be found in the bible too as you read through some of the absurd claims. For example......

In ‘Genesis’, Chapter 5, we’re told that Adam fathered a son at the age of 130.  But the wondrously virile Adam didn’t stop there, he continued to father children and finally died at the age of 930. (presumably from sexual exhaustion!)
Adam appears to have passed on his amazing virility and longevity on to his son Seth, who fathered a son he named Enosh at the age of 105. Like his father before him, Seth’s sexual and reproductive prowess enabled him to have even more children, and he finally died at the age of 912.
Seth’s son Enosh was clearly a bit of a stud like his father and grandfather before him – the randy old rooster fathered a boy named Kenan at the ripe old age of 90, then went on to father more children before dying at the age of 905.
As Adam’s lineage continued, they appear to have even further increased their capacity for longevity and amazing sexual and reproductive feats. We’re told that Enoch, who was about the sixth generation after Adam, fathered a child when he was 65 (good grief – the lad was barely out of his teens!) and then went on to father more children during the next three hundred years. Perhaps that explains why he was only a young fella of 365 when he died – three hundred years of constant procreation can really take a toll on a man!
But even the extraordinary feat of fathering children for three hundred yeas was eclipsed by the intrepid Noah who had three sons after he was 500 years old!


Of course, it wasn’t only sons who were born, there were daughters too, some of them so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted!

Anyway, it’s probably a good thing that the bible provides a few laughs to take the edge of all the ugliness of condoning and glorifying rape, murder, slavery, stealing, burning towns and killing innocent people including little children.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Oh....  Dna forming in matter that was replicating itself?
> 
> 
> So howz that work?  Cells started forming around this DNA that was replicating itself from matter that was replicating itself.  Then started forming into these highly advanced molecular structures.  Which somehow knew that they had to split in half each time.
> ...




DNA is just a complex self replicating chemical molecule. It would not have been at the start of the process. Before DNA there would have been simpler chemical molecules that were self replicating. Over time there was very gradual changes that caused these simple self replicating molecules to increase in complexity that lead to the formation of the molecules we now call DNA.

Remember there are things in nature that replicate themselves that don't have dna and are not considered alive even though they grow and replicate them selves.


----------



## cbc (24 February 2014)

1.An enzyme called DNA gyrase makes a nick in the double helix and each side separates
2.An enzyme called helicase unwinds the double-stranded DNA
3.Several small proteins called single strand binding proteins (SSB) temporarily bind to each side and keep them separated
4.An enzyme complex called DNA polymerase "walks" down the DNA strands and adds new nucleotides to each strand. The nucleotides pair with the complementary nucleotides on the existing stand (A with T, G with C).
5.A subunit of the DNA polymerase proofreads the new DNA
6.An enzyme called DNA ligase seals up the fragments into one long continuous strand
7.The new copies automatically wind up again



It says here in the process that the polymerase goes up the DNA strand to proofread the DNA to make sure its correct.

I don't know much about matter replicating as you have previouly posted but does it do this with non-living matter?


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> View attachment 56929
> 
> 
> Living matter has similar properties to non-living matter. That is all. It means nothing more than me having similar features to a statue.
> ...




only if the statue was replicating itself and producing more statues, 

I am not saying similar looking features, I mean they grow and reproduce and have some characteristics of living matter but not enough to be considered alive or living.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> 1.An enzyme called DNA gyrase makes a nick in the double helix and each side separates
> 2.An enzyme called helicase unwinds the double-stranded DNA
> 3.Several small proteins called single strand binding proteins (SSB) temporarily bind to each side and keep them separated
> 4.An enzyme complex called DNA polymerase "walks" down the DNA strands and adds new nucleotides to each strand. The nucleotides pair with the complementary nucleotides on the existing stand (A with T, G with C).
> ...




There is no attribute of DNA that couldn't have been produced in increments from a simpler self replicating molecule.

Here is a brief video that gives an example of the grey area between life and non life.


----------



## cbc (24 February 2014)

You didn't answer my question.  Is there a polymerase present in non-living matter?


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> You didn't answer my question.  Is there a polymerase present in non-living matter?




I am not a DNA expert (and I don't think you are either), But if that feature is common in all dna, and the matter has DNA then yes it would.

Because some nonliving matter has DNA, In the case of viruses it can be a simpler form of DNA, sometimes only a single strand of DNA rather than the double helix.

But not all self replicating non living matter has DNA, so in the self replicating matter than doesn't use DNA then it wouldn't have that feature.


----------



## bunyip (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins.  That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.




Good luck. When you get there you can give my regards to Father John Day and sundry other vermin as well.

I think a more likely scenario is that you'll spend eternity as a pile of skin and bones rotting in the ground.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins.  That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.




That's fine, I have no problem with you believing in god. I know people that like to believe those things and are even willing to admit to me that they don't even care if they are true, they just like to believe it.

But why would you want to ignore facts that we have discovered about the universe we live in? There are plenty of people that maintain their faith while also accepting the scientific facts that we learn about the nature of the universe.

I believe the catholic church has even come out and accepted the theory of evolution, and said the story of adam and eve is just a religious story told for religious purposes.

If there is infact a god that created the universe, I think he would want you to learn about how it has come to be, I can't see him punishing you for it.


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

cbc said:


> ... I don't know much about matter replicating as you have previouly posted but does it do this with non-living matter?




Your mommy and daddy did all this for you.
It's called procreation. 
You don't need to know. 
It just happens!

:


----------



## Judd (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> .....But why would you want to ignore facts that we have discovered about the universe we live in?.......




More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system.  More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

Judd said:


> More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system.  More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.




Here is Cardinal Pell admitting that the Adam and eve story is a mythical story told for religious purposes, He still bends and flexes to try and make god relevant to the theory of evolution, how ever he clearly accepts evolution.

So I see no reason for people to ignore evolution to maintain their faith.

Offcourse to me, him admitting that adam and eve were not real sort of blows the whole story of original sin and the need to kill jesus as a scape goat, But hey if a cardinal can accept evolution facts I can't see why others can't do the same.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

Judd said:


> More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system.  More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.




The church may have held that view but the bible never said it. Jesus never said it. It was personal opinion founded on nothing. It in no way discredits the bible.

Do you really think the threat to belief systems goes one way? How absurd. Many scientists have already made a conclusion by taking god out of the equation and are desperately scrambling with unscientific answers to defend their doctrine. 
The science is good. The science is accurate. But the conclusions are filled with all sorts of crazy assumptions based on a preconceived conclusion that there is no god.

Like with trading. The obvious stares them in the face but they just can't see it. They put 100 stupid indicators on their chart thinking it will tell them which stocks to trade. They have the right chart in front if them (science) but have stuffed up the analysis (their conclusion) badly by using incorrect assumptions (100 stupid indicators)


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

Who cares what a cardinal says?
That is one man's opinion.
Who cares what the Catholic Church says? 
That is one church's opinion.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church.
I don't agree with the cardinals or the pope.

People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
Or what Jesus says.

Posting an article about a cardinal is stupid.
It means nothing.
You could easily post what a homeless man believes about evolution.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Who cares what a cardinal says?
> That is one man's opinion.
> Who cares what the Catholic Church says?
> That is one church's opinion.
> ...




It was a direct response to another person who said they would rather have faith in jesus than belief in evolution, I posted the interview with the cardinal to show the two are not exclusive of each other.

You can accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life and still maintain your faith in your religion.

The head of the human genome project is a Christian, even though he admits that there is no doubt that we share common ancestry with other animals.

- - - Updated - - -



pavilion103 said:


> People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
> This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
> .




The bible is just the opinion of the people that wrote it, combined with the people who translated it mixed with the opinions of each person who interprets it.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The bible is just the opinion of the people that wrote it, combined with the people who translated it mixed with the opinions of each person who interprets it.



That sure sounds like an opinion to me!

Some people certainly do like to confuse their personal opinions with facts.

Whilst that which you opine may be possible, I sincerely doubt that you've studied the matter with sufficient honesty to be able to make such assertions.

However, that's just my opinion, and as such, it may or may not coincide with the facts!


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You have to admit you are really stretching the definition though, In common usage I don't think that many people would assume that when you used the word "worship" you were just talking about something you hold dear.
> 
> I still think you are muddying the water by insisting on these alternate definitions when it is clear that they do not represent what the people in the discussion are trying to describe.
> 
> ...




As you are already only too well aware, I have already addressed your bogus allegations during our discourse on the other thread:



cynic said:


> Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
> Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!
> 
> Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!
> ...






cynic said:


> Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science!
> 
> I could just as easily have substituted terms such as "belief","system of belief" and "honour" throughout this discourse. However, the dictionary definitions of faith, religion and worship are able to be used in a wholistic context.
> I've already given ample justification for my use of these words in a wholistic context, and yet, despite alerting you to the fact that the validity of the parallels described was never contingent on my choice of terminology, you continue to insist on arguing semantics rather than offering direct challenges to the actual issues I've raised!


----------



## lindsayf (24 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Do you really think the threat to belief systems goes one way? How absurd. Many scientists have already made a conclusion by taking god out of the equation and are desperately scrambling with unscientific answers to defend their doctrine.
> The science is good. The science is accurate. But the conclusions are filled with all sorts of crazy assumptions based on a preconceived conclusion that there is no god.




In the fields of astro physics, astronomy etc I understand that the complex models and theories of motion etc are improved by some assumptions of as yet undiscovered particles/bodies/types of matter etc.  It has occurred in the past that such things are discovered having only had a theoretical status for many years.  If a better explanation comes to light then good science would ditch the old
(now discredited) and examine the new.

Are you saying that this is not scientific and that the science would be improved by using the god variable (G?) where things are not quite gelling? 
How would this work in practice?


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> In the fields of astro physics, astronomy etc I understand that the complex models and theories of motion etc are improved by some assumptions of as yet undiscovered particles/bodies/types of matter etc.  It has occurred in the past that such things are discovered having only had a theoretical status for many years.  If a better explanation comes to light then good science would ditch the old
> (now discredited) and examine the new.



Let me see if I understand what you're saying here!

Scientists have actually been investing their belief in something without evidence!!!



lindsayf said:


> Are you saying that this is not scientific and that the science would be improved by using the god variable (G?) where things are not quite gelling?
> How would this work in practice?




How does "dark matter" work in practice?

It seems that "blind faith" in anything from the realm of the unknown is okay by science provided that no-one mentions God!!

P.S. See what I mean?!! Scientists are just like religious folk!


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

I was going to write something similar to Cynic above.

I'm so sick of people saying things are based on science which are not.
Like I said the science itself is great but the theories are just that, theories, not science.

Even with the "something from nothing" argument. Rather than having a rational discussion about the dilemma this poses to non-creationists, you see people saying "well... what is nothing exactly? We don't know what nothing is"
This is BS and a ridiculous smokescreen that would be obvious to a 10 year old. 
I'm sick of people hiding behind all the trickery and also the assumptions passed off as science.

Every position has some sort of philosophical reasoning (which isn't a bad thing if it's sound) but don't BS everyone into thinking this philosophical reasoning is science!
It's ridiculous and embarrasing.


----------



## lindsayf (24 February 2014)

ok so if the magical wizards and esoteric preactitioners of astrophysics and astronomy posited the god factor
( rather than particles, bodies, types of matter etc)  to improve the fit between that which is observed and that which is predicted by current models, how would this work in practice and would it improve our understandings of the universe?


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

To all the gentlemen here:

You cannot come full circle again and again and 
pretend you are not going round and around and around in circles.

*Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.*


----------



## rumpole (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> *Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.*




Tell that to Richard Dawkins


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> To all the gentlemen here:
> 
> You cannot come full circle again and again and
> pretend you are not going round and around and around in circles.
> ...



+1
Amen to that!
Welcome to the fold Brother burglar!


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

How many Catholics are in the world?

Depending on where one lives in the world it can often seem like either everyone is Catholic or nobody is Catholic! So it can be hard to get a real sense of just how Catholics fit into the world as a whole. Well, here are some numbers for you.

There are currently an estimated 6.7 billion people on the planet Earth.

Approximately 33% of those, or 2.2 billion, consider themselves Christian. That makes Christians the largest religion in the world by far. However, Islam is currently growing at a higher rate than Christianity.

Just over half of those Christians, or about 1.1 billion, are Roman Catholic (with some additional 240 million Eastern Orthodox). That makes Roman Catholics, by an overwhelming margin, the largest “denomination” of any religion on the planet. No other Christian “denomination” comes anywhere close to comparing.

The only other religious entities that can even start to compare in size are the Sunni Muslims (estimated at 940 million) and the Vishnuism Hindus (580 million) , but neither compare in organization, unity, reach, and influence next to that of the Catholic Church.

So if you are ever unsure about the number of Catholics in the world or their influence, just remember that the Catholic Church is an ocean in a world full of ponds and puddles – just as we would hope Christ’s Church would be.



- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/how-many-catholics-are-in-the-world/#sthash.mwBYfKdG.dpuf


----------



## Chris45 (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> How does "dark matter" work in practice?



It manifests itself as atheists who type anti-Christian trolling posts on ASF.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Tell that to Richard Dawkins




True, but I'm not sure that people that allow their opinions to prejudice their research qualify as real scientists.


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Tell that to Richard Dawkins




Richard Dawkins is annoying.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

"then a miracle occurs":

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?sa=X&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7SMSN_enAU413&biw=1016&bih=645&tbm=isch&tbnid=1KUkZ0n_rsQW-M%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fterryrhill.net%2F%3Fp%3D95&docid=aabEE62iQ-9C-M&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fterryrhill.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fmiracle_cartoon.jpg&w=445&h=244&ei=VcoKU-zHPInrlAXf1YHIDQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=781&page=1&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=0CFwQrQMwAw


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> To all the gentlemen here:  You cannot come full circle again and again and pretend you are not going round and around and around in circles.  Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.




Science can provide evidence to answer the question 

"Which is more reasonable: a creator or no creator (from what we observe in the universe?"

But it obviously will never prove there is a god or disprove that there is a god.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Richard Dawkins is annoying.



He can be very entertaining, provided he isn't taken too seriously. I've gotten a few good laughs about some of his opinionated assertions.


----------



## overhang (24 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Science can provide evidence to answer the question
> 
> "Which is more reasonable: a creator or no creator (from what we observe in the universe?"
> 
> But it obviously will never prove there is a god or disprove that there is a god.




Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster.  
The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others. Eventually we will have a greater understanding about particles that can come from nothing but no matter how great these discoveries are there will be those caught up in religious dogma to never accept anything different as they were conditioned to believe in a god.


----------



## Julia (24 February 2014)

overhang said:


> Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster.



+1.  Hence the silliness of equating atheism with a religion.



> The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others.



Most of whom believe their god is the only god.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

overhang said:


> Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster. The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others. Eventually we will have a greater understanding about particles that can come from nothing but no matter how great these discoveries are there will be those caught up in religious dogma to never accept anything different as they were conditioned to believe in a god.




The CENTRE of Christianity started in the Middle East.
Then Rome.
Europe
South America
China (yes communist china)

Don't give me BS that it's all simply a matter of where you grow up. Often many ideas are held by children but many opportunities to be open to new thinking arise.

The spread of Christianity was not inhibited by cultural philosophies or geographic boundaries.

So don't make a bogus, lazy generalization.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

Julia said:


> +1.  Hence the silliness of equating atheism with a religion.  Most of whom believe their god is the only god.




They are truth claims that contradict one another. Of course either only one of none of them exist. Don't you get this yet?

It's the same with all topics. We hold different views. We believe that ours is correct. 
What doesn't make it right or wrong is if we believe it's correct but the evidence behind it.

It's no different with this.

Why wouldn't someone holding a philosophy believe theirs is correct if only one can be correct (by the law of contradiction). It's why they hold it in the first place.

Thought this was evident


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

Ok well throw in with the Loch Ness Monster things like multi universes or macro evolution (which can't be observed).

Sure throw God in there if you like but be consistent and throw macro evolution in there too. 

If you do then at least I respect your consistency. But if you don't you are intellectually dishonest. 

What a cowardly cop out to equate god with these things but none of the "scientific" "theories/philosophies" which are not scientifically validated.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

overhang said:


> Because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't disprove the rainbow serpent and you can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster. The bottom line is pavilion if you grew up in India you would most likely be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely believe in Islam and it goes on but the point is religion is predominantly tied to geographic location, this alone should be enough to make you skeptical of a god as you are no more correct than the others. Eventually we will have a greater understanding about particles that can come from nothing but no matter how great these discoveries are there will be those caught up in religious dogma to never accept anything different as they were conditioned to believe in a god.




Haha eventually we will have an understanding of the particles that can come from nothing?

Zero evidence for this yet you state they exist like its a fact. What intellectual hypocrisy. If I said the same thing about god you'd go off your nut.  Isn't science about drawing a conclusion from evidence not the other way around? Yet you state this as a fact with no scientific foundation.

I'm sick of opinions like this. "Here is my conclusion and with infinite time and dollars it will be proven"
BULL****
This isn't science. It's a joke.

Nothing is nothing.
Logic and evidence says something CANNOT come from nothing.
This is completely laughable.
Nothing is NOTHING
There aren't different definitions for it.
Nothing arises from nothing.

How does this stupidity even get an ear?


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Let me see if I understand what you're saying here!
> 
> Scientists have actually been investing their belief in something without evidence!!!
> 
> ...




No, they have evidence that dark matter exists, its just they don't know exactly what it is, and information on it is scarce.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

> I'm so sick of people saying things are based on science which are not.
> Like I said the science itself is great but the theories are just that, theories, not science.




Sounds like you don't know what a scientific theory is, its not just a theory as you would use that word in common usage, a theory is,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess 




> Even with the "something from nothing" argument. Rather than having a rational discussion about the dilemma this poses to non-creationists, you see people saying "well... what is nothing exactly? We don't know what nothing is"




So we both believe something came from nothing, I just believe it is probably a natural process caused by physics where as you believe your imaginary friend did it with magic. 

Also it's true that "Nothing" is hard to define, we don't even know if its possible for "nothing" to exist.

Can you give me an example of "nothing" ?

But these are complex question which some scientists are dedicating their lives to try an answer, where as you are happy to just say "god did it".




> This is BS and a ridiculous smokescreen that would be obvious to a 10 year old.
> I'm sick of people hiding behind all the trickery and also the assumptions passed off as science.




Such as? which assumptions


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Tell that to Richard Dawkins




Dawkins has never claimed to be able to disprove gods,... or unicorns.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> macro evolution (which can't be observed).
> 
> .




there is no "Macro evolution" and "micro evolution"

It's all just evolution, What creationists call "Macro" evolution is just the end result of lots of little "micro" evolution steps.

You say it can't be observed, But we haven't observed pluto orbit the sun yet, But we can do calulations to know it will.

If there is not macro evolution, only small micro changes, then please find me a fossil of a mammal from the Precambrian period.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, they have evidence that dark matter exists, its just they don't know exactly what it is, and information on it is scarce.



Again my dictionary gives "that which makes clear" as a definition of the word "evidence".

By your own admission, "dark matter" isn't exactly known and is challenged by a scarcity of information.

Edit: "O come all ye faithful!"


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Dawkins has never claimed to be able to disprove gods,... or unicorns.



Are you sure about that?

His behaviour strongly suggests otherwise.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Again my dictionary gives "that which makes clear" as a definition of the word "evidence".
> 
> By your own admission, "dark matter" isn't exactly known and is challenged by a scarcity of information.
> 
> Edit: "O come all ye faithful!"




if you can weigh something you know it exists, It's quite possible that you may not know what it is, but you know it exists. this is the case with dark matter.

They can weigh it, they can see how other objects are affected by it, but so far information is limited as to exactly what it is.

So yes they have evidence it exists.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> His behaviour strongly suggests otherwise.




find me a quote from any interview, article or book where he has made a claim saying he can disprove the gods.

In his book the "God delusion" he says he can't disprove god in exactly the same why he can not disprove fairies or unicorns. 

That's the thing about religions, they don't make testable falsifiable claims so you can not disprove them.

Where are science makes testable claims.

Ask a religious person how you would disprove god and they will say you can't.

Ask a biologist how you could disprove evolution and they will give you a list of things that would have disproved it, because its testable.


----------



## Chris45 (24 February 2014)

*"Everything And Nothing" S1 Ep2 - "Nothing" SBS on Demand:*
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/144367171515/Everything-And-Nothing-S1-Ep2-Nothing
Aired on 23 February 2014, Expires on 2 March 2014, 11:05pm. 

Nothing - In the second part of this intriguing documentary, Professor Jim Al-Khalili explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it. (Part 2 of 2) (From the UK) (Documentary)

In the beginning was energy.
Energy created matter and antimatter theoretically in equal proportions.
For every matter particle created, an antimatter particle was supposed to have been created, eg. electrons and positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos.
*This has been experimentally observed on frequent occasions in nuclear laboratories.*
A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.
In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms.
On 26 April 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes).
Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container.

Most of the matter and antimatter that formed initially during the Big Bang mutually annihilated, except for the matter of which our universe is composed.
The background radiation that appears as "snow" on analogue TV is thought to be the energy released by this annihilation.

The Dirac equation, formulated by Paul Dirac around 1928 as part of the development of relativistic quantum mechanics, predicts the existence of antiparticles along with the expected solutions for the corresponding particles. Since that time, it has been verified experimentally that every known kind of particle has a corresponding antiparticle. The CPT Theorem guarantees that a particle and its antiparticle have exactly the same mass and lifetime, and exactly opposite charge. Given this symmetry, it is puzzling that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Indeed, there is no experimental evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.


----------



## pavilion103 (24 February 2014)

This is beyond absurd. 

People continually pass off theory as science and try to defend it. 

I've answered all the points on my Christian faith with consistency also and without wavering. 
I've not been matched in the logic that I've provided. 


I'm going to step away from this again. 
I have a couple of times.
The quality of answers and reasoning that have been posed and provided to me are not worth my time. Mainly because of the dishonesty and logical inconsistencies and fallacies. 

This is a stock forum and that's where I am going to put my focus. 


Some good stock posters in here.
But many parasites of this site. 

While people like myself are putting in the time and effort providing worthwhile and beneficial information in stocks and futures trading, there are parasites that hang around these threads and add no value to the overall forum (Aussie STOCK Forum).

Cya in the stocks and futures sections.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> find me a quote from any interview, article or book where he has made a claim saying he can disprove the gods.
> 
> In his book the "God delusion" he says he can't disprove god in exactly the same why he can not disprove fairies or unicorns.
> 
> ...




As I previously said, his behaviour suggests otherwise!

Also note the book title: "God delusion" 

That sure sounds like a claim at disproof to me!


----------



## rumpole (24 February 2014)

> In the beginning was energy




Energy is not nothing

It has a mass equivalence, so you have to explain how this energy arose or you have no theory about how the Universe came from nothing.


----------



## Chris45 (24 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Energy is not nothing
> 
> It has a mass equivalence, so you have to explain how this energy arose or you have no theory about how the Universe came from nothing.



You should watch the documentary for a full explanation.


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Dawkins has never claimed to be able to disprove gods,... or unicorns.




Dawkins is antagonistic!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> As I previously said, his behaviour suggests otherwise!
> 
> Also note the book title: "God delusion"
> 
> That sure sounds like a claim at disproof to me!




The book discusses many topics involved with religion, and peoples "god delusions", but it makes very clear that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god, especially one that people describe as existing outside of space and time, however the burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

I can't disprove god either, I would have to consider myself an "agnostic atheist", which is the same category dawkins puts himself in.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Dawkins is antagonistic!




Yes, and not without good reason.


----------



## barney (24 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Haha eventually we will have an understanding of the particles that can come from nothing?
> 
> 
> Nothing is nothing.
> *Logic and evidence says something CANNOT come from nothing.*





When we finally understand how particles can come from nothing man will most likely *become* a "God".  

Man may be nothing more than an experiment of some greater life form which "evolved" out of the cosmos and has set us up here on Earth to see how we develop/evolve.

In my opinion, Humans give themselves far too much importance in the overall scheme of the Universe ..... 

I suspect MAN may be here on earth for a very short time in Cosmos time (unfortunately)

If you are a Christian, even Jesus said Heaven and Earth will eventually end  .... only his Word will remain!  (so much for eternity)

My advice to anyone .... Be humble; be open minded; be respectful of others views, as their views are a product of their past, the same as mine are  ... 

i.e. I may be totally wrong, but at least I am aware of it .......  Back to Forex for me ... this is too hard!


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

barney said:


> When we finally understand how particles can come from nothing man will most likely *become* a "God".
> 
> Man may be nothing more than an experiment of some greater life form which "evolved" out of the cosmos and has set us up here on Earth to see how we develop/evolve.
> 
> ...




ONYA barney,

Some sanity in the morass!


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The book discusses many topics involved with religion, and peoples "god delusions", but it makes very clear that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god, especially one that people describe as existing outside of space and time, however the burden of proof is on the people making the claim.
> 
> I can't disprove god either, I would have to consider myself an "agnostic atheist", which is the same category dawkins puts himself in.




Spoken like a true believer!

You've found your prophet and sacred scripture.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> ONYA barney,
> 
> Some sanity in the morass!




+1

Please stay with us Barney.

This thread can certainly benefit from the contributions of those willing to recognise and suspend their partiality when expressing their views. This quality has been exemplified by your postings to this thread - Bravo!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Spoken like a true believer!
> 
> You've found your prophet and sacred scripture.




I have no idea what you are trying to infer here?

I have read the book, you didnt seem to know what it was about so i was clarifying its contents and what the author describes as his position on the topic, because you were inferring he held another position.


----------



## bellenuit (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Sounds like you don't know what a scientific theory is, its not just a theory as you would use that word in common usage, a theory is,
> 
> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess




VC, you are wasting your time trying to argue with Pav or any other YEC for that matter. At least 3 times in the last week that has been explained to him. First time directly by me when I noted he put theory in quotes and subsequently I highlighted the fact that a Vatican theologian correctly knew its meaning when he addressed it in an interview with Richard Dawkins. It was also the theme of a post regarding how US Republicans misuse the word. It is obvious that he never reads the links we post (why would he need to when the bible provides him with everything he thinks one needs to know). To have him again say scientific theories are just theories in the sense used by lay people just shows how pointless any debate with him is. 

I'm still waiting for him to address the issue of his God ordering the massacre of new borns and children as well as the rape of young girls. He conveniently ignored those issues in his post saying the victims deserved to be massacred by his God because they had plenty of time to repent but didn't. 

His usual tactic is to ignore issues that are uncomfortable or to announce he is exiting the forum for a period.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to infer here?
> 
> I have read the book, you didnt seem to know what it was about so i was clarifying its contents and what the author describes as his position on the topic, because you were inferring he held another position.




I'm sure you've heard the saying:
"Actions speak louder than words." 

Dawkins' behaviour expresses beliefs that are contrary to certain of his written disclaimers.

As for my inferences, those suffering the effects of indoctrination usually fail to recognise the obvious parallels.


----------



## lindsayf (24 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> He conveniently ignored those issues in his post saying the victims deserved to be massacred by his God because they had plenty of time to repent but didn't.




Is that Pav ignoring it?
Looks more like agreeing with it to me.
It looks like his view ( as is cbc's) is that his god is just and all of the the victims are deserving of their torturous fate.
Moral gymnastics of the highest calibre.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> I'm sure you've heard the saying:
> "Actions speak louder than words."
> 
> Dawkins' behaviour expresses beliefs that are contrary to certain of his written disclaimers.




Such as? How does his behaviour express a belief contrary to his written opinions, they are not disclaimers.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Such as? How does his behaviour express a belief contrary to his written opinions, they are not disclaimers.




Why are you asking questions for which you've already provided the answers?

Reread your own posts on Dawkins!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Why are you asking questions for which you've already provided the answers?
> 
> Reread your own posts on Dawkins!




You must be confused,

Dawkins admits he can not disprove a god exists, his position is that of an agnostic atheist. This is the same for most atheists. Atheists are not in the business of disproving the existence of a god.

But then you said this is contrary to his behaviour, you seem to be inferring that his behaviour infers that he can disprove a god exists, or some how his behaviour goes against his written position of being an agnostic atheist. 

Please explaining exactly what part of his behaviour goes against his written position.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You must be confused,
> 
> Dawkins admits he can not disprove a god exists, his position is that of an agnostic atheist. This is the same for most atheists. Atheists are not in the business of disproving the existence of a god.
> 
> ...




Your continued devotion to your chosen prophet and his infallible wisdom is a wonder to behold!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Your continued devotion to your chosen prophet and his infallible wisdom is a wonder to behold!




I have no devotion to Dawkins, i didn't even bring him up, I have just read his book and seen some interviews so happen to know his position, so I am just asking you to clarify your statements you made, because i don't think they represent the truth.

The fact you seem to be avoiding the issue and instead differing to adhominion attack, kind of leads me to think your statement was baseless.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Must I repeat myself?


cynic said:


> As I previously said, his behaviour suggests otherwise!
> 
> Also note the book title: "God delusion"
> 
> That sure sounds like a claim at disproof to me!




It is truly amazing how opinionation obscures the evidence of one's own eyes!


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I have no devotion to Dawkins, i didn't even bring him up, I have just read his book and seen some interviews so happen to know his position, so I am just asking you to clarify your statements you made, because i don't think they represent the truth.
> 
> The fact you seem to be avoiding the issue and instead differing to adhominion attack, kind of leads me to think your statement was baseless.




As to your claims about having no devotion to Dawkins, you certainly could have fooled me! You've been actively defending him and his stance in your postings!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Must I repeat myself?
> 
> 
> It is truly amazing how opinionation obscures the evidence of one's own eyes!




Must i repeat myself, 

Please give an example of his behaviour that goes against his written position of being an agnostic atheist.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> As to your claims about having no devotion to Dawkins, you certainly could have fooled me! You've been actively defending him and his stance in your postings!




No, i have just tried to explain his stance, and tried to get you to give an example to back up your stance.


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!




You haven't given an answer

You have not mentioned a single way that Dawkins has behaved which contradicts his written position of being an agnostic atheist


----------



## cynic (24 February 2014)

As I said:


cynic said:


> Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

cynic said:


> As I said:




So I will take it that it was just a throw away statement you made with no real basis, and you were not expecting to be challenged on it, so you don't have a real justification for it.


----------



## cynic (25 February 2014)

Yet again!



cynic said:


> Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Yet again!




:iamwithst


----------



## cynic (25 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> :iamwithst




Rightio then!

I'll leave you with it.

Farewell and god bless!


----------



## Tink (25 February 2014)

Ahhh cynic, you say it so well


----------



## Judd (26 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> VC, you are wasting your time trying to argue with Pav or any other YEC for that matter. At least 3 times in the last week that has been explained to him. First time directly by me when I noted he put theory in quotes and subsequently I highlighted the fact that a Vatican theologian correctly knew its meaning when he addressed it in an interview with Richard Dawkins. It was also the theme of a post regarding how US Republicans misuse the word. It is obvious that he never reads the links we post (why would he need to when the bible provides him with everything he thinks one needs to know). To have him again say scientific theories are just theories in the sense used by lay people just shows how pointless any debate with him is.
> 
> I'm still waiting for him to address the issue of his God ordering the massacre of new borns and children as well as the rape of young girls. He conveniently ignored those issues in his post saying the victims deserved to be massacred by his God because they had plenty of time to repent but didn't.
> 
> His usual tactic is to ignore issues that are uncomfortable or to announce he is exiting the forum for a period.




Interesting.  I do wonder whether there is an issue the science, which is more an effort to understand the world as it really is and really can never prove or disprove the existence of God and religious belief, exerts a large amount of its time attempting to be its own worst enemy as its tries to disprove its own theories. This is what controls are all about.  Religious belief is different aspect in that it takes as an axiom that there is a God and does not attempt to disprove that.  No real issue with that.

The problem which exists with biblical literalists is that the more we learn about science, particularly biology and geology, the less it agrees with the biblical account. This makes perfect sense when you consider the bible is a collection of religious stories produced by man at a time when we did know an awful lot about biology and geology, however it makes no sense if you believe the bible is the inerrant word of a supreme being. If you subscribe to this second view then your only option is to claim science has it completely wrong.


----------



## overhang (26 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The CENTRE of Christianity started in the Middle East.
> Then Rome.
> Europe
> South America
> ...




My point is not at origins but rather that people are conditioned to a religion depending on geographic location, my point still stands that if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely be on here preaching your love for the Quran whilst praising the one true god Allah (ignoring the language barrier).


----------



## DB008 (26 February 2014)

The religion of peace strikes again....



> *Islamic militants attack Nigerian school, killing dozens of students*
> 
> FEBRUARY 25, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## CanOz (26 February 2014)

DB008 said:


> The religion of peace strikes again....




This is just sickening...What in "gods" name was the reasoning behind that?

An eye for eye is not harsh enough for these animals.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

And then there is children being accused as witches,
Tortured and beaten in the name of Jesus 


[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TYp9imWL_l4[/video]


----------



## cynic (27 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> if you can weigh something you know it exists, It's quite possible that you may not know what it is, but you know it exists. this is the case with dark matter.
> 
> They can weigh it, they can see how other objects are affected by it, but so far information is limited as to exactly what it is.
> 
> So yes they have evidence it exists.




Oh really?!!
They can weigh it can they?!!!
Then tell me your supreme omniscience!
Draw from your pool of incontestable wisdom!
What does a particle of dark matter actually weigh?
My garden is in dire need of fertilisation, so please impress me with your omniscience as I would not want my shrubbery to go wanting.

It may be news to you, but there happens to be a very big difference between supposition and evidence!

What you've described here is what I prefer to call "GUFF" ("Gravity's Unassailable Fudge Factor")!

Some planetary bodies have been observed to have exhibited behaviours contrary to scientific understanding. 

Rather than accept that current observations are in conflict with contemporary physics (and also suggestive of a failure in sequences of repeated experiments) a new theory has been concocted to account the anomaly. An unknown mass has been hypothesized!

Even if one were to rely on the validity of our contemporary laws of gravity and motion, the presence of an unknown mass is only one of a variety of ways that such anomalous planetary behaviour may be theoretically accounted. Assertions that the anomalous behavior can only be accounted as "dark matter" are untrue and out of accord with the claims to openmindedness and objectivity that permeate this debate.

Those in disagreement with the aforesaid need only substitute the term "dark matter" with terms like "unknown force", "invisible gremlins", "GUFF" (or perhaps even "God") to see the inherent logical flaws in these premature assertions regarding the existence of "dark matter".

P.S. Please note that I am not disputing the theoretical possibility of "dark matter". It is a theory that I willingly entertain, but unlike pseudo scientists, I do not delude myself into automatically accepting unproven religious theories as fact, especially when the only evidence supporting said theories is contingent on the validity of other unproven theories!

See what I mean ?!!! Some acolytes of science are "superstitious" and invest belief in the "supernatural" just like religious folk!


----------



## lindsayf (27 February 2014)

What is it exactly that you get out of endlessly promoting your 'scientists are just as dumb and superstitious as religious folk' thesis?  Not sure which side should be more offended by your repetetive line of rhetorical attack?


----------



## spooly74 (27 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Oh really?!!
> 
> Some planetary bodies have been observed to have exhibited behaviours contrary to scientific understanding.



Sounds interesting.
What kind of behaviours, relative to what field?


----------



## cynic (27 February 2014)

spooly74 said:


> Sounds interesting.
> What kind of behaviours, relative to what field?




Please give due consideration to the gravity of the matter.


----------



## spooly74 (27 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Please give due consideration to the gravity of the matter.




I love heavenly bodies.


----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Oh really?!!
> They can weigh it can they?!!!
> Then tell me your supreme omniscience!
> Draw from your pool of incontestable wisdom!
> ...




I am not a physicist, so rather than debate me here, why don't you take up your grievances with the scientific community.


----------



## cynic (27 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not a physicist, so rather than debate me here, why don't you take up your grievances with the scientific community.




Thankyou for acknowledging that.

Years ago I saw an interview where a well known scientist claimed that most of his knowledge was learned from mistakes.


----------



## cynic (28 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> What is it exactly that you get out of endlessly promoting your 'scientists are just as dumb and superstitious as religious folk' thesis?  Not sure which side should be more offended by your repetetive line of rhetorical attack?




Please do me the courtesy of not misquoting me!

Ask yourself this! What do those disinterested in theism get from repetitively inferring moral and intellectual superiority over those subscribing to theistic beliefs?

My intention is to highlight the multitude of behavioural parallels in the vain hope of saving science from repetition of the mistakes made by its ancestral religions. 

As I've said before, science is a great religion! It has enormous potential. I despise the manner in which some insecure individuals choose to misuse it. I don't want to see its progress inhibited by the narrowmindedness and bigotry of such misguided individuals. The jaundiced behaviours of some(not all) advocates for science are threatening to stifle the progress of humanity's quest for knowledge. I am opposed to such individuals. (Please note I am cognisant of the hypocrisy inherent to my opposition.)

Must I continue sermonising, or have the acolytes of the pseudo scientist "Dawkins" gotten my message?

Edit: 
P.S. I vaguely recall asking a question of you some time ago lindsay, but do not recall receipt of a response.


----------



## cynic (28 February 2014)

spooly74 said:


> I love heavenly bodies.



Then you'll love mine!

I'm partially descended from life in another galaxy!

Please don't ask me to prove it to you. I do not wish to submit my DNA samples to the scrutiny of the moderators.


----------



## bunyip (28 February 2014)

DB008 said:


> The religion of peace strikes again....




The Nigerian school massacre by Islamic lunatics is truly horrific. Every decent person, whether Christian or not, will be appalled by such barbarity.

And yet this sort of cruelty and senseless killing is nothing new, in fact it’s quite common in the bible, with in some cases the Christian god himself ordering the killing or actually carrying out the murders in person.
Remember, this is the Christian god we’re talking about, the god who Christians regard as a role model who's kind and just and full of compassion and love.

_God Kills all the First Born of Egypt 

(Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)_

_And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed.  Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. _


----------



## Ves (28 February 2014)

My experience with ancient civilisations that are considered widely by historians to be "successful" or "monuments of all time"  (or whatever historians call them) is that most of them had strong value systems that were communicated through myths,  legends, magic tales of beauty, wonder, life, death....  abstraction as opposed to the mundanity of every day life.  They had something else to explain the unexplainable,  and built their cultural purpose around it. They embraced art and the human condition (the search for meaning in an irrational universe),  and this heavily revolved around their spirituality.  Their cultural truths about were not necessarily a literal interpretation of their myths and art,  but as a metaphor for expressing life as something worth living,  in a way that is otherwise unexplainable.

In my view, it is hard to find within the history of man societies without a strong sense of spirituality / myth (call it religion if you wish), that were highly successful in the long-run (that didn't completely destroy themselves from within due to having weak core values before they really got going).  More so,  because it is hard to bind and build a whole culture around a common purpose and set of values without attempting to explain the unknown.


----------



## cynic (28 February 2014)

Ves, I must say that I've quite enjoyed reading your perspective on this!

I was also impressed by your inclusion of the word "bind" into your rationalisations. (I surmise that this was done intentionally.)


----------



## Ves (28 February 2014)

cynic said:


> I was also impressed by your inclusion of the word "bind" into your rationalisations. (I surmise that this was done intentionally.)



It seems essential from my somewhat unlearned perspective!


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2014)

Ves said:


> It seems essential from my somewhat unlearned perspective!




Do you think it is better to fill the unknown with real facts or would you still suggest the myths are better even after the facts have been discovered.

Yes, old societies had some great artwork inspired with religion, however a lot of them also have other things such as human sacrifice. As i said earlier, religion has some bad side effects, i dont believe any of the good aspects rely on the religion. 

You can still have all the values, art etc with out the beliefs that lead to war and human sacrifice.


----------



## Ves (1 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Do you think it is better to fill the unknown with real facts or would you still suggest the myths are better even after the facts have been discovered.



I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about this.  But if something is "unknown" you cannot fill it with real facts, because the assumption is that you don't have any real facts yet.    It sounds like you are asking two questions at once in the same sentence.   Actual facts always take precedence over myths; but conversely they must first be actual facts.    Science cannot possibly answer the meaning of life,  because the universe itself is by definition devoid of ultimate meaning or purpose.  It is at this stage,  based on current evidence, fairly hard, if not impossible,  for me to imagine science answering every single question imagined under the human condition.   At this point in time,  art and culture and religion fill that void.



> Yes, old societies had some great artwork inspired with religion, however a lot of them also have other things such as human sacrifice.



All I will say is that the two are not mutually inclusive.   Success or longevity of such a state is not dictated by perfection of execution as is demonstrated by pretty much any society that you can imagine.  Utopia is a pretty useless concept in reality.



> You can still have all the values, art etc with out the beliefs that lead to war and human sacrifice.



Religion / spirituality / whatever is not mutually inclusive of war and human sacrifice by definition.   Science does not deal in morality or purpose,  it is supposed to be a way of gaining knowledge about the natural world (or the universe).  Morality is subjective,  not objective,  so how can science assume this mantle?

Can you name any societies that got by with just science or atheism that we can study?


----------



## cynic (1 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Must I continue sermonising, or have the acolytes of the pseudo scientist "Dawkins" gotten my message?



It seems I have my answer!


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2014)

> I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about this.  But if something is "unknown" you cannot fill it with real facts, because the assumption is that you don't have any real facts yet.




Yes, but many of the phenomenon worshipped by the older societies you mentioned have been explained, and we are continually explaining things. In my opinion it is better to say "We don't know" to the things we don't know rather than make up an answer. And there are things that have been explained now which religious groups actively protest against, eg evolution

And religions often discourage investigations that uncover evidence that goes against a core belief.



> Science cannot possibly answer the meaning of life,




True, but neither can any religion.

 I actually don't think there is a meaning of life, other than the meaning or purpose you give to your own life, and to think someone else can tell you what the meaning of your life should be seems silly to me.

I heard someone else say, "its like someone asking what's the meaning of a mountain, what's its purpose, science can tell us the geologic cause of mountains, but to think mountains have some spiritual purpose that needs explaining is silly, mountain are because they are, life is because it is" 






> Religion / spirituality / whatever is not mutually inclusive of war and human sacrifice by definition.




No, but looking around it does always seem to have its grubby little hands in the majority of conflict and human sacrifice.

And as I stated earlier, it seems to me conflicts drag on much longer when the sides are divided by religion, the conflicts divided by religion tend to be multi generational.



> Morality is subjective,  not objective,  so how can science assume this mantle?




I don't believe religious morality is best, morality has developed over a very long period of time, and will continue to do so. Religion tends to try and drive a stake in the ground and say "this is moral, nothing can change that" that's why you see people using religion as a reason to discriminate against others such as the LGBT community.

I think what is considered moral needs to be reasoned and thought out and debated and be subject to change, this is not what happens when it gets ordered down by a high priest using his interpretation of a 2000 year old book.


----------



## Ves (1 March 2014)

VC - all I'm saying is this:

To have a successful civilisation you need to be able to _bind_ most people to some sort of moral code,   which filters down from the culture and values of said civilisation.  You cannot have a highly individualistic based moral code (ie.  everyone picks their own destiny and their own morals),  because eventually you will have anarchy after everyone clashes and the knives and guns come out again.

Such wide moral codes are generally always assessed from first principles  (higher powers,   meaning of universe,  human condition & raison d'Ãªtre etc) - it's hard to see how it is unavoidable to not incorporate something unexplainable or abstract in any such reasoning (I use this word loosely).    So how can you just say "we don't know"?  There's so many morality codes in existence that it's fairly hard to see how any of them could be anything approaching objective or scientific,   instead they are approximations that were at some point to be agreed best, working theories (sound familiar?) to form the basis of society.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2014)

> To have a successful civilisation you need to be able to _bind_ most people to some sort of moral code,




Agreed, religion tends to divide people though, it creates ingroups and out groups. A moral code doesn't have to be religious. It can be based a rational, reasoned and debated system, enforced by laws which are not religious in nature.



> You cannot have a highly individualistic based moral code (ie.  everyone picks their own destiny and their own morals),




I am not saying the moral code in individualistic, I am saying the "meaning of life"(as you put it) is individualistic and no religion can tell you what the meaning of your life is. 



> because eventually you will have anarchy after everyone clashes and the knives and guns come out again.




the guns and knives are already out, in the name of religion. Because there are people that know what their god wants, and he wants you dead, Nothing you can say can change their mind, because they know their interpretation of their holy book is correct. 

This is the dangerous and harmful side of believing religious teachings and old scriptures, I don't believe any of the good things you have mentioned religion does rely on the religion, so I think they can be achieved in less dangerous ways.



> Such wide moral codes are generally always assessed from first principles  (higher powers,   meaning of universe,  human condition & raison d'Ãªtre etc) - it's hard to see how it is unavoidable to not incorporate something unexplainable or abstract in any such reasoning (I use this word loosely).




I think the development of morals was a naturally explainable phenomenon, that has been high jacked by the religious, the introduction of false sins, and warped morals is a way of controlling people.

And as I said, morals tend to develop over time and improve, where as religions tend to try and drive a stake in the ground and say this is absolute, it can not be discussed.



> So how can you just say "we don't know"?  There's so many morality codes in existence that it's fairly hard to see how any of them could be anything approaching objective or scientific,   instead they are approximations that were at some point to be agreed best, working theories (sound familiar?) to form the basis of society




You mixing two topics here. I am saying the best answer to unexplainable things about the universe is "I don't know", (nothing about morality)

 I agree most moral systems were at some point to be agreed best, working theories by some group, But religions try to instill the idea that that group had it all figured out, and we can't go against what they said, no what what new information comes to light. This is wrong in my opinion.


----------



## Ves (1 March 2014)

Maybe there's a better way of making my point.   I will try again.

Morality, may or may not exist in the universe - we don't know,  but we use it as the best working and practical theory.   That's what I meant about "we don't know" -  the concepts of good / bad,   right / wrong are far as we know are defined by humans not the universe.  _However,  as a side note Kant and others had a widely accepted argument by both theists and non-theists alike that mere existence of objective moral truth would by definition imply the necessity of a creator or some sort of intelligent design.   I don't really want to go into that but I thought I'd point it out if you wanted to research that argument in your own interest. _

My point is that humans trying to define universal concepts such as good / bad and right / wrong is akin to making a leap of faith - there's possibilities for rationalisation and logic after these first principles have been defined, of course. Moral systems are constantly developing because they are subjective in nature. 

They are based on what is accepted and works best at the time.   But that does not change the very nature of their first principles.  All of them have debatable motherhood statements at their very core  (whether it's a God, a purpose or meaning of life,  or anything).

I will also add that the very point of a moral code,  is to some extent,  exert control and order upon a whole group of people.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2014)

> Morality, may or may not exist in the universe - we don't know,  but we use it as the best working and practical theory.   That's what I meant about "we don't know" -  the concepts of good / bad,   right / wrong are far as we know are defined by humans not the universe



.

I think they are definitely defined by humans, and some one saying their morality comes from a god is just seeking to circumvent the rational debate and force their personal opinions on others. 




> I will also add that the very point of a moral code,  is to some extent,  exert control and order upon a whole group of people




I disagree, I think that the point of a moral code should be to improve the lives and personal freedoms of a whole group. Not to exert control a group of people.


----------



## DocK (1 March 2014)

I think you're both correct and both not 

My interpretation of a good moral code/ethics is a legal and governmental system that has evolved over time as a society's means of managing the best outcomes for the group as a whole.  The first principle/motherhood statements may simply have been whatever was necessary to ensure the survival of the tribe.  

I agree that the point is largely to exert control over a large group of people - hopefully to achieve the optimal outcomes for the majority.

I also agree that it's possible that the invention of a "God" may have been seen as the easiest way to get the masses to toe the line, with the promise of eternal life for being "good" and eternity in the fires of hell for being "bad" powerful tools to use on a suggestible and superstitious populace.  I feel that as humans now understand so much more about our world and how it works than we did, the various religions are having to adapt and evolve themselves in order to retain their power.  Increasing numbers of people have lost faith and belief.  As a community's morals, ethics and cultural beliefs evolve, the various religions are not keeping pace - leading to great disharmony over matters such as sexual orientation, contraception, education etc.  For a large number of people knowledge, aided by scientific discoveries, has served to remove the superstitious belief in an almighty supernatural creator.  What once bound us, seems now to be dividing us.

Religious beliefs no doubt played a pivotal role in binding people to a moral code, but those same beliefs also have played a part in dividing one culture/community from another - often with violent and tragic consequences.  Whether religion itself was always to blame for some of the wars fought in its name, or whether it was simply the easiest tool to use to rally the masses, may be debatable - but I think we are now increasingly a global society where the divisions between us are beginning to do more harm than good.


----------



## cynic (1 March 2014)

Although I am interpreting this quoted excerpt outside of its intended context, I believe it offers some insight into certain aspects of this repetitious debate:


> I actually don't think


----------



## Ves (1 March 2014)

VC - my reading of our discussion is that we are probably fairly close to agreement on a lot of the key points.

It may be that my post last night could have been better served in the other "Science vs Religion" thread as posting it in this thread may have accidently meant that others could confuse me with someone who is taking sides of religion  (in the sense that most of the debate in here is very combative "us" vs "them" and it was not my intention to participate in that way).

I was very careful not to strictly confine what I meant by myths and tales and legends to encompass a strict definition of religion (if you read back on my posts I tried fairly hard not to use the word religion unless absolutely necessary).   Possibly splitting hairs,  but the distinction between religion vs organised religion may have come in handy somewhere along the way too.

Perhaps I was better served by simply saying something to the extent of "Ancient societies were able to create a _narrative_ to bind their peoples around a common value system and culture which enabled them to exist in a nature that many would deem successful until this narrative became corrupted further on in time."

It is this narrative that science itself cannot create because it is subjective,  and for this reason the basis of any moral code,  seems to me to encounter a suspension of reality or a reliance on people making a leap of faith to accept its validity. For that reason it _may_ appear that the concept of ethics shares closer ties with forms of religion than it does science.

If you wish to remove religion then you need to replace its narrative with something from a similar sphere IMO.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs with this distinction.  It's hard to say!!!


----------



## Ves (1 March 2014)

It may be that the Cult of Reason provides a fairly good respresentation in history of what I am talking about.

Also found this interesting....

http://theconversation.com/the-truth-is-out-there-so-how-do-you-debunk-a-myth-22641


----------



## Tink (2 March 2014)

More freedoms, more rights -- less responsibilities, no authority.

The government?
I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.

I am still waiting for the science/atheist society we can study.


----------



## bellenuit (2 March 2014)

Tink said:


> More freedoms, more rights -- less responsibilities, no authority.
> 
> The government?
> I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.
> ...




Scandinavia and other parts of Northern Europe are quickly moving that way. What do we see there? Peaceful societies that strongly support minority rights. The main problematic issues that each share in common relate to the disturbances caused by large Islamic immigrant populations that try to demand that the state allow them to continue with the discriminatory religious practices that were the main obstacle to peacuful coexistence between peoples in the first place.


----------



## bellenuit (2 March 2014)

Tink said:


> I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.




Juche Religion Explained

http://www.billionbibles.org/north-korea/juche-religion.html


----------



## Tink (2 March 2014)

And Scandinavia is like here?
They balk if you call them atheists.
They do still have their Lutheran or whatever backgrounds, not to mention the highest paying taxes in the world.


----------



## bellenuit (2 March 2014)

I received a link to this in a PM. Thanks.

Scandinavian Non-believers, which is not to say atheists

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

It would be fairly safe to say that Scandanavians, though nominally Christians, are Christians without the God bit. I'm hearing the term cultural Christians more and more. My home country Ireland, which used be 95% practicing RC, now has one of the fastest growing atheist populations. Many of those who do not define themselves as atheist, call themselves cultural Catholics. That is they have more or less abandoned their faith, but still engage in some of the social aspects related to Catholicism as it is deeply ingrained in their Irishness. It is very much like Buddhism in modern day Thailand, where I am writing this from. The Thai identity is very much a Buddhist identity and their culture is built around Buddhist traditions. Thais who might abandon the Buddhist faith, if that is the right word, would probably retain their Buddhist traditions, as that is part of their Thainess


----------



## cynic (2 March 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Juche Religion Explained
> 
> http://www.billionbibles.org/north-korea/juche-religion.html




It's great to see a self-confessed atheist acknowledging that words like "religion" and "worship" can also apply to non theistic belief systems.

See what I mean?!! Religion can be seen to apply to "any mode of faith and worship".

It should now be even easier to recognise the "Dawkins" acolytes for what they truly are!


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2014)

Ves said:


> VC - my reading of our discussion is that we are probably fairly close to agreement on a lot of the key points.
> 
> It may be that my post last night could have been better served in the other "Science vs Religion" thread as posting it in this thread may have accidently meant that others could confuse me with someone who is taking sides of religion  (in the sense that most of the debate in here is very combative "us" vs "them" and it was not my intention to participate in that way).
> 
> ...




The problem I have with what your saying, is that you seem to be saying that because you can not define a moral code using scientific formula, we have to differ to a religious system.

That doesn't make sense to me, why would you have to defer to the supernatural for a moral code.

I think there are some very basic motherhood statements for a moral code that can be easily debated and reasoned to without deferring to any religious presuppositions.

The basic golden rule of treating others as you would want them to treat you is a fairly good mother hood statement, these sorts of things dont need religious authority to invoke, you can explain simply why its good for society to live by it.

We have a large non religious community in Australia that all seem to operate quite morally without religion.


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2014)

Tink said:


> More freedoms, more rights -- less responsibilities, no authority.
> 
> The government?
> I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.
> ...




Religion is allowed in NK, they only allow one religion though, which is the state religion of leader worship.

Which is instilled in children through their schools by the government policy.

Which is exactly what most atheists are against, we don't want to ban religion, we just don't want any one religion forced on everyone through government policy.


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2014)

Tink said:


> And Scandinavia is like here?
> They balk if you call them atheists.
> They do still have their Lutheran or whatever backgrounds, not to mention the highest paying taxes in the world.




Yeah a lot of people dont want to use the term atheist, because it has been given negative connotations by the religious folk for years.

Most atheists when asked their status will prefer to say things like, "not religious" "non believer" "agnostic" etc because it avoids a lot of judgement by religious folk, if you tell a really religious person your an atheist, their face screws up and seem to be offended and get judgemental, so i often use the term not religious in public settings, which doesn't seem to get as bad reaction, however it does seem to make them think they have a chance to preach, so if i want to avoid preaching i say atheist.

At the end of the day the word atheist just means someone who doesn't believe in any of the gods, so its the most appropriate term for "non believers", even if the person is what would be described as a cultural Christian, Jew or Muslim.


----------



## cynic (2 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Religion is allowed in NK, they only allow one religion though, which is the state religion of leader worship.
> 
> Which is instilled in children through their schools by the government policy.
> 
> Which is exactly what most atheists are against, we don't want to ban religion, we just don't want any one religion forced on everyone through government policy.



Does this mean that you now accept my dictionary definitions for religion and worship?

Have you already forgotten your recent accusations of word games?


----------



## cynic (2 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah a lot of people dont want to use the term atheist, because it has been given negative connotations by the religious folk for years.
> 
> Most atheists when asked their status will prefer to say things like, "not religious" "non believer" "agnostic" etc because it avoids a lot of judgement by religious folk, if you tell a really religious person your an atheist, their face screws up and seem to be offended and get judgemental, so i often use the term not religious in public settings, which doesn't seem to get as bad reaction, however it does seem to make them think they have a chance to preach, so if i want to avoid preaching i say atheist.
> 
> At the end of the day the word atheist just means someone who doesn't believe in any of the gods, so its the most appropriate term for "non believers", even if the person is what would be described as a cultural Christian, Jew or Muslim.




It's interesting that you've experienced that!

I've had the unsavoury experience of atheists vehemently attacking my right to hold theistic beliefs.

See what I mean! Some atheists behave just like other religious folk!


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2014)

cynic said:


> I've had the unsavoury experience of atheists vehemently attacking my right to hold theistic beliefs.
> 
> !




Did they actually say you didn't have a right to have a theistic belief?


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Does this mean that you now accept my dictionary definitions for religion and worship?
> 
> ?




No, because the way they actually worship their leader ( including the dead ones) fits my definition, i dont need to go to your definition.


----------



## cynic (2 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Did they actually say you didn't have a right to have a theistic belief?



All I did was compliment one on the minister and her sermon from when I'd attended his wedding. The next thing I knew I was receiving the most relentlessly oppressive lecture I'd received since childhood (we all know what parents can be like).

They may not have said those exact words, but as I've told you before "actions speak louder"!

Edit: I note that you are again rushing to the defence of your atheist brethren! (You see what I mean?! So much like other religious folk!)


----------



## cynic (2 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, because the way they actually worship their leader ( including the dead ones) fits my definition, i dont need to go to your definition.



My dictionary has a word that describes a certain behaviour that is evident in your posts. 

Namely "hypocrisy"!


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2014)

cynic said:


> My dictionary has a word that describes a certain behaviour that is evident in your posts.
> 
> Namely "hypocrisy"!




Because I didn't need your stretched to breaking point version of the definitions? Ok, think what you like, no doubt your stretching that definition also.


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Edit: I note that you are again rushing to the defence of your atheist brethren! (You see what I mean?! So much like other religious folk!)




Not defending? Just seeking clarification, because in my experience atheists are generally the biggest defenders of religious rights, and i have never heard any of the atheists i have seen interviewed or spoken too personally express feelings that people should not have the right to practice their religion, we defend peoples rights to their religion, ( except if it is actively harming others or their children)


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Because I didn't need your stretched to breaking point version of the definitions? Ok, think what you like, no doubt your stretching that definition also.



As I've stated earlier I was not the author of those definitions! 

Just like I said, the contents of your post are evidence of your hypocrisy!



Value Collector said:


> Not defending? Just seeking clarification, because in my experience atheists are generally the biggest defenders of religious rights, and i have never heard any of the atheists i have seen interviewed or spoken too personally express feelings that people should not have the right to practice their religion, we defend peoples rights to their religion, ( except if it is actively harming others or their children)




Clearly you haven't fully experienced very much of yourself or your precious "Dawkins" lately!


----------



## Ves (3 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The problem I have with what your saying, is that you seem to be saying that because you can not define a moral code using scientific formula, we have to differ to a religious system.
> 
> That doesn't make sense to me, why would you have to defer to the supernatural for a moral code.
> 
> ...



Not quite what I am saying.

I am saying that the narrative provided to implement any moral system is based on symbolism, which is a human concept as distinguishable from underlying objective reality.  Moral values such as _we are all equal_,  _treat others how you would wish them to treat you_, _economic growth at all costs_, _our duty is to the King / Queen_, _glory is in conquest_  (or any example you can think of)  are all beliefs,  and can be put in a variety or contexts and justified within many different narratives. Symbolism is everywhere that there are humans. Within overarching society it is always justified on a rational basis.  And it is this disconnect that sows the seeds for its eventual demise.  It can sit quietly under the surface for a long time (and the most successful societies in history thrive on this), but eventually when the narrative starts breaking down, it can be taken to extremes and becomes a mockery of its previous self. It will be replaced or refined and so we begin again.  It is fairly cyclical over history, if you look for it.

My purpose here is not to judge, but to point out that it exists as a process.  If you know something exists it is much easier to question it.


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Clearly you haven't fully experienced very much of yourself or your precious "Dawkins" lately!




I think what is happening here is that people such as yourself, pav and cbc, think that when I stand up for my own religious rights, and the rights of others, that I am some how oppressing you, when this is not the case.

I fully support your rights to Have a religion, practice it in any non harmful way you want, build churches, have meetings, instruct your children, have faith schools, be free to not have others force their religion on you etc etc.

However, other people also have these rights to their own religions or even no religion, So when people suggest Christianity should be forced through public schools or public policy, they are encroaching on the religious rights of every other religion and the rights of non believers. 

I think you will find the only time you get "Oppressed"(it's not really oppression) is when your actively saying things that would suggest in some way you want to take other peoples religious freedoms away, for example suggesting your religion should be taught to all children in schools, you should be able to see that that wouldn't be you expressing a religious right, it would be you oppressing every other religion and non religious group.


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

Ves said:


> Not quite what I am saying.
> 
> I am saying that the narrative provided to implement any moral system is based on symbolism, which is a human concept as distinguishable from underlying objective reality.  Moral values such as _we are all equal_,  _treat others how you would wish them to treat you_, _economic growth at all costs_, _our duty is to the King / Queen_, _glory is in conquest_  (or any example you can think of)  are all beliefs,  and can be put in a variety or contexts and justified within many different narratives. Symbolism is everywhere that there are humans. Within overarching society it is always justified on a rational basis.  And it is this disconnect that sows the seeds for its eventual demise.  It can sit quietly under the surface for a long time (and the most successful societies in history thrive on this), but eventually when the narrative starts breaking down, it can be taken to extremes and becomes a mockery of its previous self. It will be replaced or refined and so we begin again.  It is fairly cyclical over history, if you look for it.
> 
> My purpose here is not to judge, but to point out that it exists as a process.  If you know something exists it is much easier to question it.




The problem is though, if you have tied your moral system to a religion and a book that people have been taught to believe is the word of a god, you will have trouble changing things when in later years you realise certain moral teachings are actually immoral.

Eg, people have used to bible to defend slavery, deny women's rights, inspire the killing of innocent people and currently its being used to argue against same sex marriage rights.

This is just silly, by linking a moral system to a holy book written by men 2000 years ago, you are locking in the morals of that time, and delaying progress.

If it is true that same sex marriage is not moral, then arguments against it should be able to stand on their own merits, if the only thing people have to say about is that their imaginary friend is against it, they should be expelled from the debate, You shouldn't be able to outlaw something unless a rational reasoned debate can prove the practice will cause Harm to others.


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think what is happening here is that people such as yourself, pav and cbc, think that when I stand up for my own religious rights, and the rights of others, that I am some how oppressing you, when this is not the case.



Do not presume to know what I or anyone else is thinking! If you truly believe what you've said here then you clearly haven't got even the foggiest notion of what I am thinking! 


Value Collector said:


> I fully support your rights to Have a religion, practice it in any non harmful way you want, build churches, have meetings, instruct your children, have faith schools, be free to not have others force their religion on you etc etc.
> 
> I also fully support the rights of people to be allowed to freely think for themselves, whilst respecting the right of others to enjoy the same freedom without judgment.



Actually, the contents of a number of your posts strongly suggest otherwise!


Value Collector said:


> However, other people also have these rights to their own religions or even no religion, So when people suggest Christianity should be forced through public schools or public policy, they are encroaching on the religious rights of every other religion and the rights of non believers.



Again your criticism applies more to yourself than to those you've chosen to debate! (Try reading back through your posts on these religion threads.)


Value Collector said:


> I think you will find the only time you get "Oppressed"(it's not really oppression) is when your actively saying things that would suggest in some way you want to take other peoples religious freedoms away, for example suggesting your religion should be taught to all children in schools, you should be able to see that that wouldn't be you expressing a religious right, it would be you oppressing every other religion and non religious group.



It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the word "oppressed". Since when does issuing a compliment to a friend in relation to their wedding entitle anyone to commence a relentless assault on one's freedom of belief?

P.S. I am not against freedom of choice. I am perfectly willing to respect the rights of others in the formulation of their own views on theism, provided they accord others the same respect. I am also just as happy for them to hold no views whatsoever. What I am opposed to is the arrogant presumption by some that their personal view entitles them to claim intellectual, moral or factual superiority over those subscribing to alien beliefs. I find such bigotry offensive!


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

> Actually, the contents of a number of your posts strongly suggest otherwise!




Such as? Please link a post where I have tried to deny your religious rights.



> Again your criticism applies more to yourself than to those you've chosen to debate! (Try reading back through your posts on these religion threads.)




Again, please provide a link to so where that I have denied some ones religious rights. 



> It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the word "oppressed". Since when does issuing a compliment to a friend in relation to their wedding entitle anyone to commence a relentless assault on one's freedom of belief?




I am not just using the word oppressed in relation to you, but also other forum members who have made suggestions Christianity is being attacked and they are being oppressed by suggestions that they can not teach their stuff in schools etc.

But in relation to your oppression at the hands of an atheist at a wedding, was it your friend who oppressed you?

What exactly did he say that made you feel oppressed?



> P.S. I am not against freedom of choice. I am perfectly willing to respect the rights of others in the formulation of their own views on theism, provided they accord others the same respect. I am also just as happy for them to hold no views whatsoever. What I am opposed to is the arrogant presumption by some that their personal view entitles them to claim intellectual, moral or factual superiority over those subscribing to alien beliefs. I find such bigotry offensive!




Well, some of them may actually have superiority when it comes to intellectual, moral or factual debates. Are you sure your not just getting butt hurt because they are not feigning respect of your beliefs like society teaches us. If somebody openly spouts an immoral teaching, there is nothing wrong with some one openly disagreeing with them on a moral standing.

When it comes to claiming moral high ground though, I don't think its atheists that are the biggest offenders of making arrogant assumptions, the vast majority of atheists will just let you go about spouting whatever nonsense you want without saying a word in opposition, and they will tip toe around you being sure to never offend you.

I know religious people often expect to get extra respect when they tell people they are Christian, and a lot of people will give or at least feign extra respect. So because they are not used to being questioned it can be confronting when somebody openly states opposition to their beliefs they are spouting, I have had members of my family say they were offended and upset because I didn't take part in saying grace at a restaurant, they said I was disrespecting them by not bowing my head and closing my eyes, Me sitting quietly while they say grace is not disrespect though, even though they feel upset, they have no right to expect me to join a prayer.


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Such as? Please link a post where I have tried to deny your religious rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, please provide a link to so where that I have denied some ones religious rights.



We've already played this game and you struck out three times!

Re-read your own posts! 



Value Collector said:


> I am not just using the word oppressed in relation to you, but also other forum members who have made suggestions Christianity is being attacked and they are being oppressed by suggestions that they can not teach their stuff in schools etc.
> 
> But in relation to your oppression at the hands of an atheist at a wedding, was it your friend who oppressed you?
> 
> What exactly did he say that made you feel oppressed?



What part of "relentless assault" do you not understand?
I believe the fact that neither he nor his friends allowed me the space to utter so much as a single word during their 30+ minutes tirade counts as oppression in anyone's language!

I note that you are again indulging your habit of asking questions to which you're unwilling to receive answers!



Value Collector said:


> Well, some of them may actually have superiority when it comes to intellectual, moral or factual debates. Are you sure your not just getting butt hurt because they are not feigning respect of your beliefs like society teaches us. If somebody openly spouts an immoral teaching, there is nothing wrong with some one openly disagreeing with them on a moral standing.
> 
> When it comes to claiming moral high ground though, I don't think its atheists that are the biggest offenders of making arrogant assumptions, the vast majority of atheists will just let you go about spouting whatever nonsense you want without saying a word in opposition, and they will tip toe around you being sure to never offend you.



Again you've contradicted yourself by arrogantly presuming a rightful claim to the moral high ground!


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

> We've already played this game and you struck out three times!




We have played this game, and gave three examples of things You thought meant I was claiming to know Isaacs newtons mind. I then said that these were not my claims, but were taken from things Isaac actually said.

So your accusation that I claimed to know Isaacs mind was false



> Re-read your own posts!




I already know what I have said, Your the one claiming I have said things which deny people their religious rights, If you think that prove it and post a link.




> What part of "relentless assault" do you not understand?
> I believe the fact that neither he nor his friends allowed me the space to utter so much as a single word during their 30+ minutes tirade counts as oppression in anyone's language!




So you couldn't just walk away? Are you saying this guy was your friend?



> I note that you are again indulging your habit of asking questions to which you're unwilling to receive answers!




So far you haven't been able to provide valid answers. Lets make this very simple.

You claimed that in my posts I have said things that suggest I want to deny peoples religious rights.

I dispute this claim.

Please provide one link to some thing I have said which would be taking peoples religious rights away. All you have to do is find one link, otherwise take back the accusation.



> Again you've contradicted yourself by arrogantly presuming a rightful claim to the moral high ground!




I am not claiming I have the moral high ground in all cases, however you said

_"What I am opposed to is the arrogant presumption by some that their personal view entitles them to claim intellectual, moral or factual superiority over those subscribing to alien beliefs. I find such bigotry offensive!" _

All I am saying is that in some cases they will actually have personal views that do have intellectual, moral or factual superiority over those subscribing other beliefs.

If a religious person believes its ok to shoot someone of another faith, then I would say an atheist that believes that person is wrong, and everyone should have the right to practice religion without fear of violence is morally superior. 

There will be certain topics where there is a right and a wrong belief, in the cases where you get butt hurt because the other person is disagreeing with you, if it turns out they do have the facts on their side then it is not bigotry and it shouldn't be offensive and you have no right to be butt hurt.


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

So now the self confessed atheist agnostic denies having posted anti theistic sentiments to the religion threads!

It seems the very evidence of one's own posts is invisible to the jaundiced eye!

Again I say, those unwilling to receive answers should not ask questions!


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!




Or maybe Those unwilling to receive questions shouldn't say they have the answers 




cynic said:


> So now the self confessed atheist agnostic denies having posted anti theistic sentiments to the religion threads!
> 
> !




Me pointing out negative aspects of religion is not me denying your rights to practice it. 

Just as me saying smoking is damaging to your health and the health of people around you is not me denying your right to smoke.

And, me asking you not to blow smoke in my or my children's face or stop you from getting laws forcing me to smoke brought in is not me denying your smoking rights.


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> We have played this game, and gave three examples of things You thought meant I was claiming to know Isaacs newtons mind. I then said that these were not my claims, but were taken from things Isaac actually said.
> 
> So your accusation that I claimed to know Isaacs mind was false



Oh no it wasn't!
As you are already only too well aware my claim was substantiated by three of your very own posts!



Value Collector said:


> I already know what I have said, Your the one claiming I have said things which deny people their religious rights, If you think that prove it and post a link.




Are you sure about that?! You seem to be asking me for constant reminders of things that you've already posted!



Value Collector said:


> So you couldn't just walk away? Are you saying this guy was your friend?



I don't discard decades long friendships over isolated incidents! Had the behaviour persisted beyond the day in question, my decision to persevere with such friendships may have been quite different.



Value Collector said:


> So far you haven't been able to provide valid answers. Lets make this very simple.
> 
> You claimed that in my posts I have said things that suggest I want to deny peoples religious rights.
> 
> ...



We've played this game before!
Re read your posts!


Value Collector said:


> I am not claiming I have the moral high ground in all cases, however you said
> 
> _"What I am opposed to is the arrogant presumption by some that their personal view entitles them to claim intellectual, moral or factual superiority over those subscribing to alien beliefs. I find such bigotry offensive!" _
> 
> All I am saying is that in some cases they will actually have personal views that do have intellectual, moral or factual superiority over those subscribing other beliefs.




Whether it be in all or any cases you are claiming the right to moral high ground!


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

> Oh no it wasn't!
> As you are already only too well aware my claim was substantiated by three of your very own posts!




you linked posts I made where I was stating things that newton himself had said in his writings. This is not me claiming to know his mind, no matter how you try and spin it.



> Are you sure about that?! You seem to be asking me for constant reminders of things that you've already posted!




No, I am asking you to show evidence to back up an accusation you made. My position through this entire discussion has been that I support peoples religious rights. You have claimed I have tried to deny people religious rights, So I am asking you to show me a post where you thought I was denying people the right to religion.

As I have said, I believe your just butt hurt, and mistaking me standing up for my rights to not have your smoke blown in my face as some how denying your right to smoke which is just false.




> I don't discard decades long friendships over isolated incidents! Had the behaviour persisted beyond the day in question, my decision to persevere with such friendships may have been quite different.




I am not saying end the friendship, I am saying couldn't you have just left the conversation?




> Whether it be in all or any cases you are claiming the right to moral high ground!




well I am not really sure of the point your getting at.

But in discussions involving intellectual, moral or factual topics, there will be cases where one side is right and the other side is wrong, and it is not bigoted if a person says your wrong if in reality it can be proven you are wrong.

For example if there was a discussion on whether the world was 6000 years old or Billions of years old, Its not bigoted of someone who knows the facts to shoot down your arguments for a 6000 year old earth, offcourse you might get butt hurt, but that's not because you are being subjected to bigotry, its because your being subjected to opposition which is valid and fair.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2014)

cynic said:


> All I did was compliment one on the minister and her sermon from when I'd attended his wedding. The next thing I knew I was receiving the most relentlessly oppressive lecture I'd received since childhood






> What part of "relentless assault" do you not understand?
> I believe the fact that neither he nor his friends allowed me the space to utter so much as a single word during their 30+ minutes tirade counts as oppression in anyone's language!



Um, cynic, going by your posts in this thread, I'm finding it a bit hard to imagine you passively standing by to meekly receive a '30+ minute tirade' about anything.

None of us have to listen to anything.  Easy enough to politely say "let's agree to disagree on this".

If we're determined to find a reason to feel aggrieved/oppressed/insulted etc etc, it's usually easy enough.

Perhaps better overall to allow some things to just be what they are.


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Julia said:


> Um, cynic, going by your posts in this thread, I'm finding it a bit hard to imagine you passively standing by to meekly receive a '30+ minute tirade' about anything.



That's fine Julia, but I can guarantee you that is what happened nonetheless. In fact it was just shy of an hour, but I didn't want to be accused of exaggeration. I was waiting for the people present to allow me a space to actually speak! (As you've correctly noticed I'm not nearly so patient these days!)


> None of us have to listen to anything.  Easy enough to politely say "let's agree to disagree on this".



Again that's fine Julia.
However, let's not forget the number of non theists actively participating in this thread!
Please remember, that I reserve the right to protest against anyone presuming superior right to decide how I am permitted to think and what materials I am permitted to study!


> If we're determined to find a reason to feel aggrieved/oppressed/insulted etc etc, it's usually easy enough.



So true!


> Perhaps better overall to allow some things to just be what they are.



Things already are what they are.
The only say I have in the matter is in my personal choices. (i.e. to participate or not to participate).


----------



## overhang (5 March 2014)

Julia said:


> Um, cynic, going by your posts in this thread, I'm finding it a bit hard to imagine you passively standing by to meekly receive a '30+ minute tirade' about anything.
> 
> None of us have to listen to anything.  Easy enough to politely say "let's agree to disagree on this".
> 
> ...




  It sounds like Cynic was pulled in front of a royal commission.


----------



## McLovin (6 March 2014)

I wonder what planet the Pope normally resides on.



> Pope Francis has defended the Catholic Church's record on tackling the sexual abuse of children by priests, saying "no-one else has done more" to root out paedophilia.
> 
> "The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No-one else has done more. Yet the Church is the only one to have been attacked," he said in an interview with Il Corriere della Sera daily published Wednesday.


----------



## DB008 (9 March 2014)

Bring out the time machine boys, we're going back to time...


*Brunei: Sultan to Impose Strict Sharia Law with Amputation for Theft and Stoning for Adultery*



> The Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, is to implement a form of strict Islamic Sharia law across Brunei next month, rejecting foreign criticism of the move.
> 
> New legislation will phase in a version of Sharia law that will introduce penalties of amputation for theft, stoning for adultery and flogging for homosexual acts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron09 (14 March 2014)

DB008 said:


> Bring out the time machine boys, we're going back to time...
> 
> 
> *Brunei: Sultan to Impose Strict Sharia Law with Amputation for Theft and Stoning for Adultery*




Greetings  all .  I  have  just  joined  this  site , and  read  many  good  posts .  Well  done .

Should  we  single  out Religion , when  the  " craziness "  is  so  spread  throughout  our  different  cultures  and
   societies ?  

When  our  financial  systems , political  systems , education  systems , health  and  welfare  systems , etc  etc
   right  onwards  to  household  rubbish  disposal  systems , could  all  use  a  bit  of  a  revamp  and  updating .
   The  evening  TV  news  and  daily  newspapers , show  us  examples  from  all  over  the  world , of 
   happenings  that  seem  to  be  very  poorly  thought  out  or  planned . Is  that  what  makes  it  seem crazy ?
   Often  times , that  my  daily  plans  and  routine , due  to  unforeseen  events , go  right  out of  kilter .
   It's  darn  hard  to  avoid  sometimes , that  things  turn  out  poorly  or  unplanned .

Meanwhile , globally , things  like  stoning  to  death  or  chopping  someone's  hand  off , is  still  happening .
   Unfortuneatly , there  are  things  equal  and  even  worse  that  are  daily  events . Child  slavery  and  
   starvation , controllable diseases running  rampant , massive  oil  spills  and  Nuclear Plants  leaking , 
   the  Global Financial Crisis , species  extinction  rates , the  War on Terror and  next  war  and  next  war .

Now  it's  the  Ukraine  and  Russia that  are  standing  off .  So  many  other  "hotspots"  are  still  heating 
   up  more  and  more . 

Global  events .  Me  and  my  family  live  here  too .  Everything  that  I  have  worked  my  life  to  build ,
   everything  that  I  love  and  respect , ( an  our  two  little  dogs ) , are  threatened  by  events  on  other
   continents .  This  is  our  modern  world , now  in  our  21st  century  and  our  Space Age .  We  are  now
   a  part  of  the  Global  community .

Apparently  there  are  about  seven  billion  of  us  people  now .  The  whole  Human Race .  Our  families ,
   all  live  here  too .  What  affects  my  neighbors , on  other  continents , that  I've  never  meet , affects
   my  family  and  me , an  the  little  dogs .  We  are  all  in  this  together .  Thats  our  modern  world .

So  how  can  we  work  together , and  resolve  some  of  the  differences , and  in-differences , to  cool  down
   some  of  the  hotspots , that  can  escalate  to  warfare , and  our  families may  become "collateral damage"
   to  our  21st  century  weapons  of  mass  destruction ?  This  threat  has  existed  for  generations  now .
   Was  it  1963  when  the  Cuban Missile Crisis so  threatened  to  escalate ?  Look  to  all  that  time  resources
   and  energy , that  has  been  devoted , to  building  bigger  and  worser  bombs , that  can  destroy  all  of
   our  families .  Is  this  not  the  ultimate  example , of " turned  out  poorly  and  unplanned ".

As  our  populations  increase , and  our  natural  resources  get  consumed , there  has  to  be  increasing
   conflicts , over  the  remaining  resources .   It  is  like , with  our  eyes  wide  open , in  broad  daylight
   we  are  forcing  ourselves , into  the  war  that  no-one  wants .  The  war  that  every-one  will  lose .

We  Human Race  bunch , have  such  wonderful  opportunities  today .  Such  incredible  tools  and  technologies
   available  to  us .  Things  that  our  ancestors , back  a  few  generations , couldn't  even  have  dreamed  of .
   We  have  it  made . Wonderful  foods  music electricity  airplanes and  medical  technologies . The  Hubble
   space  telescope and  submarines .  Atomic microscopes  and  vast array  telescopes , the  internet and  WWW .

So . . . .  can  we  go  back  in  time , look  back  into  our  history .  Lets  build  that  Time Machine , to  go
   back  through  the  history  of  Human  civilization , from  the  start  of  our  Stone Age , to  now  our  Space
   Age  and  21st  century .  This  Time Machine  is  all  in  the  history , and  humanities , an  astronomy and 
   biology and geology  etc etc in  our Public Library systems .  The combined  knowledge and understanding
   of  the  whole  Human Race , right  back  to  our  earliest  ancestors  who  developed  the  first  writing , and
   first  languages , on  the  different  continents , that  we  have  grown  to  our  technologies  of  today .

Cool  eh .  The  Time Machine  is  there . The  travels  of  our  ancestors , building  our  multi-cultural  world
   of  today .  The  steps , from  a  few  of  us  to  now  billions  of  us . May  we  find  unity , as  a  species ,
   the  whole  Human Race , and  build  modern  community  for  our  families  and  what  care  for , as  our
   ancestors  have  done , as  pioneers  now  in  that  21st century .  All  of  us  into  our  Space Age .

Lets  work  together , an  clean  up  our  home .  I  think  that  all  of  our  Gods , all  through  our  changing
   history , would  like  that .  May  we  start  the  walk  back  towards  the  garden .  God  is  still  beyond  us
   mere  Humans  to  understand . God  exists , cause  from  the  ancient  Aztec's an  Australian Aborigines
   to  Moria's  an  the  Mediteranian  to  the  Vikings  or  Zulu's , to  our  modern  societies  of  today , people
   feel  and  sense  a  wonderful  and  powerful  . . . .undefinable   strength .  Yet  we  feel  "it"  differently ,
   and  "it"  grows  and  changes .  May  we  grow  forwards , towards  peace  and  prosperity , as  a  global
   bunch , look  to  what  Unites  us , rather  than  what  can  divide  us .

This  has  become  quite  long , and  I  thank  you  for  staying  with  me  this  far .  Do  you  agree ?
   If we can work towards agreeing as a species , the  whole  human  race , we move away from the  conflicts .

We  are  one  species , on  one  planet , who  share  one  history , and  we  share  one  future .

Towards  unity  and  prosperity , for  all  of  our  families , sincerely  Ron .


----------



## dutchie (14 March 2014)

Hi Ron09

Welcome to ASF. A long initial post - well done.

We can all dream for a better world but in my opinion it can't happen for two reasons:

1. Greed
2. Overpopulation

But the world needs more people like you (optimist) and less like me (pessimist).

Enjoy your journey at ASF.

dutchie


----------



## Bill M (14 March 2014)

Ron09 said:


> This  has  become  quite  long , and  I  thank  you  for  staying  with  me  this  far .  Do  you  agree ?
> If we can work towards agreeing as a species , the  whole  human  race , we move away from the  conflicts .
> 
> We  are  one  species , on  one  planet , who  share  one  history , and  we  share  one  future .
> ...




Hi Ron, welcome to the forum. Everybody wants what you want but they just want it their way. I will never accept chopping peoples hands off for theft or stoning a woman to death for adultery. So how do we deal with nut job religions that support this? These people are willing to go to war to keep these practices going in the name of religion. George Bush invaded Iraq and then said "God is with us". Best to stay away from the whole lot of them, all nuts jobs in my book.


----------



## DocK (14 March 2014)

dutchie said:


> Hi Ron09
> 
> Welcome to ASF. A long initial post - well done.
> 
> ...



+1

I'd add 3. Ego/lust for power. 

If only, Ron.  If only...  I have hopes that the Space Agers might get there one day, but doubt I'll be around to see it, and fear humans will need to find themselves on the brink of extinction before such drastic change could occur.


----------



## bunyip (14 March 2014)

Hello Ron

Every reasonable person wants what you want, but unfortunately not every person is reasonable. Hence the various conflicts around the world, the mongrels who will steal from you rather than earn an honest living, the vermin who will exploit innocent children through sexual depravity, sometimes hiding behind religion in the process. Slavery, drug dealing, forced prostitution, religious fanaticism – you name it. Unfortunately we can’t get rid of these unsavoury elements, in fact in some cases our laws actually help them to continue their crimes. Daniel Morcombe’s killer, for example, is a repeat sex offender who time and again has been released from jail instead of being locked up for life. So is the scumbag who raped and murdered Jill Meagher in Melbourne 18 months ago.

So what’s the answer to all this evil? Unfortunately there isn’t one. I think the best thing we can do is live decent lives, help people where we can, and enjoy our many blessings. Fortunately we live in a great country that gives us the opportunity to live a wonderful life if we choose to do so. 
One thing that concerns me is that we’re importing hundreds of thousands of people from fanatical religions who don’t love our country and our lifestyle as we do. Little by little they’re forcing changes that are creating divisions and gradually impacting our freedoms and our way of life.
As a baby boomer living on acreage in a rural area, these changes are unlikely to affect me much during my lifetime. But it could be a different story for my grandkids and their children. 
But what can you do?- not very much unfortunately. So I say lead the best life you can, help others where you can, and make the most of living in Australia – despite everything, it’s still the best country in the world.


----------



## Ron09 (14 March 2014)

Greetings  all  again .

I  thank  you's  for the  warm  heart  felt  welcome .

I  think  that  I  may  be  a  bit  overly  optimistic , or  maybe  I just  optimisticly  think !
   It  is  the  most  wonderful  thing , to  be  alive , and  a  human , who  can  just  sit  and  think .
   If  a  person  does  not  give  up , there  are  readily  available  answers , to  all  of  our  modern  21st  century
   challenges .  Hmmm . . is  it  ron IS  crazy  . . . or  Religion  IS crazy ?  Or  does  someone  think  to  much ?

Well , if  we  do  come  from  the  Primordial Soup  and  billions  of  years , then  we  are  all  descendants
   from  the  same  ancestors . We  are  all  family .  Mammal  Family  and  Vertebrate  Family  members .
   How  huge  is  that ?  Us  Vertebrates , all  the  birds  an  all  of  the  fishes , an  the  Marsupials , an  anything
   with  a  backbone ( I  may  need  to  check  with  the  biology  folks for  something  unexpected )  we  are  all
   kinfolks .  Survivors , right  through  to  the  Space Age. 

There  is  an  immense  feeling  of  pride , and  connection , that  is  so  awaiting  us  Human Beings .

If  we  do  not  acknowledge  that , then  we  can  not  celebrate  that . This  could  be/should  be , the  next
   great  milestone , of  our  species  growth .  Billions  of  years , born  in  the  water , to  slowly  crawl  upon
   the  land , now  able  to  walk  upon  the  Moon , and  now  acknowledge  that  our  individual  independence ,
   is  so  inter-dependent , on  the  rest  of  our  species , and  all  of  the  other  living  things  that  biologically
   support  us  large  animals . 

There  are  many  ways  of  phrasing  this . United  we  stand  divided  we  fail , a  successful  Mammal  family
   member is  entirely  dependent  on  community , biologically  we  are  symbiotic , our  history  of  competing
   for  survival  now  needs  co-operation  for  survival , human  beings  can  reconnect  with  their  roots  and
   nature , or  Love  thy  neighbor  and  forgive  their  trespasses !

Unfortunately  thinking  of  an  answer  and  writing  something  up , is  just  a  start  in  our  democratic
   society .  Free  will  allows  for  so  many  differing  opinions .  It is  such  a  part  of  modern  society , that
   someone  has  to " sell "  or  convince  people , of  an  idea .

Still , we  need  a  stable  stock  market  and  financial  system , as  things  move  forwards .  Thus  I  hope
   that  these  comments , may  help  readers  to  see  brightness  in  our  future .

Sincerely  Ron


----------



## DB008 (25 March 2014)

WOW!

Depicting *'a'* prophet

*Russell Crowe film Noah banned in Indonesia*



> His comments come as censors in Indonesia rejected the blockbuster film because of its portrayal of a religious figure.
> 
> The big-budget film, which opens in Australia on Thursday, has been blocked by censors in Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates because it could offend Muslim viewers by depicting a prophet.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (25 March 2014)

*Al-Qaeda urging ‘lone wolf’ jihadists to attack Queen Elizabeth II at British sports events*



> AL-QAEDA is urging jihadists returning from Syria to bomb British sporting events attended by the Queen.
> 
> The terror group recommends that “lone wolf” bombers use explosives linked to a timer or remote device to cause “maximum carnage” at events including the Epsom Derby, Wimbledon and FA Cup Matches.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/world/alqaeda-urging-lone-wolf-jihadists-to-attack-queen-elizabeth-ii-at-british-sports-events/story-fndir2ev-1226862791252

Should we be worried?

Are we a "crusader country" ???


----------



## explod (30 March 2014)

Heh, just doing a bit of an audit and noticed the very intelligent and comprehensive posts of ron09.

welcome to ASF.

On discussion touching the anger and agression of other cultures, many of those issues were created by our exploitation of thier homelands to feed our greed in the industrial revolution and business.

Now some of them come on boats to rightfully share the bounty.

Yes Ron, the planet belongs to all of us equally and the greatest religion is nature itself.


----------



## DB008 (1 April 2014)

*Saudi Arabia Doubles Down on Atheism; New Laws Declares It Equivalent to Terrorism*



> We’ve seen before how Saudi pundits find it easy to conflate atheism and terrorism, but now it’s official: Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism laws say outright that nonbelievers and others who commit thought crime are the same as violent terrorists.




http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/31/saudi-arabia-doubles-down-on-atheism-new-laws-declares-it-equivalent-to-terrorism/


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2014)

Crazy.....

The religion of peace.


----------



## lindsayf (3 April 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Saudi Arabia Doubles Down on Atheism; New Laws Declares It Equivalent to Terrorism*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/31/saudi-arabia-doubles-down-on-atheism-new-laws-declares-it-equivalent-to-terrorism/




That is really astounding and disturbing.  Taking the extremism to a whole new level.


----------



## DB008 (14 April 2014)

*Nigeria Islamists kill 68 in two village attacks: witnesses*




> (Reuters) - Suspected Islamist militants killed at least 60 people in an attack on a village in northeast Nigeria, while a separate attack killed eight people at a teacher training college, witnesses said.
> 
> Boko Haram, which wants to carve an Islamic state out of Africa's most populous country, split roughly equally between Christians and Muslims, has killed thousands since launching an uprising in the northeast four and a half years ago.
> 
> Witnesses said the gunmen attacked the village of Kala Balge, near the Cameroon border, on Thursday, from several different quarters, shooting sporadically as terrified residents tried to flee.





http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/us-nigeria-islamists-idUSBREA3C0PP20140413?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews


----------



## DB008 (6 May 2014)

Wow.

I think if it hadn't been for oil, this country would still be in the Bronze-Age.




> *In Islam, there's more than one way to be an 'atheist'*
> 
> Saudi Arabia has declared atheists to be as bad as terrorists. But does this mean those without faith cannot live happily in the Muslim world?
> 
> ...




http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/05/islam-atheist-saudi-arabia-terrorists-faith-muslim-world


----------



## FxTrader (6 May 2014)

DB008 said:


> I think if it hadn't been for oil, this country would still be in the Bronze-Age.



I view such oppression of non-belief as a logical extension of theocracy.  Religious leaders know that the only real power they will ever have is right here on terra firma, and this is what they truly desire, power on earth to dictate what people should believe and how they should live their lives (aka religious tyranny).  The modus operandi of the major faiths, Christianity and Islam, is to establish a theocratic order in society based on the imprimatur of religious authorities.  In this regard, the motives of Islamic leaders are just more transparent than their Christian counterparts.


----------



## bellenuit (10 May 2014)




----------



## bellenuit (10 May 2014)

At long last, Britain is starting to act against FGM.

*Woman arrested at Heathrow on suspicion of conspiracy to commit FGM*

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/09/woman-arrested-suspicion-conspiracy-commit-fgm


----------



## bellenuit (16 May 2014)

*My Comments:* I often read in articles or on blogs that those who criticise Islam are Islamaphobes. That Islam is no different to other religions and like the others, there are always some bad apples. I have often seen used a US (some security agency) figure that puts the number of Islamic terrorists in the world to just a few thousand. Negligible when compared to the total number of Muslims worldwide. 

But I bet they don't include among their list of terrorists those who support or directly partake in the government of Sudan. Government officials, judiciary, law enforcement officers and those section of the populations that help to keep the government in power. Are they not terrorists too, even though their targets may not be the West, but those within their own population that fall foul of Sharia law? The same could be said of many other Islamic states; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. We may see terrorism as some armed group murdering innocent civilians by suicide bombing and the like. But for minorities and in may cases just civilians within these countries, the terrorists are their own government and the bureaucracy that supports them. End of my comments


*Sudan: ‘Abhorrent’ death sentence for woman on grounds of her religion*

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news...sentence-for-woman-on-grounds-of-her-religion

_The decision of a Sudanese court to sentence a heavily pregnant Sudanese Christian woman to death by hanging for ‘apostasy’, and to flogging for ‘adultery’, is truly abhorrent, said Amnesty International today.

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim is eight months pregnant and currently in detention with her 20-month-old son. Her death sentence was handed down this morning after she refused to recant her religion.

“The fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is flagrant breach of international human rights law,” said Manar Idriss, Amnesty International’s Sudan researcher.

“Amnesty International believes that Meriam is a prisoner of conscience, convicted solely because of her religious beliefs and identity, and must be released immediately and unconditionally. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes the freedom to hold beliefs, is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thought on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or blief.” _


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2014)

*Pregnant Pakistani woman stoned to death by family*

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/pregnant-pakistani-woman-stoned-to-death

And if we think that these are extremists........

_*Support for Severe Laws*

Pakistanis overwhelmingly favor stoning people who commit adultery (83%), and comparable percentages favor punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery (80%), and the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion (78%). Support for strict punishments is equally widespread among men and women, old and young, and the educated and uneducated.

Even those who say they identify with the modernizers in a struggle between Islamic fundamentalists and those who want to modernize the country support these measures. About nine-in-ten (91%) Pakistanis who side with the modernizers favor stoning adulterers. A similar proportion of those who side with modernizers (89%) favor punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for theft and robbery, and 86% favor the death penalty for people who leave Islam. These views are virtually identical to the views of those who identify with Islamic fundamentalists._




http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/08/13/chapter-2-religion-law-and-society/

And there is also this, which I may have posted before.......


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2014)

An American TV evangelist showing his disappointment that stoning gays to death is no longer an option

http://www.queerty.com/pat-robertson-thinks-jesus-never-would-have-baked-a-gay-wedding-cake-20140326

_“If you look carefully at the Bible, what would have happened in Jesus’ time if two men decided they wanted to cohabit together?” Roberston asked. “They would have been stoned to death. So Jesus would not have baked them a wedding cake nor would he have made them a bed to sleep in because they wouldn’t have been there.”

Robertson then added: “But we don’t have that in this country here so that’s the way it is.â_


----------



## pavilion103 (30 May 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> An American TV evangelist showing his disappointment that stoning gays to death is no longer an option  http://www.queerty.com/pat-robertson-thinks-jesus-never-would-have-baked-a-gay-wedding-cake-20140326  If you look carefully at the Bible, what would have happened in Jesus time if two men decided they wanted to cohabit together? Roberston asked. They would have been stoned to death. So Jesus would not have baked them a wedding cake nor would he have made them a bed to sleep in because they wouldnt have been there.  Robertson then added: But we dont have that in this country here so thats the way it is.




This particular story is a non-event.

He said that Jesus wouldn't have baked them a cake and that they would have been stoned before that.

When he says, " that's the way it is today though" he is referring to gay marriage. He is basically saying in that society it wouldn't have even come close to happening but today it does (and is probably expressing disappointment that that's the way it is).

Media beat up, slow news day... Call it what you like.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 May 2014)

I hate journalism in general.

Their primary goal is to create controversy, hate and make people look stupid.

Unethical job.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I hate journalism in general.
> 
> Their primary goal is to create controversy, hate and make people look stupid.
> 
> Unethical job.



That doesn't seem quite reasonable.  There's some excellent journalism around.  People like Hedley Thomas who have investigated matters no one else was prepared to touch and who has ferreted out  much that people would have preferred stayed hidden.

I understand what you mean, however.  The tendency to ignore what is important in favour of getting hysterical about minutiae is beyond irritating.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 May 2014)

Julia said:


> That doesn't seem quite reasonable.  There's some excellent journalism around.  People like Hedley Thomas who have investigated matters no one else was prepared to touch and who has ferreted out  much that people would have preferred stayed hidden.  I understand what you mean, however.  The tendency to ignore what is important in favour of getting hysterical about minutiae is beyond irritating.




I agree. There are obviously some good, ethical dedicated people out there.

I'm talking majority. It really upsets me to be honest. Most people believe it; whether it be the article above or another issue altogether. Everyone has their agenda. I just don't like the twisting of words that is characteristic of most mainstream journalism. Sad that this is the society we live in and sad that many believe such reporting.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> This particular story is a non-event.
> 
> He said that Jesus wouldn't have baked them a cake and that they would have been stoned before that.
> 
> ...




[video=youtube_share;uzctJPEVFuA]http://youtu.be/uzctJPEVFuA[/video]

Watch the video and see if you agree with his views, especially how he goes on to say homosexuality and abortion are the devils work to get us to deny the reproduction of the human race.  I mean seriously, equating the two is just wrong on so many levels, and to call homosexuals oppressors is just a laugh as well considering the level of violence still targeting us.

I also find it sad he says a same sex relationship is a meaningless exercise because it can't go anywhere ie the only reason for a relationship is procreation.  That kind of thinking might have been Ok 100 years ago, but surely we've become a little more enlightened around not only sexuality but much broader in how we view human relationships.  He'd be right there with the Heffernan condemning all barren women.  I also find it a rather silly concept when there's already over 7B of us and we're pretty much on the road to extinction if we keep on the exponential population growth we've been on for millennium.

ps. i do think Jesus would have baked a cake for gays because he was all about inclusion and did his best to bring everyone into his grace.  If he still had a physical presence in this world I'm confident in saying you'd be more likely to find him in a shanty town somewhere, or giving solace to the ill, the weak than he would be to appear on TV and condemn people.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 May 2014)

Firstly I do not agree with any abuse, intults or treting homosexual people with negativitity. 
Jesus did not teach that. 
But he also didn't teach that we all have to agree. We can respectfully disagree without being homophobic. 

If we ask the question of who should decide morality, there are many who conclude that Jesus did live, die and rise from the dead and is the Son of God. 
If Jesus communicated that God intended relationships and family to be between a man and a woman then it is not homophobic to agree with Jesus' view. 

It is ok to respectfully disagree on the issue. It doesn't mean someone is unenlightened or whatever because they hold to the view that marriage was intended by God between a man and a woman (and Jesus communicated this). 

We simply differ in view and I don't insult you, or wish you any harm. I just disagree with your views as you disagree wit my Christian views. Complete respect on both sides. 



Some think that Jesus was this passive hippy who just said love everyone. 
He preached love, but he also preached that there is a narrow way and that judgement will come on those who choose to neglect what God has commanded. 


I don't beleive any man can define morality. It's impossible. Simply opinion. 
But Christ lived, died and rose from the dead and is well able to tell us what God considers moral or not. 

Even in my disagreeing now, I respect you as a person and anyone who cuts me down for holding my view is an intolerant bigot. We can agree to disagree respectfully.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Firstly I do not agree with any abuse, intults or treting homosexual people with negativitity.
> Jesus did not teach that.
> But he also didn't teach that we all have to agree. We can respectfully disagree without being homophobic.




Yet that is how many religious fundamentalists behave.

I was recently reading a report about a 15 year old boy in the US who's family literally had left him to die from pneumonia and it was only due to his friend's mother coming over and taking him in that saved him.  His father was yelling and screaming about how a fag was living in his home and he can’t believe the devil was in his presence.

It's that kind of religious nuttery that people like Pat Robertson pander too and in many cases create.

When people go around equating homosexuality and abortion as the devils work, surely that can be defined under Religion is Crazy, rather than brushed aside as a slow news day story?


----------



## DB008 (30 May 2014)

WOW

*Muslims in Malaysia call for Jihad on Cadbury and Mondelez after pig DNA found*



> ANGRY Muslims in Malaysia demand a Jihad, or holy war, be declared on confectionary company Cadbury and their parent company after traces of pig DNA were found.
> 
> In response Cadbury Malaysia is pulling Cadbury Dairy Milk hazelnut and Cadbury Dairy Milk roast almond from shelves in the Islamic country, Reuters reports.
> 
> A group of more than 20 Muslim organisations condemned the UK-based company, owned by Mondelēz International, saying “it has crossed the line.”




http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/muslims-in-malaysia-call-for-jihad-on-cadbury-and-mondelez-after-pig-dna-found/story-fneuz8wn-1226937587942


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2014)

*Woman kills toddler while reenacting story of Abraham*

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ls-toddler-while-reenacting-story-of-abraham/


----------



## pavilion103 (31 May 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Woman kills toddler while reenacting story of Abraham  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/05/woman-kills-toddler-while-reenacting-story-of-abraham/




Oh dear....

Another example of how individuals can misrepresent Christianity.

In a world of so many people there will always be a few idiots like this. Law of averages.

No doubt people can use religion as an excuse to abuse others and I understand that you guys hate that (as I do).
I can't imagine how much more you guys must hate ideologies like Hitler's, Stalin's and other communist regimes!!!!
Not good!


----------



## bellenuit (31 May 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Another example of how individuals can misrepresent Christianity.
> 
> In a world of so many people there will always be a few idiots like this. Law of averages.




The problem is that in many cases, but perhaps not in this particular example, it is not a misrepresentation but an interpretation that is perhaps equally as valid. It may not correspond to your interpretation, but that doesn't mean it is not valid (for instance following the edicts of the Old Testament). Fortunately when it comes to Christianity, those who are on the extreme when it comes to interpretations that promote physical violence are in a very small minority, though a significant minority can contribute to psychological harm to others due to intolerance of others' sexual or gender orientation. These would be more than just a few idiots. However when it comes to Islam, we are certainly not talking about just a few idiots, but significant majorities of some populations that lack basic humanity because of the dogmas they believe in.



> No doubt people can use religion as an excuse to abuse others and I understand that you guys hate that (as I do). I can't imagine how much more you guys must hate ideologies like Hitler's, Stalin's and other communist regimes!!!!
> Not good!




Yep, I hate all dogmas, ideologies and regimes that cause pain, misery and suffering to people. Certainly top of the list politically would be North Korea and in relation to religious dogma those that promote Sharia law.


----------



## pavilion103 (31 May 2014)

I don't buy into the whole interpretation thing. So many group use it as a cop out to do their own thing. 

There isn't a whole lot of interpretation when Jesus summed up the commands in love God with all your heat and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything is to be done in love. Any time it isn't it is an inaccurate interpretation.

This doesn't mean we have to accept every view happily or all agree. It means that when we disagree we do it respectfully and still love the person themself even if we don't agree with their choices.


----------



## pavilion103 (31 May 2014)

Any interpretation that contradicts this is a lack of care or willingness of the individual/group to take Jesus words as their own.

I'm not saying I'm perfect to understand and accurately interpret every philosophy or undertaking in life, however to miss this absolute fundamental - that Jesus points out black and white - is to seriously have done something wrong when coming up with your interpretation.


----------



## bellenuit (31 May 2014)

*Hate preacher's 'disgusting' sermon praising Boko Haram's kidnap of Nigerian schoolgirls*

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...s-kidnap-of-nigerian-schoolgirls-9452195.html


----------



## pavilion103 (31 May 2014)

Man you guys love posting about stuff that you hate. A lot of it is very valid.

Posting about this just pollutes your mind and causes no positive affect in a practical sense.

Seriously your time is better spent filling your mind with positive stuff and coming up with ways to help those struggling. Much more beneficial.

This is why I don't watch media, read newspapers and I deleted my Facebook account.


----------



## DB008 (31 May 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Man you guys love posting about stuff that you hate. A lot of it is very valid.
> 
> Posting about this just pollutes your mind and causes no positive affect in a practical sense.
> 
> ...




Good for you.

Keep living under that rock and don't open the blinds to see what is happening outside in the real world....


----------



## pavilion103 (1 June 2014)

Not living under a rock.
Filling my mind with positivity and impacting people's lives in a tangible way.


----------



## bellenuit (1 June 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Any interpretation that contradicts this is a lack of care or willingness of the individual/group to take Jesus words as their own.




Another guy interpreting Jesus. See how dangerous it can be........


----------



## bunyip (5 June 2014)

Yet another dark secret from a religious institution.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...dren-dumped-in-septic-tank-mass-grave/5501482


----------



## Duckman#72 (8 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Yet another dark secret from a religious institution.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...dren-dumped-in-septic-tank-mass-grave/5501482




Thank goodness we have the ABC ever vigilant in its quest to bring to light religious attrocities.

The interview with NSW police whistleblower Peter Fox on Lateline a couple of years ago was particularly good. In fact it even won a Walkley award for exposing the "catholic mafia".

Hopefully the ABC doesn't report on the subsequent inquiry that found, "there was no basis for Fox's assertions of collusion, concealment and lack of assistance. Fox himself became a zealot, obsessed with conspiracies who exaggerated his own importance and gave deliberately untruthful evidence to support his claims".

Anyway..........regardless of the findings of the inquiry, the main gist of Fox's argument is still the same, religious institutions are rampant with sexual perverts who callously have no regard for their victims. That's all that needs to be reported.

Duckman


----------



## Julia (8 June 2014)

Just to be fair to the ABC, they did give quite some attention to the description of Peter Fox in that report by Judge Cuneen.  From memory it was clearly and comprehensively covered in both their current affairs radio programs.

And, also to be fair to Peter Fox, had he not drawn so much attention to what he had seen happening (notwithstanding that he may have over-dramatised some of it), it's probably unlikely the enquiry or royal commission or whatever it was would ever have occurred, exposing some horrific abuse by not just the Catholic church but various other institutions.

So many defenceless children suffered hideously and many of them have never fully recovered from the cruelty shown to them when they so needed kindness and love.


----------



## bellenuit (8 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Yet another dark secret from a religious institution.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...dren-dumped-in-septic-tank-mass-grave/5501482




From the above report.....

_A septic tank was used to dump the bodies of almost 800 babies ......_

It appears that the story, horrific enough as it is, may have been overblown some what. I'm not trying to defend in any way what was done, and those who read my posts know I don't hold back when it comes to exposing religion related scandals, but the original investigator who exposed this story claims some of the claims attributed to her by the media were not what she said.

*Tuam mother and baby home: the trouble with the septic tank story*

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...-trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393


----------



## Duckman#72 (8 June 2014)

Julia said:


> to be fair to Peter Fox, had he not drawn so much attention to what he had seen happening (notwithstanding that he may have over-dramatised some of it), it's probably unlikely the enquiry or royal commission or whatever it was would ever have occurred, exposing some horrific abuse by not just the Catholic church but various other institutions.
> 
> So many defenceless children suffered hideously and many of them have never fully recovered from the cruelty shown to them when they so needed kindness and love.




That sums up my point. It appears we can overlook lack of factual evidence, public vilification and outright deceit as long as the end justifies the means. 

Duckman


----------



## Julia (8 June 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> That sums up my point. It appears we can overlook lack of factual evidence, public vilification and outright deceit as long as the end justifies the means.
> 
> Duckman



Duckman, are you saying you don't believe there was any need for any enquiry into physical, emotional and sexual abuse in Catholic run institutions, or other institutions?

It wasn't happening until Peter Fox and others insisted that much was being covered up.

The subsequent reports from the Royal Commission (have you read/heard even some of what these children endured?) are beyond belief.

I understand that Catholics - and Salvationists and various others - are feeling much shame and embarrassment.
It's about time.   There was precious little shame or embarrassment demonstrated through all the years that little kids were suffering, just a transferring of the errant priest to a different area where he efficiently found new victims.
You have several children, Duckman.  Can you imagine one of them, aged about 6 or 7, being repeatedly raped by a 'man of god' then, just for good measure, having bricks tied to his feet before being thrown naked into a swimming pool?

Just one of many similarly repugnant examples of what happened.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2014)

Interesting that the Catholic church comes under more scrutiny for more crimes committed than the CofE and Uniting church.

Surely the prohibition on priests marrying in the Catholic church has something to do with the predilection of their priests to find other outlets ?

Maybe this subject should come under serious review by the Vatican, as well as the issue of female priests which the Catholics have so far been unable to come to grips with.


----------



## Duckman#72 (8 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Duckman, are you saying you don't believe there was any need for any enquiry into physical, emotional and sexual abuse in Catholic run institutions, or other institutions?




No I am not saying that. Sexual abuse should be flushed out from ALL corners of society.



Julia said:


> You have several children, Duckman.  Can you imagine one of them, aged about 6 or 7, being repeatedly raped by a 'man of god'.




When it comes to sexual abuse I don't need to imagine Julia, I just remember.

As a result I keep a very close eye on the ducklings. But I can tell you this - it is not Catholic priests that I am watching out for, but rather predatory "family friends" - the 90% of perpetrators of abuse. 

Duckman


----------



## Julia (8 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Surely the prohibition on priests marrying in the Catholic church has something to do with the predilection of their priests to find other outlets ?



Are you suggesting that the voluntary commitment to celibacy on the part of priests can in any way excuse their extreme abuse and cruelty to children?

If they were so sexually driven, why not pay for prostitutes instead of visiting obscene abuse on powerless children?

What is being largely ignored here is that it's much more about the inequality of power as it is about sexual desire.   The priests held all the power.  That they were the people charged with the responsiblity of caring for these unfortunate young people makes their behaviour all the more depraved and obscene.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Are you suggesting that the voluntary commitment to celibacy on the part of priests can in any way excuse their extreme abuse and cruelty to children?
> 
> .




Of course not, I'm simply comparing the Catholic church with other denominations and asking if some reform in the Catholic church can prevent their priests committing future atrocities.

As for Catholic priests visiting prostitutes, I'm sure some of them do, but it's harder to keep  prostitutes quiet about indiscretions than it is to threaten children and their parents into silence.


----------



## banco (8 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course not, I'm simply comparing the Catholic church with other denominations and asking if some reform in the Catholic church can prevent their priests committing future atrocities.
> 
> As for Catholic priests visiting prostitutes, I'm sure some of them do, but it's harder to keep  prostitutes quiet about indiscretions than it is to threaten children and their parents into silence.




Apparently the gay prostitutes in Rome do a roaring trade from the vatican.


----------



## Tink (8 June 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Thank goodness we have the ABC ever vigilant in its quest to bring to light religious attrocities.
> ............
> 
> Duckman




Agree Duckman on their never ending quest.....this needs to be on the ABC thread.

Miranda Devine said it perfectly after they interviewed the gay “dads” in Queensland.


_The story exposing such evildoing was the ABC at its best. But Four Corners host Kerry O’Brien also ensured it was the ABC at its worst, when he added an unnecessary, politically-correct footnote.

The story “does not reflect on gay parenting but on the action of two individuals,” he declared. “It’s also worth remembering that most child sex offenders relate to crimes against young girls, not young boys ...”

You have to ask why the ABC felt the need to add the footnote in this case, and yet never shows such sensitivity in its numerous reports on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Where’s the statement to say that those stories do not reflect on the Catholic Church or the many good priests who might be unfairly labelled pedophiles?_


----------



## banco (9 June 2014)

Tink said:


> Agree Duckman on their never ending quest.....this needs to be on the ABC thread.
> 
> Miranda Devine said it perfectly after they interviewed the gay “dads” in Queensland.
> 
> ...




It's the coverup not the abuse itself that has so damaged the catholic church.  They were running a pedophile protection racket for decades.  A lot of bishops that died in bed should have died in jail or at the hands of the parents whose kids abuse they enabled.


----------



## Tink (9 June 2014)

That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, the gay couple were running a pedophile racket, so do we assume all gays are pedophiles, like the ABC are reporting about priests?


----------



## Ruby (9 June 2014)

Tink said:


> That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, the gay couple were running a pedophile racket, so do we assume all gays are pedophiles, like the ABC are reporting about priests?




Tink, no, we do not assume all gays are paedophiles;  the ABC has NEVER claimed that all catholic priests are paedophiles; and whatever the catholic church teaches, it is a *fact *that it has been protecting paedophile priests for decades.  You cannot escape that.


----------



## Julia (9 June 2014)

Tink said:


> That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, the gay couple were running a pedophile racket, so do we assume all gays are pedophiles, like the ABC are reporting about priests?



The ABC is not reporting that all gays are paedophiles, and neither are they reporting that all priests are paedophiles.  Try to stick with the facts.

I believe most Australians - particularly those whose involvement in the catholic church renders them defensive and reluctant to believe the truth - have little idea of the extent of the depraved cruelty inflicted on children.
I certainly didn't, so am indebted to the ABC for their coverage of the Royal Commission which included heart breaking testimony from many who were the victims of paedophile priests.  They had no escape.  Even when one, aged about 10 at the time, escaped the institution and went to the police, he was smartly marched back by the police and soundly beaten before being locked in a cage for some days.

But don't feel picked on, Tink and Duckman.  This evening ABC's Four Corners will be further revelations about abuse in the ADF.  Shame on the ADF but at least the affected individuals  were/are adults, with some level of power.


----------



## banco (9 June 2014)

Tink said:


> That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, the gay couple were running a pedophile racket, so do we assume all gays are pedophiles, like the ABC are reporting about priests?




Their actions speak louder than their "teachings".  Do you seriously deny they were running a pedophile protection racket (all the way up that scumbag John Paul II and the legion of christ)?


----------



## Ruby (9 June 2014)

Tink - if you really care about our children, and could bear to open your eyes and your mind for a few hours, read "Unholy Trinity" by Denis Ryan, about the paedophile priest John Day (a filthy piece of scum if ever their was one) and "The Prince: Faith, Abuse and George Pell" by David Marr (an essay, really) about another disgusting creep - George Pell.   These books are FACT!

There are NO excuses for these people.  There is NOTHNG that can be said in their defence.


----------



## Tink (10 June 2014)

Julia, I don't have a problem with the Royal Commission, but until the ABC stops pushing their own agenda, then I will take them seriously. 

As said, Miranda summed it up perfectly for me.


----------



## explod (10 June 2014)

Everyone, including the identified priests who engage sexually with any child is a pedophile.

The Catholic church seems to have been a breeding ground for them.

Sorry if I offend but it is the truth.   And those who want to learn should seek out those texts referenced by Julia above.


----------



## Tink (10 June 2014)

Explod, its not just the Catholic Church involved in the Royal Commission.
You are not offending, but I have had my say.


----------



## explod (10 June 2014)

Apology Ruby, the references to our ole Pal Pell, were from your post above.


----------



## explod (10 June 2014)

Tink said:


> Explod, its not just the Catholic Church involved in the Royal Commission.
> You are not offending, but I have had my say.




Absolutely tink, this rot has no boundaries.

I do think, as has been mentioned here, that to expect celibacy and not allow priest to be married is bizarre.

As with equality and not allowing women to be ordained.


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2014)

explod said:


> I do think, as has been mentioned here, that to expect celibacy and not allow priest to be married is bizarre.
> 
> As with equality and not allowing women to be ordained.




Of course it is. To choose a life of celibacy is completely abnormal. By insisting on celibacy from their priests and nuns, the Catholic church is unofficially stipulating that only abnormal people can apply to become nuns and priests. No wonder they attract so many queers.

Furthermore, allowing priests and nuns to marry would produce far more balanced people to give advice and look after their flock. Anyone whose been married and raised kids will know that marriage and raising children give you some different perspectives on life than when you were single and without children. I maintain that such people are far better equipped to understand and advise on the many issues that the average priest or nun would be confronted with through their parishioners.

As for the '_no women priests'_ rule, clearly that's just designed to keep the power in the hands of men, same as the discrimination against women that’s rife in the Islamic religion


----------



## Ruby (14 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Of course it is. To choose a life of celibacy is completely abnormal. By insisting on celibacy from their priests and nuns, the Catholic church is unofficially stipulating that only abnormal people can apply to become nuns and priests. No wonder they attract so many queers.
> 
> Furthermore, allowing priests and nuns to marry would produce far more balanced people to give advice and look after their flock. Anyone whose been married and raised kids will know that marriage and raising children give you some different perspectives on life than when you were single and without children. I maintain that such people are far better equipped to understand and advise on the many issues that the average priest or nun would be confronted with through their parishioners.
> 
> As for the '_no women priests'_ rule, clearly that's just designed to keep the power in the hands of men, same as the discrimination against women that’s rife in the Islamic religion




Bunyip - absolutely agree!


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> To choose a life of celibacy is completely abnormal. By insisting on celibacy from their priests and nuns, the Catholic church is unofficially stipulating that only abnormal people can apply to become nuns and priests.




Another aspect of insisting on celibacy for priests and nuns is that it gives the message that a celibate state is 'holier' or more noble than that of one who is sexually active. The corollary is that sex is somewhat bad but acceptable only between married couples for the purpose of procreation. This inevitably leads to the thinking of those who ran the Mother and Baby institutions in Ireland, that having sex out side marriage was not only to be ostracised, but demanding physical punishment (hard labour) of the mother and neglect of their offspring.


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2014)

*St. Louis Archbishop denies knowing that child rape is a crime*


----------



## bunyip (15 June 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *St. Louis Archbishop denies knowing that child rape is a crime*





The weak gutless bastard – what a poor apology for a man..........it’s pathetic when these cowards say _‘I can’t remember’ _or ‘_I don’t recall’_, because they don’t have the character to tell the truth.


----------



## bunyip (15 June 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Another aspect of insisting on celibacy for priests and nuns is that it gives the message that a celibate state is 'holier' or more noble than that of one who is sexually active. The corollary is that sex is somewhat bad but acceptable only between married couples for the purpose of procreation. This inevitably leads to the thinking of those who ran the Mother and Baby institutions in Ireland, that having sex out side marriage was not only to be ostracised, but demanding physical punishment (hard labour) of the mother and neglect of their offspring.




Yes, I think that’s true. And yet this church that ostracized unmarried mothers and treated their illegitimate children with such contempt that they were regarded as being unworthy of burial in catholic cemeteries, is the same church that for hundreds of years has turned a blind eye to the fact that numerous priests and bishops and others of high standing in the church have shown a proclivity towards sexual dalliances despite their oath of celibacy. 

Double standards and hypocrisy are common in religion.


----------



## Value Collector (18 June 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *St. Louis Archbishop denies knowing that child rape is a crime*





What a dirt bag!!!

and to think think the church has been actively protecting creeps like this,


----------



## McLovin (18 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What a dirt bag!!!
> 
> and to think think the church has been actively protecting creeps like this,




The apologists for the RCC will be along shortly to explain that he doesn't represent the views of the Church or the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Value Collector (19 June 2014)

McLovin said:


> The apologists for the RCC will be along shortly to explain that he doesn't represent the views of the Church or the teachings of Jesus.




No doubt the conversation would go like this.


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2014)

The high court has thrown out government funded chaplaincy in government schools. And about time too, if lesbian Senator Louise Pratt is to be believed.



> Outgoing Labor Senator Louise Pratt has used one of her final parliamentary speeches to call for the abolition of the school chaplaincy program, saying it is harming vulnerable gay and lesbian children.
> Senator Pratt said a survey found anti-gay chaplains had driven schoolchildren to self-harm and had told them to “pray the gay away”, claims rejected by chaplaincy groups





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ouise-pratt-20140618-3adyv.html#ixzz353Tk6qz8


----------



## Julia (19 June 2014)

I don't think we should be celebrating just yet.  From the ABC's reporting of the High Court's decision:


> The national body for school chaplains says it believes the program will survive despite the court ruling, saying the payments could continue as state and territory grants.
> 
> "While the High Court has ruled against the current [funding] model, the court has acknowledged federal funding can continue for chaplaincy through state/territory grants," the National School Chaplaincy Association said in a statement after the ruling.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't underestimate Mr Abbott's determination to get religion into schools.

Outrageous and utterly inappropriate waste of money which could be so much better allocated elsewhere.


----------



## Value Collector (19 June 2014)

Hopefully one day the religious based chaplains will be removed from the Defence force, Mixing religion with people who are suffering genuine metal health issues is bad enough, But the way these people try and subvert people going through hardships is just plain immoral. 

http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Army-Chaplains-Department


----------



## dutchie (20 June 2014)

Australia is stupid in this area:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg.../comments/portrait_of_a_disability_pensioner/


----------



## SirRumpole (20 June 2014)

Why the Labor party continued the chaplaincy program is anyone's guess, but at least under their system it was up to the schools to decide if they wanted a secular or religious chaplain. Under Lib it's religious or nothing. Considering that the attendance at churches is declining, the government's chaplaincy program is just another indication of how out of step with the rest of us this government is.


----------



## noco (20 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Why the Labor party continued the chaplaincy program is anyone's guess, but at least under their system it was up to the schools to decide if they wanted a secular or religious chaplain. Under Lib it's religious or nothing. Considering that the attendance at churches is declining, the government's chaplaincy program is just another indication of how out of step with the rest of us this government is.




Now if we had communism in this country we would not have to worry about religion because all good communists, like Gillard, Bowen and Macklin, are atheists.

So I guess if we had communism, there would be no Islamic movement because they would clash with opposed ideologies....all religions would be banned.

Religion is really crazy....it has caused so many problems around the world for centuries.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 June 2014)

noco said:


> Religion is really crazy....it has caused so many problems around the world for centuries.




We seem to have reached some point of agreement


----------



## bunyip (20 June 2014)

The situations in Iraq and Syria are yet another example of ‘_religion is crazy’_. You’d think the ‘religion of peace’ would mean peace and harmony for everyone in these strongly Islamic countries. And yet their different religious factions cause them to hate each other with an intensity that sees horrific violence every single day. 
You wonder what goes on inside their heads....do they ever stop and think _‘Would my god really approve of my behaviour’?_
I guess you could ask the same question of priests who commit horrific sexual acts against children. And of the church officials who cover up the crimes to protect the offenders.

Another perfect example of ‘_religion is crazy’_ can be found in the attitudes of the Islamic religion that deem it OK to subjugate women, OK to force children into marriage with adults and have sexual relationships with them, but a sin to eat a bacon sandwich!


----------



## dutchie (20 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Another perfect example of ‘_religion is crazy’_ can be found in the attitudes of the Islamic religion that deem it OK to subjugate women, OK to force children into marriage with adults and have sexual relationships with them, but a sin to eat a bacon sandwich!




Classic


----------



## bunyip (20 June 2014)

noco said:


> Now if we had communism in this country we would not have to worry about religion because all good communists, like Gillard, Bowen and Macklin, are atheists.
> 
> So I guess if we had communism, there would be no Islamic movement because they would clash with opposed ideologies....all religions would be banned.




I'm not so sure about that, Noco....... Gillard, Bowen, Rudd, Macklin & Co threw our borders gates wide open to allow Muslims to come flooding in en masse!


----------



## artist (20 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Hopefully one day the religious based chaplains will be removed from the Defence force
> 
> http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Army-Chaplains-Department





I don't think this is likely to happen as long as Jim Wallace AM, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Australian Christian Lobby, and his associates have any influence. 

"Mr Wallace left the Army as a Brigadier in late 2000 after a 32-year career which included command of the SAS Regiment, Special Forces, and the Army’s mechanised Brigade of 3,000 personnel and most of the Army’s fighting vehicles. He is a graduate of Duntroon in Canberra, the British Army Staff College and the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Mr Wallace served as a UN Observer in the Golan Heights and Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation.

In 1984 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to counter-terrorism. He has been a Visiting Fellow at the Australian Defence Studies Centre and has served on the Council of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the National Consultative Committee for International Security Issues.

He was the Managing Director of ACL for 13 years until May 2013 when he was appointed Deputy Chairman.

Mr Wallace and his family [his wife is a medical doctor] worship at Hughes Baptist Church in Canberra."

It is worth reading the CVs of the other board members as well at http://www.acl.org.au/our-board/. They have plenty of influence.


----------



## noco (20 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> I'm not so sure about that, Noco....... Gillard, Bowen, Rudd, Macklin & Co threw our borders gates wide open to allow Muslims to come flooding in en masse!




The reason why they opened our boarders and allowed the Muslims (50,000) to flood in was to divide the community into hatred.

Read my post #143 Communism : It is not dead and buried.
---------------------------------------------------------

*"They have opened the doors to illegal invaders who are bringing in a religion that goes totally against our way of life. They are using Islam to create divisions in our society and turn citizen against citizen. At the same time, they have neglected our own needy; our aged and veterans, the very citizens who have contributed so much to our country and who should now be enjoying the fruits of their labour. Instead, they are living on the brink of poverty".*

As far as the various sects of Islam, being the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites (I think that is how you how you spell them) ,they are using religion as a front for political purposes. 

Saddam Hussein tried to eliminate the Kurds who mainly come from Turkey.

The war in Syria is between the Sunnis and the Shiites and now the  Sunniis are trying to take over Iraq which was under the control of the Shiite President.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 June 2014)

You think so? is that why the Libs are planning increasing immigration levels? I don't think causing hatred in the community is their aim. You have to remember very few immigrants come by boat. Most are legal.

Business wants a high immigration rate in order to achieve growth and the plan is to get to 50million by 2050.

And the powerful right wing think tank IPA wants this result:

http://ipa.org.au/news/2792/liberals'-legacy-of-mass-migration-is-at-stake

For the past 70 years, the party that has most embraced permanent migration in government has been the Liberal Party, not Labor.

Permanent and long-term arrival numbers vary every year; and not all of those variations are driven by Commonwealth government policy. But most are.

The largest declines in our migration intake have occurred under Labor governments.

When Gough Whitlam, that darling of the progressive movement, came into power, immigration plummeted. In 1970, the Liberal government of John Gorton had admitted 185,000 migrants. The Whitlam government shrunk that to just over 50,000.

This was a deliberate policy decision. Whitlam even shut down the Department of Immigration, placing migration under the Department of Labour and Immigration.

That might seem a minor institutional change but it wasn't: when merged with labour, immigration policy came under the influence of a traditionally pro-union bureaucracy. And unions don't like it when the government imports foreign workers.

There's long been a debate about whether it was Whitlam who ended the White Australia Policy or Harold Holt. Both did their part. But even though Whitlam proclaimed the end to the infamous policy, the sharp decline of total immigration on his watch meant that few non-European migrants could come to Australia regardless.

In March 1974 The Age pondered whether Gough Whitlam was doing as every government had done: "preaching tolerance while still practicing discrimination".

Bob Hawke described himself as a "high immigration man". But when he took government in 1983, the immigration intake dropped by more than a third. To Hawke's credit, migration crept up over the next decade. But when Paul Keating took over, it plummeted again.

The Liberals have a much more impressive record.

Post-war immigration was at its peak under John Gorton. And Malcolm Fraser reversed the Whitlam backslide.

Under John Howard - that bÃªte noire of pro-migration progressives - immigration jumped up well above the Gorton heights. In 2007, the number of permanent migrants arriving on our shores hit 191,000 - the largest cohort since the Second World War.

As George Megalogenis wrote in The Howard Factor, the real story was how "the former Hansonite belt ... think Howard is keeping out all the foreigners, when he is bringing them here at a rate Paul Keating never contemplated".

Yet Howard's record-breaking immigration intake is apparently an awkward truth. In the standard text on this subject, From White Australia to Woomera: the Story of Australian Immigration, the academic James Jupp briefly acknowledges the Howard record - in one sentence. But the real issue for Jupp is that Howard was considering a temporary guest worker scheme, and such a scheme would hurt unions already battered by WorkChoices.

But then came the Rudd government, and the partisan pattern broke. Rather than immediately shrinking the intake, Rudd continued the trend upwards - hugely. More than 224,000 migrants entered Australia in 2010. And that terrifying guest worker scheme? A pilot program was eventually introduced not by the union-hating Liberal Party, but by the ALP.

Even Julia Gillard's government - she of small Australia fame - has not appreciably reduced the number of migrants we take.

Given the showy anti-population rhetoric of the 2010 election, it is remarkable that we're taking nearly twice as many foreigners than we did under the government of Bob "high immigration" Hawke.

There's one obvious lesson here. Don't trust what politicians say about immigration.

But when Rudd broke the pattern, he also broke the Liberal Party's cover. After Labor prime ministers had lowered the intake, Liberal prime ministers were free to raise it; they gained no political benefit from doing otherwise. The Coalition could bang on about multiculturalism and refugees, but it would still bring in many more people than Labor.


----------



## noco (20 June 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> You think so? is that why the Libs are planning increasing immigration levels? I don't think causing hatred in the community is their aim. You have to remember very few immigrants come by boat. Most are legal.




Immigration programs have been going on for years and mainly after World War 11......The program run by the Immigration Department is highly screened with preference is given to highly skilled professional people and tradesmen........The late 40's and 50's encouraged good tradesmen from Germany, England and Italy......I worked with many of them and they assimilated in to our community and left their hatreds behind them.......They became respected Australian citizens.

If you check out the Immigration Department, you will note that various countries around the world are are based on a level of risk.....That level ranges from 1 to 5......5 being the greatest risk........migrants from say Britain, Canada and some European countries are on level 1 where as migrants from some African countries are on level 4.....So preference is given to the lower risk migrants.......Skills are the essence of migration to Australia.....In some cases, consideration is given to an over seas family member wanting to join up with a relative living in Australia and whom have become Australian citizens.

I know of a case where this person tried to assist a Ghanaian girl to apply for a 2 year study visa to study nursing....Because this girl was  on a level 4 risk, the person assisting her had to put up $66,030 into an bank account in Australia as a guarantee to cover her air fare, study fees of some $22,000  and some $38,000 to cover her two years of accommodation.  

Most of the illegal immigrants Rudd and Gillard allowed in have no skills and will be on welfare for the rest of their lives....Welfare which is over and above what our aged pensioners receive here in Australia...... Do we need those types?.......I think not.


----------



## dutchie (20 June 2014)

We should not make the same mistakes that the UK and Europe have made

Radical Sunni Islamists face jail for attack on group of Shi'ites 'in first case of Muslim sectarian violence in Britain'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sectarian-violence-Britain.html#ixzz359gUViQ3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## noco (20 June 2014)

dutchie said:


> We should not make the same mistakes that the UK and Europe have made
> 
> Radical Sunni Islamists face jail for attack on group of Shi'ites 'in first case of Muslim sectarian violence in Britain'
> 
> ...




These Muslims are very moderate in small numbers but once they become a force as they have in the UK and Europe they begin to show some muscle.......Fortunately the flow into Australia has stopped and they are, in reality, a small percentage of the population.......They will not accept assimilation into the Australian way of life and continue to set up their own schools and mosques.......As far as I am concerned if they want to continue to practice Islam, then they should have stayed in their own countries........It is only far if they come to live in Australia, then they should live the Australian way of life.........


----------



## bunyip (21 June 2014)

I’m currently reading a fascinating book called ‘_The Family’_, written by Mario Puzo, author of ‘_The Godfather’_.
The book is based on the infamous Borgia crime family of 15th and 16th century Rome, the central figure of which is Rodrigo Borgia who became Pope Alexander VI. As Pope he saw himself as a man of good character, a servant of God who administered God’s will through the Roman Catholic Church. But in reality he was something very different - a thief, murderer, adulterer, extortionist, trickster, tyrant – a despot of the worst order, an absolute piece of vermin.
So notorious were the Borgias that some historians consider them to be the first Mafia family. You can read about them here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia
Or simply Google ‘Borgia crime family’.

We can only hope that the more recent popes are not as bad as this mongrel was. Nevertheless, I suspect that their image as holy men of impeccable character would be seriously challenged if we knew what really goes on behind the scenes in the Vatican.


----------



## bunyip (23 June 2014)

ABC Compass program last night ran Part 1 of a shocking story about how a corrupt, paedophile Catholic priest founded The Legionaries of Christ which he ran for 60 years with the Vatican’s seal of approval. His objective appears to have been to con people out of their money so that he could feed his drug addiction, and con families out of their children so he could use them for his own sexual gratification. 
Despite being well aware of the criminality of the priest concerned, the much revered Pope John Paul 2 described the Legion as a role model for the Catholic church. 
Part 2 can be watched on Compass at 6.30pm next Saturday, June 29.
A trailer of last nights program can be accessed on this link.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/


The Legion – Part 1 
22 June 6:30pm

The Legion – Part 1
How a corrupt, paedophile Catholic priest founded The Legionaries of Christ which he ran for 60 years with the Vatican’s seal of approval. 
Episode 1 – Irish investigative reporter Mick Peelo examines how the Legion’s founder, Father Marcial Maciel, was allowed to to establish a congregation and recruit young men in late 1950s Ireland, even though he was under investigation by the Vatican for fraud, drug addiction and sodomy of young boys.



29 June 6:30pm 

The Legion – Part 2

Episode 2 – Irish investigative reporter Mick Peelo reveals how five successive Popes publicly endorsed Fr Marcial Maciel, despite repeated warnings. Former Legion recruits believe it is a cult within the Catholic Church that cannot be fixed. But the Vatican and the Legion believe there is hope for its future.


----------



## noco (23 June 2014)

noco said:


> These Muslims are very moderate in small numbers but once they become a force as they have in the UK and Europe they begin to show some muscle.......Fortunately the flow into Australia has stopped and they are, in reality, a small percentage of the population.......They will not accept assimilation into the Australian way of life and continue to set up their own schools and mosques.......As far as I am concerned if they want to continue to practice Islam, then they should have stayed in their own countries........It is only far if they come to live in Australia, then they should live the Australian way of life.........




Below is an extract from the Sydney Morning Herald.......I would say the situation is becoming serious and the government should prevent anymore Muslims entering Australia....If they don't, then we will be in the same situation as the UK and Europe.......we do not need these kind of immigrants.


*It is important to stress most Muslims are peaceful. But it is also true that Muslim immigration has exposed Australians to a level of danger — including extraordinary gun crime in Western Sydney — that immigration from India, Europe and China has not.

Fact is: culture counts. Ties of blood and faith have too often proved stronger that the loyalty multicultural Australia weakly asks, particularly in communities which haven’t done well here.*

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...is-a-wakeup-call/story-fni0ffxg-1226962938744


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2014)

noco said:


> *It is important to stress most Muslims are peaceful. But it is also true that Muslim immigration has exposed Australians to a level of danger ”” including extraordinary gun crime in Western Sydney ”” that immigration from India, Europe and China has not.
> 
> *



*

I would have thought that the Howard government that was so xenophobic towards people like Mohammed Hanif and Cornelia Rau would have seen the danger of large scale Middle East immigration. 

Howard got smashed when he talked about 'altering the racial mix' , which is probably why he backed off. It shows the level of influence the migrant lobby now has on politicians.

The Rudd/Gillard govts were too PC to acknowledge that problems were building up, but it seems that whenever there are calls to reduce immigration the racist cards get played. 

Its going to need someone strong enough to stand up to the migrant lobby, but I don't think anyone in Canberra has the guts to do it.*


----------



## Muschu (23 June 2014)

Thanks Bunyip.

Anyone know if there is a repeat of last night's episode as I missed it?

Many thanks.


----------



## bunyip (23 June 2014)

noco said:


> Below is an extract from the Sydney Morning Herald.......I would say the situation is becoming serious and the government should prevent anymore Muslims entering Australia....If they don't, then we will be in the same situation as the UK and Europe.......we do not need these kind of immigrants.




I agree. But who will put a stop to our disastrous immigration policy? Most politicians are too weak, and the opposing political party never misses a chance to make political mileage out of it if a government does have the courage to take the hard decisions necessary to look after the security of our country. The journalists are a big part of the problem, seemingly intent on tearing the government to pieces any time they make tough decisions that are in the best interests of our county.

And then we have the head in the sand idiots who come out in support of Muslims by saying something along the lines of ‘_I’ve worked with Muslims, and most of them are decent people’. _
Such positive sentiment, although it may be true, turns a blind eye to the fact that a radical minority is all that’s needed to cause mayhem.
Hitler and the Nazis were very much in the minority, and yet they were able to start a movement that terrorized their country and then pushed it into a catastrophic war that cost millions of lives.

At least I won’t be around when our country gets completely ruined by the Islamic wave.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 June 2014)

i had to have a laugh when I was googling some info on an illusionist I like I found the bleow web site.  Considering everyone knows it's "fake".  It's fun to wonder how he does his illusions, but I doubt anyone considers him the messiah returned.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Wicca & Witchcraft/criss_angel.htm

_The Bible tells us that the Antichrist will deceive the masses by using power, signs and lying wonders. Manipulation of one's body, levitation, mind reading, bizarre behavior, the cross of Jesus in handcuffs... these are works of Satan! The Antichrist will appear as a beautiful man and woo the masses with his charisma. With power, signs and lying wonders, he will deceive the masses and the world will idolize him. John 8:44 calls Satan the father of all liars. The Antichrist will deceive the masses with LIES._


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2014)

You are not alluding to a CERTAIN POLITICIAN BY ANY CHANCE ?


----------



## Julia (23 June 2014)

Muschu said:


> Thanks Bunyip.
> 
> Anyone know if there is a repeat of last night's episode as I missed it?
> 
> Many thanks.



I have no idea whether it will be repeated, Muschu, but here's a link to watch it.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s4018697.htm


----------



## Muschu (23 June 2014)

Julia said:


> I have no idea whether it will be repeated, Muschu, but here's a link to watch it.
> http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s4018697.htm




Many thanks Julia.... Appreciated.

Regards

Rick


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You are not alluding to a CERTAIN POLITICIAN BY ANY CHANCE ?






> The Antichrist will appear as a beautiful man and woo the masses with his charisma. With power, signs and lying wonders, he will deceive the masses and the world will idolize him. John 8:44 calls Satan the father of all liars. The Antichrist will deceive the masses with LIES




Sounds more like Bob Brown or Al Gore to me.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2014)

artist said:


> I don't think this is likely to happen as long as Jim Wallace AM, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Australian Christian Lobby, and his associates have any influence.
> 
> "Mr Wallace left the Army as a Brigadier in late 2000 after a 32-year career which included command of the SAS Regiment, Special Forces, and the Army’s mechanised Brigade of 3,000 personnel and most of the Army’s fighting vehicles. He is a graduate of Duntroon in Canberra, the British Army Staff College and the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies.
> 
> ...




Does he have any background in treating mental health conditions?

His personal beliefs should not come into it.


----------



## bunyip (23 June 2014)

Julia said:


> I have no idea whether it will be repeated, Muschu, but here's a link to watch it.
> http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s4018697.htm




Thanks Julia. I was hoping to watch it again but couldn’t find a link. Guess I just wasn’t looking in the right place!


----------



## noco (23 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> I agree. But who will put a stop to our disastrous immigration policy? Most politicians are too weak, and the opposing political party never misses a chance to make political mileage out of it if a government does have the courage to take the hard decisions necessary to look after the security of our country. The journalists are a big part of the problem, seemingly intent on tearing the government to pieces any time they make tough decisions that are in the best interests of our county.
> 
> And then we have the head in the sand idiots who come out in support of Muslims by saying something along the lines of ‘_I’ve worked with Muslims, and most of them are decent people’. _
> Such positive sentiment, although it may be true, turns a blind eye to the fact that a radical minority is all that’s needed to cause mayhem.
> ...




I believe one of the biggest concerns relating to the Islam movement in Australia is not so much the present Muslim residence in Australia but the next generation who are being brain washed 5 times a day in Muslims schools.......These new kids are being indoctrinated into believing that if you happen to be a Christian or a Infidel, then you must be eliminated.

When these kids become teenagers they will be reminded of their teachings and if push comes to shove and they have the numbers, be afraid...be very afraid.

Yes and I will be joining your club......I will not be around to see it happens.

It will either be Islamic or Communism.


----------



## Ruby (23 June 2014)

Muschu said:


> Thanks Bunyip.
> 
> Anyone know if there is a repeat of last night's episode as I missed it?
> 
> Many thanks.




You can watch it on ABC iview -  http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/compass/RN1311H016S00  up until 6th July


----------



## Julia (23 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Thanks Julia. I was hoping to watch it again but couldn’t find a link. Guess I just wasn’t looking in the right place!



Bunyip, I think all of the ABC TV programs are available after broadcast on iview.
If you just go to the ABC website, type in the name of the program you're looking for in the Search box, it will usually come up.  Just click on the program and then access archives to find what you want.


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2014)

noco said:


> I believe one of the biggest concerns relating to the Islam movement in Australia is not so much the present Muslim residence in Australia but the next generation who are being brain washed 5 times a day in Muslims schools.......These new kids are being indoctrinated into believing that if you happen to be a Christian or a Infidel, then you must be eliminated.




Whatever they do they cannot say that they reject the Islamists presence. That would be racist. The council has no real grounds to oppose it.



> A MIGHTY storm didn’t deter a crowd of 250 from gathering in Currumbin Waters yesterday afternoon to object to the building of a mosque in the area.
> 
> Currumbin residents stood in the rain for an hour to discuss ways to petition against a proposed “place of worship” on the corner of Villiers and Coghill drives.
> 
> A crowd of about 250 people heckled Gold Coast councillor Chris Robbins when she was explaining the council process of approving applications, in reference to the proposal to build a mosque at Currumbin



.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ier-Mail|homepage|homepage&itmt=1403525677540


----------



## Tink (24 June 2014)

There has been a lot going on in regional Victoria, where they are trying to build a Mosque.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/f...ultimillion-dollar-mosque-20140618-zsdw4.html


----------



## Tink (24 June 2014)

artist said:


> I don't think this is likely to happen as long as Jim Wallace AM, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Australian Christian Lobby, and his associates have any influence.
> 
> "Mr Wallace left the Army as a Brigadier in late 2000 after a 32-year career which included command of the SAS Regiment, Special Forces, and the Army’s mechanised Brigade of 3,000 personnel and most of the Army’s fighting vehicles. He is a graduate of Duntroon in Canberra, the British Army Staff College and the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies.
> 
> ...




Good on them, I agree with their stand.
Keeping our Christian heritage is important.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2014)

Tink said:


> Good on them, I agree with their stand.
> Keeping our Christian heritage is important.




Any discussion of the Christan religion here seems intent on denigating the Churches for the actions of a few. I am an atheist but I have tried to avoid taking cheap shots at the Christian religion which has served this country well. 

What cannot be ignored is the Muslim treatment here of women and girls which should see the perpetrators locked up or deported.

And yet we are ignoring it.



> Reports, including in The Australian, have revealed how hundreds of teenage girls have been forcibly married to older men in some Muslim communities. Some of these girls have given birth to their first baby while still children themselves. Many have been brutalised and isolated. This is not a norm we should tolerate or accept.






> Muslims from Southeast Asia, India and Central Asia have been part of this nation since soon after European settlement. Along with so many other cultures, they form a rich and integral part of our national story. Yet child brides and homegrown jihadists are beyond our cultural tolerance whether we are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or atheist Australians.
> 
> The difficult question for societies based on tolerance is whether it is *self-defeating to tolerate subcultures that exhibit extreme intolerance. The way some extreme versions of Islamic tradition are practised in our country is anathema to our accepted values. We cannot hide from the dilemma this poses.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...to-our-tolerance/story-e6frg71x-1226964218360


----------



## Value Collector (24 June 2014)

Tink said:


> Keeping our Christian heritage is important.




Why?

It may be important to you, but it's not important to everyone else that's not Christian, or the growing number of people who want to break ties with religion and live in a society free of the religious divisions.

If you want to be religious and attend church, that's up to you. But preying on people in trouble to subvert them into a religion, or using your command authority to press a religion in wrong.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Why?
> 
> It may be important to you, but it's not important to everyone else that's not Christian, or the growing number of people who want to break ties with religion and live in a society free of the religious divisions.
> 
> If you want to be religious and attend church, that's up to you. But preying on people in trouble to subvert them into a religion, or using your command authority to press a religion in wrong.




Especially when I find more often it's those lacking a strong religious affiliation that seem to show more Christian charity in action than a lot of those who puff up their chests to proudly proclaim just how religious they are.

The same applies for those of other religions.

The way people can justify their actions when it flies in the face of their religious teachings just amazes me.  How often do we hear the ends justify the means, whether the catholic hierarchy protecting paedophiles or muslim leaders justifying suicide murders or even using people with limited mental capabilities to act as suicide murderers.

I truly believe a world without religion would have had far fewer wars.  Funny how God is on everyone's side.


----------



## bunyip (24 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Bunyip, I think all of the ABC TV programs are available after broadcast on iview.
> If you just go to the ABC website, type in the name of the program you're looking for in the Search box, it will usually come up.  Just click on the program and then access archives to find what you want.




Righto Julia, I'll file that info away for future use. Thanks.


----------



## Value Collector (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Any discussion of the Christan religion here seems intent on denigating the Churches for the actions of a few. I am an atheist but I have tried to avoid taking cheap shots at the Christian religion which has served this country well.
> 
> ]




Can you name any good thing a religion has done that couldn't be done in other ways.

To me religion is a pill with some very terrible side effects, You say it has done some good things, But I would say it hasn't done anything that can't be achieve in other ways, and when a pill has terrible side effects, you shouldn't use it if there are other ways.

Also nothing justifies lying to people.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name any good thing a religion has done that couldn't be done in other ways.




Nope. But at the present stage I think the Islamists are doing more outrageous things than the Christians, especially in the treatment of women. Obviously you don'f agree.


----------



## Value Collector (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Nope. But at the present stage I think the Islamists are doing more outrageous things than the Christians, especially in the treatment of women. Obviously you don'f agree.




I am not interested in totalling up which religion does the most harm, to me they are all equal glimpses of the untrue, and they all contribute a lot of really bad side effects onto society.

Christianity is certainly not free of guilt when it comes to the mistreatment of women.

Also, favouring one religion over another is not the way to stamp out the wrong doings of religions, All you will do is put the other religion into the under dog position and allow extreme views to form.


----------



## Julia (24 June 2014)

+1 to syd's and value collector's posts above.

To suggest that anyone is damning whole religions because of the actions of a few is disingenuous.

The collective, systemic and organised covering up of widely known abuse by its members of the churches is, if possible, even worse than the abuse itself.

Even when they were forced to admit what had happened, their lawyers tried to screw the victims into the ground.
So much for love and compassion.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not interested in totalling up which religion does the most harm, to me they are all equal glimpses of the untrue, and they all contribute a lot of really bad side effects onto society.
> 
> Christianity is certainly not free of guilt when it comes to the mistreatment of women.
> 
> Also, favouring one religion over another is not the way to stamp out the wrong doings of religions, All you will do is put the other religion into the under dog position and allow extreme views to form.




I spite of the hate posts here, I am sure that most Australians who don't adhere to a Christian church, if asked to choose between Christian values and Muslim values, would choose the former. Your choice would obviously be in favour of Islam. But you can't excuse their behaviour towards their women by saying that Christians do it too.

It is strange that those critical of my post, steer away from the main topic of my post... the harsh and illegal treatment of Muslim women by their males. 

By the way, is that a mosque depicted in your avatar?


----------



## Value Collector (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I spite of the hate posts here, I am sure that most Australians who don't adhere to a Christian church, if asked to choose between Christian values and Muslim values, would choose the former.
> ?




Perhaps that is true, But that is only because their experience is with the very much watered down modern Christian teachings based on cherry picked bible verses, and the fact that most people are unaware of the damage Christianity does. I doubt many Australians would be favour of biblical Christian values which condone slavery etc.



> Your choice would obviously be in favour of Islam. But you can't excuse their behaviour towards their women by saying that Christians do it too.




No, I would choose neither, as I said they are both equal glimpses of the untrue, should be given no special treatment. I am not trying to excuse their behaviour " because Christians do it too", I am saying neither should receive any special position, You are trying to give Christianity a higher position than it deserves and I am just pointing out that it is no better.



> It is strange that those critical of my post, steer away from the main topic of my post... the harsh and illegal treatment of Muslim women by their males.




The main topic of your post was to point out that Christianity had been a force for good, and that it deserved respect because it wasn't as bad as islam, I am simply saying neither deserves respect and both have committed atrocities 



> By the way, is that a mosque depicted in your avatar




No, that's Sleeping beauties castle in Disneyland California , with a statue of Walt Disney holding mickey mouse's hand.


----------



## Value Collector (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I spite of the hate posts here, ?




Do you consider my post's to be hate post?


----------



## bunyip (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Any discussion of the Christan religion here seems intent on denigating the Churches for the actions of a few. I am an atheist but I have tried to avoid taking cheap shots at the Christian religion which has served this country well.



The Catholic church likes to depict itself and its popes as paragons of virtue. It almost beggars belief to see how much they’re idolized and put up on pedestals as role models of compassion and decency.
And yet popes, priests and others of high ranking in the RCC have for decades or even centuries been guilty of some appalling criminal behavior. The same can be said of other churches, although to a lesser extent. 
To make the world aware of this is not ‘taking a cheap shot’ at the RCC or at churches generally. I’d rather this sort of thing is brought out in the open instead of being covered up. There’s been too much cover-up already.
The Roman Catholic church will have more credibility when it shows people that it practices what it preaches. Some people within the church already do so, but too many do not. Ditto for a number of other churches as well, but the Catholic church is the standout among Christian churches for appalling behavior.
Sure they do some good things as well – I’ve acknowledged that in more than one post. But the more unsavory behavior within the churches can no longer be swept under the carpet on the pretense that it doesn’t exist. It exists alright, and those who expose it are not taking any cheap shots, they’re simply facing up to reality.




Calliope said:


> What cannot be ignored is the Muslim treatment here of women and girls which should see the perpetrators locked up or deported.
> 
> And yet we are ignoring it.



No, we’re not ignoring it. Our Prime Minister has spoken out publicly against the practice of forced marriage of young girls, and our media are exposing it whenever they get wind of it. I’ve watched a number of TV programs dealing with this very issue. And I’ve read about it many times in newspapers. We have laws and penalties to deal with any offenders. Perhaps the penalties are not strong enough, but at least we’re making an effort to combat this sort of horrible behavior. The problem is that it’s usually done on the quiet, with only the families concerned knowing anything about it. That makes it pretty damn hard to report it, or take action against the guilty parties.

As for the lesser issues, such as making women wear veils, or dress in head to toe costumes......how do you combat that? A government wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing a law that dictates how people dress.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2014)

A reasonable summation bunyip.


----------



## dutchie (24 June 2014)

Tim Blair on fire.  

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/compo_caliphate/


Tim Blair
Monday, June 23, 2014 (5:14am)


Next year’s Anzac Day parades should be colourful affairs, what with the first appearance from our brave fighting boys in the 1st Disability Pension Infantry.

These welfare Wahhabis and their holy bludger brigades are currently sweeping through Iraq, laying waste to civilians and soldiers alike in a bid to create some kind of Islamic purity state.

Good luck with that. Let’s assume, for the sake of it, that ISIS (Impaired and Subsidised Islamic Soldiers) achieves its aim of overthrowing governments in Iraq and Syria. What happens next? Well, nothing. Nothing at all. These blokes can’t work, and they’ve got the official medical documents to prove it.

If post-war welfare systems in Iraq and Syria turn out to be anything like Australia’s, they’ll be flooded with compensation claims from every Tom, Dick and Hudhaifah Karim al-Rashid presently murdering their terrified co-religionists.

It says something about just how low the bar is set for disability payments in Australia that people qualify as unable to work even though they are capable of living – indeed, thriving – in war zones.

These must be the only combat veterans in history who arrived at the war on crutches and were able to walk afterwards. Or perhaps we’re witnessing authentic religious miracles; behold Habib, who defied medical science by rising from his sick bed (his fully sick bed) to slaughter other Muslims.

Unfortunately for the future economy of their great Islamic state, however, killing is about all these chaps can do. Thanks to Facebook, we’re already seeing signs of how things might be under the rule of the bludjahideen. Sure, they’re great at putting bullets in the back of captured Iraqi soldiers’ heads. But they clearly can’t find any laborers to bury the bodies.

Life in the compo caliphate won’t be much fun within a generation or two, once everybody is signed up for free government cash. Welfare only works when there are workers. It’ll be a little like Tasmania, except with a slightly less ridiculous electoral system.


----------



## DB008 (24 June 2014)

What a scumbag!!!

*'Honour killings' speech prompts boycott of Festival of Dangerous Ideas*



> A speaker at the upcoming Festival of Dangerous Ideas will seek to defend so-called honour killings - the murder of women deemed to have brought shame or dishonour on their family.
> 
> Uthman Badar, a Sydney-based Muslim speaker, writer and activist, will deliver a presentation titled "Honour killings are morally justified" and argue that such acts are seized on by Westerners as a symbol of everything they dislike about another culture.
> 
> The announcement sparked condemnation on social media from those arguing the Opera House stage should not be used as a platform for such radical and confronting propositions.






> Mr Badar is an Australian spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group described by the festival as "global advocacy group working for positive change in the Muslim world via the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate" - a state under sharia, or Islamic law.




http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/honour-ki...erous-ideas-20140624-zsk03.html#ixzz35XuD1nVw


----------



## noco (24 June 2014)

IMHO.......Islam is religious front politics.......Christianity is a business to make money.

The Vatican makes millions every day......You have to pay to go in but I am not sure how much......I went though in 2006 with a touring group and the visit was included with the package....but I can tell you we in through a special door because we were booked in at 8am but there would have been a triple que 1 km long at 8am......the end of the que would not have entered until 3 pm.


----------



## gordon2007 (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> By the way, is that a mosque depicted in your avatar?






Value Collector said:


> No, that's Sleeping beauties castle in Disneyland California , with a statue of Walt Disney holding mickey mouse's hand.
> 
> View attachment 58457





    Now that's some funny.


----------



## bunyip (25 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> A reasonable summation bunyip.




Thank you old friend.


----------



## bunyip (25 June 2014)

DB008 said:


> What a scumbag!!!
> 
> *'Honour killings' speech prompts boycott of Festival of Dangerous Ideas*
> 
> ...




Indeed....vermin like him should be horse-whipped out of our country and never allowed to return.


----------



## McLovin (25 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Why?
> 
> It may be important to you, but it's not important to everyone else that's not Christian, or the growing number of people who want to break ties with religion and live in a society free of the religious divisions.
> 
> If you want to be religious and attend church, that's up to you. But preying on people in trouble to subvert them into a religion, or using your command authority to press a religion in wrong.




Great post. It's all dogmatic rubbish. If one chooses to believe it then I couldn't care less, but that doesn't make it self evident, so please don't pester me about it.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You are trying to give Christianity a higher position than it deserves and I am just pointing out that it is no better.




Some say only a tiny minority of Muslim support terroism. Yet the majority seem to accept it.

Only a tiny minority of our society are paedofiles. The vast majority of the Christian faith reviles this disgusting practice. Although polygamy is banned in Australia I suppose that you are aware that any influential Muslem here, who is already married, can take a young girl into his house as a defacto bride and our welfare system wiill recognise this as the same as a wife.

Obviously you think that children would be no worse off in a Muslim society that here in Australia, because our ethics are no better. You're dreaming.



> The main topic of your post was to point out that Christianity had been a force for good




That's not true. You inferred that. The topic of my post was the treatment of Islamic women and girls.



> and that it deserved respect because it wasn't as bad as islam.




You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons. 

..


----------



## sydboy007 (25 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Some say only a tiny minority of Muslim support terroism. Yet the majority seem to accept it.
> 
> Only a tiny minority of our society are paedofiles. The vast majority of the Christian faith reviles this disgusting practice. Although polygamy is banned in Australia I suppose that you are aware that any influential Muslem here, who is already married, can take a young girl into his house as a defacto bride and our welfare system wiill recognise this as the same as a wife.
> 
> ...




By your logic the fact that paedophiles were protected for the last 50+ years within the catholic church that the majority seem to accept it.

Can you please refer me to information on centrelink that would show a married man is able to receive welfare payments for a defacto wife.

I'm with VC on this.  All religions are pretty much as bad as each other.  Do a bit of reading of what the religious right in the USA go on about and they don't sound any less extreme than what the ranting muslims sound like.

The sad fact is that the "good" religious people generally go about their lives generally having a positive effect on scoiety, while the extreme minorities seem to have too big a negative impact.


----------



## Julia (25 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons.
> ..



Oh, the irony.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Some say only a tiny minority of Muslim support terroism. Yet the majority seem to accept it.
> ..




Really, where are you getting that information from.




> Only a tiny minority of our society are paedofiles. The vast majority of the Christian faith reviles this disgusting practice.




Well I would hope so, However this in no way means that the institutional cover ups that have happened are any less criminal.




> Although polygamy is banned in Australia I suppose that you are aware that any influential Muslem here, who is already married, can take a young girl into his house as a defacto bride and our welfare system wiill recognise this as the same as a wife.




Ok, But the Bible allows polygamy also, and there are Christian faiths that practice polygamy. So why single out Muslims.  

to be honest, as long as it is consensual, I have no problem with polygamy.




> Obviously you think that children would be no worse off in a Muslim society that here in Australia, because our ethics are no better. You're dreaming.




I don't think our ethics are because of the Christian faith, There are all sorts of things that we consider unthinkable and terrible that are perfectly fine under Biblical law eg. slavery, 

I don't get my morals from the Bible and I am glad that most Australians don't either. 






> You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons.




Lol, this coming from the guy who keeps inferring I am a Muslim, and sees a picture of Disneyland and thinks its a mosque.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 June 2014)

DB008 said:


> *'Honour killings' speech prompts boycott of Festival of Dangerous Ideas[*



*
Yeah just read that story. Australians abhor those ideologies. In Australia we identify people that talk in favour of those ideologies as prawn heads. That is because a prawn's body is edible and the head is full of ****.*


----------



## Julia (25 June 2014)

The "Honour Killings" address has been cancelled, such was the outcry over such a topic being permitted to be part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

Perhaps raises the question of free speech?   
Is it similar to the way Geert Wilders, the Dutchman who is so opposed to the spread of Islam, has not been allowed to speak in many places?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2014)

Julia said:


> The "Honour Killings" address has been cancelled, such was the outcry over such a topic being permitted to be part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.
> 
> Perhaps raises the question of free speech?
> Is it similar to the way Geert Wilders, the Dutchman who is so opposed to the spread of Islam, has not been allowed to speak in many places?




If such appearances could be likely to lead to public unrest and maybe violence, perhaps it's better that some talks do not proceed.

Some dangerous ideas may be too dangerous. In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> By your logic the fact that paedophiles were protected for the last 50+ years within the catholic church that the majority seem to accept it[




No that is *your* inferred logic, not mine.



> Can you please refer me to information on centrelink that would show a married man is able to receive welfare payments for a defacto wife.




Certainly,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...097889992?nk=b1e2951b83d4f2a6ccee5bad82682b8a



> I'm with VC on this. All religions are pretty much as bad as each other. Do a bit of reading of what the religious right in the USA go on about and they don't sound any less extreme than what the ranting muslims sound like



.

Yes fundamentalist Christians are a nasty bunch, but I think they are more stupid tha evil. They are not into suicide bombing yet and their terrorist activities have mainly been the work of individuals



> The sad fact is that the "good" religious people generally go about their lives generally having a positive effect on scoiety, while the extreme minorities seem to have too big a negative impact.




On this we can agree.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.




Speak to any really religious person and they will tell you that anything god does or commands is moral and the correct thing to do, god is perfect and infallible, and if god commands or does something that seems immoral to us, then it is us that is wrong, because god is always right.

This sort of warped thinking may seem harmless, until you hear them start saying things like god tells them to do things or the holy spirit guides their choices, If these people actually believe god is regularly talking to them, and they start taking the crazy parts of the bible seriously, then this generally sane and moral person can end up doing some very immoral things simply because they think god is commanding them.


----------



## McLovin (25 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If such appearances could be likely to lead to public unrest and maybe violence, perhaps it's better that some talks do not proceed.
> 
> Some dangerous ideas may be too dangerous. In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.




The blurb about what that guy was going to talk about was actually more about moral relativism in the West; ie the belief that it is OK to go off and start wars in countries (I assume he meant Islamic countries) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians while at the same time decrying the barbarism of people who practise honour killings. It was the organisers who gave the speech that provocative title, not the speaker. I don't think (from what I've read) the speech was ever going to condone honour killings. 

It's a slippery slope once you start telling people they can't voice their opinion because it might incite violence. I'd rather those opinions were aired in public so they can be shot down, rather than forced into some back room in Western Sydney for like minded individuals. Speech as expression should be free, speech as conduct shouldn't be. It's a fine line between the two though.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> The sad fact is that the "good" religious people generally go about their lives generally having a positive effect on scoiety, while the extreme minorities seem to have too big a negative impact.




This sentence would be equally true if you left out the word religious. 

You don't need a religion to be good or to have a positive impact.

this quote comes to mind.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.


----------



## bunyip (25 June 2014)

Next time someone suggests to you that Islam poses no threat because the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, just direct them to this link.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ceful_majority_irrelevant/#.U6UXA6GQa30.email


----------



## bellenuit (25 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Next time someone suggests to you that Islam poses no threat because the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, just direct them to this link.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ceful_majority_irrelevant/#.U6UXA6GQa30.email




From the end of the linked speech.....

_It is time we took political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs._


+100 to that.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2014)

bellenuit said:


> From the end of the linked speech.....
> 
> _It is time we took political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs._
> 
> ...




Yes,excellent; this should be required watching for the politically correct Islami apologists. The peaceful majority of Muslims *is* irrevelant and we are living in a fool's world if we think that this majority would ever stand up to the jihadists, or even co-operate wth law enforcement to expose their illegal activities.


----------



## Julia (25 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If such appearances could be likely to lead to public unrest and maybe violence, perhaps it's better that some talks do not proceed.
> 
> Some dangerous ideas may be too dangerous. In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.



Have you actually investigated the nature of the content of what he was intending to say?  Or just assumed he was going to condone honour killings?



McLovin said:


> The blurb about what that guy was going to talk about was actually more about moral relativism in the West; ie the belief that it is OK to go off and start wars in countries (I assume he meant Islamic countries) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians while at the same time decrying the barbarism of people who practise honour killings. It was the organisers who gave the speech that provocative title, not the speaker. I don't think (from what I've read) the speech was ever going to condone honour killings.
> 
> It's a slippery slope once you start telling people they can't voice their opinion because it might incite violence. I'd rather those opinions were aired in public so they can be shot down, rather than forced into some back room in Western Sydney for like minded individuals. Speech as expression should be free, speech as conduct shouldn't be. It's a fine line between the two though.



Thank goodness someone has picked up on what I was concerned about.   If you are going to stop this person (whom I've never heard of before) putting his thoughts up in a public arena, then what else are you going to stop?
That's why I raised Geert Wilders who has been banned in some countries because he is concerned about the spread of fundamentalist Islam.

Rumpole, it sounds as though you support the suppression of this comment on Honour Killings.  Obviously a lot of people agree with you, if that's the case.  Perhaps there is a line somewhere which is a step too far in the pursuit of free speech.

But who is going to determine that line?  Whose moral compass will decide?

That's the question about which I was (perhaps naively and hopelessly) hoping to provoke some serious comment.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...097889992?nk=b1e2951b83d4f2a6ccee5bad82682b8a




I asked for a link to centrelink or some Govt agency that shows me how a married man can claim welfare benefits for a defacto wife.  That was your claim.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I asked for a link to centrelink or some Govt agency that shows me how a married man can claim welfare benefits for a defacto wife.  That was your claim.




No you didn't. Your words were " Can you please refer me to information on centrelink".

I an not your flunkey. Do your own research if you wish to disprove what I said.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 June 2014)

> But who is going to determine that line? Whose moral compass will decide?




Action :- Good and evil someone mentioned. Does one know the difference? Common law is the law in Australia and the law all its citizens abide by. 

Speech :- If my mates talk trash there is some tolerance and understanding of their (hopefully) temporary 
insanity but if they continue they get derided and become Neville-no-friends. 



> Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.




We are moving away from religious indoctrination and the ancient text that perpetuates it.


P.S. please don't ask me to provide examples of trash talk on a public forum.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> No you didn't. Your words were " Can you please refer me to information on centrelink".
> 
> I an not your flunkey. Do your own research if you wish to disprove what I said.




You did infer that centre link allowed married men to also claim benefits for defectors partners, and the way i read Sydboy's comment was that he was asking you to provide information on centre links terms and conditions that allow this.

I am not debating that it happens, but just as there are people working full time while claiming unemployment benefits doesn't mean its official policy to pay the dole to employed people, i dont think its policy to support polygamy. 

But even if centreline did support it, who cares about the polygamy aspect, dole bludgers are dole bludgers regardless of how many wives they have.

And as i said earlier, polygamy is not just a Muslim thing, its biblical, and Christian faiths practice it too.

And as i also said, i dont think polygamy is immoral, as long as all parties are consenting and happy, who cares.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2014)

> Rumpole, it sounds as though you support the suppression of this comment on Honour Killings. Obviously a lot of people agree with you, if that's the case. Perhaps there is a line somewhere which is a step too far in the pursuit of free speech.




As others have said, it's a fine line.

Without referring specifically to the cancelled speech, would you consider it acceptable to allow people to openly seek to recruit potential terrorists on the basis of supposed unfair treatment of certain sects in certain cultures ? Of course they wouldn't blatantly say "sign up inside the building after the speech", but like Hitler did they would generate a frenzy of vengeful feelings and then let events take their course. This sort of thing most probably goes on behind closed doors now with the result that people from this country have left to fight for terrorists overseas. Would we want this sort of thing to go public ?

But you are correct in saying that someone has to decide where to draw the line, and there is an argument for saying that if you let people present that sort of case in public then we will find out who they are and then could do something about it, but once having identified those people do you let them continue ? Some people could assume , listening to the 'recruiters' that they should attack "the enemy" wherever they can. Refer to the attempted attack on Holsworthy Army barracks. The people initiating these sort of vengeance reprisals could then become a national security threat, even though according to them they are just exercising their rights of free speech.

Of course "incitement to violence" is an offence, but again it seems to be a matter of opinion where exactly the line is crossed between simply publicising alleged atrocities against alleged persecuted minorities and encouraging people to try and avenge those perceived assaults.

Your solution ?

As to the question of "honour killings", these could also be interpreted by some as revenge attacks on agents of the West that have allegedly invaded Muslim lands, and not just killings within families. Those agents could be widely interpreted as our troops, our politicians, our assets or infrastructure, or just us, the community as we have seen in Britain and elsewhere. Words, unfortunately, can be bombs. 

Again, where should the line be drawn ?


----------



## bunyip (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Yes,excellent; this should be required watching for the politically correct Islami apologists. The peaceful majority of Muslims *is* irrevelant and we are living in a fool's world if we think that this majority would ever stand up to the jihadists, or even co-operate wth law enforcement to expose their illegal activities.




And I believe we’re living in a fool’s world if we think the average Muslim would be willing to fight for our country if there was an outbreak of war. Many thousands of Australian men and women volunteers signed up in the last two major wars that Australia fought in. 
But I very much doubt that the Islamists we have in our country now would be willing to put their lives on the line for Australia – in that situation they’d be about as useful as boobs on a blowfly.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> And I believe we’re living in a fool’s world if we think the average Muslim would be willing to fight for our country if there was an outbreak of war. Many thousands of Australian men and women volunteers signed up in the last two major wars that Australia fought in.
> But I very much doubt that the Islamists we have in our country now would be willing to put their lives on the line for Australia – in that situation they’d be about as useful as boobs on a blowfly.




In the Interests of fairness, I have served in both the Regular and Reserve Army, and I have met people of Muslim backgrounds in both.

also, hundreds of thousands of Muslims fought in world war 1 and  world war 2 on our side.

to put it in perspective, Australia sent 324,000 soldiers overseas in WW1, India sent 1.5Million, over 400,000 Indian soldiers were muslim.

a large portion of Indian soldiers were Muslim.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You did infer that centre link allowed married men to also claim benefits for defectors partners, and the way i read Sydboy's comment was that he was asking you to provide information on centre links terms and conditions that allow this.




And I told him to do his own research. As you appear to have a common interest with sydboy I suggest you assist him in his research.  I don't know what you interest is, but the main point of my comment was that influential  married Muslims can circumvent the paedophelia  laws by marrying young girls.The Centrelink aspect is secondary. 

As an apologist for Muslim culture consider this;



> For years, child marriage in this country has been hidden under layers of culture and tradition in tight-knit communities — a fringe issue that’s been difficult to gauge and hard to investigate. Then came news of a 12-year-old girl who was “married” in January to a 26-year-old Lebanese university student in an Islamic *ceremony at the girl’s home in NSW’s Hunter *Valley, and the layers of secrecy began to peel away. On best estimates, the number of girls in Australia being forced into marriage here or overseas is in the hundreds every year. Girls as young as 12 or 13 are disappearing from schoolyards, packed off to the countries of their parents’ birth to wed men they have never met, while others are taken from their homes in southern Asia and the Middle East and brought into Australia to marry.
> 
> The National Children’s and Youth Law Centre has identified 250 cases of under-age marriage over the past 24 months, while *Sharobeem, who was herself married to a cousin at the age of 14, says there are at least 60 child wives living in south-western Sydney alone. In Melbourne, Melba Marginson, executive director of the Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Coalition (VIRWC), says her women’s friendship network sees 150 women a week, most of whom come from communities where arranged marriages are practiced. “But what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg,” she says.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-flesh-they-want/story-e6frg8h6-1226949239039



> hundreds of thousands of Muslims fought in world war 1 and world war 2 on our side




Yas...Against Christians, in Europe.


----------



## bunyip (26 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> In the Interests of fairness, I have served in both the Regular and Reserve Army, and I have met people of Muslim backgrounds in both.
> 
> also, hundreds of thousands of Muslims fought in world war 1 and  world war 2 on our side.
> 
> ...




Thanks VC, those are fair comments.
One of the benefits of public forums I guess is that we can increase our knowledge based on the experience and knowledge of others.
I do have to wonder though if they'd be willing to fight for Australia in the event that we go to war with an Islamic country.

My comments are based on my observation that Muslims seem to keep pretty much to themselves and appear reluctant to join in with whatever is going on in their communities. Also that there have been some nasty incidents in the US military forces where one of their Muslim soldiers has suddenly turned on his mates and attacked them, with fatal results.

Tell me – how did the Muslims you served with get on in relation to army meals and routine? I can't imagine that demanding Halal food, and wanting to pray several times a day, would get a nod of approval from the army.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

bunyip said:


> Tell me – how did the Muslims you served with get on in relation to army meals and routine? I can't imagine that demanding Halal food, and wanting to pray several times a day, would get a nod of approval from the army.




Muslims are a lot like Jews, in that there are many cultural Muslims, that even though they are pretty much atheist, they still carry on with a lot of cultural activites, eg avoiding pork etc.

The Muslims I met varied, Some Identified as Muslim and wouldn't drink alcohol or eat pork, But were not strict about halal beef etc, any food was ok except alcohol and pork, and I never saw them pray or act religiously.

Others took food more seriously and were pretty much vegetarian when eating at the mess, When I was posted to east timor there was a halal mess on my barracks, because we shared it with pakastani and Bangladeshi troops, 

I never got into any deep theological conversations,    

But in my experience, it seems a lot of the younger generation of Muslims are not deeply religious, but the cultural aspects linger as they do with Jews, eg, an atheist mate of mine still calls himself a jew even though we is not at all religious, it's pretty much like a second generation Aussie still holding onto some cultural Scottish heritage.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> As an apologist for Muslim culture consider this;




I am not a Muslim apologist.

I am against any forced arranged marriage, when it be Muslim, Hindu, Buddist or Jewish. ( but if the participates are legal age and consenting I have no problem with it)

I am also against any adults having sexual relations with minors, whether that be a catholic preist, a muslim, a morman or an atheist.

As I said earlier, I have no interest is totalling up which members of which religion behave worse, I am happy to say that All religions I have encountered have doctrines which are immoral, None have met their burden of proof, and none should get any special treatment.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> And I told him to do his own research.




The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Yas...Against Christians, in Europe.




Against Fascists, For Christians.

They travelled half way around the world and fought and died fighting against fascism, while some European countries remained neutral.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not a Muslim apologist.




Pull the other leg.

" If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Pull the other leg.
> 
> " If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"




Pointing out facts doesn't make me an apologist.

I am an atheist, and have been described as a militant atheist, I think those that know me would laugh if they heard someone say I was a Muslim apologist.

My whole position here is that religions are Bad and should not be given any special treatment, You have argued that Christianity does deserve a special treatment because it is not as bad as Islam. All I have done is point out that the examples you have given of bad Islamic practices often are mirrored in Christianity and the bible, hence neither deserves a special treatment.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> No you didn't. Your words were " Can you please refer me to information on centrelink".
> 
> I an not your flunkey. Do your own research if you wish to disprove what I said.




Curious.  How does one find information on a policy that doesn't exist.  You made a claim, now seem unwilling to actually prove it.  Why make the claim in the first place if it was false or you're too lazy to back it up?

There's enough angst within the community without people like yourself making outrageous claims that are not true.  How about sticking to the facts?


----------



## sydboy007 (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Yes,excellent; this should be required watching for the politically correct Islami apologists. The peaceful majority of Muslims *is* irrevelant and we are living in a fool's world if we think that this majority would ever stand up to the jihadists, or even co-operate wth law enforcement to expose their illegal activities.



Yes, excellent http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/case-studies ; this should be required reading for the politically correct Christian apologists.

The Christian majority against paedophilia is irrelevant and we are living in a fools world if we think this majority would ever stand up to paedophile priests and church hierarchy, or to even co-operate with law enforcement to expose their illegal activities.

---------------

some perspective.  Those who COULD have done something about the abuse of children within various churches did not face the fear of death for themselves or their families if they had gone to the police or went public in some way and tried to stop it.  A multitude of decades and the abuse was still ongoing.

The silent majority in most muslim countries do face death of themselves and family for standing up to the extremists, yet some do put themselves in harms way to stand up for their beliefs.

How many of us can honestly answer that we would risk our lives, and the lives of our children and other family members, to stand up against murder suicides and other atrocities?  I think it's only possible to answer this honestly when faced with the real choice.  It's easy to condemn those facing the real danger from thousands of kilometres away in the safety of Australia.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> My whole position here is that religions are Bad and should not be given any special treatment, You have argued that Christianity does deserve a special treatment because it is not as bad as Islam.




That is a lie. What i said was "I am an atheist but I have tried to avoid taking cheap shots at the Christian religion which has served this country well."

That was a personal opinion only. I neither made nor implied nor advocated special treatment for anyone. You, and others, picked on this statement in order to ignore that my post was about Muslim treatment of their women. This is a part of the Islamist religion which you and your cronies look at through rose-coloured glasses. 

You on the other hand have lavished praises on Muslims because they served us well in two world wars. You can forget about WWI. More Muslims fought on the German side (Turks) than with the Allies. In WW2 it was mainly in defence against against the Japanese.

Also,


> The Germans after the huge losses before Moscow (December 1941) found themsleves needing to look for additional manpower. One of the places they looked was amomg Muslims. Here they found willing recruits both in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, Both the Wehrmacht and SS formed military units with Muslim recruits



.


----------



## Tink (26 June 2014)

VC, a militant atheist, we would never have guessed .
A religion in itself.

Thanks Calliope for understanding what I was saying in my last post.
_"I am an atheist but I have tried to avoid taking cheap shots at the Christian religion which has served this country well_


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Yes, excellent http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/case-studies ; this should be required reading for the politically correct Christian apologists.




I am surprised that you are a Muslim apologist. Consider this;


> The following are excerpts on homosexuality, taken from the Saudi Ministry of Education Textbooks for Islamic Studies:
> "Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a legal marriage.... Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place."



Wikipedia


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

> What i said was "I am an atheist but I have tried to avoid taking cheap shots at the Christian religion which has served this country well."




So you don't think avoiding talking cheap shots at one group, while openly taking cheap shots at another is special treatment.



> This is a part of the Islamist religion which you and your cronies look at through rose-coloured glasses.




It's also part of Christianity, Have you read the bible?



> You on the other hand have lavished praises on Muslims because they served us well in two world wars.




I wouldn't say I lavished praise, I simply pointed out the truth, Some one else made a comment that they didn't think muslims would fight like Australians have, I simply pointed out that they had fought in those wars he mentioned. Nothing I said could be considered praise.



> You can forget about WWI. More Muslims fought on the German side




I would say more Christians fought on the German side than did Muslims. The Truth of the matter is that both sides were made up by Christians, Muslims and other religions.

You can't take away one groups efforts just because some of the enemy had the same religion, other wise you may as well say that any Australian Christians war effort didn't count, because the Germans and Italians were Chrisitan.    



> In WW2 it was mainly in defence against against the Japanese.




Yes, which directly helped Australia's defence, If the Japanese didn't have to commit to fighting 700,000 Indian troops in Burma, I would say the battle on the Kakoda tract would have went differently.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, a militant atheist, we would never have guessed .
> A religion in itself.




Do you consider "OFF" a TV channel? or bald a hair colour?


----------



## Tink (26 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Do you consider "OFF" a TV channel? or bald a hair colour?




Keep preaching, that is what you are doing.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Tink said:


> Keep preaching, that is what you are doing.




Can you please quote some specific doctrine or tenants that I have preached?

This might help you understand atheism tink.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

Tink said:


> Keep preaching, that is what you are doing.




Tink, do you mind if I give you a little belated advice;

Don't argue with a fool...especially one with an obsession, such as a militant atheist. You are right about him preaching. Hatred of religion is his religion.


----------



## Tink (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Tink, do you mind if I give you a little belated advice;
> 
> Don't argue with a fool...especially one with an obsession, such as a militant atheist. You are right about him preaching. Hatred of religion is his religion.




Thanks Calliope 

I have worked that out.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Christian suicide attack

'Highly spiritual’ Oregon high school shooter Jared Padgett wrote plans to kill 'sinners' in diary: police 

A leader at the teen's Mormon church said Padgett was 'highly regarded for his spirituality.'


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oregon-school-shooter-wrote-plan-kill-sinners-cops-article-1.1829711

Yet another example of the bad stuff that can happen when you think your own thoughts are the words of the holy spirit.


----------



## Value Collector (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Tink, do you mind if I give you a little belated advice;
> 
> Don't argue with a fool...especially one with an obsession, such as a militant atheist. You are right about him preaching. Hatred of religion is his religion.




Again I would ask you to provide an example where I have Preached unjustified hatred of religion.

A few posts ago you were trying to charge me with being a religious apologist, Now your saying Hatred of religion is my religion.

which one is it?

I also think cigarettes are bad for society, and we shouldn't let people force children to smoke, Am I in the anti smoking "religion" now too.

I think alcohol has some bad side effects too, if you try and say smoking is bad but alcohol is tops, I'll point out some bad stuff about alcohol, does that make me a smoking apologist?


----------



## lindsayf (26 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Tink, do you mind if I give you a little belated advice;
> 
> Don't argue with a fool...especially one with an obsession, such as a militant atheist. You are right about him preaching. Hatred of religion is his religion.




that old chestnut....this seems to be served at approximately the point where the religious apologist is unable to counter the considered logic of an articulate athiest.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

I refer you to my post to Tink, VC


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

lindsayf said:


> that old chestnut....this seems to be served at approximately the point where the religious apologist is unable to counter the considered logic of an articulate athiest.




There are only a few more *illogical* and *inarticulate* posters than VC.

My fool's rule excludes me from any futher exchanges with you.


----------



## overhang (26 June 2014)

An article Uthman Badar, the Muslim who was banned from speaking.

The key points for me were 



> “This religion is extremely, and proudly, non-secular. What defines western society is secularism and democracy,” he says.
> 
> “Islam, and the Muslim world in particular, challenge secularism. It seeks to express itself politically and economically, as it does in all other aspects of life.”



http://www.businessinsider.com.au/w...llings-found-his-way-to-hizb-ut-tahrir-2014-6

Here we have a religion being completely open that they do not agree with our secular democratic way of life and believe that their religion should in fact govern policys.  If you don't like our society then go and live in one of the many Arab country's that fit your culture.  

I agree with others here that when they build up enough numbers with this kind of philosophy they will bring our society backwards, they will have a strong enough base that they can lobby the government into changes that match their ideology.  We have ever so slowly stemmed the Christian influence in this country and now we're going to let another nutjob organisation bring us back to the dark ages.  We need to learn from the negative impacts Christians have had on our society in the way of peoples liberty's and see we want no other institution to have that power.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2014)

overhang said:


> We have ever so slowly stemmed the Christian influence in this country and now we're going to let another nutjob organisation bring us back to the dark ages.  We need to learn from the negative impacts Christians have had on our society in the way of peoples liberty's and see we want no other institution to have that power.




I think it is too late already.



> Muslims to make up quarter of world's projected population of 8.3billion
> 72 countries already have one million or more Muslims
> Britain to have more Muslims than Kuwait by 2030
> The Muslim population in the UK will almost double to 5.5million within 20 years, it has been claimed.
> ...





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...slims-double-5-5m-20-years.html#ixzz35jlfZ6Zp

There are certain things in Britain about which it is impossible to speak frankly. The birth rate of the Muslim population is a prime subject e.g.They outbreed the natives at the rate of ten to one.


----------



## Julia (26 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> As others have said, it's a fine line.
> 
> Without referring specifically to the cancelled speech, would you consider it acceptable to allow people to openly seek to recruit potential terrorists on the basis of supposed unfair treatment of certain sects in certain cultures ? Of course they wouldn't blatantly say "sign up inside the building after the speech", but like Hitler did they would generate a frenzy of vengeful feelings and then let events take their course. This sort of thing most probably goes on behind closed doors now with the result that people from this country have left to fight for terrorists overseas. Would we want this sort of thing to go public ?



The reason I raised it for discussion is that I don't believe it will go away because it is not allowed public expression, but at the same time I completely appreciate your point about the potential to encourage disaffected youth to join a cause.  Often pretty much any cause will do.



> But you are correct in saying that someone has to decide where to draw the line, and there is an argument for saying that if you let people present that sort of case in public then we will find out who they are and then could do something about it, but once having identified those people do you let them continue ? Some people could assume , listening to the 'recruiters' that they should attack "the enemy" wherever they can. Refer to the attempted attack on Holsworthy Army barracks. The people initiating these sort of vengeance reprisals could then become a national security threat, even though according to them they are just exercising their rights of free speech.



I think part of my questioning of the cancellation of the talk comes from the fact that it was part of a specific event "The Festival of Dangerous Ideas".  The title of the event would seem to warn people that some of the topics would be diversive and controversial.  Another topic is apparently "Women are Sexual Predators".

It's relevant to note that the title of the talk was not that of the speaker, but rather came from the organisers of the event, clearly trying to be provocative.  They appear to have succeeded in that and perhaps in hindsight might have been a little less confronting.
People have, not unreasonably, assumed the speaker was in favour of honour killings.
I have no idea whether he is or not, but from what I've been able to gather, his message was more complex and about quite different concepts than that implied in the title.



> Of course "incitement to violence" is an offence, but again it seems to be a matter of opinion where exactly the line is crossed between simply publicising alleged atrocities against alleged persecuted minorities and encouraging people to try and avenge those perceived assaults.
> 
> Your solution ?



I don't have one.  I'm ambivalent about the whole issue.  Equally appreciate both sides of the argument.



lindsayf said:


> that old chestnut....this seems to be served at approximately the point where the religious apologist is unable to counter the considered logic of an articulate athiest.



+1.  Exactly.
Value Collector, I congratulate you on your calm and rational responses to the sustained baiting.


----------



## dutchie (26 June 2014)

From Larry Pickering

http://pickeringpost.com/story/time-to-get-tough-on-terrorism/3440


TIME TO GET TOUGH ON TERRORISM
...or is it already too late?
14 hours ago
/
563 Comments

It has taken journalists to be jailed, Australians fighting for overseas terrorist groups, multiple gang rapes, narcotics killings and shootouts in our major cities, sexual abuse and disfigurement of prepubescent girls, kidnapping of hundreds of schoolgirls and supermarket bombings in Africa, tens of thousands of decapitations and 52 million displaced persons world-wide before our media has finally accepted there’s a slight problem with the perpetrators... Muslims.                                           

Add to that the rapid increase in the availability of cheap sophisticated drones, and shares in the terrorist industry look set to skyrocket.

There is little doubt that, before this year is out, suicide bombers will be out of business, replaced with remotely controlled drones efficiently delivering their payloads to the battlefield, to suburban schools, shopping centres, sports venues and parliaments. If you’re lucky enough to shoot one down, another ten will be on their way... still no alarm bells ring.

Most astonishing is that these people of “Middle Eastern” appearance have the confidence to fearlessly forecast an Islamic takeover while we politely wave them away as a mad radical minority.   

The Left must wince with embarrassment that their sacked Rudd/Gillard government is partly responsible for the rise in Islamic barbarism in Australia’s suburbs. There are still 30,000 uninvited arrivals out there somewhere, unprocessed, on benefits, unable to work and looking for a caliphate.

But if you listen carefully you can hear some people in government thinking about finally drawing a line in the sand, but they are still not sure where to draw it without encroaching on Islamic sensitivities or 18C. It is likely too late anyway.

Tough talk of cancelling nationals’ passports is a nonsense and can’t be done. If Australian Muslims are found guilty of a crime, they should do the time like every other Australian, but our PC judiciary refuses to put them away, claiming “cultural differences”.

The lack of penalties emboldens them further and confirms their prophecy of our weakness in the face of complete domination.

The source of home-bred Islamic radicalism is in a dark corner where both judiciary and government fear to tread... the source abides in mushrooming mosques across Australia.

Not with the mosque itself, but with imported clerics who demand Sharia law for all Australians... they exhort that those who resist must be decapitated. Mosques give the stage to foreign clerics on lecture tours. These vile extremists train local aspirants to whip up hysteria to promote violence and to defy local law. Most violence occurs after Friday prayers.

The Islamisation of Australia has begun, it’s no secret, they will tell you that to your face.

When the war is won, those lovely Muslim neighbours who threw the kids’ ball back from over the fence and who were instructed to befriend you, will assist to behead you. Impossible you say? Well, consider that they too must be beheaded under the Sharia law of apostasy if they refuse.

The moderate Muslim will not survive because only extremists comprise the vanguard of the Islamic tsunami, they set the agenda above all else. They are the eventual generals, the ordained administrators of Sharia.

And if you think they won’t turn on their own kind, witness the wholesale slaughter of Muslims by Muslims across the Middle East and North Africa right at this minute.

    A proclaimed moderate Muslim is as much an enemy of Sharia as we are, if not more so.     

Easy going Aussies are the easiest of marks. We believe in the innate goodness of man, but it’s the innate goodness of the Westerner that Islam preys on. The fictitious moderate Muslim cannot survive... he stays silent in the face of atrocity, frightened to be seen straying from Sharia’s plotted course. Despite what you think, the moderate will not side with you when the day comes.

Our real enemy is complacency.

Morrison has stemmed the Islamic flow, now we can choose who lives next door. But those who were allowed to breach our borders under Rudd and Gillard are still here radicalising their offspring from multiple wives in numbers that outstrip a puerile Catholic edict of forbidden condoms.

Islam preaches it will rule the world. It truly believes that. It despises the Judeo-Christian ethic. It will never assimilate or contribute to a Western community. It can’t because its host is the evil infidel who must be destroyed.

Islamic law is foreign to our judicial system. It is legal for a Muslim to gang rape a non Islamic female of any age... and they do that with impunity. There can be no coming together of cultures because their culture is diametrically opposed to ours and they intend to change ours.

George Bush once declared war on terrorism, Obama now declares inclusiveness, Shorten declares there’s nothing to see here, Abbott declares understanding and Milne declares war on coal.

If we are to get serious about the overt Islamic threat, there are ample emergency laws available to us that will allow it. Islam should be outlawed as a terrorist cult. The proliferation of mosques must be stopped and those that exist must be monitored.

Those who preach the destruction of our government must be charged and jailed under the already existing law of sedition.

Every person who has arrived here illegally must sign an oath of allegiance to Australia and its laws or leave. Islamic nationals who refuse to sign will stand out like sore thumbs and must be placed on a watch list.

It’s time to declare a war on terrorism and unleash those emergency laws we invoked in World War II when we jailed Japanese nationals in a Cowra compound.

The Japanese have since learnt the art of subversiveness and Islam is severely inhibited and defiled. The German people once ignored a threat from within.

We either get serious while Islam is still a minority or start teaching our kids to recite the Koran.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2014)

That sort of half baked extremist nonsense from Pickering does not add to the debate. It's a rave designed to whip up hatred, his usual standard.

Muslims can "gang rape non Muslims with impunity" ?  I don't think so. The Skaf gang was put away.

I think we need to be concerned, but not panic stricken about a Muslim presence in Australia. It's time to wind back immigration from all areas, and Muslim countries are no exception, but it can be done without the alarmist shrieking from the likes of Pickering.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I am surprised that you are a Muslim apologist. Consider this;
> Wikipedia




Considering what the various church organisations have done...and continue to do...

I don't apologise for any bad actions by anyone.  Religion is really irrelevant, except that it provides a cover to hide behind as some moralistic washing of accountability for the bad things people CHOOSE to do.  Much like how many political leaders will drape the flag to hide behind when they take actions that would usually be condemned.


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I don't apologise for any bad actions by anyone.  Religion is really irrelevant,




I meant apologist in the sense of turning a blind eye. By religion you obviously mean the Christian religion. You surely cannot mean that the variousl varieties of Islamist religions are irrevelant. The Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds all hate each other and are forever at each other's throats. But above all the Sunnis and the Shi'ites hate infidels (that's you and me) more than each other.

Their fertility rate far exceeds those of the western countries they are invading and as they expand in these countries  so does Sharia Law, which I doubt you would consider irrevelant.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I meant apologist in the sense of turning a blind eye. By religion you obviously mean the Christian religion. You surely cannot mean that the variousl varieties of Islamist religions are irrevelant. The Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds all hate each other and are forever at each other's throats. But above all the Sunnis and the Shi'ites hate infidels (that's you and me) more than each other.
> 
> Their fertility rate far exceeds those of the western countries they are invading and as they expand in these countries  so does Sharia Law, which I doubt you would consider irrevelant.




hate is hate.  Religion just varnishes it in a way to make people think it's acceptable.  hate is poisonous and destructive, no matter which well it springs from!

As i stated previously, these religious people generally are the ones taking actions so far from the teachings and beliefs they purportedly aspire to / support.

When someone chooses to go out and kill people, or attempt to kill them, I don't really care about their reasons.  Be it God / Race / Sexuality / Gender or some other reason.  What they've done is wrong, the motivation doesn't make it any better or worse, except in their own eyes and maybe those twisted enough to think like they do.  I don't understand it, glad I don't because that would mean I see the world as they do.

Is a drone strike that kills 2 terrorists, reportedly, and a dozen civilians just unlucky enough to live in the same building or walking past it, any more defensible that a suicide murderer killing a couple of soldiers and a dozen innocent bystanders?  That is the relativism you're engaging in between the various religions.  History shows they're all pretty much just as bad as each other.

Just for a laugh, this is what the Presbyterian Church has to say about a non religious person doing good deeds.  Pretty sad view IMHO:

_Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention..

Deeds are good only if God calls them good in Scripture, and He calls them good only as they meet certain tests: (1) they are done in faith, (2) the are done in obedience to His commands in Scripture, and (3) they have His glory as their goal.

Secondly, we can therefore conclude the following:

...works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God...._

Possibly Martin Luther King was on the right path

_It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ… Actually we are celebrating the Second Advent every time we open our hearts to Jesus_

Perhaps most radical is King’s view that Christ was not born of a virgin–that this myth was the result of a “pre-scientific world view,” and that Christ was not born divine, but rather became divine during his lifetime.

I finish with one of his beautiful quotes:

_All life is interrelated, that somehow we’re caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be._


----------



## bunyip (27 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Just for a laugh, this is what the Presbyterian Church has to say about a non religious person doing good deeds.  Pretty sad view IMHO:
> 
> _Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention..
> 
> ...



Well there you go! 
All those years I spent in community service clubs, thinking I was helping my community by building parks, running fund-raising events for worthy causes, painting fences for little old ladies,
building playground for the local kindy, etc etc – looks like I and my fellow club members were actually sinning because our deeds that we thought were good were......

_(1) not done in faith
(2) not done in obedience to God’s commands in Scripture
(3) didn’t have His glory as their goal_

No wonder churches are losing their following.


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2014)

OK sydboy, you waffle on again about why you hate the Christian religion, which you apparently consider relevant, but not a word of criticicm of the Islamic religions. In fact while you were obstensibly replying to my post, you ignored completely the question of why you consider Islamic religions irrevelant.

I consider that Islamic religions propose a more insidious threat to world order today than Naziism, Facism, and  Communism did in the last century. And of course in those days there were people with their heads in the sand who said they were irrelevant although they eventually accounted for around 100 million deaths.

You say " hate is poisonous and destructive, no matter which well it springs from" Your hate for Christianity is palpable.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> You say " hate is poisonous and destructive, no matter which well it springs from" Your hate for Christianity is palpable.




I consider myself a Christian.  I believe in God.  I have my faith.  I just don't get caught up in the dogma of organised religions.  I'm am not blinded by the fact that too much evil has been done in the name of God / Allah or whatever name thy wish to use.

Do you actually believe it's valid for a religious Christian to tell someone not particularly religious, or maybe from a differing religion, that their good deeds are sinful?  Seriously, what is wrong with the religious world when they see things in that way!


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2014)

sydboy007;830374I said:
			
		

> Do you actually believe it's valid for a religious Christian to tell someone not particularly religious, or maybe from a differing religion, that their good deeds are sinful?  Seriously, what is wrong with the religious world when they see things in that way!




I couldn't give a stuff about that. All I wanted to know was why you considered the Islamic religion irrevelant, and all you do is waffle on about some obscure nonsensical doctrine of the Presbyterian church.


----------



## Value Collector (28 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I couldn't give a stuff about that. All I wanted to know was why you considered the Islamic religion irrevelant, and all you do is waffle on about some obscure nonsensical doctrine of the Presbyterian church.




I would like to know why your so one eyed when it comes to religion, your so focused on hating Islam, but yet you don't want anyone to say a word against Christianity.

Everyone here knows the terrible things the Islamic faith is causing, we watch the news, read the papers, no doubt some of us have witnessed acts of terrorism etc, we get it, but we know these terrible things are not limited to the Islamic faith.

But the enemy is not Islam, the enemy is faith.

The enemy is not Muslims, Muslims are people. The enemy is not people, people are good. The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is faith. Love and respect all people, destroy all faith.

Islam, Judaism, Christianity and other religions are all morally bankrupt at their core and their texts preach hate, the only solution is to stop lying to children, stop the indoctrination and stop the culture of unearned respect to religion and the religious.


----------



## Calliope (28 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I would like to know why your so one eyed when it comes to religion, your so focused on hating Islam, but yet you don't want anyone to say a word against Christianity.




You are obviously confused. You say you are a militant atheist and yet you love Muslims:screwy:


----------



## Value Collector (28 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> You are obviously confused. You say you are a militant atheist and yet you love Muslims:screwy:




What part of me saying that I believe all religions are harmful, are all immoral, are all equal glimpses of the untrue and we should give them no special treatment, makes you think I love Islam?

If you mean that I love the actual people, well that's different, I certainly don't hate some one just because they have been tricked into following a religion. Love is a strong word, But I certainly what to embrace humanity in all its forms, and that is one of the reasons I hate religion, because it is the enemy of humanity.

Part of the reason a spent so much time trying to reason with religious people is because I do care about them, and I want to help break down divisions in society, and attacking one group does not achieve that, it creates and under dog / victim role and stiffens their resolve.

And I didn't say I was a militant atheist, I said I have been described as one.


----------



## Calliope (28 June 2014)

My main imput to this thread has been on the harsh treatment metered out to Muslim women and young girls in Muslim families. Belatedly the Abbott government say they are going to take some action. I won't be holding my breath. You will notice that nowhere in this article, in line with political correctness, is the word Muslim mentioned.



> AUTHORITIES will crack down on forced marriages, female genital mutilation and the abuse of migrant spouses under a new national plan to stop violence against women.
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott will today launch the $100 million Second Action Plan to stop domestic violence, which will also see state and territory governments commit to work on implementing a national scheme for domestic violence orders.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifesty...nital-mutilation/story-fni0dpm6-1226968069354


----------



## sydboy007 (28 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I couldn't give a stuff about that. All I wanted to know was why you considered the Islamic religion irrevelant, and all you do is waffle on about some obscure nonsensical doctrine of the Presbyterian church.




Lets use a non religious example then.

In our military the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) has already assessed more than 2,400 complaints of abuse, paid $28 million in compensation and referred 63 matters to police.

I think we most people would agree that the abuse that occurred is deplorable.  I don't think anyone would be interested in hearing the abusers trying to justify their actions.

Would you find the abuse worse if there was a religious / racial / gender bias to it?  I wouldn't.  I don't care the reasons these sick people use to justify their actions.

Too often religion is used as an excuse for inexcusable actions.  yes it's deplorable that men use the Islamic religion to justify cruel actions against woman.  yes it's deplorable that various church hierarchies protected the church and abusers instead of the victims for decades.  Yes the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy Mcveigh was deplorable, same as the bali bombings, 9/11 and the list goes on.  Are the justifications they use really relevant?  I don't care what crap they spout, whether God commands it, Allah will bless me, the Government deserved it.  I'm confident when they do meet their maker, those serene smiles of confidence will be wiped from their faces as they're made to feel the desolation they caused for what I hope is truly eternity.

The best disinfectant is sunlight.  Let it shine brightly on all who want to do inhumane deplorable acts, and hopefully we as a society will rightfully condemn them and stop them from doing any more harm.


----------



## Calliope (28 June 2014)

*Iraq's Christians seek refuge with Kurds
Armed Kurds are winning favour by protecting religious minorities*



> Alqosh, Iraq - The world appears serene and tranquil when looking out from the mesmerising 1,400-year-old Rabban Hormizd Monastery here in the heart of the vast rocky plains of Nineveh in northern Iraq.
> 
> This is a land where Christianity once thrived. And it has survived numerous bloody forays by generations of kings and rulers.
> 
> ...




http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...-seek-refuge-with-kurds-2014624867119947.html


----------



## DB008 (28 June 2014)

They have won!



> *2GB presenter dropped after prophet Mohammad comments*
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/gb-presenter-dropped-after-prophet-mohammad-comments/story-fnndfy6b-1226970085147




You can't even make a joke about their 'pie-in-the-sky' belief's now days.

I've said it once and l'll say it again, no one on this planet has the faintest clue about our origin???
Where we came from???
How big our universe is let alone a (or several) 'God'(s) ???

Do you really think there is a 'God' with all the violence we have had (eg; WWI, WWII) ???

I think people want to believe because they are scared of passing away and not living forever (or something to that extent). 

Prove to me without a shadow of a doubt (preferably with science) that there is a God? People go to court and can't recall what happened a few weeks/months ago, let along ~2000 years ago....


----------



## Calliope (28 June 2014)

DB008 said:


> They have won!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's political correctness gone mad.

*Mishael Smith News*



> Why I won't be on 2GB on Monday
> In April this year 2GB booked me to present Chris Smith's afternoons program for the 3 weeks starting Monday 30 June.
> 
> At 7.15 last night 2GB's Program Director David Kidd phoned me and said, "We won't be needing you, you can't call a Deity a paedophile."
> ...


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2014)




----------



## Calliope (29 June 2014)

The other day sydboy made a laudable and enlightening statement with which I totally agree.



> *The best disinfectant is sunlight. Let it shine brightly on all who want to do inhumane deplorable acts, and hopefully we as a society will rightfully condemn them and stop them from doing any more harm*.




I think we can see from Michael Smith's experience that shining this light has to be very selective and there are many nasty practices which our society prefers not to be discussed in the open, even though they are factual. This state of affairs extends beyond potitical correctness and is hypocritical, gutless and cowardly.


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2014)

Aisha - 



> Traditional Hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of *six*, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of *nine*, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[6][7][8] al-Tabari, born in Persia two hundred years after Muhammad's death, wrote that she was ten years old.[9]




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


I'd be careful if l was Michael Smith. He'll end up with a jihad on him...


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> You will notice that nowhere in this article, in line with political correctness, is the word Muslim mentioned.




Because Islam is not the only faith that condones those things, and Muslims are not the only ones practicing them.

Don't you want to crack down on all forced marriages? Or is it just the Muslim ones that annoy you? 

Should they crack down on all violence against women, or just Muslim violence?

You seem to be saying you care about Muslim women more than their Hindu sisters who are suffering a lot of the same treatment.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)

> I've said it once and l'll say it again, no one on this planet has the faintest clue about our origin???
> Where we came from???




I get your point, but I think we have a lot more than a "faint clue" as to our origins


----------



## pavilion103 (29 June 2014)

The only person I will listen to about our origin is the one who died and historically resurrected. No one else has a clue about the answer (or about the purpose of life, afterlife etc).


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The only person I will listen to about our origin is the one who died and historically resurrected. No one else has a clue about the answer (or about the purpose of life, afterlife etc).




There is lots of resurrection that happened in many of the ancient religions, but i take it you mean Jesus, there is no historical evidence of the resurrection out side of the bible.

But,


If jesus can't be trusted in what he said about mustard seeds, how can he be trusted to know the origin of the earth?


----------



## Calliope (29 June 2014)

The forced marriages  of young girls to Imams and other influential Muslims may be part of Muslim culture and even thogh it is done with the blessing of the Prophet  and the connivance of the child's parents and  according to Human Rights Watch, 14 million girls are married, worldwide, each year - with some as young as eight or nine... * it is illegal in Australia.* 

This type of paedophilia get very little scrutiny from law enforcement or the media unless a victim comes forward with a complaint. Children in this type of subjugation rarely do.

Even the Royal Commission into child abuse wil not be putting a spotlight on this odious practice. The terms of reference of the Commission actually exclude it. Their main target is Christian institutions.



> AND noting that, without diminishing its criminality or seriousness, your inquiry will not specifically examine the issue of child sexual abuse and related matters outside institutional contexts, but that any recommendations you make are likely to improve the response to all forms of child sexual abuse in all contexts.


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I get your point, but I think we have a lot more than a "faint clue" as to our origins




Please enlighten me....


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> The forced marriages  of young girls to Imams and other influential Muslims may be part of Muslim culture and even thogh it is done with the blessing of the Prophet  and the connivance of the child's parents and  according to Human Rights Watch, 14 million girls are married, worldwide, each year - with some as young as eight or nine... * it is illegal in Australia.*
> 
> This type of paedophilia get very little scrutiny from law enforcement or the media unless a victim comes forward with a complaint. Children in this type of subjugation rarely do.
> 
> Even the Royal Commission into child abuse wil not be putting a spotlight on this odious practice. The terms of reference of the Commission actually exclude it. Their main target is Christian institutions.





Probably happening here, but we haven't heard about it yet...





> *Female genital mutilation exposed in Swedish class*
> 
> Some 60 cases of genital mutilation have been discovered in NorrkÃ¶ping in eastern Sweden since March with all 30 girls in one school class found to have undergone the procedure.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2014)

Crazy!

Why do we have people like this in our country? This is nuts.


----------



## Calliope (29 June 2014)

DB008 said:


> Crazy!
> 
> Why do we have people like this in our country? This is nuts.






Yes it beggars belief. I suppose that all those Islamists who left here to fight for the terrorists in Syria and Iraq will resume on welfare when they return here, to support them, while they use their new-found skills in setting up terrorist organisations.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I get your point, but I think we have a lot more than a "faint clue" as to our origins






DB008 said:


> Please enlighten me....




Ok, I'll give it a shot, Keep in mind I am a layman, and each area I mention is a specialised area of scientific study.

1, There was a cosmological event which has been called the "Big Bang", This event filled the universe with vast clouds of helium and hydrogen atoms.

2, Gravity caused these vast clouds of hydrogen and helium atoms to collapse into Billions and billions of balls of gas

3, These large balls of Hydrogen and helium gas were so huge, that the pressure at there centre caused the Hydrogen and helium atoms at their centre to start fusing together, This process is called nuclear fusion and releases vast amounts of energy (heat, light/radiation etc) as the atoms fuse.

4, We call these big nuclear fusion powered balls of gas stars (or our own one is called "The Sun")

5, As these stars continue fusing hydrogen and helium atoms together, they create new atoms, so Inside the star hydrogen and helium atoms are slowly turning into new heavier and heavier atoms such as Lithium, Beryllium, Boron,Carbon,Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorine, Neon, Sodium, Magnesium, Aluminium, Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Chlorine, Argon, Potassium, Calcium,  Scandium, Titanium, Vanadium, Chromium, Manganese and Iron

6, Eventually the the star starts running out of atoms to fuse since the pressure of a star can not fuse atoms that are heavier than Iron, and the centre begins to cool. As the centre cools and the star begins to die, in some cases it collapses in on itself and the shock wave causes the star to explode into a super nova.

7, The intense heat and pressure caused by the star exploding into a supernova is enough for the atoms to be fused into elements heavier than Iron, So all the rest of the elements on the periodic table are then produced.

8, After the super nova explosion we now have another vast cloud of gas, But it no longer is pristine hydrogen and helium, It is enriched with all the elements of the periodic table, ie oxygen, carban, iron ,uranium etc. 

9, over time the cloud begins to collapse with gravity again, Some of the residual hydrogen and helium left from the original star forms a new smaller star in the centre, a bunch of the heavier elements that when blown out begin to clump together with gravity forming planets orbiting this new smaller star.

10, The elements that were created in the original star also form molecules, eg. hydrogen and oxygen bond to make water. etc

11, One of these lumps of mass made up of the various elements orbiting the star is our planet earth, 

12, These new new heavier elements allow all sorts of molecules to form, and allow complex chemistry to take place, the early earth would have been hot and radio active.

13, At some point abiogenesis happened, meaning a molecule formed that could replicate itself, it would have been nothing like the complex life we have now, but this molecule would have used the elements around it to form more of it’s self.

14, this self replicating molecule continued replicating and through mutations and the powerful hand of natural selection gave rise to the many species that have existed through out time.

15, And hear we are today, we are an unbroken chain of complex self replicating chemistry, sitting on a rock, formed from the contents of an exploding star.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)




----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)

So the elements were created in stars, from hydrogen and helium that was formed from protons and neutrons that were formed during the big bang.

these elements produced chemical molecules, Some how conditions arise that caused a molecule to become self replicating, mutations and natural selection lead to ever more complex self replicating molecules, and eventually animals and plants come about, natural selection continues.


----------



## Value Collector (29 June 2014)




----------



## burglar (30 June 2014)

DB008 said:


> ... He'll end up with a jihad on him...




Not a jihad, but a fatwā !!


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

burglar said:


> Not a jihad, but a fatwā !!




It is strange that Andrew Bolt who was a strong supporter of Michael Smith's campaign against Gillard and Wislson, has kept quiet about Smith's reference to the Islamic prophet and founder Mohammed being a pedophile.

I guess the power of the fatwa combined with PC can silence many tongues.


----------



## Tink (30 June 2014)

Agree, Calliope.

You are not allowed to talk, anything to do with PC is prohibited.
We have to write footnotes not to offend the chosen few.

Where are we heading with this rubbish?


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

Tink said:


> You are not allowed to talk, anything to do with PC is prohibited.
> We have to write footnotes not to offend the chosen few.
> 
> Where are we heading with this rubbish?




Tink, as a religious person, no doubt during your life people have tip toed around you being careful not to offend your religious beliefs.

I am all for speaking the truth, It just seems funny to me that a member of a religious group such as you, who are generally the first ones to cry offence and say they are offended is speaking out against political correctness, I guess in your mind political correctness should only exist when its your beliefs that are being respected and sheltered.

I think speaking out against problems in Islamic culture is perfectly fine, I have no problem at all with public discussions about cultural problems whether it be domestic violence in Islam or Aboriginal culture or any other culture.

There is a fine line though when discussions can turn from discussing facts to becoming xenophobic.


----------



## Tink (30 June 2014)

You don't think you are dividing a nation with PC?

Picking and choosing who you don't want to offend and who you do?

What are you doing now?


----------



## Julia (30 June 2014)

Tink said:


> You don't think you are dividing a nation with PC?
> 
> Picking and choosing who you don't want to offend and who you do?
> 
> What are you doing now?



That seems a rather odd interpretation of what Value Connector said, Tink.
I expect people who believe in religions other than christianity also feel they are required to be self-censoring in what they say.

Could you perhaps outline what you think constitutes political correctness?


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

Tink said:


> You don't think you are dividing a nation with PC?
> 
> Picking and choosing who you don't want to offend and who you do?
> 
> What are you doing now?




I don't care if you offend people with facts, You have no right to be offended by facts.

As I said, I don't mind public discussions, it is only when they turn to racism, sexism, xenophobia etc that I care.

eg, You can have a public discussion about immigration, but if the discussion starts having racist or xenophobic tones then it is not productive. 

as I said its a fine line, it comes down to motives of those involved.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

Tink said:


> You don't think you are dividing a nation with PC?
> 
> Picking and choosing who you don't want to offend and who you do?
> 
> What are you doing now?




The Islamists make no bones about who they offend in Australia or kill all over the world.  This is a list of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians  (Since 9/11)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/christianattacks.htm

And while they are plundering Christian schools and murdering and raping...if they can carry off innocent schoolgirls for their own sickening practices that is iceing on the cake.

Our media doesn't worrry too much about it unless it is a big story like Nigerian schoolgirls, but it is quickly forgotten. I suppose all these young girls are now second or third wives for rich Imams.

However it makes headlines if an Iranian is killed at Manus.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> The Islamists make no bones about who they offend in Australia or kill all over the world.  This is a list of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians .




Is it terror attacks in general that bother you, or just against Christians? 

 Just for clarification, What is you position on religious matters, I think you said you were an atheist, But you seem to be very Christian leaning?


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

As I said its Faith in general that is evil, Faith in all it's brands should be rejected. If you think only islam creates violence and torture, think again.

torture in the name of Jesus.



Burning witches alive


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

Allah Akbar


----------



## burglar (30 June 2014)

Julia said:


> ...  what you think constitutes political correctness?




To me, PC is like fashion, in that it constitutes what passes as sane conversation around the water cooler.
And it changes from time to time for no apparent reason.




Value Collector said:


> ... you seem to be very Christian leaning?




I had a Catholic upbringing, so I find that I still have Christian values.
Becoming an Agnostic or Atheist does not require one to lose one's values.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

burglar said:


> I had a Catholic upbringing, so I find that I still have Christian values.
> Becoming an Agnostic or Atheist does not require one to lose one's values.




Sorry Burglar, that was actually a direct question to Calliope,

But that's an interesting answer you gave, What do you see as being "Christian Values"?

To me a lot of Christianity's (and other religions) core teachings are immoral, and the ones that can be considered good are certainly not owned by Christians, they are common sense humanist values.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

burglar said:


> I had a Catholic upbringing, so I find that I still have Christian values.
> Becoming an Agnostic or Atheist does not require one to lose one's values.




Burglar,I think most Atheists in Western Society were raised with Christian values. We didn't leave the church because we hated it, but we just grew out of it. However with militant Atheists I  don't have a clue what they are on about.

VC can't understand why I prefer Christians to Islamists. Well consider 9/11 for starters.



> Terrorists have struck the heart of America leaving thousands dead and freedoms we hold dear smouldering in the rubble.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/50th-birthday/world-struck-by-tragedy/story-fnlk0fie-1226966709153


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Allah Akbar





yep, religious faith is a terrible thing.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> VC can't understand why I prefer Christians to Islamists. Well consider 9/11 for starters.




So you prefer All Christians to all Islamists?

Here is the core of what I think, 

You can't judge some one by what they say their religion is, Because all religions have extremists. Both Christianity and Islam have members who are nice, charitable, good members of society, and both have extremists who a absolute scum.

If you just say you hate all members of Islam, you are rejecting a lot of good people, and if you say you like Christianity in all it forms, you are embracing all of really bad things.

I personally will judge each person on their merits, you don't immediately gain or lose respect for being a certain religion in my eyes. You may lose my respect if I find out certain religious beliefs you hold, But simply knowing you are a "Christian" or a "Muslim" doesn't really tell me enough about you for me to make a judgement, So to see you giving one religion respect over another seems crazy to me.

All religions have immoral teachings, and you don't need their teachings to be good. If the religions have good people as members, they are not good because of the religion the are good despite it.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Burglar,I think most Atheists in Western Society were raised with Christian values.




As I asked Burglar, Can you please explain what Christian values are?


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Here is the core of what I think,




I don't care what you think. I prefer Christians to Muslims. Why? -  is none of your business, and my values are none of your business. I have previously told you why I will not respond to your posts, so don't bother making unwanted responses to mine.:headshake


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

> THE royal commission into child sexual abuse says it needs another $104 million and an extra two years to do its job and to allow victims to tell their stories.




I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.




I've read the terms of reference and I can't see anything that would preclude any religion or any organisation from having child abuse exposed.  If you can point me to something that specially excludes Islamic organisations I'd be greatly interested because I'd be right on the phone to my local Federal member to ask why and get that fixed.  hopefully you've already done the same.

Maybe there's been no reporting of Islamic paedophilia because they're a bit like how the Catholic church, along with other organisations,  was for the last half century.  Plenty of people knowing it's going on but no one with the conscience to expose it.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/about-us/terms-of-reference

AND We declare that in these Our Letters Patent:
child means a child within the meaning of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.
government means the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, and includes any non-government institution that undertakes, or has undertaken, activities on behalf of a government.
institution means any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), and however described, and:
i. includes, for example, an entity or group of entities (including an entity or group of entities that no longer exists) that provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families; and
ii. does not include the family.
institutional context: child sexual abuse happens in an institutional context if, for example:
iii. it happens on premises of an institution, where activities of an institution take place, or in connection with the activities of an institution; or
iv. it is engaged in by an official of an institution in circumstances (including circumstances involving settings not directly controlled by the institution) where you consider that the institution has, or its activities have, created, facilitated, increased, or in any way contributed to, (whether by act or omission) the risk of child sexual abuse or the circumstances or conditions giving rise to that risk; or
v. it happens in any other circumstances where you consider that an institution is, or should be treated as being, responsible for adults having contact with children.
law means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.
official, of an institution, includes:
vi. any representative (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and
vii. any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and
viii. any person, or any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of a body or other entity, who provides services to, or for, the institution or a related entity; and
ix. any other person who you consider is, or should be treated as if the person were, an official of the institution.

related matters means any unlawful or improper treatment of children that is, either generally or in any particular instance, connected or associated with child sexual abuse.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I've read the terms of reference and I can't see anything that would preclude any religion or any organisation from having child abuse exposed.  If you can point me to something that specially excludes Islamic organisations I'd be greatly interested because I'd be right on the phone to my local Federal member to ask why and get that fixed.  hopefully you've already done the same.
> http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/about-us/terms-of-reference




*I don't want to get into semantics about "specially excludes" but unless you consider the Islamic faith to be an "institution " it certainly is excluded. And the reason they got no complaints about Muslim child abuse is because they did not ask for it.

I suppose you are also aware that the vast majority of sexual abuse of children takes place in the family environment and they didn't want to hear about that either. Muslim paedophilia is almost always in the family context.*

Letters Patent; *Definition of Institution*


> *Institution means any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), and however described*, and:
> i. includes, for example, an entity or group of entities (including an entity or group of entities that no longer exists) that provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families; and
> ii. does not include the family.
> institutional context: child sexual abuse happens in an institutional context if, for example:
> ...




Terms of reference; (part)



> AND noting that, without diminishing its criminality or seriousness, *your inquiry will not specifically examine the issue of child sexual abuse and related matters outside institutional contexts,* but that any recommendations you make are likely to improve the response to all forms of child sexual abuse in all contexts.


----------



## Julia (30 June 2014)

burglar said:


> To me, PC is like fashion, in that it constitutes what passes as sane conversation around the water cooler.



Thank you, burglar.  However, the question was addressed to Tink who is the person complaining about the unfairness of political correctness.



> I had a Catholic upbringing, so I find that I still have Christian values.
> Becoming an Agnostic or Atheist does not require one to lose one's values.



Since you've raised this, I'd also be interested in what you think constitutes "Christian values" and how these values would be unavailable to anyone who declines to follow any religion.



Calliope said:


> *I don't want to get into semantics about "specially excludes" but unless you consider the Islamic faith to be an "institution " it certainly is excluded. And the reason they got no complaints about Muslim child abuse is because they did not ask for it.*



*
Or perhaps because, having brought out its interim report today, the Commission has made the point that it would need another two years and a large additional amount of funding to be able to cover fully all the institutions and individual complaints presented to it.
So perhaps do not draw the conclusions you are at this stage.*


----------



## burglar (30 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Thank you, burglar.  However, the question was addressed to Tink who is the person complaining about the unfairness of political correctness ...




Not redirecting questions away from Tink. 
Nor answering on her behalf.


I am not a "question cop", ...
I am just adding my take!
(pav calls it interjecting)





Julia said:


> ... Since you've raised this, I'd also be interested in what you think constitutes "Christian values" and how these values would be unavailable to anyone who declines to follow any religion.




As has been pointed out, most good "Christian values" are Humanist values.
They are definitely not "unavailable" to the literate.
Maybe that makes them unavailable to Muslim women.

Wiki gives:


> specific definitions can vary widely between denominations, geographical locations, and different schools of thought.




I agree with Wiki and therefore will not be drawn on the question.

However, I will offer that I no longer ?"turn the other cheek"!


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2014)

Even with an extension the Commission has no authority to depart from its Terms of Reference and the Letters Patent, which certainly excludes Islamic paedophilia in the family environment.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that this Commission was set up, with the full support of the public and the media, with the sole purpose of targetting the Catholic Church with a little collateral damage along the way to the Salvation Army and some church schools etc.

It is fitting that the spotlight should be shone on thes odious practices, but the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in a closed family environment with the predators being family friends or relatives. In the case of Muslims, because of the complete subjugation of their women and children in the family environment, the Commission takes the easy way out and excludes them from their terms of reference.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

burglar said:


> As has been pointed out, most good "Christian values" are Humanist values.




Good, perhaps we should call them humanist values then, or perhaps just good morals, Because attaching a certain brand of religion to it not only attempts to credit ownership of those values to that faith, but it also causes confusion with all the morally bankrupt values of the faith.

eg, if some one uses the term "Good Christian values", I have no idea whether they are talking about love thy neighbour, or about to start an anti gay hate rant.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I don't care what you think. I prefer Christians to Muslims.




Ok, but a statement like that makes no sense, unless the reason is racism or xenophobia.  




> and my values are none of your business.




I didn't ask you about your values, I asked for your definition of "Christian values"


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Good, perhaps we should call them humanist values then, or perhaps just good morals, Because attaching a certain brand of religion to it not only attempts to credit ownership of those values to that faith, but it also causes confusion with all the morally bankrupt values of the faith.
> 
> eg, if some one uses the term "Good Christian values", I have no idea whether they are talking about love thy neighbour, or about to start an anti gay hate rant.




Christian values do not "hate anti gays". That has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity does not agree with homosexuality, but this should not be equated with hate. Non-Christians don't agree with Christianity but it doesn't mean they are full of "hate for Christians". 

Unfortunately many fail to see that it is actually much of society and the media that has attached things like "hate anti gays" to Christianity. This is the problem when people pick out a few people that hold up hate signs and believe that they are appropriately representing Christian values. Shows like ACA do not help, not just for Christians but for a number of groups and people. 

But most importantly, rather than trying to check this out for themselves, people WANT to believe these misconceptions. It is convenient for them, so they spread them and thus the confusion grows further. 


People in general disagree on all sorts of issues under the sun. 
And people are allowed to respectfully disagree. 
There is a lot of irony in a person calling a Christian intolerant because the Christian doesn't agree with their view


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

I didn't ask you about your values, I asked for your definition of "Christian values"
Easy. Jesus summed it up like this. 
"To love the Lord your God with your heart, mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself."

This is a good way to define Christian values. 


To love someone as yourself doesn't mean to agree with everyone on everything. 
There are many people that we all love but that we have respectful disagreements with.

Some of the big ones; homosexuality, abortion. 

A Christian believes that man and woman were created for relationship. They also believe that life begins at conception and want to preserve this. 

If a Christian goes up to a homosexual person or someone who believes abortion is ok and abuses them, insults them etc, then that is NOT Christian values. 
If a Christian expresses their view on the topic and has a respectful disagreeance with these people in a loving way that IS Christian values. 

In the same way that if a non-Christian person abuses a Christian or calls them narrow minded for holding a particular view that is NOT love (and in fact is ironically showing their narrow-mindedness themself). 
But if they respectfully disagree with the Christian in a loving way that IS love. 

It's the same for both sides. 

Both can have lunch after, talk about the footy and have a good laugh together, whilst still holding differing views.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Even with an extension the Commission has no authority to depart from its Terms of Reference and the Letters Patent, which certainly excludes Islamic paedophilia in the family environment.



As I recall the original terms of reference of the Commission, it excluded all family paedophilia, sexual abuse.
Not, as you are asserting, specifically that relating to Muslims.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Christian values do not "hate anti gays". That has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity does not agree with homosexuality, but this should not be equated with hate.:




Well that depends on which brand of Christianity, But you admit some Christians definition of "good Christian values" would cause them to discriminate against people based solely on their sexuality. 



> Unfortunately many fail to see that it is actually much of society and the media that has attached things like "hate anti gays" to Christianity




Nope, its those people holding the signs and calling them selves Christians who are attaching connotations, It is not our fault their is over 10,000 brands of your religion that all sprout slightly different views but still label them selves Christian, and use the term "Christian values"



> But most importantly, rather than trying to check this out for themselves, people WANT to believe these misconceptions. It is convenient for them, so they spread them and thus the confusion grows further.




That's why am asking people to define what they mean, But as I said, it not our fault that Christians throw around the generic term, attaching it to so many things.



> And people are allowed to respectfully disagree.
> There is a lot of irony in a person calling a Christian intolerant because the Christian doesn't agree with their view




I agree that we are allowed to disagree with each other, However it is wrong / immoral to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. So if your view is that discrimination is ok, then you are wrong, and me saying you are wrong is not me being intolerant of your view.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well that depends on which brand of Christianity, But you admit some Christians definition of "good Christian values" would cause them to discriminate against people based solely on their sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





1. It is not discrimination but a disagreement. And respectful disagreement at that. 
    One example. In terms of things like marrying in churches etc, it seems so silly. Why would an organisation that specifically disagrees with homosexuality marry them? This isn't discrimination. Church and government are separate. It's the same with any club that has a criteria or value system. People that join these organisations/clubs do so because they have they share the same beliefs. 

If I am speaking with the head of a classic car club and I have a really cool modern car, I'm not going to complain to the guy that he is discriminating me because he won't let me into the club or to display my car in the club. He will tell me there are other clubs for that. It's all cool. I wouldn't then go and kick up a fuss that this guy is disciminating against me. 
Common sense guys!

2. On the misrepresentation of Christians. 

I can call  myself a pilot, I can dress like a pilot, but if I don't fly a plane I'm not a pilot. 

You can believe I'm a pilot because I cal myself one and dress like one, but you would be incorrect in this belief (heck you could even get on a plane with me and fly if you really wanted to).


----------



## McLovin (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, its those people holding the signs and calling them selves Christians who are attaching connotations, It is not our fault their is over 10,000 brands of your religion that all sprout slightly different views but still label them selves Christian, and use the term "Christian values"




Exactly. Christian "values" run the full spectrum from Jesuits helping lepers in India through to Fred Phelps' Church picketing the funerals of dead soliders with "God hates fags" signs.



			
				pavilion103 said:
			
		

> It is not discrimination but a disagreement. And respectful disagreement at that.
> One example. In terms of things like marrying in churches etc, it seems so silly. Why would an organisation that specifically disagrees with homosexuality marry them?




They shouldn't have to. As you point out, the church is not the government and it should be free to chose who or who it doesn't want to marry.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

McLovin said:


> Exactly. Christian "values" run the full spectrum from Jesuits helping lepers in India through to Fred Phelps' Church picketing the funerals of dead soliders with "God hates fags" signs.
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't have to. As you point out, the church is not the government and it should be free to chose who or who it doesn't want to marry.




Exactly.

In terms of the government, Christians can have their view and vote for the political party whose views they agree with. However, the majority vote will win. This is the way it works obviously. 

The Christian may agree or disagree with the morality of the law but it doesn't change the fact that it is the law. They may campaign to change it in future, but that is a different matter. 
The law doesn't reflect morality but the majority consensus.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Easy. Jesus summed it up like this.
> "To love the Lord your God with your heart, mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself."
> 
> This is a good way to define Christian values.




flick over to luke 14:26 and jesus says

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Is this Christian values?



> If a Christian goes up to a homosexual person or someone who believes abortion is ok and abuses them, insults them etc, then that is NOT Christian values.




Except there are Christian groups that completely disagree with you and do just that.

the bible also says you should stone gays to death etc.

you can cherry pick as many nice verses as you like, the fact is your bible is the big book of multiple choice, you can love thy neighbour, or you can own slaves, both represent Christian values.




> In the same way that if a non-Christian person abuses a Christian or calls them narrow minded for holding a particular view that is NOT love (and in fact is ironically showing their narrow-mindedness themself).




Not if the person is actually genuinely narrow minded, and refuses to accept facts. 



> But if they respectfully disagree with the Christian in a loving way that IS love.




some people respond to soft discussions, others respond better to more adversarial engagements, both ways have merit.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

McLovin, I also agree there are corrupt "Christian" organisations that label themselves in this way. 

I see what you are saying. 

This is why I could just as easily drop the "Christian" label and adopt the label "A follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ". This label then eliminate those other "Christian" organisations who claim to be following Christ's teachings but actually aren't.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> flick over to luke 14:26 and jesus says
> 
> If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
> 
> ...





Luke 14:26 - study the Greek, study the context. Actually take the time to understand what Jesus is saying. The word "hate" here mean to "love less". 
Jesus is saying that God is to be the primary priority in one's life if they are to be a follower of Christ. 

The best part about this is that God loves and promotes family and a love for God with all your heart will result in a natural outflow of great love for the family. 


Look at the history and the context of the Old Testament laws. They were created for a Theocracy. 
Study the intended purposes of these laws, the background, the context, which parts God actually agreed with and didn't agree with. 
Study this in detail so that you have an informed opinion. 


Under the new covenant Jesus summed it up as "love the Lord your God and your neighbour as yourself". 


Study why there was a new covenant. 
Study the relationship of this to the old covenant. 
Understand the broader picture. 
If you want to know the truth about it you will do your research. 
If you really don't want to then I am of no help to you here.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> This is why I could just as easily drop the "Christian" label and adopt the label "A follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ". This label then eliminate those other "Christian" organisations who claim to be following Christ's teachings but actually aren't.




I don't think that would help, because your still lugged with all the immoral teachings of jesus.

eg. 
Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.


not to mention where jesus states during the sermon on the mount that none of the laws of the old testament are changing hence stoning etc is still ok.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

This guy is probably the most rational Christian I have heard talk about gay marriage, I agree with him.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The word "hate" here mean to "love less".
> .




I have heard all the backflips and twisting of words Christians use to try and make the bible sound more moral than it is.

If it was the word of an infallible god you wouldn't need to twist it so much to try and get at the meaning.

If it was the word of a mob of fanatical bronze age desert dwellers, you would have to twist it, hence why you have to do the twist when ever some one brings up a verse out side your pre selected cherry picked ones.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

> Though there are many aspects to the Judeo-Christian ethic, *some of the more common ones are the sanctity of human life, personal responsibility, a high regard for marriage, and compassion for others*. Much of what is best in Western civilization can be directly attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic



.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Judeo-Christian-ethic.html#ixzz36BECPvKer

VC and his supporters cannot accept that Australia has benefitted from its Crristian heritage. People living all around me in an over 60s retirement village, from all walks of life, whether they are church-goers or otherwise, demonstrate the values of Christian ethics. That, plus the sunshine, is what makes it such a wonderful place to live.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I have heard all the backflips and twisting of words Christians use to try and make the bible sound more moral than it is.
> 
> If it was the word of an infallible god you wouldn't need to twist it so much to try and get at the meaning.
> 
> If it was the word of a mob of fanatical bronze age desert dwellers, you would have to twist it, hence why you have to do the twist when ever some one brings up a verse out side your pre selected cherry picked ones.




So in other words "I either don't care or I'm too lazy to research the proper meaning of this text, so I'll just say the Christians are twisting it". 

Anyone who reads through the Bible, sees the teachings of Jesus, what he did, how he lives, the overall context, will get to this passage and think: "hmm.. what does he mean by this?, the word "hate" doesn't seem to make sense based on everything else. This is really interesting. I'm going to explore it further". 



The truth about what the text says is there for all to explore and see. 
If you choose not to, then so be it. 
Rave and rant all you want, while the truth remains there any time you wish to explore it.


----------



## explod (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> So in other words "I either don't care or I'm too lazy to research the proper meaning of this text, so I'll just say the Christians are twisting it".
> 
> Anyone who reads through the Bible, sees the teachings of Jesus, what he did, how he lives, the overall context, will get to this passage and think: "hmm.. what does he mean by this?, the word "hate" doesn't seem to make sense based on everything else. This is really interesting. I'm going to explore it further".
> 
> ...




The truth in the bible is merely belief, just like Santa and the Easter bunny for the children.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

explod said:


> The truth in the bible is merely belief, just like Santa and the Easter bunny for the children.




I would agree with you if Santa and the Easter bunny were supported by historical and archaeological evidence.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

I'm not saying believe in Christ's resurrection because the Bible says so (you need to actually explore the evidence which is there).......

BUT....  we can fall into two traps


1) Believe that something just isn't possible
2) Believe something happend because a book says so. 

The answer is
3) Examine the evidence. Come to a conclusion based on a consistent research/analysis, something like that used as the historical standard accepted in universities/research papers etc. 

To just dismiss something without research is silly. 


Imagine telling someone 2000's years ago that we would
1) Fly to the moon
2) Have this thing called TV where we could see each other from the other side of the world on a screen
3) Internet (imagine even explaining this). 

These would have all been labelled fairy tales like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny (had they existed), yet with further research and technology we know they are possible. 

Someone would have been put in a mental institution had they made these claims!

Things are not always as they appear on face value!

A little proper research and an open mind goes a long way!


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> So in other words "I either don't care or I'm too lazy to research the proper meaning of this text, so I'll just say the Christians are twisting it".
> 
> Anyone who reads through the Bible, sees the teachings of Jesus, what he did, how he lives, the overall context, will get to this passage and think: "hmm.. what does he mean by this?, the word "hate" doesn't seem to make sense based on everything else. This is really interesting. I'm going to explore it further".
> 
> ...




I don't think there is anyway to research the proper meaning, the anonymous authors are long dead and with out talking to them its impossible to know exactly what they meant, and there is even debate amongst Christians as to the meaning of certain texts, it is certainly not clear.

But as I said, if it was the revealed word of god, it certainly shouldn't be open to interpretation, which it clearly is as everyone seems to have different interpretations.


----------



## explod (1 July 2014)

There was a very good Oxford researcher Frazer, about 100 years ago, whose thesis is condensed Into a book called the Golden Bough.

He examined all of the religions and origins and the basic tenet is, that to control the village the chief created the witch doctor who they had to obey for fear of an evil sprit.  These spirits became god/s and the people followed and obeyed.

The churches of the world keep the population under control, and as a bonus they may go to heaven.  So the governments promote and support them full on.  Just like the footy, keeps the indians happy.

One can research the bible till one is blue in the face, and I know from my studies of theology as a kid when I contemplated priesthood.   But it is merely the written word of someone, and someone etc all along the line and survives because some get a good vibe which makes their mind see and feel things that in reality are not there.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I would agree with you if Santa and the Easter bunny were supported by historical and archaeological evidence.




Jesus is not supported by either of those things, 

But even if there was a real man who the jesus stories were based off, just as there is for santa, it does not mean any of the supernatural stuff should be believed.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> (you need to actually explore the evidence which is there).......
> !




What's your best piece of evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> .
> 
> Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Judeo-Christian-ethic.html#ixzz36BECPvKer
> 
> VC and his supporters cannot accept that Australia has benefitted from its Crristian heritage. People living all around me in an over 60s retirement village, from all walks of life, whether they are church-goers or otherwise, demonstrate the values of Christian ethics. That, plus the sunshine, is what makes it such a wonderful place to live.




All your doing is pointing to the good things and saying "that's is it, that's Christian values" the truth is none of those good things are owned by Christian faith, they are common human traits, and you have to ignore all the immoral things.

A lot of the people in over 60's retirement villages may have practiced many immoral things such as racism, sexism and homophobic beliefs etc during their lives, So you have to be careful if you are saying everything we have done in the past is based on good Christian ethics, the fact is we have moved past some of those things because of secular reasoning, not biblical reasons.

It is probably more true to say Australia has benefited from good secular moral evolution.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

Your continued trolling and preaching will get you nowhere V C.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Study the scriptures in the same way as any other historical document, by the same standard or examination (not more, not less) and the answers will be clear. 

Throw out the window the whole "word of god" stuff and look at them as historical records alone, without any bias against them. 

It is clear you have not done this. 

The fact that you even mention that Jesus may not have even existed as a person is ridiculously laughable even in terms of historical examination by even the secular world. 

The fact that you even have a shred of doubt over this point alone, is enough to show just how little study you have given the historicity of the Bible and people in it.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Your continued trolling and preaching will get you nowhere V C.




Just because someone disagrees with your religious views does not make them a troll.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Study the scriptures in the same way as any other historical document, by the same standard or examination (not more, not less) and the answers will be clear.
> 
> .




Is this what you did with the qu'ran and the hindu texts? 



> Throw out the window the whole "word of god" stuff and look at them as historical records alone, without any bias against them.




The bible hasn't been shown to be a historical document, It was written decades after the events have been said to happen, none of the authors met jesus.




> The fact that you even mention that Jesus may not have even existed as a person is ridiculously laughable even in terms of historical examination by even the secular world.




It isn't clear whether he existed, as I said, some person or persons may have existed that inspired the legend that became Jesus, eg how st Nicholas inspired the legend of santa. but just as st Nicholas didn't have flying reindeer, I doubt any real life jesus character was born of a virgin and did miracles.

There is no historical record of jesus out side the bible, and as I said none of the authors met him, and the stories were written decades after he died.



> The fact that you even have a shred of doubt over this point alone, is enough to show just how little study you have given the historicity of the Bible and people in it




Point me in the direction of a contemporary account of jesus.


----------



## McLovin (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The law doesn't reflect morality but the majority consensus.




Morality is in many ways the consensus of the majority. Taking young aboriginal children from their homes was once considered the "right" thing to do. Today it is a national shame that it was ever allowed. Ditto to taking new born babies from unwed mothers back in the 60's and 70's. If you start from the perspective that most people do not seek to do bad to others, then you'd have to accept that these actions were done largely because they were considered the "right" thing to do.

Where believers of organised religion start to lose me is when they start claiming that their beliefs _are_ morality. Just because they are rigidly followed, doesn't mean they are right.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Is this what you did with the qu'ran and the hindu texts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Holy crap! (pardon the pun)

That is one of the most ill-informed, ignorant posts I have ever seen. 

If someone isn't prepared to do their homework, there is nothing more for me to add. 


Jesus never existing as a person. 
The quaran and hindu texts historicity compared with the Bible. 
None of the authors met Jesus


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

An Internet Troll is:



> Answer: An internet 'troll' is an abusive or obnoxious user who uses shock value to promote arguments and disharmony in online communities. Named after the wicked troll creatures of children's tales, an internet troll is someone who stirs up drama and abuses their online anonymity by purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, mysogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls like a big audience, so they frequent blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat. Trolls thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments






> You cannot win with a troll. Publicly retaliating against them just fuels their childish need for attention. There are only 3 reliable ways to deal with trolls, all of which focus on removing their audience, removing their power, and depriving them of the attention they seek.




See more;

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/weirdwebculture/f/what-is-an-internet-troll.htm


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

McLovin said:


> Morality is in many ways the consensus of the majority. Taking young aboriginal children from their homes was once considered the "right" thing to do. Today it is a national shame that it was ever allowed. Ditto to taking new born babies from unwed mothers back in the 60's and 70's. If you start from the perspective that most people do not seek to do bad to others, then you'd have to accept that these actions were done largely because they were considered the "right" thing to do.
> 
> Where believers of organised religion start to lose me is when they start claiming that their beliefs _are_ morality. Just because they are rigidly followed, doesn't mean they are right.




The provides evidence that moarlity is not the consensus of the majority. 

I would argue that whether taking aboriginal children from their homes was considered right or not back then it was still ABSOLUTELY WRONG. 

So whether people thought it was right back then..... 
Or whether people think it is wrong now..... 

Neither changes the fact that it IS wrong and always has been wrong. 
The action itself doesn't change from right to wrong, just the majority opinion.


----------



## McLovin (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The provides evidence that moarlity is not the consensus of the majority.
> 
> I would argue that whether taking aboriginal children from their homes was considered right or not back then it was still ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
> 
> ...




Hindsight is always 20/20. 

In many cultures sending an elderly relative to a nursing home away from their family in their final years would be considered particularly cruel, yet it's commonplace here.

In 100 years time will we look back and say...



> So whether people thought it was right back then.....
> Or whether people think it is wrong now.....
> 
> Neither changes the fact that it IS wrong and always has been wrong.
> The action itself doesn't change from right to wrong, just the majority opinion.




...about nursing homes?


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

So what I am trying to say is that the law refelects the majority OPINION of what morality is (rather than what the morality actually is).


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Holy crap! (pardon the pun)
> 
> That is one of the most ill-informed, ignorant posts I have ever seen.
> 
> ...




I am sorry Pav, But it appears I have done a lot more research than you.

The fact that you are unaware that the authors of the bible never met Jesus shocks me,


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> An Internet Troll is:
> 
> 
> 
> > Answer: An internet 'troll' is an abusive or obnoxious user who uses shock value to promote arguments and disharmony in online communities. Named after the wicked troll creatures of children's tales, an internet troll is someone who stirs up drama and abuses their online anonymity by purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, mysogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls like a big audience, so they frequent blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat. Trolls thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments




Well I think most here would agree that I have never been Abusive or obnoxious, and none of the thoughts or opinions I have expressed could be described as sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny. In fact its those things I am speaking out against.

thanks for clearing my name


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am sorry Pav, But it appears I have done a lot more research than you.
> 
> The fact that you are unaware that the authors of the bible never met Jesus shocks me,




Matthew and John. Both disciples of Jesus. 

Accepted as the authors early on (as seen in letters as early as 100AD). 
This obviously wasn't a myth that built up over time.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

McLovin said:


> Hindsight is always 20/20.
> 
> In many cultures sending an elderly relative to a nursing home away from their family in their final years would be considered particularly cruel, yet it's commonplace here.
> 
> ...




You're missing the point. 

We don't look back at racism for example (take african american slavery), and say OK that WAS moral at the time but by today's standards it ISN'T moral. 

We look at it and think it was NEVER moral, but people believed that it was moral at the time. 

Evidenced by the fact that people rose up against this. Not because one day it all of a sudden changed from wrong to right, but because it was ALWAYS wrong and there were people who recognised this even at the time.


----------



## McLovin (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> We don't look back at racism for example (take african american slavery), and say OK that WAS moral at the time but by today's standards it ISN'T moral.
> 
> ...




So can you answer my question then? It should be relatively easy if you're suggesting morality is absolutely self-evident, black and white. It's either immoral to cart off an old relative to a home or it's not (if I'm understanding you correctly).


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Matthew and John. Both disciples of Jesus.
> 
> Accepted as the authors early on (as seen in letters as early as 100AD).
> This obviously wasn't a myth that built up over time.




The Disciples were not the authors of those gospels. 

Matthew (written 40 - 70 years after jesus died)

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew. The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100

John ( written 50 - 65 years after jesus died)

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely. Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus. Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

VC has an ally in Eva Cox;



> Cox told Q&A last week that Australia has “a reputation at the moment as being one of the nastiest countries in the world”, and on this she and Badar would agree.
> 
> It would be interesting to know where Cox and Badar think Australia rates in the nastiness table compared to, say, Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates, countries where lapidation (stoning as a form of community justice) remains on the statute books.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-islamic-madness/story-fnhulhjj-1226972830484

( Uthman Badar is the guy who thinks it’s OK to stone your sister, if indeed that’s what he was proposing to argue at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas. The title of his talk, “Honour killings are morally justified”. He is an Economics tutor at the University of Western Sydney)


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

McLovin said:


> So can you answer my question then? It should be relatively easy if you're suggesting morality is absolute, black and white. It's either immoral to cart off an old relative to a home or it's not (if I'm understanding you correctly).




Well you'd need to know more details about the circumstance to know whether it was moral or not.

Do they want to go to the home?

Do they have any adult children that are able to look after them?

Are the adult children in a realistic position to be able to look after them in terms of expertise, pressures on their own family etc?

Are there any other possible options in terms of loved ones who may be able to reasonably look after them?

Are their own adult kids just blatently shirking responsibilities, or are there genuine reasons why it is not reasonably possible to look after them themselves?

What level of care have the adult children gone to to find the best possible home? How appropriate is it?



I'm not saying that there are not issues that we don't have to make judgement calls on by weighing up evidence. Of course there are. Many different circumstances might result in a different answer. 


And whether in 2014 or in 2064, people will still have the same information in front of them when making a judgement call about whether this is moral in 2014. 

Just like in 1850 or in 2014 we can know that african american people are not infeior to white people. 
We don't have any more information now to say "aha, they actually are equal humans". 
Let's not be silly. 
Heck you would have gone to the words of Jesus and Paul to know this.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> VC has an ally in Eva Cox;




Why would you think he would be an Ally of mine?


----------



## pavilion103 (1 July 2014)

McLovin, 

Did African American people in 1850 have less worth than in 2014 (inate worth as a human being)?
Or were they just perceived to have less worth?

Did they "gain" more worth once people recognised them as equal?
Or was that worth always there and just unrecognised by a large number in society (whose morality was incredibly misguided)?


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Even with an extension the Commission has no authority to depart from its Terms of Reference and the Letters Patent, which certainly excludes Islamic paedophilia in the family environment.
> 
> It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that this Commission was set up, with the full support of the public and the media, with the sole purpose of targetting the Catholic Church with a little collateral damage along the way to the Salvation Army and some church schools etc.
> 
> It is fitting that the spotlight should be shone on thes odious practices, but the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in a closed family environment with the predators being family friends or relatives. In the case of Muslims, because of the complete subjugation of their women and children in the family environment, the Commission takes the easy way out and excludes them from their terms of reference.




So the fact that no family environment is subject to these terms of reference has been interpreted by you as a sop to the Islamic theocracy.  Good to know Christian families would never engage in such disgusting behaviour.

The RC was formed to investigate the child abuse that occurred within institutions that purportedly were about family values yet too often allowed practices that few families would approve of.  It's designed to shine some disinfecting sunlight into the practices and cover ups that allowed child abusers to engage in their activities with near impunity.

As you've rightly highlighted, most child abuse sadly occurs within a family home or by a known person of the family.  Possibly you should be arguing for better public campaigns to dob in a paedophile or child abuser.  I doubt a royal commission would be the best way forward in terms of highlighting child abuse within families.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> So the fact that no family environment is subject to these terms of reference has been interpreted by you as a sop to the Islamic theocracy.




Not at all. Now sid you are resuming your bad habit of making things up. I said all cases outside institutions got a blanket exclusion



> Good to know Christian families would never engage in such disgusting behaviour.




They're your words not mine. Cheap shot.

But you admit;

"you've rightly highlighted, most child abuse sadly occurs within a family home or by a known person of the family"



> I doubt a royal commission would be the best way forward in terms of highlighting child abuse within families.




I doubt if there is any solution to this problem, whether it occurs in the homes of people who dub themselves Christians, Atheists, Muslims or whatever.  That is why the Commission ignored the big issue and took the populist approach of ferretting out thousands of complaints mainly against Catholic institutions. If you encourage complaints you will get them, (_if you build it they will come_) especially when there are hints that there may be compensation. Now they have asked for an extension of time as they are snowed under with complaints.


----------



## Tink (1 July 2014)

Great posts, Calliope.

I see it as an attack on Christianity, not just the Catholic Church.

Maybe I need to start calling out, 'I am offended', and see how far I get.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The provides evidence that moarlity is not the consensus of the majority.
> 
> I would argue that whether taking aboriginal children from their homes was considered right or not back then it was still ABSOLUTELY WRONG.



I understand that your Christian self-righteousness dictates that you know absolutely right from wrong in every situation, but in reality back then, as now, the fate of many aboriginal children was dire if left within their dysfunctional families where sexual, emotional and physical abuse was and is rife.  
Obviously the ideal is for children always to remain with their birth family, but if they are coming to gross harm in that environment, then surely it's better to remove them to caring, safe environment.

You are fond of telling others to do some research.  May I suggest you do likewise and read some of the recent reports about the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in pre-pubescent children and other problems that are the result of dysfunctional behaviour in remote aboriginal communities.
Imo the wrong would be in failing to remove some of these little kids from such a poisonous position.

You're very young.  We think we understand everything before we grow up, especially if we're driven by some religious ideology.  Perhaps take a more broad view of the reality that there is very little in life which is black and white:  mostly it's all the shades of grey.



pavilion103 said:


> So what I am trying to say is that the law refelects the majority OPINION of what morality is (rather than what the morality actually is).



And again, you seem to believe that you have some sort of casting vote about what constitutes an appropriate sense of morality.  Frankly, that's just insulting to so many people who decline to believe in your religious dogma but who are entirely capable of living a caring and morally thoughtful existence.
The sense of superiority is one of the most offputting characteristics of the religious zealot imo.



Value Collector said:


> Well I think most here would agree that I have never been Abusive or obnoxious, and none of the thoughts or opinions I have expressed could be described as sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny. In fact its those things I am speaking out against.



Yes, I'd agree about that.  You have argued your case articulately and without personal nastiness which is more than can be said for some of your opposition.



pavilion103 said:


> Well you'd need to know more details about the circumstance to know whether it was moral or not.
> 
> Do they want to go to the home?
> 
> ...



All good questions to ask.  I don't think there would be too many families in Australia who have happily consigned a parent to a nursing home.  Usually it's the most reluctant decision made with great sadness and usually a sense of exhaustion from some years of looking after someone eg with dementia or other very debilitating disease.  

McLovin, you raised the issue.  I'd be interested to hear your view on this very fraught and difficult issue.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Great posts, Calliope.
> 
> I see it as an attack on Christianity, not just the Catholic Church.
> 
> Maybe I need to start calling out, 'I am offended', and see how far I get.




Thanks Tink. There are a few posters on this thread who seem to have an irrational hate for Christianity. It's almost as though they are claiming victim status.

Try to ignore them. If you let them see you are upset, it will just encourage them.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> So the fact that no family environment is subject to these terms of reference has been interpreted by you as a sop to the Islamic theocracy.  Good to know Christian families would never engage in such disgusting behaviour.
> 
> The RC was formed to investigate the child abuse that occurred within institutions that purportedly were about family values yet too often allowed practices that few families would approve of.  It's designed to shine some disinfecting sunlight into the practices and cover ups that allowed child abusers to engage in their activities with near impunity.
> 
> As you've rightly highlighted, most child abuse sadly occurs within a family home or by a known person of the family.  Possibly you should be arguing for better public campaigns to dob in a paedophile or child abuser.  I doubt a royal commission would be the best way forward in terms of highlighting child abuse within families.






Calliope said:


> Not at all. Now sid you are resuming your bad habit of making things up. I said all cases outside institutions got a blanket exclusion



No, you did not.  What you said was:


> I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.




This very specifically referred to Muslims rather than incest in general.  
You repeatedly accuse others of saying what they did not say and similarly excuse yourself by denying what you have said or implied.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2014)

I am the target of trolling, provocation and lies all because I said I prefer Christians to Muslims. Is that a bad thing. VC thinks its Xenophobia. But we all have our likes and dislikes and our preferences. I prefer apples to oranges. Does that make me a citrus hater?

Our Julia of course is cherry picking. i.e.


> What you said was:
> "I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever."
> This very specifically referred to Muslims rather than incest in general.




I don't know what prompted the incest bit, but my main argument was;



> It is fitting that the spotlight should be shone on these odious practices, but the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in a closed family environment with the predators being family friends or relatives. In the case of Muslims, because of the complete subjugation of their women and children in the family environment, the Commission takes the easy way out and excludes them from their terms of reference.




If you want to dispute this be my guest.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I am the target of trolling, provocation and lies all because I said I prefer Christians to Muslims. .




No one is trolling, provoking or lying about you




> all because I said I prefer Christians to Muslims. Is that a bad thing. VC thinks its Xenophobia. But we all have our likes and dislikes and our preferences.




Yes, I think you are probably xenophobic, I don't know you personally, but your comments here give me that impression, and yes I consider that a bad thing.

It's also irrational to judge people solely on which religion they identify with, rather than their actions and character, I mean you can't tell anything about a person if all you know is that they are Christian or Muslim, Hitler and Joseph Kony were both Christians.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No one is trolling, provoking or lying about you




Pull the other leg.



> Yes, I think you are probably xenophobic
> 
> It's also irrational to judge people solely on which religion they identify with,




It is you who is doing the judging purely on the flimsy basis that I prefer a Christian society to a Muslim society.Its a free country, if I prefer one thing to another that's none of your business  If you can't accept that...too bad. Please cease your provocation and stupid accusations.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Pull the other leg.




If you think you are being trolled, can you give some examples of where this has happened.




> It is you who is doing the judging purely on the flimsy basis that I prefer a Christian society to a Muslim society.




That's not what you said, you said you prefer Christians, not Christian society.

I thought you were an atheist anyway, Why wouldn't you prefer a society with religious freedom.

The Christians certainly didn't treat atheists well when they had all the power, If your truly an atheist you should want a secular society.

Do you really want to be surrounded with a society where people like this have the power.


----------



## bunyip (2 July 2014)

Here’s a link to Part 2 of ‘The Legion’ that was aired on ABC’s Compass program last weekend – the story of the Mexican priest who was well known within the Catholic church as a fraudster, junkie and pedophile, and yet with the blessing of five sucessive popes including the much-admired Pope John Paul 11, was allowed to operate the ‘Legionnaires of Christ’ organization which in reality was just a front that facilitated his criminal doings, including his disgraceful sexual abuse of boys and young men. 
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s4018718.htm

Pope John Paul 11 was given evidence of exactly what this Mexican priest was up to, and yet instead of shutting him down, he heaped praise upon him and helped him to continue.
It almost beggars belief that the Catholic church canonized John Paul 11 as a saint despite being fully aware that he aided and abetted this Mexican criminal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/popes-john-xxiii-and-john-paul-ii-made-saints-vatican/5414130


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> If you think you are being trolled, can you give some examples of where this has happened.
> *That's not what you said, you said you prefer Christians, not Christian society*.




Your continual nitpicking and harping on the same theme over and over *is trolling.* Butt out.


----------



## DB008 (2 July 2014)

*ALI SINA’S Open Challenge To All Muslim’s – $50,000 REWARD - (a must read)*



> *Sina's Challenge​*
> 
> I receive many emails from angry Muslims, who sometimes beg me, and sometimes order me to remove this site. I consider both, pleading and bullying, signs of psychopathology. Argumentum ad baculum and argumentum ad misericordiam are both logical fallacies.
> 
> ...




http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm


----------



## McLovin (2 July 2014)

Julia said:


> McLovin, you raised the issue.  I'd be interested to hear your view on this very fraught and difficult issue.




I don't have an answer, I imagine it would be a very difficult thing to do. My grandparents were fortunate enough that when they got to an age where the couldn't properly look after themselves they were able to have a 24/7 nurse at home.

I raised it only because I don't believe that morality is set in stone and the differing views within different cultures on this issue kind of makes that point.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> We don't look back at racism for example (take african american slavery), and say OK that WAS moral at the time but by today's standards it ISN'T moral.
> 
> We look at it and think it was NEVER moral,.




So your god is immoral. Because the The Bible says that women are property and should be silent in church and obey their husbands, says it’s okay to beat your slaves as long as you don’t kill them, says to kill your children if they talk back to you, and orders you to kill witches.

These things are immoral today and always have been, So your god (atleast as described in the bible) is immoral, and the bible teachings them selves are immoral. 

Offcourse you will probably come back with excuses of how it doesn't actually mean what it says etc etc. But to me that's like a nazi apologist trying to tell me Mein Kampf is all about love, and its just been misinterpreted.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So your god is immoral. Because the The Bible says that women are property and should be silent in church and obey their husbands, says it’s okay to beat your slaves as long as you don’t kill them, says to kill your children if they talk back to you, and orders you to kill witches.
> 
> These things are immoral today and always have been, So your god (atleast as described in the bible) is immoral, and the bible teachings them selves are immoral.
> 
> Offcourse you will probably come back with excuses of how it doesn't actually mean what it says etc etc. But to me that's like a nazi apologist trying to tell me Mein Kampf is all about love, and its just been misinterpreted.





If that is what you will think of my response. Then what would be the purpose of me continuing conversation further?

I haven't checked this thread since my previous response until now for that exact reason. This is one of the more pointless threads on this forum.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> If that is what you will think of my response. Then what would be the purpose of me continuing conversation further?
> 
> I haven't checked this thread since my previous response until now for that exact reason. This is one of the more pointless threads on this forum.



Is that really fair?   Your responses so far have tended to be just as VC says, where you find a way of justifying tracts from the Bible and also your own pronouncements as to what is right and wrong.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> If that is what you will think of my response. Then what would be the purpose of me continuing conversation further?
> 
> I haven't checked this thread since my previous response until now for that exact reason. This is one of the more pointless threads on this forum.




I was more interested in how you would reconcile a god which it's followers claim is 100% perfect and 100% moral, can command things which are demonstrably immoral according to the beliefs of its modern followers.

I have heard Christians make claims that things were different back then, but your saying that morality is unchanging, which makes the Bible and its commands immoral and have always been immoral since the day it was written.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2014)

An interesting discussion on morality.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2014)

Julia said:


> Is that really fair?   Your responses so far have tended to be just as VC says, where you find a way of justifying tracts from the Bible and also your own pronouncements as to what is right and wrong.




When the presupposition is that the Bible has inconsistencies

and

Whatever answer I give is percevied as a "justification"

then there is no point posting. 


It's the same with any topic. 
If you want are going to deliver a guilty verdict no matter what the answer, there is no purpose for a trial.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I was more interested in how you would reconcile a god which it's followers claim is 100% perfect and 100% moral, can command things which are demonstrably immoral according to the beliefs of its modern followers.
> 
> I have heard Christians make claims that things were different back then, but your saying that morality is unchanging, which makes the Bible and its commands immoral and have always been immoral since the day it was written.




You need to ask for what society were these "rules" intended?

Were these "rules" the desire of God or measures for facilititating a livable society?

Were these intended as moral laws? Or rules under the conditions in which they lived?


If you want to go into more detail look this up online. 

If you don't want to look this up and go into more detail, then there is no point in my posting is there?


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> An interesting discussion on morality.






There cannot be objective morals unless there is an "outside" moral lawgiver. 

If there is no actual law giver, then all "morality" is subjective. It is opinion. 
How do you determine who's opinion is right?
What is someone disagrees with you?
What is all of society decided they wanted to gas Jews? Does consensus win?


Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche understood this. 
Most other atheist philosophers do also.

The one thing I admire about him is that he had the balls to recognise this and state is unequovically. 
He was a consistent atheist in his world view.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 July 2014)

I'm done guys.


----------



## Value Collector (4 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> There cannot be objective morals unless there is an "outside" moral lawgiver.
> 
> If there is no actual law giver, then all "morality" is subjective. It is opinion.




Even then you are stuck with subjectivity, Because who's law giver do we accept, Is it your version or god or the hindu's or muslims, and is it your brand of Christian morality or westborrow Baptist Christian morality. and then there is still subjectivity in the application of the rules.

I think it is possible for the laws of morality to exist just like the laws of physics, in any given situation there probably is a 100% correct moral outcome, but whether or not individuals come up with that answer depends on their understanding, their own opinions and beliefs, and their own experiences.

Just like the laws of physics we continue learning more as we go on, So basing our beliefs on an unchanging book is silly, as you can see by the immorality in the bible.


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2014)

It's a pity more Western leaders didn't have the guts to tell it like it is.



> Former president Vaclav Klaus courageously spoke out against the climate change hysteria, knowing full well the smears and attacks that would come his way as a result. And now current president MiloÅ¡ Zeman speaks out about the real cause of Islamic aggression around the world.
> 
> The libtard media are forever pussyfooting around the issue, cowed by threats of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’, endlessly repeating the myth that continual terrorist attacks in the name of Islam have ‘nothing to do with Islam’ and that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. Anyone with half a brain knows that is complete bull****, but the media does such a good job of shifting the blame on to the West that most people are completely in the dark.* Islam is a violent, supremacist political ideology masquerading as a religion, which is wholly incompatible with Western democracy and freedoms*.






> *Political correctness is the reluctance to speak the truth for fear of causing offence, in other words it is, as Zeman says, a euphemism for cowardice, and it is slowly destroying our society from within.* In the climate arena, it is the fear of being labelled a ‘denier’ and to be judged morally bankrupt (‘think of the children and grandchildren’) if one dares to question the alarmist narrative, which is causing harm and poverty to millions. *In relation to Islam, it is fear of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’, ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, or some other equally offensive term, in the face of a significant threat to our Western freedoms – freedoms which in the past we fought hard to preserve, and which now, apparently, we are happy to give up, a little at a time, without a struggle.
> *



(My bolds)
Read More
http://australianclimatemadness.com...nt-political-correctness-political-cowardice/


----------



## sydboy007 (5 July 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/u...employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html?_r=0

_In the ruling, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, gained the right not to include certain contraceptive goods and services in the insurance bought for employees, because use of these services conflicts with the owner’s Christian beliefs. Although the justices argue that their ruling is narrowly confined to contraceptive services, one must wonder what other items other business owners in the future may seek to jettison from benefit packages on the basis of this or that professed religious belief._

Bet it wont take long for the fundamentalists to start demanding larger companies follow down the same path.  Not good in a country that spends nearly twice as much on health care as Australia and has far inferior health statistics.  Likely the same people supportive of banning contraceptives would also likely be against abortion and any form of support for single parents.

Funny how a Christian owner forcing these kinds of decisions onto workers is accepted, but if say a Muslim business owner was trying to do something similar it would likely be front page news with street protests.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Bet it wont take long for the fundamentalists to start demanding larger companies follow down the same path...
> Funny how a Christian owner forcing these kinds of decisions onto workers is accepted, but if say a Muslim business owner was trying to do something similar it would likely be front page news with street protests.




There is no religion on earth more fundamentalist than Islamism. I imagiine that workers in Muslim businesses in Australia, few as they are, would be well indocrinated. The main Muslim business is breeding. The average Muslim family in Australia has over 4 children compared to the infidel familiy size of 1-2. That's why they don't need to work. The taxpayer supports them.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> There is no religion on earth more fundamentalist than Islamism. I imagiine that workers in Muslim businesses in Australia, few as they are, would be well indocrinated. The main Muslim business is breeding. The average Muslim family in Australia has over 4 children compared to the infidel familiy size of 1-2. That's why they don't need to work. The taxpayer supports them.




Right.  Not like fundamentalist Christians have no indoctrination.  It's the basis of pretty much every organised religion.

As for your view of Muslim families in Australia, just shows how racist your views are on this subject.  I know you believe what you say, but belief is not proof.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 July 2014)

get around the humour side and it's quite thought provoking


----------



## DB008 (5 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> As for your view of Muslim families in Australia, just shows how racist your views are on this subject. I know you believe what you say, but belief is not proof.




Which race is Islam?


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> As for your view of Muslim families in Australia, just shows how racist your views are on this subject.  I know you believe what you say, but belief is not proof.




Racist? If this is your interpretation of racism, then your put-downs of Christians is also racist.

All I said about Muslim families in Australia was; 

"The average Muslim family in Australia has over 4 children compared to the infidel familiy size of 1-2. That's why they don't need to work. The taxpayer supports them."

What part of that statement do you disagree with?


----------



## sydboy007 (5 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Racist? If this is your interpretation of racism, then your put-downs of Christians is also racist.
> 
> All I said about Muslim families in Australia was;
> 
> ...




I suppose it's too much to ask for you to provide sine evidence to back up your statement.

The fact you insinuate all Muslim people are on welfare.  You jump up and down on the unfairness of criticizing various religious groups, pretty much all Christian, for covering up decades of child abuse, yet feel it's quite acceptable to make outrageous claims that aren't true about other groups in Australia.

Don't let facts get in the way of saying anything you want.


----------



## Value Collector (6 July 2014)

I think a lot of religious people suffer from the symptoms of confirmation bias shown in this video.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo[/video]


----------



## Tink (6 July 2014)

I don't know why people have to call each other names if they don't agree with an opinion.
Is that a way of silencing people?
Every one is entitled to their opinion.

This is what I don't like with this PC rubbish, it only works for the certain few.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 July 2014)

Tink said:


> I don't know why people have to call each other names if they don't agree with an opinion.
> Is that a way of silencing people?
> Every one is entitled to their opinion.
> 
> This is what I don't like with this PC rubbish, it only works for the certain few.




Could you give some examples of the PC rubbish you'r referring to in this thread?


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose it's too much to ask for you to provide sine evidence to back up your statement.




I know you don't accept evidence unlees it is in the Age or The Guardian, but here goes;



> Two recent sets of statistics illustrate the issues at hand.
> 
> The first is a report published last month by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life, The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projections for 2010-2030. Using figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, it predicts Muslim numbers in Australia will increase by 80 per cent, compared with 18 per cent for the population overall growing from 399,000 at present to 714,000. This is due first to higher reproduction rates - Muslim families typically have four or more children, while other Australians have one or two - and, second, to migration from Muslim majority countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Iran.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-muslim-minority/story-e6frg6z6-1226007821201



> The fact you insinuate all Muslim people are on welfare.




Your insinuation...not mine 



> You jump up and down on the unfairness of criticizing various religious groups, pretty much all Christian, for covering up decades of child abuse, yet feel it's quite acceptable to make outrageous claims that aren't true about other groups in Australia.




Confected rubbish. Evidence???



> Don't let facts get in the way of saying anything you want.




I suppose it's too much to ask for you to discontinue your practice of distorting what I say and placing your own interpretation to fit your Christian dislike agenda. You certainly don't let facts get in your way.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> All I said about Muslim families in Australia was;
> 
> "The average Muslim family in Australia has over 4 children compared to the infidel familiy size of 1-2. That's why they don't need to work. The taxpayer supports them."
> 
> What part of that statement do you disagree with?




Maybe you need to explain it better because you're obviously saying I've misunderstood you.  Possibly you argument is that Muslims without children work and the ones with children don't work?

There's no qualification in your statement.  What % of Muslim families in Australia are not working and being supported via tax payers?  How does that compare against the level of assistance to Christian families and families of other religions or those who don't have any religious affiliation.



Calliope said:


> I know you don't accept evidence unlees it is in the Age or The Guardian, but here goes;
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-muslim-minority/story-e6frg6z6-1226007821201




I'm not disputing that Muslim families generally have more Children than the average family in Australia.


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Maybe you need to explain it better because you're obviously saying I've misunderstood you.  Possibly you argument is that Muslims without children work and the ones with children don't work?
> 
> There's no qualification in your statement.  What % of Muslim families in Australia are not working and being supported via tax payers?  How does that compare against the level of assistance to Christian families and families of other religions or those who don't have any religious affiliation.
> 
> I'm not disputing that Muslim families generally have more Children than the average family in Australia.




Do your own reseaech if you are so interested.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Do your own reseaech if you are so interested.




You're the one making the claim.  Did you just make it up?


----------



## sydboy007 (6 July 2014)

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/index1.html

* This is a Supreme Court Justice of the USA

*Can we talk about your drafting process””*
[Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil.

*You do?*
Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

*Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …*
If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

*Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?*
You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore.

*No.*
It’s because he’s smart.

*So what’s he doing now?*
What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

*That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the *Devil’s work?*
I didn’t say atheists are the Devil’s work.

*Well, you’re saying the Devil is *persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe?*
Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

*Right.*
What happened to him?

*He just got wilier.*
He got wilier.

*Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?*
You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> You're the one making the claim.  Did you just make it up?




I don't give a stuff whether you believe it or not, but as you can't abide any criticiscm of Islamic fundamentalism, the truth would be wasted on you.

Not surprisingly, and as I expected, the nymag.com link that you gave for your nonsense post, http://nymag.com/news/features/anton...10/index1.html

is for a mag that is very sympathetic to Muslims. 
http://nymag.com/search/search.cgi?fd=All&Ns=Relevance|0&search_type=sw&N=0&textquery=Muslims


----------



## sydboy007 (6 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I don't give a stuff whether you believe it or not, but as you can't abide any criticiscm of Islamic fundamentalism, the truth would be wasted on you.
> 
> Not surprisingly, and as I expected, the nymag.com link that you gave for your nonsense post, http://nymag.com/news/features/anton...10/index1.html
> 
> ...




I don't abide people saying false things against other groups just to enhance their own agenda.  If you were criticising a religious group for say supporting suicide murders I'd support you.  There's enough animosity and distrust in this world without making stuff up that just increases the problems we have.

There's plenty of bat excrement crazy stuff about religion that is true that you don't need to make stuff up if you want valid criticisms.  The fact that Evangelical Christians are the largest supporters of torture in the USA is just plain wrong.  I mean, how can someone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ support torture????

How can a Muslim follower support the user of suicide murderers and targeting of innocent civilians but then claim theere's is a religion of peace?  These are the issues I have with religion.  Those that get selective over which passages in their holy book they will follow, which ones they wont.  Which passages you can accept literally, which you don't.  Too many followers lacking the ability to critically think.  Just have faith. You're doing God's work, which makes everything you do right.

There's over 2000 verses mentioning the poor in the bible, yet most Christians these days have very uncharitable attitudes towards those less fortunate in society.  Am I wrong to question the sincerity of those who claim to be Christian or Muslim when they don't live up to the teachings of their God???

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

*Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me‘“ Matthew 25:41-45.*

Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Luke 11:39-42 Then the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God

The Quran isn't much different

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:215  "They ask you, [O Muhammad], what they should spend. Say, 'Whatever you spend of good is [to be] for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler. And whatever you do of good - indeed, Allah is Knowing of it.'"

Surat An-Nisa 4:36  "Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful."

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:177  "Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous."


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2014)

*Re: Religion gone crazy!*



explod said:


> To cut a long story short, religion is a mechanism of control to manitain the status quo and a con.




Religion isn't the only ideological organisation, to use peoples insecurities to control them and influence their beliefs.


----------



## bellenuit (7 July 2014)

*Islam Creates Monsters Says Psychologist*

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/islam-creates-monsters-says-psychologist/


----------



## noco (7 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Islam Creates Monsters Says Psychologist*
> 
> http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/islam-creates-monsters-says-psychologist/




*The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran, is the reason why Islam creates monsters.
Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/islam-creates-monsters-says-psychologist/#vgSRTPFXAj8tq5tY.99*

The above is extracted from the link and is very true.......They start with their kids by brain washing them at special Muslim schools 5 times a day.......They instil fear in their small minds and as they grow older that fear becomes accentuated by death if they do not adhere to the Islamic teachings.

I still believe in my own opinion that Islam is a front for politics......world domination is their ulterior motive and they are doing it by infiltration of the Western World and prolific breeding of large families.

But I also believe this type of uprising will eventually fail like many other sects, political and religious organizations have done throughout the ages......

Muslims fighting against Muslims that is Sunnies against Shiites will eventually be their down fall....They each have different interpretations of the Koran and then the conflict begins and that is exactly what is going on in Syria and Iraq at this very moment.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 July 2014)

noco said:


> I still believe in my own opinion that Islam is a front for politics......world domination is their ulterior motive and they are doing it by infiltration of the Western World and prolific breeding of large families.
> 
> But I also believe this type of uprising will eventually fail like many other sects, political and religious organizations have done throughout the ages..




We can hope.  The problem today is any loon with a bit of interweb searching has the knowledge to do a lot of harm at little cost.  Do a bit of practice at the low end and not get caught, then you can expand to Nitrogen triiodide or AMFO.  Pop down to the local hardware store and you've got all the base ingredients to quickly build some deadly explosive compounds.

I wish some of the $10-12T in global military spending over the last decade had been used to get us a viable alternative to oil and we could turn our backs on large sections of the world that's got some growing up to do.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I wish some of the $10-12T in global military spending over the last decade had been used to get us a viable alternative to oil and we could turn our backs on large sections of the world that's got some growing up to do.




Amen to that. But there is little chance of these guys growing up. While there are hundreds of millions of them sticking their ar$es in the air five times a day to pray to some god, that you and I know doesn't exist, there will always be bloodshed in the ME with enough left over to export to the West.

If that sort of money ($10-12T) or a small fraction of it, had been diverted to cracking the nuclear fusion problem we could turn or backs on the middle east forever.



> But will the political and economic hurdles derail the scientists' work before it can bear fruit? "It can't possibly be that we've got this close and we can't see it through to the end," says Cowley. "Once this problem is cracked, we'll have it [fusion energy] forever. It's just taking a long time to get there.



http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/nuclear-fusion-energy-research


----------



## sydboy007 (7 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Amen to that. But there is little chance of these guys growing up. While there are hundreds of millions of them sticking their ar$es in the air five times a day t*o pray to some god, that you and I know doesn't exist,* there will always be bloodshed in the ME with enough left over to export to the West.[/url]




Yes, they probably have the same attitude to Christian religions.  They're going through a Catholic Protestant rerun of sectarian violence, just now the weapons they have access to are far more deadly that what was available a few hundred years ago.

As I've argued, organised religions have a lot of evil to answer for over the last few centuries.  Maybe Supreme court judge Scalia got it wrong and the devil realised he only had to corrupt a relatively few at the head of major religions and they'd do his dirty work for him.


----------



## Value Collector (7 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> there will always be bloodshed in the ME with enough left over to export to the West.




It was only a couple of generations ago people were saying the same about Europe.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 July 2014)

Yes. Not just ME. 
Different places impacts at different times. 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/bloody-history-communism/


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Yes, they probably have the same attitude to Christian religions.  They're going through a Catholic Protestant rerun of sectarian violence, just now the weapons they have access to are far more deadly that what was available a few hundred years ago.
> 
> As I've argued, organised religions have a lot of evil to answer for over the last few centuries.  Maybe Supreme court judge Scalia got it wrong and the devil realised he only had to corrupt a relatively few at the head of major religions and they'd do his dirty work for him.




That was then...ths is now. The various branches of Christianity are completely disorganised. Islam is well organised. Can you imagine the hilarity if the pope put a _fatwa_ on some guy because he didn't like his books, and yet when some idiot who called himself Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran issued a _fatwa _ on Salman Rusdie we all took it seriously.


----------



## Value Collector (7 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Can you imagine the hilarity if the pope put a _fatwa_ on some guy because he didn't like his books,




Well they did try and kill Galileo because they didn't like his writings. 

It is only years of secular influence that has tamed the church leaders, lets never forget how they acted when they had all the power.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well they did try and kill Galileo because they didn't like his writings.




Was that recently? I must have missed it. Was it in the Fairfax media?


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2014)

Our Muslim apologists continue to rant on over what the nasty Christians did decades ago. Meanwhile here and 
now;



> Another busy weekend in the world of Islam
> 
> Kenya:
> 
> ...




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


----------



## bellenuit (8 July 2014)

*Pakistani version of Sex in a Brothel called Paradise*

Notice how contemptuous he is of "earthly" women.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10154255802640012


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Pakistani version of Sex in a Brothel called Paradise*
> 
> Notice how contemptuous he is of "earthly" women.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10154255802640012




This explains why it is easy to get male suicide bombers (martyrs), but what attraction is there in paradise for female suicide bombers?

There is no provision in paradise for Muslim women. If Muhammed was a nice guy he would have teed up an agreement with Allah, for Muslim women to partake of some of the delights in paradise. e.g. providing 70 studs, each with the stamina of 70 males to bring the rapture to each woman that she never experienced on earth due to genital mutilation.



> Islam, many would argue, was sex-positive. One cannot imagine any of the Church fathers writing ecstatically of heavenly sex as al-Suyuti did, with the possible exception of St Augustine before his conversion. But surely to call Islam sex-positive is to insult all Muslim women, for* sex is seen entirely from the male point of view; women's sexuality is admitted but seen as something to be feared, repressed, and a work of the devil*



.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5


----------



## bunyip (9 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Pakistani version of Sex in a Brothel called Paradise*
> 
> Notice how contemptuous he is of "earthly" women.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10154255802640012




According to this deranged poor bastard, *’the penis of the elected never softens – the erection is eternal’* . 
Good grief.....I don’t like the sound of that at all....could be rather embarrassing if you’re at the beach in your speedos!


----------



## bunyip (9 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> There is no provision in paradise for Muslim women.
> 
> .http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5




There’s no provision for Muslim women anywhere.....they’re treated with a level of contempt which should be aimed at their deranged menfolk.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 July 2014)

I just ask myself, if only religious groups put as much effort into eradicating paedophilia as they do homosexuality, well things would likely be a lot better in this world.

http://www.queerty.com/christian-group-claims-it-cured-40-cases-of-hiv-at-twin-cities-pride-20140709

people from 50 churches doesn't make this too much of a fringe grouping

_The group’s leader Steven Uggen was quoted saying:  “The Lord really wanted to demonstrate his goodness to this community by releasing healing of HIV and AIDS, so we believe we’re going to see people healed of HIV and AIDS.”

From their facebook page

426 people participated from 50 churches during this last weekend for the Humility Outreach.
2476 people were talked to.
1124 people heard someone's testimony or the gospel.
935 were prayed for.
80 people surrendered or recommitted their lives to Jesus!!!!
40 healings!!
14 baptized in the Holy Spirit!_

but wait, there's more craziness out there - he must have enough agreeing with his position to be "published" by the Russian People’s Line.

http://www.queerty.com/priest-fears...y-shoes-are-a-threat-to-christianity-20140709

_The priest called this summer’s games a “homosexual abomination.” More specifically, he said that soccer players’ brightly colored shoes were promoting the “gay rainbow.”

In a column penned for the Christian website Russian People’s Line, Shumsky claims that by “wearing pink or blue shoes, [the players] might as well wear women’s panties or a bra.”

“The liberal ideology of globalism clearly wants to oppose Christianity with football,” the priest wrote.

He added: “Therefore I am glad that the Russian players have failed and, by the grace of God, no longer participate i this homosexual abomination.”_


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2014)

the not so very humble banana

[video=youtube_share;BXLqDGL1FSg]http://youtu.be/BXLqDGL1FSg[/video]


----------



## bellenuit (12 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> the not so very humble banana




Yes, that's a classic. Ray the Banana Man presenting "The Atheist's Nightmare". After real scientists showed up his ignorance on the evolution of the banana he apologised for that particular bit of "Living Waters" science. Pity "Living Waters" and their partners in stupidity over at "Answers in Genesis" don't issue a blanket apology for all of their website content and for the talks and books of all of their "evangelists" for their constant promotion of wilful ignorance.

Below is one of the many scientific rebuttals of what he said.



Notice also towards the end of the video clip sydboy posted the Darwin quote taken deliberately out of context. Typical of the Lying for Jesus brigade.  

Just a quick look at Wikipedia tells what Darwin really wrote.

_In 1802, philosopher William Paley called it a miracle of "design". Charles Darwin himself wrote in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, this was perfectly feasible:

*"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."*

He suggested a gradation from "an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism" to "a moderately high stage of perfection", giving examples of extant intermediate grades of evolution. Darwin's suggestions were soon shown to be correct, and current research is investigating the genetic mechanisms responsible for eye development and evolution._

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


----------



## noco (13 July 2014)

This link is exactly what I have been saying about the Fabian's modus operandi when they opened the flood gates to Muslim boat people.

It was implemented to create division in our community and cause hatred between Muslims and Christians.

Muslims appear to be peaceful people until they get the numbers to show their muscle.

I say stop any further entries now   or regret it later.

Think about it?....Is this what we really want?



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...western-freedoms/story-fnihsrf2-1226986767962


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> the not so very humble banana
> 
> [video=youtube_share;BXLqDGL1FSg]http://youtu.be/BXLqDGL1FSg[/video]




and here is his buddy Kirk Cameron disproving evolution, lol.

Not only does it show he has no idea how evolution works, But he has no interest in understanding it. His faith in the biblical account of creation is too strong.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 July 2014)

Macro evolution is 100% unscientific


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Macro evolution is 100% unscientific




Why is that?

Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is time.

can you describe what you think the difference between Micro evolution and macro evolution is?


----------



## pavilion103 (14 July 2014)

Absolutely not.

One is a decrease in genetic information, one is an increase.

Staggering that a supposedly intelligent person laughs at the fact that someone believes there can be a God, yet thinks it is intelligent to believe that humans today evolved from pond scum. 
Hilarious delusion!


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> One is a decrease in genetic information, one is an increase.
> 
> !




How is micro evolution a decrease in genetic information? 

But anyway regardless of what crackpot creationists say, It has already been shown that duplications and mutations can create new "information", so I don't know why your pulling out previously refuted claims.



> Staggering that a supposedly intelligent person laughs at the fact that someone believes there can be a God, yet thinks it is intelligent to believe that humans today evolved from pond scum.
> Hilarious delusion




Well both you and I agree we came from simple beginnings, the only difference is you believe we were created fully formed from dust, in an instant, by a god using magic.

I believe that we were not created in an instant by a supernatural god using magic, But rather we came about by natural processes, over a very long period of time.

The evidence we encounter in the really world tends to point to it happening over a long period of time by natural processes, rather than a god. We would have to figure out a way to prove a god exists before we could give him credit, especially because the ancient account in the bible seems to be totally false.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 July 2014)

There is zero evidence that:

1) something can come from nothing (and by nothing, I mean nothing, not anything at all).
2) life can come from non life. 

Unless you can show a scientific example of either, then you cannot account for our origins with your beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> There is zero evidence that:
> 
> 1) something can come from nothing (and by nothing, I mean nothing, not anything at all).
> 2) life can come from non life.
> ...




1, The theory of evolution doesn't say something comes from nothing.

2, the theory of evolution doesn't say life can come from non life

the theory of evolution doesn't start until after self replicating molecules have arrived.

But doesn't your creation account depend on god making things from nothing and then turning non- life into life?

the Bible account says god made man (life) from dust (non life), So doesn't your own god hypothesis relies on both of your points being possible?


----------



## pavilion103 (14 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1, The theory of evolution doesn't say something comes from nothing.
> 
> 2, the theory of evolution doesn't say life can come from non life
> 
> ...





Then how did these self-replicating molecules "arrive"?
You can't just make up that they were there if there was no creator to put them there!
There is zero scientific basis for saying that they were there in the first place. It's ridiculous. 

I don't understand your dogma.

If there really is a GOD. Who created the entire universe and was eternal and created the laws of the universe and science, you think there really is a concern about how he could create us!?


----------



## bellenuit (14 July 2014)

Value Collector,

You are wasting your time providing any evidence in support of evolution to Pav. He bases his rejections on material from "Answers in Genesis" which rejects outright any evidence that contradicts the Bible. This has been the case several times before when evolution has been discussed. Provide evidence and he will just respond that you are lazy and haven't researched what (creation) science opinion is on your evidence and will simply dismiss it off-hand without consideration.

You just have to look at that website to see why providing scientific evidence to them is a complete waste of time.

This is from the General section of their Statement of Faith.

*By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.*

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

As a mission statement, that is the clearest example that their goal is to pursue wilful ignorance.

You will find that as soon as things get uncomfortable for Pav, he will signal his intent to depart the thread for a period as the thread no longer serves a useful purpose.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 July 2014)

Once again no answers provided. 

Enjoy your fairytale boys


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Then how did these self-replicating molecules "arrive"?




I don't know for sure, But there is some very good hypothesis, and its been shown that their building blocks can be formed given certain condition, and non living self replicating molecules exist eg crystals.




> You can't just make up that they were there if there was no creator to put them there!




We don't need to "Make Up" self replicating molecules because they exist everywhere, you are made of them.

But just because we don't know where the first one came from, doesn't mean we should assume a magic god.




> There is zero scientific basis for saying that they were there in the first place. It's ridiculous



. 

That's not what I am saying, the chemical elements that make up life are abundant in the universe, and were created in high mass stars, these elements later made all sorts of chemical molecules that exist on earth eg water, carbon dioxide etc. All I am saying is that at some stage some molecules formed and became self replicating and started an unbroken chain of replication and mutation which was guided by natural selection and that is how we got here today.



> I don't understand your dogma.




probably because its not dogma, Its science.


> If there really is a GOD. Who created the entire universe and was eternal and created the laws of the universe and science, you think there really is a concern about how he could create us




that's a big IF though isn't it. 

So far everything that we have given supernatural explanations have turned out to be natural when we discover the actual cause, eg lightning.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Once again no answers provided.
> 
> Enjoy your fairytale boys




I did answer you, within 45mins. I don't think that is an unreasonable amount of time


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> He bases his rejections on material from "Answers in Genesis" which rejects outright any evidence that contradicts the Bible.
> 
> As a mission statement, that is the clearest example that their goal is to pursue wilful ignorance.
> 
> You will find that as soon as things get uncomfortable for Pav, he will signal his intent to depart the thread for a period as the thread no longer serves a useful purpose.




Yeah I am familiar with those guys.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> If there really is a GOD. Who created the entire universe and was eternal and created the laws of the universe and science, you think there really is a concern about how he could create us!?




I can say the same thing.

If there really is a natural process. That created the entire universe and was eternal and created the laws of the universe and science, you think there really is a concern about how it could create us.

____

What you have to understand is that our bodies are simply some complex self replicating chemical molecules, that rely on sustaining chemical reactions. ( if you don't believe that, hold your breath and see how long your body can deal without oxygen to continue its sustaining chemical reactions)

All of the chemical elements needed to sustain life are abundant, we know how they were created, and as far as we can see it didn't require a god.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

I think you need to watch this video Pav.


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> You will find that as soon as things get uncomfortable for Pav, he will signal his intent to depart the thread for a period as the thread no longer serves a useful purpose.




Or too boring. This nonsense has been rehashed over and over on this thread for six years and to my knowledge neither the religious nor the atheists have managed a single conversion to their ideologies. I think they just enjoy arguing. Both sides see it as a crutch.

For decades atheistic communism was used by the Russian people as a crutch, but when the wall fell down they started flocking back to church.


----------



## bunyip (14 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> You will find that as soon as things get uncomfortable for Pav, he will signal his intent to depart the thread for a period as the thread no longer serves a useful purpose.




Yep, that’s the old Pav’s usual style alright......when he’s getting outgunned in a debate he runs away, only to return at a later date despite having declared that he’s finished with this thread.

I’d love to see him explain who or what made that God of his!


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> I’d love to see him explain who or what made that God of his!




If a God also made Time, It would not have needed to be created by anything, It would just exist.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I think they just enjoy arguing.
> 
> .




I actually just enjoy clearing up peoples misunderstandings, Evolution is got to be one of the most misunderstood concepts around, So when I see somebody banding around a misconception I will try and clear that up for them.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If a God also made Time, It would not have needed to be created by anything, It would just exist.




Is it possible for something to exist outside of space and time?


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I actually just enjoy clearing up peoples misunderstandings, Evolution is got to be one of the most misunderstood concepts around, So when I see somebody banding around a misconception I will try and clear that up for them.




I know you enjoy badgering others, but other people's beliefs are none of your business nor mine unless they they try to inflict them them on us.


----------



## DB008 (14 July 2014)

Please don't pick me God, for something like this because l'm strong too....




> *Mason: Alex will spur us on*
> 
> "I'm a massive believer in things happening for a reason but it sucks that Alex is it... I think there is a higher power there that picked him because he's such a strong kid."





http://www.nrl.com/mason-alex-will-spur-us-on/tabid/10874/newsid/80217/default.aspx


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I know you enjoy badgering others, but other people's beliefs are none of your business nor mine unless they they try to inflict them them on us.




My comments are normally in relation to subjects others have brought up in this public forum, If people don't want to discuss their beliefs, then they shouldn't bring them up in a discussion forum.

I don't door knock people, I don't send mail or cold call, all I do is discuss subjects others have brought up in this public forum, as I said if people don't want their beliefs discussed, they don't have to take part.

But, look, if people actually care if their beliefs are true, then they should be able to justify them in a rational debate. If they don't care if they are true, then that's fine too, but keep them to yourself, and don't discriminate against others because of them.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Is it possible for something to exist outside of space and time?




How can we say ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> How can we say ?




Well perhaps we should find out before we generate a hypothesis which relies on a being existing outside space and time.

the "god did it" answer, doesn't really answer anything. It's really a useless answer, to a complex and interesting question.

the fact is we don't know if anything can exist outside of space and time, So by definition we don't know if a god exists, because if it did, it would have to exist outside of space and time. 

Saying "I don't know" is much better than saying "I know god did it", because really you don't know if its even possible for a god to exist, and saying "god did it" shuts down the need for inquiry, and hinders us finding out the real answers to these questions.


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> My comments are normally in relation to subjects others have brought up in this public forum, If people don't want to discuss their beliefs, then they shouldn't bring them up in a discussion forum.




Fair enough...I just find it boring. Yeah, yeah, I know. The solution is to ignore the thread. I'll butt out and leave you to it.


----------



## Julia (14 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I know you enjoy badgering others, but other people's beliefs are none of your business nor mine unless they they try to inflict them them on us.



I've not seen VC 'badgering others' at all.  What I've seen is someone responding to various statements by others in a rational and objective way.

Yes, the discussion has been raging impotently for many years, but VC has not been part of it until recently.
I welcome his input, particularly when it comes to challenging the view that the Bible and/or the sayings of Jesus are the only real truths.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well perhaps we should find out before we generate a hypothesis which relies on a being existing outside space and time.
> 
> the "god did it" answer, doesn't really answer anything. It's really a useless answer, to a complex and interesting question.
> 
> ...




By all means, keep on looking. If you can prove an external entity could not have created the Universe, fine. Can you ?


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> By all means, keep on looking. If you can prove an external entity could not have created the Universe, fine. Can you ?




Shouldn't it be more up to those who say an all powerful figure created everything proving it, rather than just saying read the bible and taking it on faith?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Shouldn't it be more up to those who say an all powerful figure created everything proving it, rather than just saying read the bible and taking it on faith?




Don't confuse blind faith with rational thought as many do.

We live in a Universe with finely balanced laws and values that make it work. How did these arise ?

Some say it was all an accident and there are countless failed universes out there where the physics did not allow a stable state to evolve. If these universes could be observed then that could prove a God was not necessary, or instead was not a Supreme Being because he made a mistake with the physics in the failed universes. In the absence of such evidence, all we have is theory. No proof one way or the other.


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2014)

Julia said:


> I welcome his input, particularly when it comes to challenging the view that the Bible and/or the sayings of Jesus are the only real truths.




Okay you welcome his input, but perhaps you could tell me what new light the recent advent of VC has shed on "the view that the Bible and/or the sayings of Jesus are the only real truths". Why should you care and why do you feel the need to answer on behalf of VC? Is seems to me to be the same old recycled garbage going around in circles. The  minority who hold these beliefs are harmless anyway.

Debating them achieves what? Have the views of these people impacted on your life to the extent that you want to encourage others to actively rubbish their beliefs?. 

I am an atheist, but not because I disrespect the Biblical views of Christians...I just don't accept them.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> By all means, keep on looking. If you can prove an external entity could not have created the Universe, fine. Can you ?




Can you prove big foot doesn't exist?

What about unicorns or fairies, can you prove they don't exist?

There are many claims about all sorts of supernatural things, the default position should always be non belief, because the burden of proof is on the ones making the claim.

After all, if they have genuine reasons to believe, they should be able to explain those beliefs and provide evidence.

The time to believe some thing is when we have evidence, until then I am happy to say "I don't know" and I'll remain an atheist.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> We live in a Universe with finely balanced laws and values that make it work.




Such as ?

Saying I dont know, there for god is just an argument from ignorance.


----------



## bellenuit (15 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Okay you welcome his input, but perhaps you could tell me what new light the recent advent of VC has shed on "the view that the Bible and/or the sayings of Jesus are the only real truths". Why should you care and why do you feel the need to answer on behalf of VC? Is seems to me to be the same old recycled garbage going around in circles. The  minority who hold these beliefs are harmless anyway.
> 
> Debating them achieves what? Have the views of these people impacted on your life to the extent that you want to encourage others to actively rubbish their beliefs?.
> 
> I am an atheist, but not because I disrespect the Biblical views of Christians...I just don't accept them.




Heavens Calliope. This is a forum for discussion of religious topics with an emphasis on the crazy aspects of religion. No one is forced to partake. It is much the same as the many political threads that you yourself frequent. Are they any different in that hardly anybody has changed their political leanings after years of discussion. Aren't we seeing the same old recycled garbage there too, but I and others don't see the need to criticise those who still want to express their opinions on those forums.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Is seems to me to be the same old recycled garbage going around in circles.




Well if people continue bringing out the same tired old arguments for god or against atheists, then they may get the same response, 

2 is still the answer to 1+1, just like it was 1000 years ago, there is no need to try and present a more modern answer.

Why try explain arguments against religion you ask? 

Simply because a lot of people in our society have never heard them, they grow up with indoctrination, and live surrounded by people who either share similar views or feign respect for "their world view", I see it as condescending to not engage people in conversation when they sprout irrational views. 

Also, if these people are actively spreading misleading information on a public forum, I see nothing wrong with correcting them, or atleast providing an opposing view.

--------


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Heavens Calliope. This is a forum for discussion of religious topics with an emphasis on the crazy aspects of religion. No one is forced to partake. It is much the same as the many political threads that you yourself frequent. Are they any different in that hardly anybody has changed their political leanings after years of discussion. Aren't we seeing the same old recycled garbage there too, but I and others don't see the need to criticise those who still want to express their opinions on those forums.




Heavens bellenuit. If recycled garbage turns you on go for it. I am glad to see that you don't wish "to criticise those who still want to express their opinions on those forums"... apart from me that is.


----------



## bellenuit (15 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Heavens bellenuit. If recycled garbage turns you on go for it. I am glad to see that you don't wish "to criticise those who still want to express their opinions on those forums"... apart from me that is.




Calliope, that is too self referential for me to cope with at this hour of the night. I might be getting myself mixed up in a philosophical paradox and won't get to sleep until it is resolved.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Such as ?




e=mc2, inverse square law of gravity, charges and masses of nuclear particles...

if any of these were different the universe would not hang together



> Saying I don't know, there for god is just an argument from ignorance.




Saying I don't know therefore it can't be a God is just an argument of arrogance.


----------



## bunyip (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If a God also made Time, It would not have needed to be created by anything, It would just exist.




Of course...why didn't I think of that! LOL 

If you could ask the ancient aborigines what created their rainbow serpent, or if you could ask the ancient Vikings what created their god of thunder, or if you could ask the ancient Incas what created their sun god, you'd probably get a similar answer - nobody/nothing created him/her/it - it just always existed.

I think all gods - and there are/have been dozens or maybe even hundreds of them over the centuries, were created by the same thing.....the fertile imagination of humans.


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Calliope, that is too self referential for me to cope with at this hour of the night. I might be getting myself mixed up in a philosophical paradox and won't get to sleep until it is resolved.




Good morning bellenuit. I hope you slept well. I know it was very imprudent of me to be critical of other posters, who after all are only sticking to the concept of the title that Religion IS Crazy. This is all-encompsssing, but I don't think it was the intention of the originator. The inference that must be drawn from the title is that all adherents to a religion are crazy.

Some religions certainly ARE crazy. My neighbours attend church on Sundays. I don't know what form their craziness takes, but they are the kindest, friendliest and most helpful neighbours one could ever wish for.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> e=mc2, inverse square law of gravity, charges and masses of nuclear particles...
> 
> if any of these were different the universe would not hang together
> 
> ...




Do you even know if its possible for those things to change? 

why would you assume they have been fine tuned, and invoke the idea of a finer tuner?

If they were different, some other universe would have formed, and if that other universe was capable of sustaining some other form of life, then that other form of life would have evolved.

For years it was thought the orbits of the planets were fine tuned, Newton thought the planet should eventually be thrown from their orbits, years later it was realised that the planets gravity interacting with each other made them stable, and no outside fine tuning was necessary.





> Saying I don't know therefore it can't be a God is just an argument of arrogance




That's not what I said.

I said "I don't know" there fore I don't believe in a god, It's exactly the same as unicorns, I don't know if some where in the universe an animal that we would describe as a unicorn exists, but I don't believe one does.

the time to believe in something is when you have evidence for it.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> The inference that must be drawn from the title is that all adherents to a religion are crazy.
> 
> .




I don't think so, You don't have to be crazy to be fooled, you just have to be human.

Humans are very easily fooled, especially if you start fooling them at a young age. We are also extremely good at fooling ourselves, hence the existence of all the superstitions, most of us have even created our own personal superstitions, and we recognise patterns when no true patterns exist.

I don't think there is a difference between a person who prays to find their car keys, and a person who wears his lucky socks to win a game of football, both have fooled them selves into thinking these things invoke some supernatural force.

That's why it is very important to build a level of scepticism into yourself, otherwise you open your self up to believing all sorts of rubbish, not because your crazy, but because your not sceptical enough.

Saying that though, Religion can create all sorts of nasty things when genuinely crazy people take part.

Imagine some one who has been brought up to believe a god actually talks to people, developing a mental problem where they hear voices, suddenly this person may start acting as if their own random crazy thoughts are the word of god. Now that is scary, it's even scarier if this person call get disciples and gather a following.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Heavens Calliope. This is a forum for discussion of religious topics with an emphasis on the crazy aspects of religion. No one is forced to partake. It is much the same as the many political threads that you yourself frequent. Are they any different in that hardly anybody has changed their political leanings after years of discussion. Aren't we seeing the same old recycled garbage there too, but I and others don't see the need to criticise those who still want to express their opinions on those forums.






Calliope said:


> Okay you welcome his input, but perhaps you could tell me what new light the recent advent of VC has shed on "the view that the Bible and/or the sayings of Jesus are the only real truths". Why should you care and why do you feel the need to answer on behalf of VC? Is seems to me to be the same old recycled garbage going around in circles. The  minority who hold these beliefs are harmless anyway.
> 
> Debating them achieves what? Have the views of these people impacted on your life to the extent that you want to encourage others to actively rubbish their beliefs?.



bellenuit has already provided the response I would.

Calliope, if you find anyone's expressed views boring and tedious, a simple solution would be to avoid reading the thread.  Instead, you argue with people even when you couldn't care less about their opinions on anything.

Some of us find reading what others think interesting.  That's why we're here.  New people have thoughts that are fresh to an old thread and can provide aspects of a topic that may not have occurred to some of us before.
That's the value in general, to me anyway, of forums.



> I am an atheist, but not because I disrespect the Biblical views of Christians...I just don't accept them.



Fine.  No one is denying you the right to that view.  Just allow others to have a discussion if they want to.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2014)

> If they were different, some other universe would have formed, and if that other universe was capable of sustaining some other form of life, then that other form of life would have evolved.




As I said before, show me the evidence of these other universes, and I'll believe you.

You want evidence of my belief, so I want evidence of yours.


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2014)

As Julia said, and i agree;


> New people have thoughts that are fresh to an old thread and can provide aspects of a topic that may not have occurred to some of us before.




Some religious craziness can be quite humerous For instance it is not common knowledge that the Muslims have Moses to thank for having to pray only five times daily instead of 50. The story goes like this;

Mahomet rode up to the heavens on a strange angelic animal named Buraq accompanied the angel Gabriel. When they reached the seventh heaven where Allah resided;



> Gabriel and Buraq could go no further but Muhammad went on to the presence of Allah where he was commanded to order the Muslims to pray fifty times a day:
> 
> Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers. When I returned with this order of Allah, I passed by Moses who asked me, "What has Allah enjoined on your followers?" I replied, "He has enjoined fifty prayers on them". Moses said "Go back to your Lord (and appeal for reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 213).
> Muhammad allegedly went back and forth between Allah and Moses till the prayers were reduced to five per day. Moses then told him to seek yet a further reduction but Muhammad stopped at this point and answered Moses:
> ...




http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3d.html


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> As I said before, show me the evidence of these other universes, and I'll believe you.
> 
> You want evidence of my belief, so I want evidence of yours.




I didn't say any existed, All I am saying is that if you altered those laws ( which we don't even know if its possible for them to be different) then some other universe would have been formed.

I am not making a positive claim that another universe has or will form, I am just stating the obvious that if the laws of physics were different then another universe would have formed instead of this one, and it makes sense if another form of life could be sustained in that universe it would eventual evolve thinking it's universe was fined tuned for it.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't say any existed, All I am saying is that if you altered those laws ( which we don't even know if its possible for them to be different) then some other universe would have been formed.
> 
> I am not making a positive claim that another universe has or will form, I am just stating the obvious that if the laws of physics were different then another universe would have formed instead of this one, and it makes sense if another form of life could be sustained in that universe it would eventual evolve thinking it's universe was fined tuned for it.




OK point accepted, but if our universe is the only one in existence, then it's valid to ask why it formed at all. If it formed because of pre existing laws of quantum physics, then where did these laws come from ? Did they always exist ?

I'm sure you can see a parallel with the God argument. We will always be going around in circles on this question, and I can't see any end to it.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> but if our universe is the only one in existence, then it's valid to ask why it formed at all..




It may not be a valid question, it depends what you mean by it. If you are asking How it formed it is a valid question, But if your asking "why" it formed, as in whats its purpose, then it is probably a silly question. We can answer How mountains formed.






> If it formed because of pre existing laws of quantum physics, then where did these laws come from ? Did they always exist ?




I don't know, perhaps the universe is infinite, and as I said perhaps the laws of quantum physics just are, perhaps its impossible for it to be any other way, So they didn't come "from" any where, there just are, they are eternal.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure you can see a parallel with the God argument. We will always be going around in circles on this question, and I can't see any end to it.




The thing is though, all we can say is that we don't know if a god exists. That's the only logical answer. And to add to that, not only do we not know if one exists, but we don't even know its possible.

So that's why I am an atheist, simple because there is no good reason to believe one exists.

But religious people go a step further, not only do religions claim one does in fact exists with 100% certainy, but they also claim to know his mind, and what he wants from us. They also claim he talks to them, and answers prayers etc. 

This is along way from the topic you and I were just discussing, I am happy to say that even though I don't know if a god exists, I think the various types of gods defined by the religions most certainly do not exist, and can be put into the same category as fairies and unicorns.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The thing is though, all we can say is that we don't know if a god exists. That's the only logical answer. And to add to that, not only do we not know if one exists, but we don't even know its possible.
> 
> So that's why I am an atheist, simple because there is no good reason to believe one exists.
> 
> ...




Just for the record, I'm not a religious person. I call myself a secular Deist, I don't believe in a God of the Bible or the Koran. If your only reason for being an atheist is to reject a religious God, then I have some sympathy with your beliefs.

Your first sentence does though contain some contradictions. If we don't know if a God exists or not, how can we rule out the possibility ? I have mentioned some evidence in that there exists laws of Physics and we don't know how they came about. You chose to ignore those laws as evidence of a God. I suppose that is your right, but I get the feeling that you start off with the belief that a god does not exist and you then chose to ignore evidence that it may.

An open minded person is almost by definition an agnostic, ie one defined by your first sentence. Perhaps the fact that you take another step further to atheism is more a rejection of religion than evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If your only reason for being an atheist is to reject a religious God, then I have some sympathy with your beliefs.
> 
> .




The only reason I am an atheist is because I have never been convinced of the existence of a god.

I don't believe one exists, so I am an atheist.



> Your first sentence does though contain some contradictions. If we don't know if a God exists or not, how can we rule out the possibility ?




Where are the contradictions? 

I haven't ruled out the possibility, I just haven't seen anything that says we should rule it in.



> I have mentioned some evidence in that there exists laws of Physics and we don't know how they came about. You chose to ignore those laws as evidence of a God.




The existence of the laws of physics, isn't evidence of the existence of a god. Saying "I don't know, therefore god" is an argument from ignorance. 



> I suppose that is your right, but I get the feeling that you start off with the belief that a god does not exist and you then chose to ignore evidence that it may.




what evidence have I ignored???

My default position on anything, is non belief. I move from non belief to belief when I am presented with evidence that convinces me.



> An open minded person is almost by definition an agnostic, ie one defined by your first sentence. Perhaps the fact that you take another step further to atheism is more a rejection of religion than evidence




Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms, one is a position on knowledge and one is a position on belief.

I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Agnostic and gnostic are postions on whether you Know or don't Know

Atheist and Theist/deist are claims about what you believe.

I say I don't know if a god exists, which makes me an agnostic. But I also claim that I don't believe one does which makes me an Atheist.

Anyone with enough intellectual honesty to admit that they don't know for sure is an Agnostic, However a person can still Believe or not believe with out knowing for sure.

So some one that says "I believe in god, but I don't know for sure" is an agnostic theist/deist.

Some one who says "I don't believe in any of the gods, But I don't know for sure" is an agnostic atheist.

I am the later.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

For anyone interested, Here is a discussion of agnostic vs atheist.

It's a common misunderstanding that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive terms.


----------



## bellenuit (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure you can see a parallel with the God argument. We will always be going around in circles on this question, and I can't see any end to it.




But I think that illustrates the point that VC, I and others have made before. The difference between the scientific method and the God argument is that the scientific method urges us to look for answers whereas the God argument says to stop looking, God is the answer to everything we currently do not understand. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know and may never know, but we will keep trying.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> But I think that illustrates the point that VC, I and others have made before. The difference between the scientific method and the God argument is that the scientific method urges us to look for answers whereas the God argument says to stop looking, God is the answer to everything we currently do not understand. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know and may never know, but we will keep trying.




Religious people may say stop looking, I never have said that. Scientific enquiry is far more interesting than going to church and I hope it never stops, just that I believe that so far no evidence has been found that conclusively proves the non existence of a God, so the question is still open, as is my mind.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> so far no evidence has been found that conclusively proves the non existence of a God, so the question is still open, as is my mind.




Or the non existence of fairies, unicorns, bigfoot etc etc.

As I said the time to believe something is when you have evidence.

The default position should not be, belief until disproven. 


Do you believe in fairies or unicorns?

If not, why not? you can't disprove them.

You have to have an open mind, but you also have to have a filter of scepticism to allow yourself to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Or the non existence of fairies, unicorns, bigfoot etc etc.
> 
> As I said the time to believe something is when you have evidence.
> 
> ...




Huh, things are getting a bit absurd when you start mentioning fairies and unicorns. 

Explorers discovered ancient ruins in jungles but we did not assume they created themselves. Apparently Creation (the Universe) is the only thing in Nature that can create itself. How did it do that ? Provide me with the mechanism. 

Until you can I'm entitled to believe that an external entity was responsible. That's why I say this discussion goes in circles. We have been here before so many times and nothing has been proved. Time to exit until you can show how a Universe can create itself.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Huh, things are getting a bit absurd when you start mentioning fairies and unicorns.
> 
> Explorers discovered ancient ruins in jungles but we did not assume they created themselves. Apparently Creation (the Universe) is the only thing in Nature that can create itself. How did it do that ? Provide me with the mechanism.
> 
> Until you can I'm entitled to believe that an external entity was responsible. That's why I say this discussion goes in circles. We have been here before so many times and nothing has been proved. Time to exit until you can show how a Universe can create itself.




I think the idea of fairies is no more absurd than the idea of a god. In fact it is much more likely that something like a fairy exists some where in the universe than a god.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Explorers discovered ancient ruins in jungles but we did not assume they created themselves. Apparently Creation (the Universe) is the only thing in Nature that can create itself. How did it do that ? Provide me with the mechanism.
> 
> .




We have many examples of cities created by humans, we have no examples of gods creating universes.

There's a big difference between a creation and something that is produced by natural causes.

Eg. A painting has a painter, a mountain doesn't require a creator, well understood geological processes cause mountains to form, same with planets and stars, they form them selves, and are forming every day.


----------



## luutzu (15 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Huh, things are getting a bit absurd when you start mentioning fairies and unicorns.
> 
> Explorers discovered ancient ruins in jungles but we did not assume they created themselves. Apparently Creation (the Universe) is the only thing in Nature that can create itself. How did it do that ? Provide me with the mechanism.
> 
> Until you can I'm entitled to believe that an external entity was responsible. That's why I say this discussion goes in circles. We have been here before so many times and nothing has been proved. Time to exit until you can show how a Universe can create itself.




Nature does create itself - through adaptation/natural selection.

The Universe and its "laws" and physical, chemical properties are as they are through billions of years of random interactions.

That just because something exists in a form that we recognised - like humans, animals, the sun and the moon... does not necessarily mean it will remain static or was designed and created by some intelligent being. Take the Sun for example, for the last billions of years and probably the next few billion years, it would [i'm guessing] be seen as "the Sun" as we now see it. But what would it be when it expand, expired then explode and become the black hole? At any of those major stages of the Sun's life cycle, does the Creator create it that way, have it in that form and that image... or does the Creator meant to create the Black Hole eventually?

Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science. It's faith, and the only reason why there's any debate about the existence of the God in the Bible is because 3 major world religions and probably halve its population believe in it. 

You wouldn't take the god/s in Scientology seriously would you? Not many people took Jesus Christ seriously until Constantine's back was against the wall and seeing the meteor the day before the battle, claimed the Christian God is on his side, won it and made Christianity the Roman Empire's state religion - and himself the 13th Apostle.

When you want to debate religion and God, trying to prove God's existence... you cannot do it through logical, scientific means. You'd just lose. And the atheists will also lose because we'd be wasting a lot of time and the religious guys will just move the goal post. 

A good example of this was in the Russell Crowe's Noah movie - where "In the beginning..." of the book of Genesis [?] somehow include the montage of the Big Bang, the planets rotating around the Sun, the dinosaurs, then Adam and Eve. The new scientific discoveries are incorporated while throughout most of its history, the Earth was 7 days older than Adam and Eve and history starts with Adam and go on to his descendants; where the Earth was Flat and the Sun and the Moon rotates around it etc etc...

You can't seriously debate someone who change their thesis and incorporate new and undeniable evidence when it suits them like that.

Noah was a pretty good movie, so was Jurassic Park... I remember going to see Jurassic Park with a friend of mine and afterwards he said it's a good movie, but it's not real, that it's just silly because we all know God didn't create the dinosaurs. And he was serious too.

If you believe in there being a God, do you also believe in Zeus? He was a real God back in the days of the Greeks then the Roman Empire... now he's just Liam Neeson and "release the krakens" kinda light entertainment.

----

Religion is just a tool of state and of the politicians.

I think that if you believe in it, just be mindful of its origin and not let it be used against your judgment. 

If religion bring you peace, make you a better person... what are you arguing for? Unless you want to convert people, it's your belief and amen to you.

But the problem with really religious people is they often let it and the leadership of it too far and it become immortal and harmful to both themselves and other people. Like how Pope John Paul II not allowing condoms and contraception and so, if i remember correctly, all Catholic charities/hospitals and organisations around the world, in particularly Africa, does not offer condoms and as a result, millions of people die from contracting HIV/AIDS. Or Bush Jr. banning stem cell research... that's 8 years of scientific advancement gone elsewhere.

Then there's religion being use to further political/military objectives.


I think one of the best thing to ever happen to humanity and scientific progress was the separation of Church and States as set out by the US founding fathers. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that great leaps in human welfare and literary, scientific, technological advances come about soon after that kind of separation. And the strange thing is, we in the liberal western democracies attribute our advances to our God being kind and liberal while those of the "terrorists" and the Koran and what not are barbaric and backwards - we tend to forget that our political system and social structure separates religion from state policies, and that the God of the Koran, the Bible and of the Old Testament [?] are the one same God.

----
As an aside, I was watching this Chinese TV series about the Emperor Wu of Han [the Martial Emperor]... whose reign was about 120 BCE.

After the death and soon disintegration of the Ch'in empire [by the First Emperor], Su and Han fought for supremacy... Liu Bang's Han won and established the Han Dynasty... soon after Liu's wife, the empress Lai set about establishing her family line on the throne... civil war ensue and soon, the only surviving Liu descendant was the Wu Emperor's father.

Once the Liu's line was restored and soon passed to the Wu Emperor, there were discussions by the Senators as to how a country could be united and civil war abolished. Remember that before the Ch'in unification, China was, for almost 1000 years a collection of kingdoms established after the collapsed of the Chu. There were dozens of kingdoms/states but at the time of Ch'in's unification, there were 6 major powers, each with its own cultures etc.

The advisors saw that since unification was only some 3 generations ago, and since then there's been rebellion and civil unrests... the best way to unite the people of the 6 kingdoms cannot be done through rules and regulations as they've seen under the First Emperor. To unite the people the state must unite the mind, and that can only be done by establishing a state religion. That if people are taught the same religion, have the same mind set and beliefs and values, they can be united and not try to regain their independence. 

So there were debates over whether the state religion is to be Taoism [Lao Tzu's] or Confucianism... and it was thought that Confucianism is more suitable as it preaches, among other things, the obedience and respect the young must hold for the elders, the sons for the father etc... and sit atop this, Confucius said, is the Emperor - the father of the people.

And it worked. Han lasted for some 400 years, its political and social structure lasted til the 20th century, it influence even the countries it colonised and dominate - long after its political/administrative control was defeated, like in Vietnam, Korea, Japan... Japan wasn't colonised but its literature and religion was greatly influenced by China. 


What the Han did under Emperor Wu was done by all other kings and emperors throughout the world - from Moses and the Israelites to Constantine and the Christians, Mohammad and Islam... Buddhism I don't know... 


If you ask me, you could debate the existence of God until the end of the world and no one will be convinced otherwise... it's probably more useful to take the good lessons, the good morality from these good books and try to practice it. 

That would make you a better person, probably will make the world a better place... and definitely not make you a pawn of the state and religious leaders with differing motives.


----------



## bellenuit (16 July 2014)

Great post, Luutzu


----------



## Tink (16 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Yes. Not just ME.
> Different places impacts at different times.
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/bloody-history-communism/




Great post, Pav.

_Communism was the bloodiest ideology that caused more than 120 million innocent deaths in the 20th century.
It was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear.
This three-volume documentary displays the terrible savagery of communism and its underlying philosophy.
From Marx to Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, discover how the materialist philosophy transforms humans into theorists of violence and masters of cruelty._


----------



## SirRumpole (16 July 2014)

> Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science. It's faith, and the only reason why there's any debate about the existence of the God in the Bible is because 3 major world religions and probably halve its population believe in it.




There you go with religion again, I told you I don't believe in it. Show me the mechanism by which the Universe was created out of nothing instead of blathering away about Bibles, fairies and Zeuses.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think the idea of fairies is no more absurd than the idea of a god. In fact it is much more likely that something like a fairy exists some where in the universe than a god.




Really ? What do they look like ? What are they made of ? What is their purpose in life ? Can we communicate with them ? Could they be at the bottom of the garden ?


----------



## bunyip (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think the idea of fairies is no more absurd than the idea of a god.



I agree



SirRumpole said:


> Really ? What do they look like ? What are they made of ? What is their purpose in life ? Can we communicate with them ? Could they be at the bottom of the garden ?



The same questions could be asked of the various gods that mankind has created - including the Christian god.


----------



## bunyip (16 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Great post, Pav.
> 
> _Communism was the bloodiest ideology that caused more than 120 million innocent deaths in the 20th century.
> It was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear.
> ...




No argument from me about the evils of communism.

But to be fair, there are many examples throughout history, and many examples in the bible as well, of thousands of people being slaughtered in the name of God and Christianity. In fact the bible tells us of God conducting mass killings in person.

Not to mention Islam - another great example of a religion with a track record of slaughtering people en masse.


----------



## bunyip (16 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> If you ask me, you could debate the existence of God until the end of the world and no one will be convinced otherwise... it's probably more useful to take the good lessons, the good morality from these good books and try to practice it.
> 
> That would make you a better person, probably will make the world a better place... and definitely not make you a pawn of the state and religious leaders with differing motives.



That’s long been my philosophy as well......rather than getting too caught up in all the religious dogma and god worship routine, focus instead on being a good and decent person, one of honesty and integrity who tries to lead a good life and help other people.

If you can be such a person throughout your life, then I have no doubt that your god (if it exists) will view you favorably on judgment day. (if there is in fact a judgment day)

And if there’s no god and no judgment day, then leading a life as described above will give you the best chance of being happy and contented and respected. And we can’t really ask much more of life that that.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Really ? What do they look like ? What are they made of ? What is their purpose in life ? Can we communicate with them ? Could they be at the bottom of the garden ?




I have no evidence that fairies exist, So just like gods, I don't believe in them, I am Afairist in the same way I am Atheist.

But can you disprove them? You seem to think if you can't disprove something you should believe it, So why believe in gods over fairies?

From the stories fairies seem to be small, humanlike creatures, with wings and limited magic powers.

I don't believe in fairies, But it would seem logical that it is far more likely a small, humanlike animal, with wings and powers that someone might describe as magic would have evolved somewhere in the universe. It's much more likely that this small creature exists than an all powerful, all encompassing god, lives outside space and time, and created the whole universe.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Show me the mechanism by which the Universe was created out of nothing .




show me the mechanism that god used to create the universe from nothing.

I can explain the mechanism everything you see in the universe was formed, it all formed from the fusion of helium and hydrogen, which appears to have been created during the big bang, But before that no one knows, and you simply saying "therefore god" is not a legitimate answer.

The sun, the planets etc were not designed, they have come about simply by gravity acting on clouds of hydrogen and helium. If your looking at the solar system and thinking it needed a designed like a city does, your just wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 July 2014)

Value Collector;832563.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> "But before that no one knows"




Good, I see we have agreement.

As to the rest of your post, if you think I believe that God sat on a cloud and said "today I'll create a planet", please give me credit for a little intelligence and cease the patronising piffle.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Really ? What do they look like ? What are they made of ? What is their purpose in life ? Can we communicate with them ? Could they be at the bottom of the garden ?




Yes you can find them at the bottom of the garden.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

> it's probably more useful to take the good lessons, the good morality from these good books and try to practice it.




I don't think you can learn good morals from the religious texts, you have to have good morals to start with, otherwise you can't distinguish which verses to listen to and which to ignore.

I mean you say take the good lessons, but only someone with pre existing good morals can tell those, and the books tend to muddy the waters, and make otherwise moral people make some crappy decisions, eg. discriminate against gays and women etc.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> "
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So why invoke a god?, why not just be happy to say "I don't know, but perhaps one day we will find out"?




> As to the rest of your post, if you think I believe that God sat on a cloud and said "today I'll create a planet", please give me credit for a little intelligence and cease the patronising piffle




Well when you made the argument that because cities have designers, then nature must be designed, you did start to sound like the intelligent design guys.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 July 2014)

> Well when you made the argument that because cities have designers, then nature must be designed, you did start to sound like the intelligent design guys.




You can lay down a set of basic laws, throw in a bit of randomness and see what happens. You don't have to personally design everything in the Universe.


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> ...if you think I believe that God sat on a cloud and said "today I'll create a planet", please give me credit for a little intelligence and cease the patronising piffle.



+1

Unfortunately there are those that choose to cling tightly to derogatory assumptions about their religious opposition.

Such assumptions often arise pursuant to a personal agenda founded on avoidance of deep insecurities. Such individuals cling tightly to their chosen ideology (whether it be theistic, atheistic or other) and are reluctant to acknowledge any conflicting truth for the simple reason of unwillingness to embrace the fear that arises from confrontation with their personal issues. So it becomes just another crusade where every party likes to believe that the facts/truth/God/s is/are on their side and filters the evidence accordingly.


----------



## burglar (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> ... no evidence has been found that conclusively proves the non existence of a God, so the question is still open, as is my mind.




Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!
Give me strength!

It is not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, even though She does exist.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 July 2014)

burglar said:


> Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!
> Give me strength!
> 
> It is not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, even though She does exist.




Richard Dawkins tries pretty hard to "disprove" the existence of God, even if it is just by disparagement and insult.


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

burglar said:


> It is not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of God, even though She does exist.



+1


SirRumpole said:


> Richard Dawkins tries pretty hard to "disprove" the existence of God, even if it is just by disparagement and insult.




Yes, but he can hardly be considered anything more than a pseudo scientist for that very reason.

One true to the art of science needs to be willing to quarantine their personal philosophy whilst conducting scientific investigations.


----------



## noco (16 July 2014)

If Jesus is the son of God and Jesus sacrificed his life in the name of God, why has God, if he/she/it exists, allowed other religions to develop which have created so much hate, pain, wars and blood shed?

If there is a God, why is there so much poverty in the world?

If there is a God, why can't there be peace and calm around the world?

If there is a God, why do we have so much sickness and diseases? 

If there is a God, why is there so many different races, black, white, Caucasians, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Hispanic and so on?

I don't have the answers and I don't believe anyone else has either but I happy to listen.


----------



## pavilion103 (16 July 2014)

noco said:


> If Jesus is the son of God and Jesus sacrificed his life in the name of God, why has God, if he/she/it exists, allowed other religions to develop which have created so much hate, pain, wars and blood shed?  If there is a God, why is there so much poverty in the world?  If there is a God, why can't there be peace and calm around the world?  If there is a God, why do we have so much sickness and diseases?  If there is a God, why is there so many different races, black, white, Caucasians, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Hispanic and so on?  I don't have the answers and I don't believe anyone else has either but I happy to listen.




Free will


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

noco said:


> ...
> I don't have the answers and I don't believe anyone else has either but I happy to listen.




I don't claim to have the answers either, but if one were to say to another something along the lines of: 

"You are descended from God and as such you are a god"

what questions would then remain unanswered?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 July 2014)

> So why invoke a god?, why not just be happy to say "I don't know, but perhaps one day we will find out"?




Because the simplest explanation for a creation is a creator.


----------



## pavilion103 (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Because the simplest explanation for a creation is a creator.




That is how I see it. 

There are two alternatives. 

1) There is a creator who made this. 
2) The universe is self-existent. 

There are only two options and neither should be the default position. 


There does not appear any scientific evidence to support #2. 

Given that there is no scientific evidence of life coming from non-life. 
Given that there is no scientific evidence of something coming from nothing. 
Given that mathematics says the likelihood (if even possible) is ridiculous. 
Given the precision of universal laws.
Given the apparent design. 

Why the heck would the default position be that this wasn't created?

What a completely unscientific (observable and repeatable experimentation) conclusion that is!


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Richard Dawkins tries pretty hard to "disprove" the existence of God, even if it is just by disparagement and insult.




I think you will find richard dawkins is happy to admit that its impossible to disprove god. He is happy to try and clear up misconceptions that evolution deniers have, he is an evolutionary biologist after all.

disproving claims made by people that are anti evolution or disproving claims people make about a god is a lot different to trying to disprove god,


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Free will




Lol, yes god gave us free will, so we can either worship him or go to hell.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Because the simplest explanation for a creation is a creator.




It doesn't actually explain anything, and the creator may not exist.

Do you care if the things you believe are true?


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Given that there is no scientific evidence of life coming from non-life.
> Given that there is no scientific evidence of something coming from nothing.




Well there goes the biblical account,

Because the biblical account relies on god creating life from non life and creating stuff from nothing.

200 years ago there was no scientific evidence that people could fly to the moon, but now there is, your simply trying to squeeze your god into the gaps of scientific understanding.


----------



## burglar (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... your simply trying to squeeze your god into the gaps of scientific understanding.




Does that mean God is getting smaller?


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It doesn't actually explain anything, and the creator may not exist.
> 
> Do you care if the things you believe are true?



Do you actually care about the truth?

Given that any creation is by definition the result of a creator, then the existence of creation implies the presence of a creator. If you don't believe me look it up in an English dictionary!


----------



## noco (16 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Do you actually care about the truth?
> 
> Given that any creation is by definition the result of a creator, then the existence of creation implies the presence of a creator. If you don't believe me look it up in an English dictionary!




We may never know the truth and this is what has converted me from a Christian to an Agnostic. 

I cannot believe in something that other people try to ram down my throat that they maintain is true without ever being able to prove it for myself.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

burglar said:


> Does that mean God is getting smaller?




His resume' has gotten smaller

He used to take credit for lightning, earth quakes, famines, plagues, designing each complex detail in biology etc.

Now he just takes credit for imputing some laws of physics and pressing go, and occasionally appearing on cheese toast.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Do you actually care about the truth?
> 
> Given that any creation is by definition the result of a creator, then the existence of creation implies the presence of a creator. If you don't believe me look it up in an English dictionary!




Yep, i want to believe as may true things and as few false things as possible.

Hence i wouldn't put the creation label on the universe.

Just because you guys call something a creation, doesn't mean it actually is one.


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

noco said:


> We may never know the truth and this is what has converted me from a Christian to an Agnostic.
> 
> I cannot believe in something that other people try to ram down my throat that they maintain is true without ever being able to prove it for myself.




Yes! This is one of the unfortunate consequences of fanaticism of any persuasion.

It can be very annoying being subjected to uncompromising fanatical opinions. The dearth of wisdom evident in the behaviour of the zeaolot usually leads one to doubt the philosophical wisdom.


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ...Hence i wouldn't put the creation label on the universe.



Nor should you have to! (Thanks for clarifying your stance!)

However, I am sure you would agree that the question of whether the universe was created by some "thing" (whether that "thing" happens to be a sentient being or simply an unconscious physical process) remains unanswered within the realms of contemporary human science.


----------



## luutzu (16 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> That’s long been my philosophy as well......rather than getting too caught up in all the religious dogma and god worship routine, focus instead on being a good and decent person, one of honesty and integrity who tries to lead a good life and help other people.
> 
> If you can be such a person throughout your life, then I have no doubt that your god (if it exists) will view you favorably on judgment day. (if there is in fact a judgment day)
> 
> And if there’s no god and no judgment day, then leading a life as described above will give you the best chance of being happy and contented and respected. And we can’t really ask much more of life that that.




Yes, I also think that if God exists he'd preferred a person who had been busy doing his good work to one who's prompt to Church but ignore his core teachings. Much like NRMA in that ad 

I also find it very true that kindness is its own reward, but also being good and kind to people is always beneficial to yourself as well. That argument is the only thing that stick to me reading Mencius a while ago. 

Mencius, when asked if it is better to be good or cruel in a world full of cruelty replied that it is always beneficial to your own interests to be good because to be mean and cruel you will be abandoned by those who are good and wise and attract to your company those who are either foolish or self interested. Those who surrounds himself with the fools and the scoundrels will not end well.

But what about being good and generous but get used and abused? You will only be taken advantage of once, after which the bad company and yourself will separate, you will learn a lesson and know your true friends and perhaps attract wise and noble company. To remove yourself from those who use people and attract good and wise company will always be beneficial.

I find it very hard to help people who I think are dishonest or just no good, even if they're OK towards me or don't do anything to me. Good or bad, I think we're all like that.


----------



## luutzu (16 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There you go with religion again, I told you I don't believe in it. Show me the mechanism by which the Universe was created out of nothing instead of blathering away about Bibles, fairies and Zeuses.




Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started ””Wait...
The Earth began to cool;
The autotrophs began to drool;
Neanderthals developed tools;
We built a wall (we built the pyramids).
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with a Big Bang!
Bᴀɴɢ!
"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leave, but they were late
And they all died. (They froze their asses off.)
The oceans and Pangea,
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya,
Set in motion by the same Big Bang!
It all started with the Big Bang!
It's expanding ever outward, but one day,
It will pause and start to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard.
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!
Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer. (We're catching viruses.)
Religion and astronomy, Descartes and Deuteronomy,
It all started with the Big Bang!
Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology,
It all started with the Big Bang!
It all started with the Big Bᴀɴɢ!


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

cynic said:


> However, I am sure you would agree that the question of whether the universe was created by some "thing" (whether that "thing" happens to be a sentient being or simply an unconscious physical process) remains unanswered within the realms of contemporary human science.




Yes, so we should refrain from saying it was created by a sentient being, atleast until we can prove it, its best to say "i dont know" when you actually don't know.


----------



## luutzu (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think you can learn good morals from the religious texts, you have to have good morals to start with, otherwise you can't distinguish which verses to listen to and which to ignore.
> 
> I mean you say take the good lessons, but only someone with pre existing good morals can tell those, and the books tend to muddy the waters, and make otherwise moral people make some crappy decisions, eg. discriminate against gays and women etc.




Yea that's a good point. Don't know how to answer that one. 

Probably could go back to the question of whether Man was born good or evil. I think one of Mencius student asked if the Sages were born good or evil, that since they spend their lives searching for enlightenment and practise hard to be good, they must therefore born evil and so must necessarily seek and practise goodness. 

In reply Mencius said the sages, and people, are born good and it is because of this innate goodness that drive them to seek and learn and practise kindness and justice.

As subtitle to one of my textbook points out - its a combination of the biological, social and psychological influences.
In other words, I don know...


----------



## cynic (16 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, so we should refrain from saying it was created by a sentient being, atleast until we can prove it, its best to say "i dont know" when you actually don't know.




You are perfectly welcome to state the limits of your knowledge.

Please do me the courtesy of not presuming to "not know" on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of drawing from my own life experience in the formulation of my own opinions and conclusions about what I may or may not know. 

I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.




Please share, i would love to hear you explain some details of this scientific evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

cynic said:


> You are perfectly welcome to state the limits of your knowledge.




And your free to over state yours I guess.


----------



## cynic (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Please share, i would love to hear you explain some details of this scientific evidence.



I will be more than happy to put the time into brushing the dust off my physics,chemistry and biology textbooks and websearching (so that I can provide links to identical information) *if you're genuinely interested*, but 


Value Collector said:


> And your free to over state yours I guess.




if that's your attitude then it's quite evident that I'd be wasting time that could be better spent elsewhere. I'd rather be spending my time increasing my knowledge than wasting it on a futile attempt to share it with an unwilling subject!


----------



## SirRumpole (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Do you care if the things you believe are true?




Do you ? 

You have already said we don't know how the Universe began, we may never know, so why rule out a possibility just because it doesn't agree with your pre conceived ideology ?


----------



## Tink (17 July 2014)

Ahhh cynic, always refreshing seeing your posts, well said


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you ?
> 
> You have already said we don't know how the Universe began, we may never know, so why rule out a possibility just because it doesn't agree with your pre conceived ideology ?




As I said repeatedly, I haven't ruled out the possibility. However I am not going to believe that something is true until we can prove it.

you are saying that a god exists, I am just saying I don't believe one does. I am not saying I know that one doesn't.

That's why I am using the examples of fairies and bigfoot. I don't believe bigfoot exists, But I haven't ruled it out. It's possible an ape like creature exists in the wilds of America, But I don't believe it does, because there is no evidence suggesting it does. 

I am not going to go around believing every conceivable thing just because its possible, and when it comes to a god, as I said we don't even know if its possible for a god to exist.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I will be more than happy to put the time into brushing the dust off my physics,chemistry and biology textbooks and websearching (so that I can provide links to identical information) *if you're genuinely interested*, but
> 
> 
> !




As far as I am aware, nothing in those scientific fields has pointed to a god. But I would be happy to look at any evidence you can provide. Why not start with your best piece of evidence. I have been down this road with creationists before, and it doesn't normally take long before they need to commit logical fallacies to prove there god, So lets just start with your best piece of evidence, so I can get a feel for the kind of things you count as evidence.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Has anything in the scientific field pointed to the possibility of a self-existing universe?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 July 2014)

> Why not start with your best piece of evidence.




What is your best piece of evidence that there is not ?

Creation from nothing would appear to violate the Law of Causality. Creation by an external entity obeys this law.

Are you going to invalidate your own scientific laws ?


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Exactly. 

The default position can't be - I need evidence for a creator. 

As stated before there are only two neutral alternatives:
1) a creator
2) self-existing universe


You can't put the burden of proof on either side. 


It is inconsistent to just say - there is not enough evidence for a creator so I don't believe in one.
If you are examining both 1) and 2) consistently, this above comment would imply that you've also looked at alternative 2) and there IS enough evidence for a self-existing universe. 


If I said there is not enough evidence for a self-existing universe then you would say to me "you're just assuming there is a God without any evidence"

Yet if you say there is not enough evidence for a God then I would say "You're just assuming the universe is self-existent without any evidence."


This is a very dodgey game that I have seen atheists play.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What is your best piece of evidence that there is not ?




Your attempting to shift the burden on proof there, If you claim a god created the universe the burden is on you to prove that.

I haven't claimed to know there is no god, I am just with holding belief until it can be proven, as I said I am happy to say "I don't know" 



> Creation from nothing would appear to violate the Law of Causality. Creation by an external entity obeys this law.




wouldn't the external entity violate the law of causality?

if your happy to say an external entity can be eternal, can't the universe be eternal.

quantum mechanics says things pop into and out of existence all the time, we are far from having a full understanding, So we can not make a claim that the universe couldn't come from nothing.

As I said, I am happy to say "I don't know, but perhaps we can find out"


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The default position can't be - I need evidence for a creator.
> 
> .




why Not



> As stated before there are only two neutral alternatives:
> 1) a creator
> 2) self-existing universe
> 
> ...




the burden off proof is on any one that makes a positive claim one way or the other.




> It is inconsistent to just say - there is not enough evidence for a creator so I don't believe in one.
> If you are examining both 1) and 2) consistently, this above comment would imply that you've also looked at alternative 2) and there IS enough evidence for a self-existing universe



. 

Nope, it's perfectly fine to say you don't know either way.




> If I said there is not enough evidence for a self-existing universe then you would say to me "you're just assuming there is a God without any evidence"




I would only say that if you were making a positive claim a god existed, based on lack of evidence for the alternative, I would say your making the logical fallacy of special pleading, because your saying that your pet hypothesis is true, just because we currently have no evidence for the opposing view, when in reality you need to be able to prove your hypothesis, not just have lack of evidence for another. 




> Yet if you say there is not enough evidence for a God then I would say "You're just assuming the universe is self-existent without any evidence."




I don't assume the universe is self existent, I say I don't know. But I believe there is a chance it is self existent.




> This is a very dodgey game that I have seen atheists play




what part is dodgy?


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Everyone can only have one of two positions. 

1) creator
2) self-existent universe


It's not about a positive claim or negative claim. 

To say that 1) doesn't have enough evidence so you don't believe in it, implies that you lean towards the alternative view 2) (given there are only two alternatives). 

This would mean that you believe there is more evidence for a self-existing universe than a creator. 

My quqestion then would be what is this evidence?


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Everyone can only have one of two positions.
> 
> 1) creator
> 2) self-existent universe




Nope, you can be neutral, you can say you don't know either way. 





> It's not about a positive claim or negative claim.




If you say you know there is a god that created the universe, that is a positive claim, and the burden of proof is on you.




> To say that 1) doesn't have enough evidence so you don't believe in it, implies that you lean towards the alternative view 2) (given there are only two alternatives).




Not at all, you can be of the belief that neither option is known, and at this stage the answer is unknowable.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

OK maybe I'm confused about your position:
So are you also saying then that there is no evidence for a self-existing universe?


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> OK maybe I'm confused about your position:
> So are you also saying then that there is no evidence for a self-existing universe?




Not to the point where I would say we have proof the universe is self- existent. 

This area is still under intense scientific investigation, At this point we don't know what happened before the big bang, So I think the only intellectually honest answer is "we don't know"

If you want to speculate and say the big bang was caused by a god, I would have to say maybe it's possible, I have no idea what the probability would be, But I can't rule it out. If you want to speculate and say that the big bang was caused by the collapse of a previous universe in an eternal bang crunch cycle, I would have to say maybe it's possible, I have no idea what the probability would be, But I can't rule it out.

We simply don't know, and if you claim to know, the burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

I think Both Pav and Sir R might get something from watching this video.

It is a demonstration on Possibilities, Probabilities and when its best to say I don't know.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think Both Pav and Sir R might get something from watching this video.
> 
> It is a demonstration on Possibilities, Probabilities and when its best to say I don't know.





I'll watch it , but I've never said I know there is a God (he doesn't talk to little old me, unlike the clergy), I just believe there is, as you believe there isn't.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

So basically you're saying God is possible, self-existent universe is possible.... but you can't say either way. 

As previously stated, I believe that the evidence points to a creator (I've listed the pieces of evidence many times in here). 

Also scientific evidence in no way points to a self-existing universe. This cannot be validated by science in any way.
Even the very first hurdle, a 5 year old kid can tell you that something doesn't come from nothing (yet atheists try to invent all fancy definitions and end up describing "nothing" as "something").


The God v self-existent universe debate is an unfair one for the atheist (it's like having one arm tied behind your back). I'm not saying that I have 100% proof, but the evidence points in a very clear direction.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Also amazing how if I post something from any sort of creaction website/channel etc, people will point it out and say that it's not valid,yet people are able to post videos of these buffons who clearly have an agenda.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

I much prefer his work on AFL 360


----------



## bellenuit (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> OK maybe I'm confused about your position:
> So are you also saying then that there is no evidence for a self-existing universe?




Pav, I agree totally on what VC said above and I have personally said in the past that I do not rule out that there may have been a God who created it all. But like VC, I have seen no evidence for it and keep an open mind.

And again like VC, I understand that our current knowledge of the universe goes back to just after the Big Bang. In fact I think they are fairly sure what happened within a few trillionths of a second after the Big Bang and what has followed since to get to where we are today (in a very broad context, not obviously down to minutia).

What caused the Big Bang and what went before it is very much speculation and in the realm of Quantum Physics, something way beyond my level of understanding. What I do know is that in the realm of Quantum Physics, things that seem impossible at a macro level are possible at the quantum level. For example, objects been in two different places at the same time, objects coming into existence from nothing etc. These have been demonstrated in the lab and are completely supported by the mathematics. 

When they speculate that the universe came from nothing one has to be very careful on what words mean in that context. For example, what is nothing. One might say that is obvious: take any volume of space and it will contain nothing if there are no objects of any sort within it (down to he smallest known or even unknown particle) and perhaps even no waves of any sort passing through it. But since there is also speculation that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang, how do you define nothing if there is no space. Our volume of space containing no particles of any sort is meaningless if space didn't exist.  

As I say that is a very complex subject which is difficult to understand.

But you are very disingenuous. While purporting to argue about science and requiring evidence concerning some of the speculations regarding the Big Bang, all the while you yourself know that you are a young earth creationist and believer in the nonsense put out by Answers In Genesis. What may or may not have happened at or before the Big Bang 14 odd billion years ago is not something you care about as I understand you believe it all happened just 6,000 years ago and all in 6 days.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> So basically you're saying God is possible, self-existent universe is possible.... but you can't say either way.
> 
> .




I actually said "maybe" God is possible, I don't know if a god is possible or not. As I said I don't know if its possible that anything can exist outside of space and time, let alone a god.

Because I don't know if it possible or not, I won't rule it out, But I can't rule it in, Hence my neutral position.

Did you watch that video I put up, I think you'll understand more if you watch it.



> As previously stated, I believe that the evidence points to a creator (I've listed the pieces of evidence many times in here).




I know you believe that, I just don't think your evidence is valid, I think your special pleading your case because you start with pre existing notions you want to maintain.



> Also scientific evidence in no way points to a self-existing universe. This cannot be validated by science in any way.
> Even the very first hurdle, a 5 year old kid can tell you that something doesn't come from nothing




Well I don't know if you can say that for sure, How can you prove something doesn't come from nothing.

there is a whole area of particle physics that is gathering evidence that says that certain particles can and do pop into and out of existence. So I don't think we can write that off, and even your god hypothesis would rely on making something from nothing, your just invoking a god to achieve it instead of particle physics.



> The God v self-existent universe debate is an unfair one for the atheist (it's like having one arm tied behind your back). I'm not saying that I have 100% proof, but the evidence points in a very clear direction




As far as I can see you have no proof.

But feel free to share your best piece of evidence.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

You're right I have no proof. 
In the same way that no one has proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. 
But you follow evidence to make your conclusion that it will. 
(evidence that has been discussed over and over and over in here)

------------------------------------------------------ 
I do not claim to be  a young earth creationist. 
I don't know how old the earth is and neither does anyone. 
The Bible doesn't state anything about the age of the earth either. 

-------------------------------------------------------

Even when we use quantum physics to experiment, we are experimenting using aparatus and conditions that are already existing. 

People don't seem to get that.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'll watch it , but I've never said I know there is a God (he doesn't talk to little old me, unlike the clergy), I just believe there is, as you believe there isn't.




So your an Agnostic Deist.

and I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Niether of us know, but you choose to believe. Your free to believe what ever you want, but if you care about whether your beliefs are true, you should always be prepared to hang a question mark on even your most treasured beliefs.

And if it is any consolation, I would rather live in a world full of Deists who admit they don't know, than I world of Theists that Say they know there is a god and he talks to them, I think the world would be a nicer place.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So your an Agnostic Deist.
> 
> and I am an Agnostic Atheist.
> 
> ...





We all have our own personal desires and preferences I guess. 

Personally if I go to Cold Rock I will always get cookies and cream icecream with cookie dough, one of my friends got strawberry icecream with gummie bears and skittles.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You're right I have no proof.
> .




Thank you for admitting that.



> In the same way that no one has proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
> But you follow evidence to make your conclusion that it will.




Well the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates and gives the illusion that the sun is rising.

And we can prove that the earth will continue to rotate for the next 24 hours by using newtons laws of motion.

There is no such logical scientific laws that point to a god, so your analogy is bunk.




> I don't know how old the earth is and neither does anyone.




Again the approximate age of the earth can be established, it's roughly 4.5 Billion years old.

Just because we don't know what happened before the big bang, doesn't mean we don't know anything. their is lots of things that are known.



> Even when we use quantum physics to experiment, we are experimenting using aparatus and conditions that are already existing.
> 
> People don't seem to get that




Whats your point?


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Those laws say that it has rotated that way in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but you still can't prove to me that it will tomorrow. The evidence points to the fact that it will. It can be proven once it occurs. 
My anaology stands. 

Age of the earth. 
You are assuming the methods used are accurate. 
You are also assumming a number of things remaining constant or assuming certain rates of change.
This is all a projection. We don't know the conditions the further back we go. 


My point is that in order to do any experimentation to show that something can come from nothing, you need to start with nothing. Every single observation starts with something (including the observer).


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> We all have our own personal desires and preferences I guess.
> 
> Personally if I go to Cold Rock I will always get cookies and cream icecream with cookie dough, one of my friends got strawberry icecream with gummie bears and skittles.




Yes, But to me its not an ideal world when the gummy bears and skittles guy wants to cut your head off for not liking his brand, while you threaten me with hell fire for not liking cookies and cream, and you want the government to legislate against marriages who prefer fruit salad, and people are told to ignore the science that says vegetables are better for you.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Those laws say that it has rotated that way in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but you still can't prove to me that it will tomorrow. The evidence points to the fact that it will. It can be proven once it occurs.
> My anaology stands.
> 
> ).




the fact that it is rotating now, and we know it will continue to rotate until a force acts on it to stop it, and there is not cosmic body within 24hours of it that would be able to provide the force to stop it rotating is proof that it will in fact continue rotating until tomorrow.

If you are saying that there is something that will be able to provide the force to stop the earth rotations within the next 24 hours then it is you that is making the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof.



> Age of the earth.
> You are assuming the methods used are accurate.
> You are also assumming a number of things remaining constant or assuming certain rates of change.
> This is all a projection. We don't know the conditions the further back we go.




The methods have been shown to be accurate, and the date is not based on a single method, multiple methods have been used, from multiple areas of science.



> My point is that in order to do any experimentation to show that something can come from nothing, you need to start with nothing.




and we don't even know if nothing is possible to exist, if your speaking of nothing eg not even empty space or time, we don't even know if nothing is possible, hence the Lawrence krauss definition of nothing.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

This is for any one trying to invoke a god to explain the gaps in science.


----------



## cynic (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> As far as I am aware, nothing in those scientific fields has pointed to a god. But I would be happy to look at any evidence you can provide. Why not start with your best piece of evidence. I have been down this road with creationists before, and it doesn't normally take long before they need to commit logical fallacies to prove there god, So lets just start with your best piece of evidence, so I can get a feel for the kind of things you count as evidence.




Where in the following post:



cynic said:


> You are perfectly welcome to state the limits of your knowledge.
> 
> Please do me the courtesy of not presuming to "not know" on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of drawing from my own life experience in the formulation of my own opinions and conclusions about what I may or may not know.
> 
> I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.



 do the terms "god" or "proof" appear?

Are you trying to misconstrue my claims into something more than they are as some sort of a preemptive strike?


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

This really does just go around in circles. 
I'm not sure why we all bother in here tbh. 

As others have pointed out, you will continue to beleive what you wish to. 

All the best.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Where in the following post:
> 
> 
> do the terms "god" or "proof" appear?
> ...




Well when you say you have evidence of a large life form that created our species and solar system, I thought you were referring to a god.

If you have a better term that you wish me to call this being/ life form by, let me know.

When you said you had evidence, I thought you were going to present the evidence in an attempt to prove this god/ being/ life form (whatever it is your refering too) existed, or at least was possible to exist.

So are you going to attempt to provide evidence? or what exactly were your offering?


----------



## cynic (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well when you say you have evidence of a large life form that created our species and solar system, I thought you were referring to a god.
> 
> If you have a better term that you wish me to call this being/ life form by, let me know.
> 
> ...




I was offering what I originally said and not what you attempted to extrapolate!

If one wishes to confuse proof with evidence then one will need to be prepared to see many popular scientific theories (evolution, the big bang,  etc.) thrown on the scrap heap!!!

I happen to like many of those theories, but I choose not to make the error of confusing evidence with proof!


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> This really does just go around in circles.
> .




That's what happens when you keep bringing out the logical fallacies.

However I do think we made some progress, at least now you understand that the atheist position is not that we claim to know that no god exists.

and perhaps if you watched the video about probabilities and possibilities your have learned something too, I actually think the concepts expressed in it can carry over to over areas such as investing also.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I was offering what I originally said and not what you attempted to extrapolate!
> 
> !




ok you said



> I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.




Please share this evidence with us.

----------------------
I know you love word games, but try not to lose focus, just present your best piece of evidence.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That's what happens when you keep bringing out the logical fallacies.
> 
> However I do think we made some progress, at least now you understand that the atheist position is not that we claim to know that no god exists.
> 
> and perhaps if you watched the video about probabilities and possibilities your have learned something too, I actually think the concepts expressed in it can carry over to over areas such as investing also.




Would love to see you put as much effort into the trading/investing threads. 

I know this area must interest you, however your efforts are wasted here. 
You could contribute some really good stuff trading related that would benefit all.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Would love to see you put as much effort into the trading/investing threads.
> 
> I know this area must interest you, however your efforts are wasted here.
> You could contribute some really good stuff trading related that would benefit all.




I have contributed to many other threads.


----------



## burglar (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... the concepts expressed in it can carry over to over areas such as investing also.




He is a trader who believes in God.
You are an investor who has insufficient evidence to believe in God.
I am a gambler, I'll do 100 coin tosses, wish me luck!


----------



## SirRumpole (17 July 2014)

burglar said:


> He is a trader who believes in God.
> You are an investor who has insufficient evidence to believe in God.
> I am a gambler, I'll do 100 coin tosses, wish me luck!




I think it's been shown that if you draw up a piece of paper of 100 leading stocks and threw 10 darts at it, you would have as much chance of making a profit as someone who thought they knew what they were doing.


----------



## bellenuit (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You're right I have no proof.
> In the same way that no one has proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
> But you follow evidence to make your conclusion that it will.
> (evidence that has been discussed over and over and over in here)




Pav. I have only once noticed you posting "evidence" to back up your claims. In almost all cases you have rejected the evidence provided by others here by stating they are lazy and haven't looked at the rejections to such evidence that are on the web, but usually without you pointing to the specific articles rejecting such evidence. You just use blanket statements that such evidence is out there.

The one exception I recall was when you pointed to an article in Answers In Genesis in relation to an argument that was going on in regards to the origin of mankind. When I looked at the article the first thing I noticed was a statement similar to that I posted a few days back, that essentially said that any evidence that contradicted the biblical account of creation was rejected in the formulation of the article, as by definition it was wrong as only the biblical account could be correct. I think your next post was to declare you were running away for a few weeks, just like you did after I posted the bible quote where God authorised some king or other to rape young girls.


----------



## burglar (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, But to me its not an ideal world when the gummy bears and skittles guy wants to cut your head off for not liking his brand, while you threaten me with hell fire for not liking cookies and cream, and you want the government to legislate against marriages who prefer fruit salad, and people are told to ignore the science that says vegetables are better for you.




Good on ya!
Never heard it put better!!!

Disclosure: I work in a kitchen, 
... correction I believe I work in a kitchen, 
... I believe it is a kitchen and it exists!


----------



## pavilion103 (17 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Pav. I have only once noticed you posting "evidence" to back up your claims. In almost all cases you have rejected the evidence provided by others here by stating they are lazy and haven't looked at the rejections to such evidence that are on the web, but usually without you pointing to the specific articles rejecting such evidence. You just use blanket statements that such evidence is out there.  The one exception I recall was when you pointed to an article in Answers In Genesis in relation to an argument that was going on in regards to the origin of mankind. When I looked at the article the first thing I noticed was a statement similar to that I posted a few days back, that essentially said that any evidence that contradicted the biblical account of creation was rejected in the formulation of the article, as by definition it was wrong as only the biblical account could be correct. I think your next post was to declare you were running away for a few weeks, just like you did after I posted the bible quote where God authorised some king or other to rape young girls.




Unfortunately you don't see evidence such as order and design, precise laws of the universe etc as evidence which points towards an intelligent mind.

Somehow you think time plus chance best explains them.

You ignore the things like the above that point to an intelligent mind while also ignoring your own neglect of current scientific evidence that life never comes from non-life, something from nothing etc.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's been shown that if you draw up a piece of paper of 100 leading stocks and threw 10 darts at it, you would have as much chance of making a profit as someone who thought they knew what they were doing.




there is a big difference between having a chance, and having the same chance.

Offcourse any random method of picking stocks has a chance of picking a string of winners, however this random chance has the same chance at picking a string of losers.

If you are saying that making above average returns consistently over a long period of time requires only random chance and not knowledge and skills, I think your wrong.

Warren buffet wrote a great article debunking the idea of the market being all luck, the article is called "the super investors of Graham and Doddsville" If you get a chance its worth a read.

here the article

http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/null?&exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=522


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

> while also ignoring your own neglect of current scientific evidence that life never comes from non-life, something from nothing etc




Do you have scientific evidence that says life never comes from non-life?

You also ignore the fact that your god hypothesis faces the same problem. As I have said we both agree at some point life came from non life, I just think it was probably a natural process, you think it was a magic god.


----------



## cynic (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ok you said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am going to give you my best recollection of matters that I've not studied for some decades now, so please forgive any minute aberrations. It's just that I don't experience some posters as being at all receptive to any information that contradicts their personal philosophy and hence do not wish to waste too much of my time!

Firstly observe the strong similarities between certain formulae produced by Newton, Coulomb, Rutherford and Bohr. 

Note the similarities between the orbital motions of planets around a sun and electrons around the nucleus of an atom.

Examine the blood cells of a mammal under a microscope and note the behaviour of microbes,doing what microbes do and seemingly oblivious to the host within which they reside.

Consider the chemical components of glucose and petroleum, note their similarities also note the chemical result when these compounds react with oxygen!

Take a glance at time lapse footage of a major city with "arterial" roads and note the regular inward and outward pulse of traffic during peak hours. Now look at footage of the circulation of blood through the "arteries" of a mammalian respiratory system and note the regularity of the heartbeat.

The evidence is right in front of our eyes! Some prefer to overlook this in favour of the perception of believing themselves to be members of the most intelligent species in the multiverse and more intelligent than their ancestors. The evidence uncovered by their very own science does not support such vanity!


----------



## SirRumpole (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Warren buffet wrote a great article debunking the idea of the market being all luck, the article is called "the super investors of Graham and Doddsville" If you get a chance its worth a read.
> 
> here the article
> 
> http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/null?&exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=522




You are a gentleman. I will certainly peruse it.

PS I've enjoyed our dialog on the God question. I may come back to it sometime but I've had enough for now.

Cheers


----------



## bellenuit (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Unfortunately you don't see evidence such as order and design, precise laws of the universe etc as evidence which points towards an intelligent mind.




Yes they point towards an intelligent mind, but that isn't evidence. It is only jumping to conclusions without delving deeper.



> Somehow you think time plus chance best explains them.




Again the typical creationist misunderstanding of evolution. It also involved natural selection, which isn't chance.



> You ignore the things like the above that point to an intelligent mind while also ignoring your own neglect of current scientific evidence that life never comes from non-life, something from nothing etc.




Again, I am ignoring nothing. Your sources explicitly state what they ignore, which is everything that doesn't suit them. There is NO current scientific evidence that life DOESN'T come from no life. Equally, there also isn't yet any demonstrable evidence that life CAN COME from no life. As has to be pointed out dozens of times to some people: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, but they are slowly understanding how it may have occurred. I have an open mind on the subject. Something from nothing has been demonstrated in particle physics. There is NO scientific evidence that something cannot come from nothing. A child might think it obvious as you said earlier, but I don't know of any children that have a grasp of quantum physics. But many who are certain Santa exists. 

I am not ignoring anything and as has been said for the umpteenth time, there are many things we currently don't know. That is not evidence that the answer is a God or an intelligent designer. Go back a few hundred years and think of the things that were then assumed to be the result of the intervention of God, but we now know better. We have learned a lot since and human knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Also amazing how if I post something from any sort of creaction website/channel etc, people will point it out and say that it's not valid,yet people are able to post videos of these buffons who clearly have an agenda.




It's not because your source is a creation website, it's because the actual things they say are evidence are not valid evidence, eg saying anything that goes against the bible is false, is actually false logic. Where as the points in the video i uploaded even you should agree with.


----------



## Value Collector (17 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Firstly observe the strong similarities between certain formulae produced by Newton, Coulomb, Rutherford and Bohr.
> 
> Note the similarities between the orbital motions of planets around a sun and electrons around the nucleus of an atom.
> 
> ...




Electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the sun

But to be honest, I can't see the point you are getting at with the rest of the stuff, can you explain what you think all this is evidence of. It seems to me you have some big picture pet hypothesis in mind and you are some how trying to pull these unrelated facts together using confirmation bias to say they are evidence.

I mean comparing traffic flows with a breathing cycle, sure I the similarity, but thats not evidence for anything more than people wanting to work the same hours in the same area, nothing more than that, if we decentralised our living and working arrangements it would be different.

And yes hydrocarbons burn, so what.


----------



## luutzu (17 July 2014)

A while ago I was "reasoning" with my mum about there not being a God, so why does she pray to him. I use all the facts and figures and logic and rationale and conclude to her that, see, no God... 

I think she saw the logic but then was really sad. 

No use making people feel sad and guilty and wrong about doing something that bring them peace and happiness (only religious nuts do that, haha - sorry can't help myself).


----------



## cynic (17 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the sun




Did you even bother to take the time to examine the formaulae?!!


> But to be honest, I can't see the point you are getting at with the rest of the stuff, can you explain what you think all this is evidence of. It seems to me you have some big picture pet hypothesis in mind and you are some how trying to pull these unrelated facts together using confirmation bias to say they are evidence.



Is it that you don't get the point, or that you don't want to get it?!! I've already stated what this evidences! Re read the post that prompted your request for this information!


> I mean comparing traffic flows with a breathing cycle, sure I the similarity, but thats not evidence for anything more than people wanting to work the same hours in the same area, nothing more than that, if we decentralised our living and working arrangements it would be different.
> 
> And yes hydrocarbons burn, so what.




Did you note certain similarities in the major chemical outputs of this reaction (i.e. CO2, H2O and heat) - so much like the process that occurs during the respiration processes within our very own bodies!!!

And let's not overlook the microbes ,they probably don't have sufficient awareness of their host to know that it is a living intelligent being. So it comes as no surprise that many humans fail to have the same realisation about their planet, solar system, galaxy and universe.

 If you ever find yourself willing to openly investigate matters that may be in direct conflict with your personal philosophy, please let me know, until then please stop wasting my time and testing my patience.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2014)

Luutzu, you have no idea.

I am not in here to change peoples minds in what they want to believe and to be honest, I couldn't care less. 
Our experiences are our reason and logic.

I hear atheists say they couldn't care less, but they seem to be the only ones posting.

Every now and again, I like to come in here to let be known that there are believers.

As usual, cynic, I enjoy reading your deep posts, thanks for sharing.


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Did you note certain similarities in the major chemical outputs of this reaction (i.e. CO2, H2O and heat) - so much like the process that occurs during the respiration processes within our very own bodies!!!
> 
> And let's not overlook the microbes ,they probably don't have sufficient awareness of their host to know that it is a living intelligent being. So it comes as no surprise that many humans fail to have the same realisation about their planet, solar system, galaxy and universe.
> 
> If you ever find yourself willing to openly investigate matters that may be in direct conflict with your personal philosophy, please let me know, until then please stop wasting my time and testing my patience.



As usual, the observations you have posted here neither individually nor collectively constitute evidence for the existence of a sky god or supernatural intelligence.

Instead of regurgitating the same mystical, metaphysical tripe that you try and pass off as wisdom here, why not give all of us some real evidence for whatever it is you really believe on faith?  Perhaps something verifiable such as witness testimony and/or recordings of your past conversations with the deceased as evidence of the existence of an imagined spirit world.  Otherwise stop wasting everyone else's time here with your sophistry and clumsy defence of religious superstition.


----------



## bunyip (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> I hear atheists say they couldn't care less, but they seem to be the only ones posting.




Wrong!


----------



## bunyip (18 July 2014)

Guess most of you have heard by now of the tragic loss of the Malaysian airliner over the Russian/Ukrainian border, brought down (they think) by a surface to air missile, killing more than 230 people.

At least a dozen times so far this morning I must have heard ‘_Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims’._
Thoughts *and prayers*???!!! I’m sure the grieving relatives are in our thoughts – what a terrible thing to lose loved ones in such horrific circumstances. But *prayers*?? – what good exactly are prayers going to do? Why do people persist with the foolish notion that prayers are somehow going to help in situations like this!


----------



## pavilion103 (18 July 2014)

Wow.
This tragedy happens and the next day you feel the need to post that.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 July 2014)

Using the same logic why don't you highlight thoughts as well? They won't have any use either.


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Using the same logic why don't you highlight thoughts as well? They won't have any use either.



Thoughts with respect to condolences, expression of grief, mourning and remembrance etcetera are normal and useful.  Reference to prayers to a feckless, imaginary deity are indeed useless expression but meant to appease the religious who think their imaginary sky God(s) (powerless or unwilling to prevent this tragedy) will bring comfort to those affected.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2014)

FX, if God walked up to you, you still wouldn't believe it.

As many have said, this can go round and round.

I wonder whatever happened to GB.


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> FX, if God walked up to you, you still wouldn't believe it.



Unlike you Tink, my beliefs are evidence, not Bible, based.  No doubt if someone claiming to be "God" walked up to you, you would be inclined to take them seriously.  Such is the gullibility of a superstitious mind.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2014)

Gullibility?
Is that how you work.

Well guess what, my belief is evidence too, which I wouldn't be sharing with you.

There is a lot more than what you see.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Did you even bother to take the time to examine the formaulae?!!
> 
> Is it that you don't get the point, or that you don't want to get it?!! I've already stated what this evidences! Re read the post that prompted your request for this information!
> 
> ...




Oh, ok . I get it now. Your trying to say that these disparate facts your mentioning are evidence that we are living inside a giant life form, much like microbes live in us.

Well that might make a good sci fi film, But I think that all it is science fiction. I certainly don't think the things you listed as evidence are evidence for what you are suggesting.



> If you ever find yourself willing to openly investigate matters that may be in direct conflict with your personal philosophy, please let me know, until then please stop wasting my time and testing my patience.





the universe is under intense investigation, at as far as I am aware nothing points to us being part of your sci fi story.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Thoughts with respect to condolences, expression of grief, mourning and remembrance .




Yes, and reflection on how we can prevent things like this happening again.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> FX, if God walked up to you, you still wouldn't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Tink ,

If a god existed, and he cared whether I believe or not, Since he knows everything he would understand the nature of evidence and he would know exactly what to do to convince me.

Since I remain unconvinced, god either doesn't exist or doesn't care whether I believe.

I think its the former, I don't think he exists.


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Well guess what, my belief is evidence too, which I wouldn't be sharing with you.  There is a lot more than what you see.



I have heard, read and reviewed all manner of what the religious regard as evidence for their strong belief in religious myth and the fantastic claims therein.  I seriously doubt you have anything meaningful to add to such faith-based evidence as you have not done so to date in any of these threads.  Being a slave to Christian myth is nothing to boast about, you have no special knowledge of the supernatural that I don't possess.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2014)

And you continue to go on with slave etc.
Unbelievable.

No, I don't write up all in forums, why should I?
That is my business.

I am not here to put people down as it seems you are.


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> And you continue to go on with slave etc. Unbelievable.



Why so unbelievable, your mind is clearly captive to (and captivated by) the fraud that is Christian myth.  Virtually your every utterance here is testimony to this.



> No, I don't write up all in forums, why should I? That is my business.



Fine by me, keep any claims about the validity of religious myth to yourself but don't expect anyone else to take your religion seriously then.



> I am not here to put people down...



Neither am I, my focus is the fraud that is religion in the spirit of this thread.  The religious diminish themselves here by continually demonstrating their slavish devotion to religious mythology and attacking those who ask for evidence for belief with insult and misdirection.  I suggest you review posts from the likes of fellow religious contributors Chris and Pav if you want examples of vehement personal attacks here.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2014)

FX, many that have contributed have not been religious, and they have been shot down, cynic being one.
We are all entitled to our opinions, and you wonder why people don't say things in forums when you say things like that.

As I said, I have my beliefs and have had my own experiences.

We are not going to agree, so leave it at that.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 July 2014)

> Oh, ok . I get it now. Your trying to say that these disparate facts your mentioning are evidence that we are living inside a giant life form, much like microbes live in us.
> 
> Well that might make a good sci fi film, But I think that all it is science fiction. I certainly don't think the things you listed as evidence are evidence for what you are suggesting.




Let's take a slightly different tack.

We are currently experimenting with artificial intelligence, pieces of software that we allow to observe their surroundings, and make inferences and decisions on the basis of what they observe and the rules that we lay down for them. In time they may be able to think for themselves and determine the physics behind how they operate, but they exist only in the world of a silicon chip. We, their creators, are outside their physical universe but we control it, and they operate on the rules that we provide them. We may decide to reveal ourselves to them, but that would ruin an interesting experiment would it not ? Just how far can our creations develop on their own?


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> FX, many that have contributed have not been religious, and they have been shot down, cynic being one.



Cynic has been a strident apologist and protagonist for the religious cause here.  He is not a neutral poster, many of his statements here do not deserve the respect and praise you seem to think they are due.  Read such sophistry with a more critical mind.



> We are all entitled to our opinions, and you wonder why people don't say things in forums when you say things like that.



Pure intellectual dishonesty there Tink.  The religious do not just profess to have an opinion, they claim to possess absolute truth about origins, God and eternal life in the form of fantastic claims in iron-age scrolls, the non-belief in which leads to eternal damnation.  Such incredible arrogance can and must be challenged.



> As I said, I have my beliefs and have had my own experiences.



You're really referring to faith here, the strong belief in claims made on bad evidence and experiences imagined to be of Godly origin.  This is at best self-delusion.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Let's take a slightly different tack.
> 
> We are currently experimenting with artificial intelligence, pieces of software that we allow to observe their surroundings, and make inferences and decisions on the basis of what they observe and the rules that we lay down for them. In time they may be able to think for themselves and determine the physics behind how they operate, but they exist only in the world of a silicon chip. We, their creators, are outside their physical universe but we control it, and they operate on the rules that we provide them. We may decide to reveal ourselves to them, but that would ruin an interesting experiment would it not ? Just how far can our creations develop on their own?




I know what your getting at, sort of like the "we can't prove we are not brains in vats" type matrix stuff. Again I think its a great sci fi story.

But, the time for that software to believe in us is when they have evidence, and the time for us to believe we are software is when we have evidence. Any guess we make about an outside world from our universe would likely be wrong any way even if the concept we true, But since we have no evidence to even suggest the concept is true, I think its better to wait for evidence and just deal with the natural universe we find our selves in.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Oh, ok . I get it now. Your trying to say that these disparate facts your mentioning are evidence that we are living inside a giant life form, much like microbes live in us.



Well it did take you a while, but it's great to see that you were finally able to recognise what I was actually saying!


> Well that might make a good sci fi film, But I think that all it is science fiction. I certainly don't think the things you listed as evidence are evidence for what you are suggesting.



You are entitled to think whatever you like. Just please remember that our conflicting viewpoints are exactly that, no more and no less. 
As I've already stated, I have recognised evidence in science that points towards what you now opine to be science fiction. 
Please note that I do not recklessly claim this evidence to be conclusive proof of my stance in this matter, but that scientific evidence does exist nonetheless!


> the universe is under intense investigation, at as far as I am aware nothing points to us being part of your sci fi story.



Well if you want to allow your personal philosophy to dictate a filtered view of science and scientific method, I won't stop you, just don't expect me to agree with very much of what you have to say about science or anything science related.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> FX, many that have contributed have not been religious, and they have been shot down, cynic being one.
> We are all entitled to our opinions, and you wonder why people don't say things in forums when you say things like that.
> 
> As I said, I have my beliefs and have had my own experiences.
> ...




Well said Tink, and thanks for your supportive comments!

The unfortunate thing about what appears to have become a crusade between conflicting religions is that there are a number of posters that don't believe themselves to be religious, however their deeply entrenched opinions and zealous attacks on those presenting conflicting views strongly suggests otherwise.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Cynic has been a strident apologist and protagonist for the religious cause here.  He is not a neutral poster, many of his statements here do not deserve the respect and praise you seem to think they are due.  Read such sophistry with a more critical mind.
> 
> 
> Pure intellectual dishonesty there Tink.  The religious do not just profess to have an opinion, they claim to possess absolute truth about origins, God and eternal life in the form of fantastic claims in iron-age scrolls, the non-belief in which leads to eternal damnation.  Such incredible arrogance can and must be challenged.
> ...




Thanks for that FX. Have you got any new material for us? I believe that you've already said most of this several times already. You're getting a bit boring!

An intelligent person such as yourself should already be aware that much of the science technology you enjoy today is built on information that was passed down via many of the ancient writings that you so willingly snub! 

Talk about ingratitude!!

I believe I've mentioned much of this before. I might be catching a bit of what you've got! (i.e. becoming boring by being painfully repetitious).


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

On the subject of "faith". I've yet to see a single poster to this thread that hasn't demonstrated an enormous amount of faith in their personal opinions!


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

Tink said:


> As I said, I have my beliefs and have had my own experiences.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> but that scientific evidence does exist nonetheless!
> 
> .




The evidence exists, But it doesn't in any way point to the outcome you are suggesting, I fear you have succumb to confirmation bias, You want to believe a hypothesis is possible, and you have found these disparate facts to try and knit together to make it sound plausible.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The evidence exists, But it doesn't in any way point to the outcome you are suggesting, I fear you have succumb to confirmation bias, You want to believe a hypothesis is possible, and you have found these disparate facts to try and knit together to make it sound plausible.




Wrong! Please do not presume to know my mind!!

These surprising coincidences knitted together all by themselves, I was merely an observer! 
I kept noticing patterns when being taught chemistry, physics and biology. Coincidences kept appearing as I was learning science. My former perception of the world became increasingly improbable in light of this information! 
Eventually I had to acknowledge that humanity's popular view of themselves in relation to their universe was hopelessly improbable! 

Hence I chose to align myself with what science was actually telling me!!!


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> On the subject of "faith". I've yet to see a single poster to this thread that hasn't demonstrated an enormous amount of faith in their personal opinions!




Define faith


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Wrong! Please do not presume to know my mind!!
> 
> These surprising coincidences knitted together all by themselves, I was merely an observer!
> I kept noticing patterns when being taught chemistry, physics and biology. Coincidences kept appearing as I was learning science. My former perception of the world became increasingly improbable in light of this information!
> ...




I am not claiming to know your mind, you said it your self, you think there is evidence we are living in a larger life form.

Humans are very good at noticing patterns, and when you suffer from confirmation bias, as i suspect you do, you will see patterns when no true patterns exist.

Don't you find it weird that these facts which appear so self evident to you have been missed by main stream science.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Define faith




We've been down this road before!!! I even gave you the dictionary definition and root derivation of the word!!Have you already forgotten our earlier dialogue during the science is a religion debate!


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for that FX. Have you got any new material for us? I believe that you've already said most of this several times already. You're getting a bit boring!



Repetition of fallacious assertions, ridiculous analogies and fantastic religious claims by yourself and others here does unfortunately require some repetition on my part in retort.  The religious bring quite enough material to consider here, absent credible evidence of course.  I'll defer to the religious here for creative content, their vivid imaginations and lack of critical thinking allows scope for all manner of mystical expression.



> An intelligent person such as yourself should already be aware that much of the science technology you enjoy today is built on information that was passed down via many of the ancient writings that you so willingly snub! Talk about ingratitude!!



Equating the endeavours of scientists over the millennia to better understand the natural order to the incredible tales in religious texts including talking serpents, virgin births, walking on water, resurrections etc. (things which directly conflict with science) is just more repetition of your sophistry here.  Boring indeed.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not claiming to know your mind, you said it your self, you think there is evidence we are living in a larger life form.
> 
> Humans are very good at noticing patterns, and when you suffer from confirmation bias, as i suspect you do, you will see patterns when no true patterns exist.



Coulombs law and Newtons Law of gravity.
Reaction of Petroleum with oxygen and it's products by vehicles travelling on "arterial" roads, glucose reacting in our blood stream producing the same chemical outputs.
Multiple descending levels of life observable under a microscope, seemingly oblivious to a higher life form (us) observing them.

Yeah right! No patterns to be found at all!! Please learn some actual science and stop wasting my time!


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> We've been down this road before!!! I even gave you the dictionary definition and root derivation of the word!!Have you already forgotten our earlier dialogue during the science is a religion debate!




Yes, but dictionaries only describe usage of words, words can have multiple meanings, 

When i use the word faith, I am meaning " strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof "

This is the type of faith we are talking about here, When using that definition of faith, I don't have faith in anything.

However, if you are going to try and bait and switch again by inserting another usage of the word such as, "
complete trust or confidence in someone or something" then it's useless, because that is not the usage the atheists or the theists are referring to.


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> Guess most of you have heard by now of the tragic loss of the Malaysian airliner over the Russian/Ukrainian border, brought down (they think) by a surface to air missile, killing more than 230 people.
> 
> At least a dozen times so far this morning I must have heard ‘_Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims’._
> Thoughts *and prayers*???!!! I’m sure the grieving relatives are in our thoughts – what a terrible thing to lose loved ones in such horrific circumstances. But *prayers*?? – what good exactly are prayers going to do? Why do people persist with the foolish notion that prayers are somehow going to help in situations like this!




There are numerous examples of saying/doing things that are meant with the nicest and sincerest intentions but really mean nothing. When I'm at the checkout I often say - "Thankyou, I hope you have a great day". Whether or not the person has a great day will have nothing to do with my hoping, but if it is said warmly and with sincerity the person almost always responds positively and with a smile - and with a "you to." 

On a day such as today, to criticise and belittle a comment such as "You are in our thoughts and prayers" is petty, weak and largely immature. Regardless of religious beliefs, most emotionally and intellectually mature people would look behind the comment to the compassionate, wholehearted and genuine message it conveyed. Surely Australian haven't become that detached from their religious heritage, that this comment can cause offense and consternation  

I know there are large numbers of the Australian population that are no longer "church attending worshippers", however if Bunyip's view is now commonplace - stop the bus please I want to get off.  

This thread has plenty of comments that come across as lordly, patronizing and dripping of condemnation - ironically most coming from those who attack religious institutions for supposedly holding those very same views.     

Duckman


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Coulombs law and Newtons Law of gravity.
> Reaction of Petroleum with oxygen and it's products by vehicles travelling on "arterial" roads, glucose reacting in our blood stream producing the same chemical outputs.
> Multiple descending levels of life observable under a microscope, seemingly oblivious to a higher life form (us) observing them.
> 
> Yeah right! No patterns to be found at all!! Please learn some actual science and stop wasting my time!




Your noticing patterns because your ignoring all the other little bits that don't fit the pattern, as i said confirmation bias.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Repetition of fallacious assertions, ridiculous analogies and fantastic religious claims by yourself and others here does unfortunately require some repetition on my part in retort.  The religious bring quite enough material to consider here, absent credible evidence of course.  I'll defer to the religious here for creative content, their vivid imaginations and lack of critical thinking allows scope for all manner of mystical expression.




There's nothing I love more than critical thinking! 

Would you care to demonstrate some?

I'm willing to entertain the possibility of one day discovering that some of my beliefs are wrong! Every so often I use critical thinking to review my belief system. 

Are you willing to apply your critical thinking to your perception of reality?



> Equating the endeavours of scientists over the millennia to better understand the natural order to the incredible tales in religious texts including talking serpents, virgin births, walking on water, resurrections etc. (things which directly conflict with science) is just more repetition of your sophistry here.  Boring indeed.



I do not recall ever making definite claims about the specific phenomena to which you refer ("talking serpents, virgin births etc.). I do claim that there is a lot of evidence of intelligence and wisdom in various parts of many of the religious texts. However, given that these texts have been passed down throughout the ages via diverse cultures, languages etc. and as such are subject to misinterpretation. Hence the need to exercise the utmost care and discernment in the examination and interpretation of such texts.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Your noticing patterns because your ignoring all the other little bits that don't fit the pattern, as i said confirmation bias.




Does Dawkins treat every rock that is dug out of the ground as proof of prehistoric life?
If I recall correctly, he only focuses on the interesting ones that look like they might resemble something that can fit into Darwin's Evolution theory!

However you're quite correct, Dawkins does indeed suffer from confirmation bias!


----------



## pavilion103 (18 July 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> There are numerous examples of saying/doing things that are meant with the nicest and sincerest intentions but really mean nothing. When I'm at the checkout I often say - "Thankyou, I hope you have a great day". Whether or not the person has a great day will have nothing to do with my hoping, but if it is said warmly and with sincerity the person almost always responds positively and with a smile - and with a "you to."  On a day such as today, to criticise and belittle a comment such as "You are in our thoughts and prayers" is petty, weak and largely immature. Regardless of religious beliefs, most emotionally and intellectually mature people would look behind the comment to the compassionate, wholehearted and genuine message it conveyed. Surely Australian haven't become that detached from their religious heritage, that this comment can cause offense and consternation  I know there are large numbers of the Australian population that are no longer "church attending worshippers", however if Bunyip's view is now commonplace - stop the bus please I want to get off.  This thread has plenty of comments that come across as lordly, patronizing and dripping of condemnation - ironically most coming from those who attack religious institutions for supposedly holding those very same views.  Duckman




Great post in relation to the "thoughts and prayers" comments. 

Highly disturbing that the first thing someone would do after such a tragedy is to belittle such a comment.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Does Dawkins treat every rock that is dug out of the ground as proof of prehistoric life?
> If I recall correctly, he only focuses on the interesting ones that look like they might resemble something that can fit into Darwin's Evolution theory!
> 
> However you're quite correct, Dawkins does indeed suffer from confirmation bias!




Good scientists are always able to name things that would prove them wrong and use peer reviewed studies to weed out any personal confirmation bias.

If you spoke to Dawkins, he would probably list a whole host of things that would disprove the evolution theory, scientists often make predictions about things that will disprove their theories.

I think you need to watch this. it only goes for less than 5mins, but it is a good demonstration on how to avoid confirmation bias, and shows how we all can suffer from it because we tend to look for patterns that go along with the ideas we already believe.


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I'm willing to entertain the possibility of one day discovering that some of my beliefs are wrong! Every so often I use critical thinking to review my belief system. Are you willing to apply your critical thinking to your perception of reality?



Indeed,  I don't just entertain the possibility, I have subjected many previous beliefs (including those related to religion) to critical review and self-reflection and come to the conclusion they were wrong.  Events like 911 for instance challenged my complacency that religious convictions were largely a benign force in human society, now I regard religion and the myths it's based on as the poisonous cancer it really is.  I have discarded belief systems and dogmas such as those embodied in the doctrines of the major religions in favor of a philosophy of living in the moment since that's all we really have.

I don't confuse my moment by moment perception of reality with absolute truth; therefore I am open to being proved wrong where there is convincing evidence to the contrary – unlike the closed, indoctrinated minds of the religious.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but dictionaries only describe usage of words, words can have multiple meanings,
> 
> When i use the word faith, I am meaning " strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof "
> 
> ...





cynic said:


> We've been down this road before!!! I even gave you the dictionary definition and root derivation of the word!!Have you already forgotten our earlier dialogue during the science is a religion debate!





Value Collector said:


> Good scientists are always able to name things that would prove them wrong and use peer reviewed studies to weed out any personal confirmation bias.
> 
> If you spoke to Dawkins, he would probably list a whole host of things that would disprove the evolution theory, scientists often make predictions about things that will disprove their theories.
> ...






Value Collector said:


> I am not claiming to know your mind..
> Don't you find it weird that these facts which appear so self evident to you have been missed by main stream science.






> I think you need to watch this...




So not only have you claimed to know the mind of myself, Hitler, Newton etc. you now claim to be able to speak for Dawkins as well!!!
Who do you think you are? (Are you God?!!!)



cynic said:


> .. It's just that I don't experience some posters as being at all receptive to any information that contradicts their personal philosophy and hence do not wish to waste too much of my time!
> ...
> The evidence is right in front of our eyes! Some prefer to overlook this in favour of the perception of believing themselves to be members of the most intelligent species in the multiverse and more intelligent than their ancestors. The evidence uncovered by their very own science does not support such vanity!


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Indeed,  I don't just entertain the possibility, I have subjected many previous beliefs (including those related to religion) to critical review and self-reflection and come to the conclusion they were wrong.  Events like 911 for instance challenged my complacency that religious convictions were largely a benign force in human society, now I regard religion and the myths it's based on as the poisonous cancer it really is.  I have discarded belief systems and dogmas such as those embodied in the doctrines of the major religions in favor of a philosophy of living in the moment since that's all we really have.
> 
> I don't confuse my moment by moment perception of reality with absolute truth; therefore I am open to being proved wrong where there is convincing evidence to the contrary – unlike the closed, indoctrinated minds of the religious.




Congratulations!! You've found your very own personal religion!!!


----------



## FxTrader (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Congratulations!! You've found your very own personal religion!!!



Yet more repetitive, patronizing sophistry, sigh.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> So not only have you claimed to know the mind of myself, Hitler, Newton etc. you now claim to be able to speak for Dawkins as well!!!




Let me say for the record once again, I am not claiming to know peoples minds when I am referring to opinions those individuals have expressed them selves in interviews or their own publications.

For the record, both Dawkins and Darwin have made predictions on things that would disprove the theory of evolution.

for example, Dawkins has regularly said if we were to find things out of place in the fossil record, then this would disprove evolution theory, eg, finding a human or other modern mammals in the Precambrian period rocks would blow the evolution theory out of the water.

so where as you seem to just identify things that go along with your hypothesis, real scientists will be looking for ways to prove them selves wrong


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Let me say for the record once again, I am not claiming to know peoples minds when I am referring to opinions those individuals have expressed them selves in interviews or their own publications.
> 
> For the record, both Dawkins and Darwin have made predictions on things that would disprove the theory of evolution.
> 
> ...




Your immutable faith in the infallibility of the teachings of Dawkins is truly amazing!

The fact that you've invested yourself into his religion doesn't grant you license to needlessly attack those with alternative beliefs!


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Yet more repetitive, patronizing sophistry, sigh.



Not to worry! Just recognise that this is another opportunity for you to impress us with your self acclaimed critical thinking skills!


----------



## DeepState (18 July 2014)

Survey from Pew recently released on religious attitudes and warmth to varying stripes in the US.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

My estimation and cognitive orb  conjectures that a selection of the ASF frequenters to this discursive filament may find the contents entrancing.  However I cannot offer certification of my existence or even yours.  I can only surmise so. Thus the attachment may not, itself, be a worldly concern at all and just an imaginary flicker in your sentience.

Whatever...


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> Survey from Pew recently released on religious attitudes and warmth to varying stripes in the US.
> 
> http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/
> 
> ...




I've taken the liberty of bolding part of your post because I loved what you had to say in those particular sentences and am in agreement.

That's an interesting survey in that it contained some results that I'd have anticipated with one or two surprises mixed in. 

Given that there is a very large number of diverse religions in the US, do you consider the population sample size (approx. 3K) to be sufficient?


----------



## DeepState (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Given that there is a very large number of diverse religions in the US, do you consider the population sample size (approx. 3K) to be sufficient?




Does it suffice?  The query is indeterminable. In what capacity is the sample size relevant to, exactly? Even then, should this elucidation be forthcoming, the interpretation can only be weighed equally with the well worn guideline "how long is a piece of string?" There is no attainable knowledge that can close this. We are left the scraps and must satisfice, acquainting ourselves well with the shortcomings in our ability to perceive and discern the truth. Perception and truth are akin to a hound pursuing a fox, where the gap can sometimes seem to tantalizingly close, only to drift apart again.  In this chase, the hound will never catch the fox.  The question is insoluble. But the chase excites as a result of the possibility and, perhaps, in the arrogance that the alter of truth can be scaled and arms raised as we stand upon it. In the gap, hopes, beliefs, imagination and misinterpretations of accidental and purposeful design strain to quench the unforgiving void. Then, like quarrelsome children, take punches at each other in an impossible contest to attain complete victory over the bloodied rest. Some children of these beliefs take a more natural bent to pugilistic approaches than the others. Others pursue their own chosen path occasionally fending of irritation. No path is capable of complete invalidation or, for that matter, affirmation.

Is religion crazy?  Or is pursuing the question crazy? I am merely mortal and the truth of those questions, I know, is beyond me. But I can get hold of some useful pharmacology.

Have fun out there.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Your immutable faith in the infallibility of the teachings of Dawkins is truly amazing!
> 
> The fact that you've invested yourself into his religion doesn't grant you license to needlessly attack those with alternative beliefs!




You brought up Dawkins, not me.

I see your trying to misdirect the conversation again rather than actually deal with your confirmation bias.


----------



## cynic (18 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You brought up Dawkins, not me.
> 
> I see your trying to misdirect the conversation again rather than actually deal with your confirmation bias.



It's so terribly kind of you to notice that I was in need of some additional cognitive limitations.

Please accept my gratitude for your generosity in offering to give me some of yours.

Regretfully I must decline your kind offer, as I suspect that confirmation bias to be non-transferrable and am currently unaware of any mechanism whereby I can deal with such bias on another's behalf!

So I'm sorry to say you'll have to find another way to address this aspect of your body of cognitive limitations.


----------



## Value Collector (18 July 2014)

cynic said:


> It's so terribly kind of you to notice that I was in need of some additional cognitive limitations.
> 
> Please accept my gratitude for your generosity in offering to give me some of yours.
> 
> ...




I think you just like listening to your own dribble.

You can't even hold a conversation without attempting to misdirect the conversation or accusing people of the very things your guilty of.

I must admit it made me laugh when you accused fx trader of making up his own religion, coming from you, a guy who openly admitted he believes he is a microbe living inside a larger more intelligent life form, it seemed very rich indeed.

I can forgive pav and tink, I think they were brain washed from a young age, you however brain washed yourself willingly.

For all the science you say you have studied, you seem to have missed some of the most important basic foundations of the scientific method, any way good luck with that, of all the posters here you are the most intellectually dishonest, so much so you fool yourself.


----------



## cynic (19 July 2014)

cynic said:


> ...I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.






cynic said:


> I will be more than happy to put the time into brushing the dust off my physics,chemistry and biology textbooks and websearching (so that I can provide links to identical information) *if you're genuinely interested*, but






Value Collector said:


> And your free to over state yours I guess.






> if that's your attitude then it's quite evident that I'd be wasting time that could be better spent elsewhere. I'd rather be spending my time increasing my knowledge than wasting it on a futile attempt to share it with an unwilling subject!






Value Collector said:


> As far as I am aware, nothing in those scientific fields has pointed to a god. But I would be happy to look at any evidence you can provide. Why not start with your best piece of evidence. I have been down this road with creationists before, and it doesn't normally take long before they need to commit logical fallacies to prove there god, So lets just start with your best piece of evidence, so I can get a feel for the kind of things you count as evidence.






Value Collector said:


> ...I think you need to watch this. it only goes for less than 5mins, but it is a good demonstration on how to avoid confirmation bias, and shows how we all can suffer from it because we tend to look for patterns that go along with the ideas we already believe...






Value Collector said:


> I think you just like listening to your own dribble.
> 
> You can't even hold a conversation without attempting to misdirect the conversation or accusing people of the very things your guilty of.
> 
> ...




You repeatedly asked for me to provide evidence despite my deep reservations regarding the purity (or lack thereof) of your intent.

Don't abuse and blame me for the discomfort you're experiencing from the established scientific facts that I provided in response to your repeated requests! 

I didn't do this to you! 

YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF!!!

As stated just shortly before we commenced this recent dialogue:


cynic said:


> ...
> Unfortunately there are those that choose to cling tightly to derogatory assumptions about their religious opposition.
> 
> Such assumptions often arise pursuant to a personal agenda founded on avoidance of deep insecurities. Such individuals cling tightly to their chosen ideology (whether it be theistic, atheistic or other) and are reluctant to acknowledge any conflicting truth for the simple reason of unwillingness to embrace the fear that arises from confrontation with their personal issues. So it becomes just another crusade where every party likes to believe that the facts/truth/God/s is/are on their side and filters the evidence accordingly.


----------



## Tink (19 July 2014)

Good on you, cynic.

An excellent post, duckman, regarding thoughts and prayers.

VC, you call people brainwashed yet you constantly post youtubes in here with Dawkins, who is brainwashed?
I don't appreciate you putting up pictures of brains and lies when anyone mentions something that is against how you think.
Most of these people that have contributed aren't even religious, yet you don't want to hear it?
Anyone that has come in here with a different view has to repeat themselves constantly saying they aren't religious, what does that say? 
That you have your own religion.

Cynic has talked about science often in all his posts, so how do you conclude that he doesn't believe in science.
I am happy to sit and watch discussions progress, but its the likes of you and a few others that have just stopped them from going anywhere.

Rumpole has mentioned a few things and where did that discussion go, apart from you talking about fairies.

What is the point of these discussions when it never gets off the ground with hard religious folk like you, that constantly push their own.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 July 2014)

All the attributes VC describes about the religious are actually being displayed in his posting and he is copping a hammering for it now.

Despite more posters rising up and pointing this out he is completely blind to it and "everyone else is wrong".

VC is the most fanatical person in this thread. He should use this persistence doing Amway or something!

Pushing his agenda. Abusing people who don't agree. Calling anyone who disagrees with him brainwashed. Saying others don't believe in science despite them using scientific evidence and his position lacking scientific evidence. 

All I see is insecurities in his own position.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Don't abuse and blame me for the discomfort you're experiencing from the established scientific facts that I provided in response to your repeated requests!




Scientific facts to not discomfort me, Your constant misdirection, twisting and failure to recognise your own confirmation bias does.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, you call people brainwashed yet you *constantly* post youtubes in here with Dawkins, who is brainwashed?
> .




I think you need to look up what the word constantly means, I would describe it as "rarely", and if I do post a video, it is only to try and express a point that would take many paragraphs to explain, but which the video explains quicker and in a more entertaining way




> I don't appreciate you putting up pictures of brains and lies when anyone mentions something that is against how you think



.

I don't do that when they go against what I think, I do it when they go against reality.



> Most of these people that have contributed aren't even religious, yet you don't want to hear it?




Who are you talking about? I think you'll find I have been willing to engage anybody in dialogue. The only person I find is a pain to talk to is Cynic, and only because of his dishonest style of debate. 



> Anyone that has come in here with a different view has to repeat themselves constantly saying they aren't religious, what does that say?That you have your own religion




Who has been saying that? I think it is you and cynic that have been trying to paint atheists with the religious tar, just as you are doing here.



> Cynic has talked about science often in all his posts, so how do you conclude that he doesn't believe in science.




I think he believes in science, it's just he suffers from confirmation bias, a big part of the scientific method involves trying to weed out your own confirmation bias, that's all I am saying. You can come to all sorts of wrong conclusions if you misapply the scientific method.



> I am happy to sit and watch discussions progress, but its the likes of you and a few others that have just stopped them from going anywhere.




No, the road block seems to be when we ask for evidence, the conversation breaks down when we say the things your guys cling to isn't really evidence. I am happy to dedicate a lot of time to explaining the nature of logic and evidence to people, But if you sit there refusing to be budged by sound logic, then I guess we have nothing to talk about.



> Rumpole has mentioned a few things and where did that discussion go, apart from you talking about fairies.




I thought that was a good discussion, I think both rumpole and I both got something out of it.

talking about fairies was simply to illustrate the fact that just because you can't disprove something, doesn't mean you should believe it or that it has truth value.

I brought up fairies on purpose because most people don't believe in them, But they will generally admit that they can't disprove fairies don't exist in the universe somewhere. So they can't expect us to disprove their god, it is up to them to prove their god.



> What is the point of these discussions when it never gets off the ground with hard religious folk like you, that constantly push their own




I am not pushing my path, How is asking people, what they believe? and why they believe it? pushing my path. If anything its opening the door for them to preach.

Obviously I am most interested in the second part of why they believe it, which is where I start asking for evidence, and the conversation starts to lean towards what is and isn't evidence etc.

I am only interested in talking to people who genuinely care if their beliefs are true, If they care they shouldn't mind a peer review of their beliefs. If they don't care, then there is no point in talking about whether things are true, and there is no point them engaging anyone except to preach, and I am not interested in preaching.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> All the attributes VC describes about the religious are actually being displayed in his posting
> 
> .




such as?




> Despite more posters rising up and pointing this out he is completely blind to it and "everyone else is wrong".




What exactly am I blind to?



> VC is the most fanatical person in this thread.




What do I do that can be labelled as fanatical?



> Pushing his agenda.




The only "Agenda" I have is to believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible, and if I can, I like to help people recognise their false beliefs. In a world where false beliefs are killing people, breaking up families and causing a host of other bad outcomes, I think this has value.

None on my beliefs are sacred, every thing I believe gets a question mark hung on it from time to time. 




> Abusing people who don't agree.




Who am I abusing?



> Calling anyone who disagrees with him brainwashed.




Do you believe that religions brain wash people? 



> Saying others don't believe in science despite them using scientific evidence and his position lacking scientific evidence.




What part of my position lacks scientific evidence? and I never said cynic doesn't believe in science, I am just saying we is using this disparate facts to point in an illogical area, because he has confirmation bias.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 July 2014)

I could spend a good 30 mins going over all of those points and providing answers. 

What possible benefit could that provide for me? In all seriousness?

You are an evangelical atheist. 

You don't know when to leave things alone. 

We have all gone around and around in circles. 

I don't want to be harsh, because I'm sure you're a decent person, but dude you need to know when to just leave it alone and close off conversation. 

Thus the reason I come and go from this thread from time to time.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I could spend a good 30 mins going over all of those points and providing answers.
> 
> What possible benefit could that provide for me? In all seriousness?
> 
> .




Well maybe you shouldn't make accusations if your not prepared to back them up.




> You don't know when to leave things alone.
> 
> I don't want to be harsh, because I'm sure you're a decent person, but dude you need to know when to just leave it alone and close off conversation.




I guess you think the way these conversations should work is that you get to sprout what ever nonsensical rubbish you like, and everyone else should just accept it with out questioning you as to why you believe these things, and if you say you have evidence, we should just accept that with out asking what the evidence is.


----------



## bellenuit (19 July 2014)

> The only person I find is a pain to talk to is Cynic, and only because of his dishonest style of debate.




+100

I agree 100% on that. Cynic's contribution to the debate has been zero, just pure obfuscation. He has never produced any material to support what he says but just alludes to something different or throws back gratuitous replies such as "it's there for all to see" ignoring every request that he detail what's there for all to see. Just look at almost every one of his replies. Nothing ever addresses what is asked, but instead just additional meaningless dribble.

The fact that Tink find his posts worthy of the tick of approval says tons about Tink. I would suggest even that she does not have a clue what he means, but because it is in argument with an atheist, agnostic or non-believer it must be something that she would agree with if she only could understand it. 

Pav and Tink have hated this thread from the beginning because it makes them face facts they do not want to deal with. 90% of this thread is about acts committed, usually in the name of a religion, that are seen as abhorrent by every normal person, yet they feel somehow threatened by their exposure. 

To VC - good on you. Keep exposing nonsense with facts.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> +100
> 
> Cynic's contribution to the debate has been zero, just pure obfuscation.




Yes, complete obfuscation is the best description for Cynics replies. 




> The fact that Tink find his posts worthy of the tick of approval says tons about Tink. I would suggest even that she does not have a clue what he means, but because it is in argument with an atheist, agnostic or non-believer it must be something that she would agree with if she only could understand it.




Yes, I find it amusing also, Tink's Christian based beliefs are completely at odds with Cynics "we're microbes in the belly of an intelligent being based beliefs", But it seems she would rather side herself with others that believe nonsense rather than those who are simply making rational inquires into what is the truth and what is false.





> To VC - good on you. Keep exposing nonsense with facts




thanks mate


----------



## pavilion103 (19 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> +100
> 
> I agree 100% on that. Cynic's contribution to the debate has been zero, just pure obfuscation. He has never produced any material to support what he says but just alludes to something different or throws back gratuitous replies such as "it's there for all to see" ignoring every request that he detail what's there for all to see. Just look at almost every one of his replies. Nothing ever addresses what is asked, but instead just additional meaningless dribble.
> 
> ...





Translation: gold star for whoever agrees with my view because if they are a genius then so am I 


These acts committed by Christians are contrary to the teachings of Christ (who claimed to be the Son of God. 
Just like if someone says "I am trading like George Soros" but they trade the opposite and lose money, it doesn't discredit George Soros only the idiot claiming to follow him (but not really).  

Abhorrent acts are committed by all groups claiming to be all sorts of people, claiming to have all sorts of good intentions. Religious, atheist, everyone. 

The atheists in this thread persist in using the acts of moronic people claiming to follow Jesus as evidence that following Jesus leads to these abhorrent acts, when the opposite is true. 

Sneaky. Sneaky. 

But let's not dare bring up Hitler and those who wanted to create a super-race by survival of the fittest using evolutionary principles. Oh no. 
"It's all the Christians I tellz ya"






In terms of facing up to facts, I can comfortably defend my beliefs. 

You have the miracle of something from nothing and life from non-life etc, which you have no scientific basis for. 

You and no one in this world can account for this scientifically. 

It is all philosophy: personal opinions on the story of the past. 

It's a shame that you are so insecure about your beliefs that you can't label them as philosophy. You need to believe that you have something firm to grasp to: science.
Not only can science not account for your worldview at all, but it completely invalidates it. 


You're smokescreens and under-handed labeling of things may possibly fool some, but I can see them from a mile away.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 July 2014)

Now that I have exposed this clearly for all to see I will once again be taking myself away from this thread as there is nothing left to add. 

I won't be checking it from after this post. I might re-visit it down the track.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am only interested in talking to people who genuinely care if their beliefs are true, If they care they shouldn't mind a peer review of their beliefs. If they don't care, then there is no point in talking about whether things are true, and there is no point them engaging anyone except to preach, and I am not interested in preaching.




This is not a piss-take. Really.

What if the beliefs are not provable or are unreasonable in the sense they are actually incompatible with the hard core reality that realists/scientists believe to be truth of the type you espouse? Yet, in the face of that, they produce a better outcome anyway for the person with this belief than a belief derived from pure logic?    If this were the case, isn't it logical to believe in things that are beyond the type of argument presented in a, say, Popper-esque falsifiable proposition scientific method framework?

Examples can be provided upon request, if you should be interested in pursuing this. I believe the above is true.  This is coming from someone who uses scientific methods in the literal sense for investments, observes it to be an effective means of obtaining progress in other scientific fields but observes that it is not be best method to apply in life more generally, outside of the hard sciences.  In some human endeavors, it is logical to be illogical.  

Belief is more important than some notion of scientific fact in important areas that go to the heart of what makes us human.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> But let's not dare bring up Hitler and those who wanted to create a super-race by survival of the fittest using evolutionary principles. Oh no.
> "It's all the Christians I tellz ya"
> 
> .




Hitler was a Christian, and the holocaust was mass murder down religious lines, the catholic propaganda against Jews certainly contributed to his and German societies mistrust and hatred of the Jews.

Nothing Hitler did was based on the theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution simply explains the origin of the many species that exist, it says nothing about how we should operate societies. 





> In terms of facing up to facts, I can comfortably defend my beliefs.




then why don't you.



> You have the miracle of something from nothing and life from non-life etc, which you have no scientific basis for.




So do you, you haven't explained it either, 



> You and no one in this world can account for this scientifically.




Not yet, But saying it was a magic god doesn't account for it either


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Hitler was a Christian, and the holocaust was mass murder down religious lines, the catholic propaganda against Jews certainly contributed to his and German societies mistrust and hatred of the Jews.




Please , not this old chestnut again.

I have no brief for religion, but just because a persons parents decides to send their child to a particular church does not mean they have to follow that church's teachings in adult life, or even that they believed them in the first place.

Hitler left the church as soon as he could and went his own way. Several things may have influenced his later philosophy, I tend to think it was mainly shaped by Germany's defeat in WWI and his ultra nationalism that decided to avenge that humiliation. I doubt if you could attribute very much at all to his early Christian upbringing.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> What if the beliefs are not provable or are unreasonable in the sense they are actually incompatible with the hard core reality that realists/scientists believe to be truth of the type you espouse? Yet, in the face of that, they produce a better outcome anyway for the person with this belief than a belief derived from pure logic?    If this were the case, isn't it logical to believe in things that are beyond the type of argument presented in a, say, Popper-esque falsifiable proposition scientific method framework?
> 
> .




That was my point, If a person doesn't care if the things they believe are true or not, but would rather just believe things that make them feel good, that is fine with me, But if that's the case, then we have nothing to talk about, Because the person has already said they don't care what's true.

How ever, if that's the case, I think they should refrain from pushing their beliefs on others, and they should not discriminate or lobby the government to discriminate for them based on these beliefs and should not make threats of physical or spiritual violence.

It's my personal opinion that the facts about our universe and the origins of our planet and our species is a much more awe inspiring story than any religion has, and bringing up children and adults that snub reality in favour of myths and legends, means society is missing out, and it can be damaging to society also. 



> In some human endeavors, it is logical to be illogical.




such as?



> Belief is more important than some notion of scientific fact in important areas that go to the heart of what makes us human




Yes, I know. Beliefs inform actions. Our actions are based on what we believe probably more than what we know. Hence why I say I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, That way my actions will be better informed.

I am not saying its possible to only believe true things, I am simply saying I think its best to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, and part of that is being able to kill off even my most treasured belief if new information arrives.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Please , not this old chestnut again.
> 
> .




Yes, Note I didn't bring it up. I am tired of theists bringing out Hitler as a nonsense argument against evolution and atheism also. 



> I have no brief for religion, but just because a persons parents decides to send their child to a particular church does not mean they have to follow that church's teachings in adult life, or even that they believed them in the first place.




Yes, I know, But you can't get away from the fact that he was brought up in a society that was filled with hate and mistrust for Jews that was carried on by the catholic churchs propaganda, and this would have contributed to Hitlers hatred of them and made it easy for his propaganda to sway people.



> Hitler left the church as soon as he could and went his own way. Several things may have influenced his later philosophy, I tend to think it was mainly shaped by Germany's defeat in WWI and his ultra nationalism that decided to avenge that humiliation.




Yes but you can't get away from the Religious lines he drew, It wasn't an accident he targeted Jews.




> I doubt if you could attribute very much at all to his early Christian upbringing




As I said, I think the catholic stance towards Jews had a lot to do with it. Where as you can't attribute it at all to the theory of evolution.


----------



## Tink (19 July 2014)

Nice of you to pick and choose who I should be agreeing with, I must have hit a nerve in my post.
What happened to GB, I used to agree with some of his posts too.

I think cynic has added plenty in this debate, you just don't like what you read and see in it.
I have mentioned a few of cynic's posts, chromosomes being one.
I agree with cynic's posts on science, and thank God he is in this forum for that.

Great post, Retired Young, agree.
I have said that a few times, the cold reality of science without the warmth of religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

> Yes but you can't get away from the Religious lines he drew, It wasn't an accident he targeted Jews.






> Positive Christianity (German: Positives Christentum) was a movement within Nazi Germany which blended ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity. Hitler included use of the term in Article 24[1] of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating "the Party represents the standpoint of Positive Christianity". Non-denominational, the term could be variously interpreted, but allayed fears among Germany's Christian majority as to the expressed hostility towards the established churches of large sections of the Nazi movement.[2] In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained "Positive Christianity" as not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor in "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: "The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.[3] To accord with Nazi antisemitism, Positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible. In such elements Positive Christianity separated itself from Christianity and is considered apostasy by Catholics and Protestants.
> 
> Hitler himself was hostile to Christianity, and historians, including Ian Kershaw and Laurence Rees, characterise his acceptance of the term "Positive Christianity" and involvement in religious policy as driven by opportunism, and a pragmatic recognition of the political importance of the Christian Churches in Germany.[2] Nevertheless, efforts by the regime to impose a Nazified "positive Christianity" on a state controlled Protestant Reich Church essentially failed, and resulted in the formation of the dissident Confessing Church which saw great danger to Germany from the "new religion".[4] The Catholic Church too denounced the creed's pagan myth of "blood and soil"" in the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge and elsewhere.




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


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

Tink said:


> I think cynic has added plenty in this debate, you just don't like what you read and see in it.
> .




Its all window dressing, he has become pretty transparent.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> such as?




1. Eight of the fastest men in the world mount the blocks for the 50m Freestyle at the Olympics.  All are winners.  They have won all their lives to get this far.  They have trained their guts out. The contents of their meals are measured. The have been psychologically processed to dispel doubt.  Each honestly believes they will be the winner of this race.  Not to do so condemns them never to have the slightest chance. Yet only one can win. Totally illogical.  But illogical not to believe so.

2. Can you scientifically falsify that I love my kids or prove otherwise?  Did I have kids to consciously and scientifically pass down my genes for generations that I will never live to see?  Their school fees set me back $100k per annum gross income wise and would represent something approaching two million in current dollars just on education alone when they likely emerge from tertiary bliss and get a monster reality check. Forget about all the other stuff like tickets to ski fields on every part of the planet or collecting Disney visits and going bonkers going around "It's a Small World" for the damned 15th time - at least they are in different languages.  It's illogical. In contrast to the past, children are a negative tangible asset. Not like in agricultural societies. Many relationships break in the early years of child raising due to the stress of it. Yet I did it and wouldn't have it any other way.  Is that logical?  A Sharpe model Utility optimization framework would have me short-sell them. When the model does not accord with reality, fix the model.  Converting my affection into dollar equivalents?  Are you (metaphorically) nuts?

2. Going to religion. Of all the things likely to be remembered in the next 1000 years of our current era, landing on the moon would have to be #1. Wow.

The astronauts with the right stuff from Kennedy's call were chosen from the most able.  These guys were the best of the best.  Gruelling processes, tough, calm, smart, situationally aware....they were supreme individuals for this type of endeavor.

The most amazing steps included: First orbit (John Glenn); First Circumnavigation of the Moon (Apollo 8); First Lunar Landing (Apollo 11).  Each of these people faced the very real possibility of dying.  Many had families.  The crew of Apollo 1 perished.  Imagine how subsequent crews felt.


John Glenn who piloted Genesis is Christian and interviewed as such on a space shuttle trip with Discovery in 1998.

The astronauts of Apollo 8 read scripture on the way to the moon and broadcast it back.

When they landed on the moon, Buzz Aldrin reveals he actually smuggled...get this...a bible, silver chalice, sacramental bread, wine and takes communion.  He has to be told not to offer prayer on the microphone back to the world.  Neil Armstrong is a deist.

At the time, polls run by Gallup show that 60% of the US population were very religious and 15% said religion is "not very important" in their lives. Given that religion has declined over time, I am guessing that the younger part of the population was less religions. Yet, without even making allowance for that, if you randomly picked Americans and whacked them into just those three missions, you wouldn't dream of getting anything like this outcome.  

The tooth fairy may not exist, but kids feel good when they believe it is out there.  Part of having the Right Stuff appears to have something to do with religious belief. It makes an astronaut feel that all will be taken care of.....allowing him to be super cool under unbelievably stressful situations.  It may not seem rational, but it produces better outcomes than what you might regard as rational thought.



Catch-22. Logic and science only takes us so far. Paradox is plentiful and its junctures are found at the most meaningful parts of human endeavor. Logic and what we accept today as scientific method are just a, admittedly and thankfully, powerful tool for a set of purposes.  However, I don't use a hammer to brush my teeth.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Great post, Retired Young, agree.
> I have said that a few times, the cold reality of science without the warmth of religion.




Thanks.  I think we all have our own set of beliefs.  

There are some things that influence our beliefs.  These include the sorts of things that science brings to us.  I believe that 1+1 = 2.  I did not have that belief until I discovered it was true. Actually, 1+1 = 2 is an axiom.  We take it to be true and we cannot disprove it from within the sphere of logic in which it resides (rhymes with anything here?) There are things where our beliefs inform science and the causality is in that direction.  For example, our behavior is such that we herd. Hence, if we want certain things to succeed, we need to create swarms of network effects...like ASF, or Facebook, or mobile phones...for them to be more successful. Science helps with that and backwards inducts what happens when we behave like this.  It has no real hope of predicting that we would.  It's all along a spectrum and these are just examples of the wings.  But life is more...lovely...than that.

Then there are things outside of science.  What scientific method produced Harry Potter?  I've never seen the equation.  Thank goodness, or it's just a matter of cloning and cross breeding it via the literary equivalent of eugenics. Yuck.

A society of purely optimized, self-determining, automatons would actually collapse in on itself. But, then again, without some sort of binding, it would also collapse on itself.  It's a fascinating creature. In an effort to explain things to the nth degree and remove the grey bits, we can end up making the same, similarly motivated, mistake as Laplace who believed that all could be predicted with perfect knowledge of the present. It can't.  I like it that way. But even if I didn't, that's the way it is. This urge arises a lot from a scientifically testable aversion to uncertainty. We seek succor in various beliefs and practices, holding fast to them.  Hoping for science to draw back the shades to flush out the monster in our cupboard is not so dissimilar to having other beliefs in that regard.

There are real limits to what is knowable and what knowledge can be applied to.  It is not actually known that science is the most rational course of action to take as a species. To soon to tell.

Overall, I think...believe as you wish...as long as you don't harm others. I may not share your beliefs, but what the heck.  I like reading your stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity




Yep, was there anything in particle you wanted me to get from that?

I already had a pretty good understanding of that stuff, Pav and many other Christians often try and charge atheism with the out come of the holocaust, however as you can see from that it was caused by a mix of religious based antisemitism, leader worship and strange blood myths, racism and economic scape gloating, not atheism and not evolution.


----------



## luutzu (19 July 2014)

I think Value Collector has been quite reasonable - he didn't say that there's no God, just he doesn't know for sure so prefer not to believe one exists until proven otherwise.

To say that since something is so complex and so miraculous that it couldn't possibly have been there by chance or adaptation, it must have been created by a superior being... that doesn't make sense to me.

That's like saying a mountain shaped by the wind over millennia and now look like an old man or a parrot's beak or a horse's head.. .that it must somehow be created by someone. Unless it's Mt. Rushmore and the like, it's just wind and rain or something... not necessarily human or divine being sculpt it.

---
At first glance, it might seem that to have faith, to believe in a higher being is good for us, psychologically and emotionally... I don't think that that's true either.

If God exists and has been paying attention to His creations, he's not someone worthy of respect and admiration, and not someone you ought to pray to for forgiveness or for world peace let alone a lottery ticket.

If God is a parent and we his children, even DOCS would be able to see the neglect.

I got two kids and when they fought over toys or not sharing their stuff, we step in and teach them why and what to do... not stand back and be all mysterious and let them fought it out thinking that they ought to know that I have my reasons and I gave them free will or testing them... Henry Ford show no love and always "toughen" up his his dutiful son and the poor guy was miserable til the day he died.

I don't know why people would pray or talk to a guy who clearly hasn't given a dam. I guess the last time he intervened he drowned the entire world except for Noah and his family so maybe it's a good thing.

But say you worship God for the tough love and neglect because that's how you build character... wouldn't it then make more sense to not believe there to be a Judgement Day, no reward of eternal life for being good, no Almighty Father to watch over you so you better watch over yourself by working harder...


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

Tink said:


> I have said that a few times, the cold reality of science without the warmth of religion.




I don't think reality is cold, off course if your afraid of death, some one telling you that your not really going to die might provide some comfort, but it does seem a little childish to me, a bit like a daddy telling a child his teddy will save him from the boogie man, Its better to just not believe in the boogie man.

In my view science is awe inspiring, I am constantly flabbergasted and amazed when I learn facts about the universe.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, was there anything in particle you wanted me to get from that?




Yes, the fact that Hitler was not a religious person, but only used it to his own ends.



> I already had a pretty good understanding of that stuff, Pav and many other Christians often try and charge atheism with the out come of the holocaust, however as you can see from that it was caused by a mix of religious based antisemitism, leader worship and strange blood myths, racism and economic scape gloating, not atheism and not evolution.




The antisemitism came from the Nazi's interpretation of "Positive Christianity" which was a synthesised religion for the purposes of mass appeal to Nazism , not from the Catholic church.

If you are trying to say that atheism does not lead to genocide, I point you towards Pol Pol and Mao Zedong. Oh yes, you will probably say that they were secret religious fanatics but they actually persecuted religions because they posed a threat to them, note China's continuing persecution of the Dalai Lama.


----------



## luutzu (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, the fact that Hitler was not a religious person, but only used it to his own ends.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I think you'll find that the Communists removed the god/s of religion and replace themselves with it - it's religion by another name.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> I think you'll find that the Communists removed the god/s of religion and replace themselves with it - it's religion by another name.




I suppose that brings up another point, that any ideology is a religion, whether it be communism, facism, socialism or free market fundamentalism, they all tend to ignore facts in favour of their pre-established theories.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. Eight of the fastest men in the world mount the blocks for the 50m Freestyle at the Olympics.  All are winners.  They have won all their lives to get this far.  They have trained their guts out. The contents of their meals are measured. The have been psychologically processed to dispel doubt.  Each honestly believes they will be the winner of this race.  Not to do so condemns them never to have the slightest chance. Yet only one can win. Totally illogical.  But illogical not to believe so.
> 
> .




They all have a chance of winning, that is not illogical. And they are all following the logical steps you mentioned to increase their chance, if they believed the were guaranteed to win, they may skip training. You don't have to believe with 100% certainty you are going to win, you just have to believe you have a decent shot, which they do.




> . Can you scientifically falsify that I love my kids or prove otherwise?




I don't know, perhaps, its possible that certain parts of the brain fire when you feel love, and If they can't already they may one day be able to measure your level of love on a brain scan, they can do this with some other impulses already.

In regards to the other stuff, I dont think it is illogical to look after your kids, you get pleasure from doing it obviously, have you read the self fish gene, it talks about some of this stuff.




> 2. Going to religion. Of all the things likely to be remembered in the next 1000 years of our current era, landing on the moon would have to be #1. Wow.
> 
> The astronauts with the right stuff from Kennedy's call were chosen from the most able.  These guys were the best of the best.  Gruelling processes, tough, calm, smart, situationally aware....they were supreme individuals for this type of endeavor.
> 
> ...




Its not surprising to me that they were religious, the Cold War inspired a lot of extreme religious swaying, because the "godless commies", 

May argument stands, believing as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible will inform your actions in a more positive way accross the board than actively believeing falsehoods


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, the fact that Hitler was not a religious person, but only used it to his own ends.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Antisemitism predates nazism, and yes it can be directly linked with the Catholic Church.

You say hitler wasn't religious, well i would disagree, but even then, you can't say his views were based on rational atheism. They were based on racism, politics, blood myths etc etc.

Nothing about atheism can lead to genocide, Atheism is one answer to one question, everything else is something else. If some one says their an atheist, all that says is that they don't believe in a god, it doesn't tell anything else about that person, and it cant lead to genocide, you would need other beliefs to do genocide.

No one has ever thought, "you know what, I don't think there is a god, I better go start killing people" people have however read religious texts and been convinced to kill, or had other irrational beliefs that have lead them to kill.

China persecutes any threat to their power, religion being a threat.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose that brings up another point, that any ideology is a religion, whether it be communism, facism, socialism or free market fundamentalism, they all tend to ignore facts in favour of their pre-established theories.




And all would be improved by the members trying to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1. They all have a chance of winning, that is not illogical. And they are all following the logical steps you mentioned to increase their chance, if they believed the were guaranteed to win, they may skip training. You don't have to believe with 100% certainty you are going to win, you just have to believe you have a decent shot, which they do.
> 
> 
> 2. I don't know, perhaps, its possible that certain parts of the brain fire when you feel love, and If they can't already they may one day be able to measure your level of love on a brain scan, they can do this with some other impulses already.
> ...





1. Have you played elite sports or been at the very epitome of any endeavor?  These are not the words of someone who has.  You must believe absolutely that you will win and do what is in your control to achieve it. That includes turning up for training.  Winners don't turn up and think, "oh top 5 will do".  Well done Johnny. That stuff ends in U/12 regional sport.

2. Yes, actually, there is a hormone called Oxytocin which is released. fMRI can also detect it.  But you can also get it when you eat lots of chocolate or 'doing the deed'.  So, did I love my kids or the box of Tim Tams I just mashed down or...?  Which is a control for which? Am I in love with my Tim Tams? Do my kids remind me of chocolate? Can't mention the Mrs... Even when they map every neuron, the answer will be indeterminant.  There is no absolute.  It is probabilistic.  It is built into the design of the universe as science understands it...right down to the smallest measurable particles. Virtually nothing worth investigating is known absolutely. Real science knows its limitations.  The hardest of science - physics - has had fundamental beliefs re-written frequently.  The most important fundamental theories can't even be aligned. However, the desire for entertainment brings science into contests where proof can never be found within its tool set.

3. You are ignoring the Pew survey.  Those are the stats for actual beliefs post "godless commies".  The chances of a random selection of Americans turning up as religious astronauts as apposed to athiests is beyond the normally accepted boundary for statistical significance.

4. Your point does not stand on very important points although you can feel free to believe it does. Who here is actively believing falsehoods? They are believing things which cannot actually be falsified by scientific endeavor.  Dawkins cannot disprove a tea cup whirring around the sun.  There is simply a standard of proof which is right for him to say God does not exist.  But it is a probability statement which is taken to be certainty by some.  However, a flaw in logic that often prevails in this type of situation is that proof of presence is necessary to believe an object exists. Read any quantum physics lately? It is the compliment of the logical fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

> Nothing about atheism can lead to genocide,




I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.


----------



## noco (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.




Just give Juliar Gillard a call...she will explain it all for you.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1. They all have a chance of winning, that is not illogical. And they are all following the logical steps you mentioned to increase their chance, if they believed the were guaranteed to win, they may skip training. You don't have to believe with 100% certainty you are going to win, you just have to believe you have a decent shot, which they do.
> 
> 2. I dont think it is illogical to look after your kids, you get pleasure from doing it obviously.




VC, my apologies for drawing out a second thread to one response.  I just thought of a few more things.

1. Martin Seligman, father of Positive Psychology, has examined the impact of positive disposition.  The effects of optimism are corroborated elsewhere.  Basically, optimists are actually unrealistic.  They are overconfident, overestimate outcomes....everything which scientific endeavor would caution against.  Yet, optimists are by far the more successful in life, live longer, happier and more productive lives.  Yet they are irrational in their estimation as science would have it.  In contrast, pessimists are actually very rational.  They are the realists.  What they think of themselves turns out to be accurate.

Great endeavor is undertaken by people who are pretty much nuts.  Who sails the seas thinking the earth is flat or where dragons may lurk?  Who tries new ways and fails over and over again to discover electricity and harness it? And on and on.  The odds of success and payback are not in their favour unless measured as irrational.  Yet where would society be without these irrational people?  In order to succeed as a species, we need the crazies to push the ridiculous boundaries where many perish and one changes the world as we know it.

You seem keen on the psych, genetic, behavioural texts.  Black students in the US when mixed with White/Other doing an IQ test do poorly.  Sit a matched sample in a classroom of Blacks only and they do well/average.  Why is that?  Because they play to type in the mixed classroom and expect to do poorly against this cohort because society told them so. Belief determines fact.

Science describes what is in place and tries to offer an explanation and, sometimes, forward induction. I'll use the term 'rational' as being improving personal or societal outcomes.  That to me is the purpose of endeavor whether through science or other means.  None of the above accords with scientific principles.  Scientifically falsifiable beliefs produced better outcomes.  To subject these beliefs to scientific norms is to destroy what makes us great.  Now, is that scientifically logical?  Not knowing the truth can make us stronger.  In the case of science, thank goodness, sometimes the truth can never be known.  Applying science to a field and problem type that is insoluble doesn't really make sense.  That is, unless we are on a chat site having fun.


2. If it is not illogical to look after my kids because I enjoy it and it cannot be conclusively proved that I do, why is it illogical for someone who derives emotional benefit from believing in a higher being when the absence of the superior being cannot be proved?  Dawkins and his selfish gene is just one view on this.  In a societal sense, I'm not very sure his arguments are correct.  But enough for one post.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.




An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in god, anything else is something else.

If a person hates religion, that would be Anti theist, they may be an "atheist anti theist" or they may be a " deist anti theist" or even a "communist anti theist", the point i am making is that the word atheist describes one answer to one question, thats it any other ideologies are not atheism.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

On the application of science to prove/disprove the existence of a superior being:


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in god, anything else is something else.
> 
> If a person hates religion, that would be Anti theist, they may be an "atheist anti theist" or they may be a " deist anti theist" or even a "communist anti theist", the point i am making is that the word atheist describes one answer to one question, thats it any other ideologies are not atheism.




All right, I'll accept that, unless further evidence changes my mind


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. Have you played elite sports or been at the very epitome of any endeavor?  These are not the words of someone who has.  You must believe absolutely that you will win and do what is in your control to achieve it. That includes turning up for training.  Winners don't turn up and think, "oh top 5 will do".  Well done Johnny. That stuff ends in U/12 regional sport.
> 
> 2. Yes, actually, there is a hormone called Oxytocin which is released. fMRI can also detect it.  But you can also get it when you eat lots of chocolate or 'doing the deed'.  So, did I love my kids or the box of Tim Tams I just mashed down or...?  Which is a control for which? Am I in love with my Tim Tams? Do my kids remind me of chocolate? Can't mention the Mrs... Even when they map every neuron, the answer will be indeterminant.  There is no absolute.  It is probabilistic.  It is built into the design of the universe as science understands it...right down to the smallest measurable particles. Virtually nothing worth investigating is known absolutely. Real science knows its limitations.  The hardest of science - physics - has had fundamental beliefs re-written frequently.  The most important fundamental theories can't even be aligned. However, the desire for entertainment brings science into contests where proof can never be found within its tool set.
> 
> ...




1, I was a special forces soldier for 7 years, does that count. And i know believing as many true things was very important to that, over confidence can be very dangerous.

2, i really think we are getting into red herrings now, 

3, yes but all apollo members were airforce, when you are working with any specialised group in a population you will find things diverge from averages, eg, a very high degree of military members vote liberal, and at the time i served in my regiment Queensland was over represented but you cant draw conclusions that it takes a liberal voting queenslander to do what we do. 

4, there are many people who believe falsehoods here, just because the concept of a god is unfalsifiable doesn't mean the claims of the various religions are also unfalsifiable. The claim that the earth was created in 6 days for example can be proven false.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 2. If it is not illogical to look after my kids because I enjoy it and it cannot be conclusively proved that I do, why is it illogical for someone who derives emotional benefit from believing in a higher being when the absence of the superior being cannot be proved?  Dawkins and his selfish gene is just one view on this.  In a societal sense, I'm not very sure his arguments are correct.  But enough for one post.




Enjoyment is not the only thing that makes looking after your kids logical.

I am fine with some one believing things that can't be proven, remember my statement is only that it is beneficial to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

If someone wants to take a religious position, and they don't care if its true or not. Thats fine with me, but then we have nothing to talk about, and i think they should not lobby government to conform or discriminate against others etc.

But if some one takes a religious view and they say they know its true and should there fore have some power over me, well then we need to have a conversation to work out whether it is true, and that will involve them having to prove their position.

But look, this conversation has diverged along way from my original points, I am not saying only scientific things should be believed, or whatever extreme view you think I have, i willing admit we all believe things that are false, but I mainline that we benefit when we work to reduce the number of false things and increase the number of true things.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1, I was a special forces soldier for 7 years, does that count. And i know believing as many true things was very important to that, over confidence can be very dangerous.
> 
> 2, i really think we are getting into red herrings now,
> 
> ...





1. Yup, that counts. Thanks very much for your service to the nation. As a younger guy I went to 3RAR to be a weekend special forces guy...and found the women were bigger than me.  I was wondering how I was supposed to haul the monster guys around.  Got my viewpoint scientifically adjusted pretty fast.

In service, would you say that your confidence in yourself and each other in service and in hostile territory was such that you could go into situations that 99.9% of Australians would not think was viable for them?  It's that part I mean. You think you can do it when a cross section of the populace would look with admiration but think that is a bit on the extreme side to say the least even if they had the immense requisites otherwise.  In the uncommon belief that you can do it, you trained stupendously to achieve and earn that confidence. And then, you engaged in necessary activity carefully and with as much understanding of the risk as possible. Belief in winning is not to be equated with stupid bravado.  Because you've done it, it may not seem like it, but I reckon most people would think that what you personally did is irrational in that they wouldn't do it...although they would be grateful for your presence anyway.

2. Key point: no-one can ever be sure about certain important things.  

3. Fair point. I don't have the stats on the subset.  And there is a difference between correlation and causality. Still, I am amazed at it and find the depth of belief was so strong and think, as opposed to know, that it was uncommon.  I don't think that religious belief is exactly on the same plane as Queensland liberals though in terms of that issue. Maybe growing up in warm weather makes you a better soldier on average.  Maybe there weren't enough jobs in Queensland at the time and the army was recruiting.  Just kidding around.

4. I agree.  But let's be careful about talking about religion in general and keeping it separate from some of the falsifiable claims that get made.  As you know, the presence of falsifiable claims doesn't obviate the whole edifice. Science has made heaps of claims that have been falsified, per the scientific method.


----------



## cynic (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> ...there is a difference between correlation and causality...
> 
> ...But let's be careful about talking about religion in general and keeping it separate from some of the falsifiable claims that get made.  As you know, the presence of falsifiable claims doesn't obviate the whole edifice. Science has made heaps of claims that have been falsified, per the scientific method.




+1


luutzu said:


> I think Value Collector has been quite reasonable - he didn't say that there's no God, just he doesn't know for sure so prefer not to believe one exists until proven otherwise.



I have many friends, some of them are atheists and with the exception of one unfortunate misunderstanding involving my issuing a compliment related to the minister's sermon at their wedding, we've been able to respectfully share our diverse perspectives and still remain friends.

However, abusing a person for exercising their right to hold a different philosophical opinion, does not conform to my understanding of reasonable behaviour.


----------



## cynic (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> ...Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another...Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.



+1 

This thread now has a series of examples of posters personally demonstrating the truth of your statement!


----------



## cynic (19 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Good on you, cynic.
> 
> An excellent post, duckman, regarding thoughts and prayers.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your support Tink, much appreciated.




pavilion103 said:


> Translation: gold star for whoever agrees with my view because if they are a genius then so am I
> ...




Yes! 

I think I can recall reading of a wonderful teacher speaking of such things! It's truly amazing how some of the wisdom passed down throughout millenia has remained relevant to the current day!


----------



## cynic (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Who am I abusing?
> ...
> What part of my position lacks scientific evidence? and I never said cynic doesn't believe in science, I am just saying we is using this disparate facts to point in an illogical area, because he has confirmation bias.






Value Collector said:


> Scientific facts to not discomfort me, Your constant misdirection, twisting and failure to recognise your own confirmation bias does.






Value Collector said:


> ...
> Who are you talking about? I think you'll find I have been willing to engage anybody in dialogue. The only person I find is a pain to talk to is Cynic, and only because of his dishonest style of debate.
> ...
> I think he believes in science, it's just he suffers from confirmation bias, a big part of the scientific method involves trying to weed out your own confirmation bias, that's all I am saying. You can come to all sorts of wrong conclusions if you misapply the scientific method.
> ...






bellenuit said:


> +100
> 
> I agree 100% on that. Cynic's contribution to the debate has been zero, just pure obfuscation. He has never produced any material to support what he says but just alludes to something different or throws back gratuitous replies such as "it's there for all to see" ignoring every request that he detail what's there for all to see. Just look at almost every one of his replies. Nothing ever addresses what is asked, but instead just additional meaningless dribble.
> ...
> To VC - good on you. Keep exposing nonsense with facts.






Value Collector said:


> Yes, complete obfuscation is the best description for Cynics replies.
> ...




Crikey!!! Roll out the crucifix guys!
Just another classic case of shoot the messenger!!!


----------



## FxTrader (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.



Radical atheists?? Oh please, where are those violent hoards of atheists killing religious believers, persecuting them, strapping bombs to their bodies and killing the innocent etc.  Not only is such an association obscene, it's asinine and absurd nonsense.

I note that such irrational loathing of those who expect conclusive, convincing evidence for belief in the existence of imagined celestial dictators is becoming fashionable among the religious.  Religion is preferable to non-religion because those hated atheists have no reason to be moral and similar rhetorical garbage.

At issue is whether the fantastic claims of the religious and any particular religion are true.  Religion is not true because:


It says so in the iron-age scrolls
Proclaimed atheists have done evil things
Atheism is also a religion
It's useful for an orderly society
An ordered universe requires a creator
It gives people a sense of comfort
Religious people are better citizens
Evolution theory is flawed
Etc.

Demonizing atheists and atheism does not prove the case for the truth and accuracy of any particular religion.  For those arguing the case for religion here, stop this game of diversion and address the core issue of why you believe and what evidence justifies your belief.

As to the hated term atheism, I prefer this quote by Sam Harris:



> “In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

> Radical atheists?? Oh please, where are those violent hoards of atheists killing religious believers, persecuting them, strapping bombs to their bodies and killing the innocent etc. Not only is such an association obscene, it's asinine and absurd nonsense.




You might consider the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

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

If you think such allegations are absurd, then I'm sure you won't associate all religious people with the starting of wars etc. Such allegations are equally absurd, obscene and offensive to those people.

Just remember that religion in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a few within that religion, as atheists in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a subset of that group.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1. remember my statement is only that it is beneficial to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
> 
> 2. I am not saying only scientific things should be believed, or whatever extreme view you think I have, i willing admit we all believe things that are false, but I mainline that we benefit when we work to reduce the number of false things and increase the number of true things.




1. I used to believe this.  Now I think it's a bit more complex than I had first imagined.  This is only a belief, but I'll go with it.  I have supplied examples where I think I have demonstrated that truth is not always beneficial to a higher objective. There are several others. These are always subject to varying degrees of critique. Perhaps where we might differ is on a technicality.  I believe that we have better lives when we take an optimistic/positive/whatever viewpoint when there is not strong evidence to the contrary. This may not apply to investments (actually provably not so).

2. Chillax about this. I don't think you have an extreme view at all.  It's just a (imo very well reasoned) view and I wanted to sharpen mine against yours.  Like you, I am capable of arguing against myself.  But it's more effective when you have a strong 'opponent' to shape your metal.  My approach, beliefs etc. are actually not too divergent.  They are just different.  We can keep talking.

I like this:

http://www.bwater.com/home/culture--principles/culture-videos.aspx

Click on 'Ray'.  It will be the video that is already loaded. He is the founder of Bridgewater.  I use their methods in investment. I seriously respect them and their approach.  I think it might bring some useful things to this thread. I hope you enjoy it.

Joe, don't blow me off here, this is not about stock chat!


----------



## FxTrader (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You might consider the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
> 
> ...



So then by your reasoning the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is an act by "radical atheists"?  Yes, I think such an argument is absurd and in no way validates the incredible claims made by the religious.

Competing claims in magic books taken to seriously by "radical religious believers" is tearing human society apart and is responsible for strife, suffering and death on a large scale.  This is not an allegation, it's fact and readily observable daily.

What evil people do in the name of religion is a problem for their religion.  Atheism is NOT a religion and any attempt to label it as such is intellectually dishonest and mischievous for reasons already explained here many times.  Atheists are not a collective group and not identifiable as such, please reread Harris' quote.


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. Yup, that counts. Thanks very much for your service to the nation. As a younger guy I went to 3RAR to be a weekend special forces guy...and found the women were bigger than me.  I was wondering how I was supposed to haul the monster guys around.  Got my viewpoint scientifically adjusted pretty fast.
> 
> In service, would you say that your confidence in yourself and each other in service and in hostile territory was such that you could go into situations that 99.9% of Australians would not think was viable for them?  It's that part I mean. You think you can do it when a cross section of the populace would look with admiration but think that is a bit on the extreme side to say the least even if they had the immense requisites otherwise.  In the uncommon belief that you can do it, you trained stupendously to achieve and earn that confidence. And then, you engaged in necessary activity carefully and with as much understanding of the risk as possible. Belief in winning is not to be equated with stupid bravado.  Because you've done it, it may not seem like it, but I reckon most people would think that what you personally did is irrational in that they wouldn't do it...although they would be grateful for your presence anyway.
> 
> ...




1, I certainly never believed I couldn't fail, to an extent I think I was driven by a fear of failure, the idea that I might one day let my mates down was a horrifying thought, if anything kept me awake at night, that was it.


----------



## Julia (19 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> The tooth fairy may not exist, but kids feel good when they believe it is out there.  Part of having the Right Stuff appears to have something to do with religious belief. It makes an astronaut feel that all will be taken care of.....allowing him to be super cool under unbelievably stressful situations.  It may not seem rational, but it produces better outcomes than what you might regard as rational thought.



There seem to be two arguments running  here:

1.  that a god exists or doesn't:  neither 'side' can prove their point of view.

2.  it's a feelgood thing to have something to believe in.

I don't want to insult anyone by being simplistic, but if someone were just to say:

"I have no idea whether a god of any type exists, I certainly can't demonstrate his/her existence or otherwise, but I find it a comfort to believe that my life is guided by some higher being which supports me and helps my passage through life"

then why would anyone argue with that?



> If God exists and has been paying attention to His creations, he's not someone worthy of respect and admiration, and not someone you ought to pray to for forgiveness or for world peace let alone a lottery ticket.
> 
> If God is a parent and we his children, even DOCS would be able to see the neglect.




I did like this.


----------



## Ves (19 July 2014)

Probably the closest to my own 'view'  would be something like the concept explained in this article:

http://www.raptitude.com/2011/05/you-are-another-bull-in-the-china-shop/

I like the fact that it does not argue against the usefulness & worthiness of religion,  but compliments it from an "atheist"  point of view (ie.  religion exists because man needs a way to control his primal urges).


----------



## FxTrader (19 July 2014)

Julia said:


> There seem to be two arguments running  here:
> 
> 1.  that a god exists or doesn't:  neither 'side' can prove their point of view.
> 
> 2.  it's a feelgood thing to have something to believe in.



Not entirely accurate, asserting there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God is quite different to claiming that a God does not exist.  The claim by many religious that not only does God(s) exist but that such existence has implications for your eternal soul means they own the burden of proof.  An infinite number of beliefs are unprovable, but those related to a God must be since the consequences for the religious and human society are significant.



> I don't want to insult anyone by being simplistic, but if someone were just to say:
> 
> "I have no idea whether a god of any type exists, I certainly can't demonstrate his/her existence or otherwise, but I find it a comfort to believe that my life is guided by some higher being which supports me and helps my passage through life" then why would anyone argue with that?



If only religion was so benign.  Sure, self-delusion can be harmless, but the communitarian nature of religious belief means that all of human society is impacted by those who take the fiction in iron-age scrolls to seriously.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> So then by your reasoning the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is an act by "radical atheists"?  Yes, I think such an argument is absurd and in no way validates the incredible claims made by the religious.




Cop out. You just can't accept that some atheists do nasty things. Take the blinkers off some time.



> Competing claims in magic books taken to seriously by "radical religious believers" is tearing human society apart and is responsible for strife, suffering and death on a large scale.  This is not an allegation, it's fact and readily observable daily.




There are radicals in all walks of life. More in some religions than others. Anything can be used for good or evil. 



> What evil people do in the name of religion is a problem for their religion.




No , it's a problem for the evil doers and the legal processes of the country in which they reside.



> Atheism is NOT a religion and any attempt to label it as such is intellectually dishonest and mischievous for reasons already explained here many times.  Atheists are not a collective group and not identifiable as such, please reread Harris' quote.




Where did I say atheism was a religion ? It's just semantics anyway. Religious people do good and bad things, so do atheists. Is that too complex an issue to grasp ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Cop out. You just can't accept that some atheists do nasty things. Take the blinkers off some time.
> 
> 
> 
> ?




That's not quite what you said, you implied that atheism can cause people to commit genocide. Which is very different from saying an atheist can commit genocide.

Offcourse simply being an atheist doesn't guarantee that I person will never do bad things, so there would have been people that are atheists that have done bad things, but there is no doctrine in atheism that would cause people to commit bad acts.

This is not true for theism though, religions have various doctrines which can instruct people to commit bad acts, thats the biggest difference.


----------



## DeepState (19 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> 1. Not entirely accurate, asserting there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God is quite different to claiming that a God does not exist.  The claim by many religious that not only does God(s) exist but that such existence has implications for your eternal soul means they own the burden of proof.  An infinite number of beliefs are unprovable, but those related to a God must be since the consequences for the religious and human society are significant.
> 
> 2. If only religion was so benign.  Sure, self-delusion can be harmless, but the communitarian nature of religious belief means that all of human society is impacted by those who take the fiction in iron-age scrolls to seriously.




Very interesting perspective.

1. From a pure logic perspective, I disagree with what you have asserted in terms of proof of existence vs not - just in isolation.  However, I think your following sentence makes me accept that the consequences of the beliefs are very different depending on the perspective which has been arrived at.  The road does fork and each lane has consequences. Given the asymmetry of consequence that you highlight, I think I get it.

Given the perceived consequences of believing in God are, to your mind, so large, an insurmountable burden of proof is called for.  Surely you accept that your request will never be met.  People will believe. They will believe that it is possible for God to exist and some will strongly identify with this belief.  They will not stand before the court of scientific proof, they do not recognize its jurisdiction in this area.

2. Given that people will believe what they do, which coalesces into a joint identity and then creates mass effects, what kills?  Is it the gun, or the person wielding it?  Religion is the gun.  Change your Glock 19 (religion) for a Barrett .50 Caliber (1960s geopolitical power play to prevent Marxism/Communism from spreading) and you get the Mai Lai massacre and countless more atrocities.  Humans have always fought and destroyed each other as well as coalesced.  We don't need religion to do it.  It's just an excuse. When at war, it gets called a religious war when it is really a tribal conflict using religion as a context.  Take away religion and replace it with anything that creates  a tightly binding joint identity like political persuasion or desire for more arable or fertile land, or simply to have more than the next guy and you get the same effects. 

Strength of identity is relative. Further, we identify ourselves strongly by what we are not. So simply being in opposition to something binds where nothing else within the group does so.  How on earth did Germany mix with Russia to annex Poland at first? Then, shortly after, proceed to engage in Total War? This was not a religious conflict and yet ranks as one of the greatest tolls ever extracted on a battlefield.  I think it ranks #1.

We seem to believe deepest when evidence is scarcest. And we will scream loudest at each other under such circumstances, sometimes spilling into war. This effect happens in investments in a measurable way too.  It's amazing how it does and reflects the impact of powerful beliefs in important areas where tangible outcomes are available definitively.  Given tangible outcomes are not available for much of what really matters, is it surprising that what we have as an outcome is as it is?  Religion is just a lever (in this context). There are others that are virulent too that will just step up in its absence.  The outcomes will be different in detail but similar in scope.  What is constant is the underlying process of coalescing and struggle which sometimes leads to war.  That is not a creature of religion, rather, it is its progenitors.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That's not quite what you said, you implied that atheism can cause people to commit genocide. Which is very different from saying an atheist can commit genocide.
> 
> Offcourse simply being an atheist doesn't guarantee that I person will never do bad things, so there would have been people that are atheists that have done bad things, but there is no doctrine in atheism that would cause people to commit bad acts.
> 
> This is not true for theism though, religions have various doctrines which can instruct people to commit bad acts, thats the biggest difference.




Sorry, I have to disagree.

 If you take atheism to an extreme, it turns into a hatred of religion (which we have seen here in this forum in varying degrees) . In the mind of a homicidal lunatic that could turn into violence against religious people or the institutions of religion. Don't you think that China's persecution of the Falun Gong (which as far as I know has no violence inherent in it's doctrine) falls into that category ? As was China's cultural revolution which was a similar attack against religion amongst other things. You seem anxious to ignore these examples of religious persecution while throwing verbal grenades against religion.

Believe me, I think that some religious people do some nasty things, but to ignore the fact that religious people are also persecuted in the name of atheism is to ignore evidence contrary to your opinion, and given your obsession with evidence I certainly hope you won't do that.

The real threat to society is extremism of any sort. I hope you don't think that the millions of your countrymen who go to church every Sunday and go peacefully about their daily lives are going to let themselves be turned into murderers just because a preacher says so ? To do so would be to do good people a great disservice.


----------



## Tink (20 July 2014)

Good on you and well said, Rumpole.

Of course, I disagree with you, FX. 
Who would want to be a teacher now in those public school classrooms with no respect, not many, I can assure you. Sadly, the lack of religion and ethics is showing. No warmth.

You are welcome, cynic. 
You have added a lot of discussions in this debate that have started people thinking and talking, but sadly, they don't like to see that. They don't want to know about history, and where science started. They don't want to hear about chromosomes in the Bible long before people even knew what they were. 

They don't want to see that Australia was built on Christian values, but they slowly want to chip all that away.

All those things aren't important in their scheme of things, as long as religion gets knocked out in whatever way possible so that they can add their own religion  - themselves - like the Communists, that rule the world with no rules in society.

Survival of the fittest and the rules of the jungle, yeah.


----------



## FxTrader (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If you take atheism to an extreme, it turns into a hatred of religion (which we have seen here in this forum in varying degrees) . In the mind of a homicidal lunatic that could turn into violence against religious people or the institutions of religion. Don't you think that China's persecution of the Falun Gong (which as far as I know has no violence inherent in it's doctrine) falls into that category ? As was China's cultural revolution which was a similar attack against religion amongst other things. You seem anxious to ignore these examples of religious persecution while throwing verbal grenades against religion.



Your fixation with trying to vilify non-belief and attempt to characterize atheism as some kind of institutional force bent on the destruction of religion betrays an irrational loathing of those who simply suggest there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God.  You conveniently ignore the atrocities committed in the name of religion daily and instead continue your blinkered focus on the evils of your atheist bogeyman.

The Chinese government persecutes certain religions because they see them as a threat to the socialist order and their continued power, not because they are an atheist collective.  It's a totalitarian regime bent on controlling all of society by force and repression where deemed necessary to preserve the communist state.



> Believe me, I think that some religious people do some nasty things, but to ignore the fact that religious people are also persecuted in the name of atheism is to ignore evidence contrary to your opinion, and given your obsession with evidence I certainly hope you won't do that.



The notion that people are also persecuted "in the name of atheism" is a figment of your imagination and a totally unsubstantiated claim.



> The real threat to society is extremism of any sort. I hope you don't think that the millions of your countrymen who go to church every Sunday and go peacefully about their daily lives are going to let themselves be turned into murderers just because a preacher says so ? To do so would be to do good people a great disservice.



Religious and political extremism is indeed a threat to human society.  The deception masquerading as absolute truth pontificated from the pulpit in Churches every Sunday and drummed into the minds of children is hardly harmless or victimless.  The tenants of Christian faith are a fraud perpetrated by religious leaders and institutions on a willing, duped and gullible flock sold on the fanciful fiction they will inherit eternity if they profess some level of belief that God crucified himself on a cross in the form of Jesus to redeem the original sin of a symbolic Adam and Eve (the progenitors of fallen humanity) who succumbed to temptation by a serpent - how absurd.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

> The notion that people are also persecuted "in the name of atheism" is a figment of your imagination and a totally unsubstantiated claim.




Only to people wearing blinkers. What religion are the Chinese government ?

If a person with undeclared religious beliefs declared war on atheists would you assume that they had religious beliefs ?

Atheism and religion are opposing philosophies. There is no need to persecute one of these groups unless you are a member of the other.

And Richard Dawkins certainly persecutes religions in the name of atheism. Why else does he do it ?


----------



## FxTrader (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Only to people wearing blinkers. What religion are the Chinese government ?



Communism



> If a person with undeclared religious beliefs declared war on atheists would you assume that they had religious beliefs ?



Once again, atheism is not a belief system, institutional force or doctrine.  Your hypothetical question is pointless.



> Atheism and religion are opposing philosophies. There is no need to persecute one of these groups unless you are a member of the other.



Atheism is not a philosophy and no amount of semantic argument can make it so.



> And Richard Dawkins certainly persecutes religions in the name of atheism. Why else does he do it?



This totally irrational and emotive statement deserves no response.  People don't persecute you through disagreement and force of argument, your sense of what constitutes persecution is a very distorted and imaginary one.


----------



## Tink (20 July 2014)

As you can see there are many religions in here, Rumpole.

Militant atheists with their messiah, Richard Dawkins.
Come one and all, today we are going to stop the Pope coming in England.
Follow me.......


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> This totally irrational and emotive statement deserves no response.  People don't persecute you through disagreement and force of argument, your sense of what constitutes persecution is a very distorted and imaginary one.






> Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.
> 
> Richard Dawkins




Calling all religious people mentally ill is persecution by anyone's standards except maybe those of militant atheists.

Care to defend Dawkin's statement ? Where is the 'force of argument' in that statement ? It's pure vindictiveness.


----------



## McLovin (20 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Who would want to be a teacher now in those public school classrooms with no respect, not many, I can assure you.




I realise that the "no respect" story fits in with your world view that society is falling apart because we don't worship your sky god, but you are wrong.



> The evidence is stacking up that it's becoming increasingly difficult for teachers, particularly primary teacher graduates, to find permanent jobs.
> 
> In May, a federal government body, the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership, released a report showing that only half of education graduates got full-time jobs.
> 
> ...





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...of-teachers-20130829-2ss22.html#ixzz37yQZKWUN


----------



## artist (20 July 2014)

Tink said:


> They don't want to hear about chromosomes in the Bible long before people even knew what they were.





Tink, a sincere question if I may. I  was not able to understand the link between Genesis text and human chromosomes that cynic proposed. Would you please explain it to me clearly and concisely in your own words? I would really like to understand.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree.
> 
> If you take atheism to an extreme, it turns into a hatred of religion (which we have seen here in this forum in varying degrees) . In the mind of a homicidal lunatic that could turn into violence against religious people or the institutions of religion. Don't you think that China's persecution of the Falun Gong (which as far as I know has no violence inherent in it's doctrine) falls into that category ? As was China's cultural revolution which was a similar attack against religion amongst other things. You seem anxious to ignore these examples of religious persecution while throwing verbal grenades against religion.
> 
> ...




Sorry rumple, your confusing anti theism, with atheism again.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, thats it. Anything else is something else.

If you move to a hatred of religion, thats not atheism, A hatred of religion doesn't come from a simple lack of belief in a god, there must be other factors driving it.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

Tink said:


> They don't want to hear about chromosomes in the Bible long before people even knew what they were.




The bible doesn't talk about chromosomes , what you are doing here is simply talking a bible verse that doesn't talk about chromosomes and twisting the interpretation to try and make it sound like it is describing chromosomes.

If you want some great examples of this, google "scientific evidence in qu'ran, the Muslims love doing this stuff, they claim 100's of Quran verses describe scientific knowledge, but I have gone through many of them with a Muslim guy who was sending them to me, and none of them are actually saying what the think they say.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

artist said:


> Tink, a sincere question if I may. I  was not able to understand the link between Genesis text and human chromosomes that cynic proposed. Would you please explain it to me clearly and concisely in your own words? I would really like to understand.




Yes, I would be interested in Tink, posting the exact verse, and then writing a brief description of why she thinks it describes chromosomes,


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)




----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> If you move to a hatred of religion, thats not atheism, A hatred of religion doesn't come from a simple lack of belief in a god, there must be other factors driving it.




Well maybe we can say that anti theism is atheism taken to extremes, like anti semitism is Catholicism taken to extremes.


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> View attachment 58751




I don't get the Hippie picture. Is he drinking red wine?


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

Imagine...


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> I don't get the Hippie picture. Is he drinking red wine?




You mean he's a winer ?


----------



## bellenuit (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well maybe we can say that anti theism is atheism taken to extremes, like anti semitism is Catholicism taken to extremes.




Atheism taken to the extreme! You mean as in I really really really don't believe in a god?

Religion taken to the extreme, using both Christianity and Islam as an example, is often just a matter of which parts of their holy book they wish to follow. There are parts in both The Bible and Quron that will support almost every position from the most moderate to the most extreme fundamentalism.

We tend to associate the word extreme in the religious context in relation to those who resort to violence, but in a sense they are just adhering to the texts that they particularly favour. 

There is nothing in the statement "I do not believe in a god based on the evidence presented" to be extreme about.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> I don't get the Hippie picture. Is he drinking red wine?




I don't think its a hippy, I think its just a dude drinking a beer


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well maybe we can say that anti theism is atheism taken to extremes, like anti semitism is Catholicism taken to extremes.




No it's actually two separate things, hating religion is different to not believing in a god, atheism is just the default position, where all born atheist until someone convinces us to believe in a god, anti theism is not a default position, it requires a lot of other stuff, especially to get to the extremes


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No it's actually two separate things, hating religion is different to not believing in a god, atheism is just the default position, where all born atheist until someone convinces us to believe in a god, anti theism is not a default position, it requires a lot of other stuff, especially to get to the extremes




OK, so perhaps you will concede then that Hitlers attitude towards Jews was motivated by more 'stuff' than just religion?

Anti Semitism is not a default position of Christianity.


----------



## bellenuit (20 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> We tend to associate the word extreme in the religious context in relation to those who resort to violence, but in a sense they are just adhering to the texts that they particularly favour.
> 
> There is nothing in the statement "I do not believe in a god based on the evidence presented" to be extreme about.




And I also think this is a fundamental difference between those of us who post topics relevant to the theme of this thread and those who retort with "it's just a small minority that do such things, the rest are OK".

We agree, in general, with that retort. But they miss the point. We are not writing about crazy and abhorrent things done by people who just happen to practice some religion or other, we are writing about such things done IN THE NAME of religion. They can find passages in their dogma to support such actions and are often doing such actions because they believe that those passages are the true words of their creator.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> We agree, in general, with that retort. But they miss the point. We are not writing about crazy and abhorrent things done by people who just happen to practice some religion or other, we are writing about such things done IN THE NAME of religion. They can find passages in their dogma to support such actions and are often doing such actions because they believe that those passages are the true words of their creator.




That's obviously true, but there are a lot more people that find positives in religion, and anyway, 'religion' is a broad brush.

Islam - has problems. Some very violent stuff in there especially instructions as to what to do with 'apostates'.

Old Testament - some violent stuff in there too, but it's usually God that takes revenge, he doesn't instruct his followers to do his dirty work. But the old Testament is mainly for Jews, and there is always the First Commandment.

New Testament - for Christians. Not too many problems there, I don't believe Jesus went around telling his followers to kill. "Turn the other cheek" didn't he say ?

Buddhism - ever met a violent Buddhist ? They don't usually knock on our doors on Sunday mornings either.

Hindus - can't recall them causing too much trouble.

So don't knock religion in toto, there is good and bad.

And let's face it, if some radical follower of Richard Dawkins wants to put all religious people in mental asylums, is that Dawkins fault or the radical's ?


----------



## Julia (20 July 2014)

McLovin said:


> I realise that the "no respect" story fits in with your world view that society is falling apart because we don't worship your sky god, but you are wrong.



+1.
How any devotee of religion can claim, after the hideous abuses perpetrated then covered up by the Catholic and other churches, that any downgrading of standards is due to lack of religious influence, is totally beyond me.
The lack of insight and sheer mindlessness is breathtaking.

I'd also second artist's interest in Tink's explanation of cynic's posts.


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

artist said:


> Tink, a sincere question if I may. I  was not able to understand the link between Genesis text and human chromosomes that cynic proposed. Would you please explain it to me clearly and concisely in your own words? I would really like to understand.






Value Collector said:


> The bible doesn't talk about chromosomes , what you are doing here is simply talking a bible verse that doesn't talk about chromosomes and twisting the interpretation to try and make it sound like it is describing chromosomes.
> 
> If you want some great examples of this, google "scientific evidence in qu'ran, the Muslims love doing this stuff, they claim 100's of Quran verses describe scientific knowledge, but I have gone through many of them with a Muslim guy who was sending them to me, and none of them are actually saying what the think they say.






Julia said:


> +1.
> How any devotee of religion can claim, after the hideous abuses perpetrated then covered up by the Catholic and other churches, that any downgrading of standards is due to lack of religious influence, is totally beyond me.
> The lack of insight and sheer mindlessness is breathtaking.
> 
> I'd also second artist's interest in Tink's explanation of cynic's posts.




What aspect/s of my discourse on this matter was/were so unclear that it/they require revisitation?


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, so perhaps you will concede then that Hitlers attitude towards Jews was motivated by more 'stuff' than just religion?
> 
> Anti Semitism is not a default position of Christianity.




I already said that, economic scape goating, bloods myths and racism along with the catholic antisemitism all played a role.

Atheism did not.

Remember i didn't bring up hitler, I was referring to pav who was trying to judge he holacaust  against atheists.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's obviously true, but there are a lot more people that find positives in religion, and anyway, 'religion' is a broad brush.
> 
> Islam - has problems. Some very violent stuff in there especially instructions as to what to do with 'apostates'.
> 
> ...




Yes pav finds positives in religion, however it also causes him to support the discrimination against the members of our society who are gay.

The point I like to make is that I don't think there is a single positive thing accomplished by religion that can't be achieved in other less dangerous ways.

Eg. We all agree that religion has some very bad side effects, but can anyone think of any good things it does that can't be done in other ways? If not, then just like a pill that has bad side effects, you should avoid it in favor of other things


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

And yes rumpole, all those religions you mentioned have nasty side effects, you should research the bad bits rather than just assume they are all Rosie,

Yes there are violent Buddhists, and Hindus that burn people alive. And Jesus said that no laws in the Old Testament will change so you can still follow Jesus and fall back onto those nasty rules, and yes jesus supported slavery


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> What aspect/s of my discourse on this matter was/were so unclear that it/they require revisitation?




I think we would like you to post the exact bible verse, and then explain why you think they are talking about chromosomes.


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think we would like you to post the exact bible verse, and then explain why you think they are talking about chromosomes.




That's been done on this thread already! Should you find yourself genuinely interested in receiving answers to your questions, please let me know. Until then stop wasting my time!


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

> Eg. We all agree that religion has some very bad side effects, but can anyone think of any good things it does that can't be done in other ways? If not, then just like a pill that has bad side effects, you should avoid it in favor of other things




Do any atheists here send their children to religious private schools ?

Why ?

Are there any atheist private schools ? ie any that proudly advertise their atheism ?


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> That's been done on this thread already! Should you find yourself genuinely interested in receiving answers to your questions, please let me know. Until then stop wasting my time!




Did you post the exact wording of the verse? If so can you let me know which verse it was


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Did you post the exact wording of the verse? If so can you let me know which verse it was




If memory serves me correctly, Bellenuit was kind enough to supply the relevant verse during our earlier discourse on this matter.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Are there any atheist private schools ? ie any that proudly advertise their atheism ?




That would be a bit weird, it doesn't really make sense to have an "atheist" school, because as I said atheism is a default position, it has no doctrines to teach, I guess you could call any school that doesn't promote religion atheist.

The point of schooling as far as I see it is the educate people, some schools want to include religion so I guess they label them selves as catholic or Islamic  etc. but if a school just avoids religion, there is no need to label them as an atheist school, they are just the default position of a normal school, you can't teach lessons on atheism, there is nothing to teach, after a 2 minutes description of it, the lesson would be over,


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> If memory serves me correctly, Bellenuit was kind enough to supply the relevant verse during our earlier discourse on this matter.




Your playing the old, "I have the evidence, but your not getting it" game again.

I have actually googled it, and from what I have found its all bogus, I am just wondering if you have something I have missed, so I would like the verse your referring to.

Or haven't you actually read it?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> And yes rumpole, all those religions you mentioned have nasty side effects, you should research the bad bits rather than just assume they are all Rosie,
> 
> Yes there are violent Buddhists, and Hindus that burn people alive. And Jesus said that no laws in the Old Testament will change so you can still follow Jesus and fall back onto those nasty rules, and yes jesus supported slavery




How many Christians today do you think support slavery ?

There are obviously a lot of religious fanatics out there not taking the word of their saviour seriously on slavery. Just proof that religions have to change with the times. And of course if Jesus did support slavery, he also said "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". I wouldn't want to be a slave , would you ?

VC ,you are a decent person, please don't cherry pick only those things from religion that support your bigotry that religion is the cause of all evils in the world.

More wars have been fought over political differences, competition for resources and megalomania than have been fought in the name of religion.


----------



## bellenuit (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Old Testament - some violent stuff in there too, but it's usually God that takes revenge, he doesn't instruct his followers to do his dirty work.




I am surprised you would say that because the OT is full of passages where God instructs his followers to do his dirty work. This was discussed thoroughly back around posts #1965 to #1967.

Here is a repeat of some of what was posted then (emphasis mine).



> *1 Samuel 15 - New International Version  *
> 
> _15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 *This is what the Lord Almighty says*: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 *Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.*’”
> 
> ...




In that particular quote, the Lord is angry with Saul because he had the audacity to spare everything that was good..

Here is some more:



> *Exodus 21:20-21 King James Version (KJV)*
> 
> _20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
> 
> ...




Notice among these the acceptance of slavery, but in particular the last quote where he urges that his followers rape young virgin girls.

Just do some Googling and you will find lots of passages where God urges his followers to do abhorrent things.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I am surprised you would say that because the OT is full of passages where God instructs his followers to do his dirty work. This was discussed thoroughly back around posts #1965 to #1967.
> 
> Here is a repeat of some of what was posted then (emphasis mine).
> 
> ...




OK, but as I said Christians don't go around saying those sort of things today, they related to past events. Times have changed. And the OT is basically the Jewish Bible and even they don't think it's ok to rape young virgin girls.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> How many Christians today do you think support slavery ?
> 
> There are obviously a lot of religious fanatics out there not taking the word of their saviour seriously on slavery. Just proof that religions have to change with the times. And of course if Jesus did support slavery, he also said "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". I wouldn't want to be a slave , would you ?
> 
> ...




Have I ever said religion is the cause of all evils?  I think you will find that my opinion is as I said that it has a lot of bad side effects, which are not worth it because the good effects people are after don't actually need religion to be achieved.

I am not cherry picking, I am just asking you to research whether these religions do have bad side effects before you say that they are all good, yes Jesus said some good things, but he also said some bad things, it's the bad things that cause trouble, and yes the bible was used to fight against the outlawing of slavery,  and the bible is used to continue the discrimination against gays.

Anyone that says the bible has good verses has to cherry pick through the bad to find them.


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Your playing the old, "I have the evidence, but your not getting it" game again.
> 
> I have actually googled it, and from what I have found its all bogus, I am just wondering if you have something I have missed, so I would like the verse your referring to.
> 
> Or haven't you actually read it?






DB008 said:


>



My discourse commenced on this thread 27 December 2013, when I responded to DB008's post with the following: 


cynic said:


> DB,
> 
> Thankyou for sharing yet another fine example of a pseudo scientist making bold declarations of ignorance.
> 
> ...




Said discourse then continued over subsequent pages and included participation and comments by a number of posters.



P.S. Rather than attempting to google the whole of cyberspace, there is an advanced search feature on ASF that was effective in locating these earlier posts.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, but as I said Christians don't go around saying those sort of things today, they related to past events. Times have changed. And the OT is basically the Jewish Bible and even they don't think it's ok to rape young virgin girls.




There are christians that still believe in witches etc, and torture and burn people who they think are witches including children.

I admit the bad side effects of most Christians are not as crazy these days, but they are there. And the craziness of the Christian faith has only been toned down in the last few centuries  because in general society has gotten progressively secular, never forget how they acted when they actually had all the power.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> My discourse commenced on this thread 27 December 2013, when I responded to DB008's post with the following:
> 
> 
> Said discourse then continued over subsequent pages and included participation and comments by a number of posters.
> ...




Can you just give me the verse? What are you afraid of?


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Can you just give me the verse? What are you afraid of?




My skills with aramaic verse are a little out of date at present. How are yours?


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> My skills with aramaic verse are a little out of date at present. How are yours?




King James Version is fine


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2014)

> I am not cherry picking, I am just asking you to research whether these religions do have bad side effects before you say that they are all good,




Did I ever say they are all good ? I've made a point of saying they have done some bad things, but picking out a few loonies who may believe in witches is irrelevant and silly considering the 99.999% of Christians who don't.


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> King James Version is fine




Did you read through the earlier pages of this thread that I directed you to?


----------



## bellenuit (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, but as I said Christians don't go around saying those sort of things today, they related to past events. Times have changed. And the OT is basically the Jewish Bible and even they don't think it's ok to rape young virgin girls.




Yes, I agree with that, but the reason from memory that those quotes were first posted by me was in response to claims made at the time by Pav (I think) that humanist morality was subjective and therefore faulty, and that only the God of the Bible provided the absolute objective morality that we should (and he claims to) live by. If that is the case, times changing should not in anyway effect what we regard as moral.


----------



## artist (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> My skills with aramaic verse are a little out of date at present. How are yours?




Genesis . . . . Aramaic? If you have referred previously to some NT reference(s) to genetics or DNA I missed it.


----------



## bellenuit (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> There are christians that still believe in witches etc,




*Pat Robertson tells mother: Your son’s stomach pains are caused by a witch ancestor*

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/...stomach-pains-are-caused-by-a-witch-ancestor/


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

artist said:


> Genesis . . . . Aramaic? If you have referred previously to some NT reference(s) to genetics or DNA I missed it.



artist, apologies for the confusion. The impatient manner of my response was only intended for the direct recipient.

If by NT you mean New Testament then my answer is no, but rest assured that the book of Genesis wasn't originally expressed in written English.

The discourse commenced with my response to a post by DB, (Page 87, post #1727) and continued over subsequent pages where it was debated hotly. The last words I had to say on the matter at the time appear on page 89 (post #1774).


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Did I ever say they are all good ? I've made a point of saying they have done some bad things, but picking out a few loonies who may believe in witches is irrelevant and silly considering the 99.999% of Christians who don't.




It's not just people that believe in witches, it's also those discriminating against gays, promoting faith healing over proper medical care,  those fighting against teaching proper science, those trying to use the bible to prevent medical advancement, those assisting the spread of aids in Africa by telling people not to use condoms, and those contributing to more poverty by preaching against family planning, the list is almost endless.

Please answer this one question for me,

Please name one positive effect religion has, that can not be achieved in another way.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Did you read through the earlier pages of this thread that I directed you to?




Well considering you didn't actually direct me to a page, you quoted another dribble reply you made to db where you again alluded that you had some information but you didn't actually provide it.

Again i don't know why what your afraid of, simply quote the verse you think describes chromosomes, maybe you know deep down that the verse requires so much biased interpretation that when we read it we will see its just more balony.


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Please name one positive effect religion has, that can not be achieved in another way.




The feeling of eternal peace or eternal hell just before you kick the bucket ?

The feeling u get when u think that those that have done you wrong will have their day of reckoning and you don't have to be Batman to seek justice?

George W Bush left alcohol, found politics and bring peace to the Middle East ?


Seriously though, to some people , for various reasons, god and religion bring them peace and make them feel better. You could get the same result thru drugs but it won't be the same. My parent in laws only became Catholic when the school need them to be to allow their kids in, but after my father in law suffered a serious stroke, I think she prayed for his recovery and they have been to Church every day, joining and volunteering to raise funds and visit nursing homes etc. 

Then there's people who goes to church every week, statues and painting of god and Jesus everywhere at home but who'll have no problem cut your throat for a few dollars - and I've also met them, and I don't go out that much.


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well considering you didn't actually direct me to a page, you quoted another dribble reply you made to db where you again alluded that you had some information but you didn't actually provide it.
> 
> Again i don't know why what your afraid of, simply quote the verse you think describes chromosomes, maybe you know deep down that the verse requires so much biased interpretation that when we read it we will see its just more balony.



So I take it that my reference to the date and thread where the discourse commenced, was too difficult for someone with "special forces" training to follow.
I think I can also recall mentioning the advanced search feature of ASF. Perhaps it's just a little too advanced for some posters.



Value Collector said:


> ...I think you'll find I have been willing to engage anybody in dialogue. The only person I find is a pain to talk to is Cynic, and only because of his dishonest style of debate...






Value Collector said:


> Yes, complete obfuscation is the best description for Cynics replies.




I would normally ask how anybody in their right mind would even consider continuing to issue questions to a person they consider dishonest and painful to converse with. I would usually wonder what possible upside could there be for such a person if they were in their right mind! However, I don't believe I need to ask this question for reasons that have long since become blatantly apparent.

As stated previously:



			
				cynic said:
			
		

> ...If you ever find yourself willing to openly investigate matters that may be in direct conflict with your personal philosophy, please let me know, until then please stop wasting my time and testing my patience.


----------



## DeepState (20 July 2014)

In relation to the following:

+ Some bad eggs within a religious community should not result in all being tarnished
+ That religion is the key cause of atrocities
+ warfare in the name of religion
+ that most of us are peace-loving, with many followers of religion being of like mind, and just want to get on with our lives

It is a recording of a response to a question from a Muslim lady who is a US citizen within a conservative forum addressing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. She is the sole Muslim in the audience.

I found it disturbing but impactful.  I actually do not agree with the implications of the panelist's powerful response for the problem of Muslim terrorism (which can be taken as religious extremism/fundamentalism in general for this context).  Nonetheless, here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTovydgX2NU


----------



## Julia (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> What aspect/s of my discourse on this matter was/were so unclear that it/they require revisitation?



cynic, the question was directed by Artist to Tink.  Much less asking you to expand anything that you have said.
My interpretation, and what I responded to, was essentially supporting bellenuit's earlier observation that Tink would issue a "hear, hear" for any post at all which even remotely appeared to support religion.

I have to confess I have insufficient interest to carefully read all the posts in this thread, many of which seem to be repetitive and non-productive.  Honestly, I really don't understand what you're saying at times, but that's perhaps my lack of comprehension.

But I'm not at all asking you to go over anything.  Rather, echoing the requests of others for Tink to aid those of us who are not sure what you're saying by sharing with us those parts of your remarks which apparently she comprehends more clearly than some of the rest of us.


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> In relation to the following:
> 
> + Some bad eggs within a religious community should not result in all being tarnished
> + That religion is the key cause of atrocities
> ...





True but I think VC was referring to Religion as an institution. 

As an organised institution, the Church/Temple/Mosque all are pretty intolerant and cruel.

I generally like Buddhism, but that's probably because I haven't known any case where it was used to wage wars... maybe the fake monks, in some instances, during the Vietnam War burning themselves...  

True that a lot if not all social and racial genocide and the likes were done by those abusing the name of, and their position in, a religious organisation... But that is only possible because of the structure and belief systems that dictate faith over reason.

I don't think any Atheist or Agnostic would care or blame religious people for genocide or sexual abuses and crimes committed by religious bad-apples... we only raise the issue when people start to try and reason and prove the existence of God, to get people to join or convert to find the "truth".


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

Just for those who keep saying Buddhists don't have a history of violence.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Julia said:


> cynic, the question was directed by Artist to Tink.  Much less asking you to expand anything that you have said.
> My interpretation, and what I responded to, was essentially supporting bellenuit's earlier observation that Tink would issue a "hear, hear" for any post at all which even remotely appeared to support religion.
> 
> I have to confess I have insufficient interest to carefully read all the posts in this thread, many of which seem to be repetitive and non-productive.  Honestly, I really don't understand what you're saying at times, but that's perhaps my lack of comprehension.
> ...




Thanks for clarifying your reasoning Julia. 

I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread.

If my suspicions prove to be correct those posters can anticipate my continued disclosure of controversial (and therefore uncomfortable) perspectives on reality, theology, philosophy and contemporary science.


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Just for those who keep saying Buddhists don't have a history of violence.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence




hahha... my bad. Though I did say I didn't know, and there's a lot I don't know.


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

btw, should we take the length of this discussion as a sign that the market is too high and there's nothing interesting going on?


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Pat Robertson tells mother: Your son’s stomach pains are caused by a witch ancestor*
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/...stomach-pains-are-caused-by-a-witch-ancestor/




Pat is one of those nut jobs with a microphone.

I saw a clip of him on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart where he's shown as saying something like "God told me, and if i heard him correctly..."... from which Stewart stare at the screen and after a pause... "if you hear God correctly? If God spoke to you, what other more important things could you be doing to not hear him correctly?... 

Anyway, goes on and old patty blame hurricanes on the US accepting gay marriages, so God's not happy and punish everyone in those area, within the US... haha


----------



## DeepState (20 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> 1. True but I think VC was referring to Religion as an institution.
> 
> 2. As an organised institution, the Church/Temple/Mosque all are pretty intolerant and cruel.
> 
> ...




1. This wasn't all about VC.  It relates to statements and positions proffered by quite a few, very smart, people on this thread.

2. There we go, a generalization and profiling.  The type of bigotry that causes a lot of harm.  I would say that bigotry is actually the most dangerous behavior we do.  You need to dehumanize a enemy to wage war.  Relax about the fact I just called you a bigot.  I must be too, just in some place that seems really natural to do so to me without knowing it. 

3. Already addressed.

4. Racial genocide is racial.  Sometimes it has a religious label attached.  This may be narrative fallacy. Correlation rather than causality.

5. You don't speak to many people, I think.  Given my screw up with VC and special forces, you're now going to tell me you are Kim Kardashian aren't you.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> So I take it that my reference to the date and thread where the discourse commenced, was too difficult for someone with "special forces" training to follow.
> I think I can also recall mentioning the advanced search feature of ASF. Perhaps it's just a little too advanced for some posters.
> 
> 
> ...




Well i did fear i would waste 30mins or more trawling through your nonsensical rambling when all I wanted was the verse.

And as Julia said, we directed it at tink, I wanted tink to read the actual verse and explain how it meant what you said it meant, that way I was hoping she would realise the large amount of interpretation games she had to play to bend and stretch the actual meaning of the verse to get to chromosomes and realise its nothing more than trying to back stitch meaning onto old texts that was never originally intended.

But yes you are painful to converse with, and your dishonest style is frustrating, hence I didnt originally pose the question to you, you just jumped in again without providing the information asked for.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> btw, should we take the length of this discussion as a sign that the market is too high and there's nothing interesting going on?




Lol, its a sign that I'm fully invested, down to the bare minimum cash holdings i like to keep,


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for clarifying your reasoning Julia.
> 
> I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread.
> 
> If my suspicions prove to be correct those posters can anticipate my continued disclosure of controversial (and therefore uncomfortable) perspectives on reality, theology, philosophy and contemporary science.






Value Collector said:


> Well i did fear i would waste 30mins or more trawling through your nonsensical rambling so when all I wanted was the verse.
> 
> And as Julia said, we directed it at tink, I wanted tink to read the actual verse and explain how it meant what you said it meant, that way I was hoping she would realise the large amount of interpretation games she had to play to bend and stretch the actual meaning of the verse to get to chromosomes and realise its nothing more than trying to back stitch meaning onto old texts that was never originally intended.
> 
> But yes you are painful to converse with, and your dishonest style is frustrating, hence I didnt originally pose the question to you, you just jumped in again without providing the information asked for.




Suspicion confirmed!!!


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. This wasn't all about VC.  It relates to statements and positions proffered by quite a few, very smart, people on this thread.
> 
> 2. There we go, a generalization and profiling.  The type of bigotry that causes a lot of harm.  I would say that bigotry is actually the most dangerous behavior we do.  You need to dehumanize a enemy to wage war.  Relax about the fact I just called you a bigot.  I must be too, just in some place that seems really natural to do so to me without knowing it.
> 
> ...




You have too rosy a picture of organised religious institutions.

Where were the "half-caste" Aborigines sent to I wonder; What does the phrase "for God and King" meant when Britain and other Europeans colonised the "savages", waging "Holy Wars" and the Crusades to Jerusalem ... is that racial or religious genocide, the chicken or the egg i supposed.

How is it "narrative fallacy" when religion were being used in just about all of these genocides? Is it not organised, institutionalised, religion being use as a tool of state? And doesn't that make it true that organised religion are often cruel?


----------



## luutzu (20 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 5. You don't speak to many people, I think.  Given my screw up with VC and special forces, you're now going to tell me you are Kim Kardashian aren't you.




No, not Kim... I'm sexier. I'm Thomas Jefferson. 

You'd be suprised the things you could learn and do from watching youtube.


----------



## Value Collector (20 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Suspicion confirmed!!!




Guilty, I wanted tink to learn something,... not because of the glowing reviews, but simply because i suspect she takes things at face value, rather than taking a sceptical approach. I wanted her to at least examine this one claim for herself.


----------



## cynic (20 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Guilty, I wanted tink to learn something,... not because of the glowing reviews, but simply because i suspect she takes things at face value, rather than taking a sceptical approach. I wanted her to at least examine this one claim for herself.




Thanks for acknowledging that VC. Your transparency on this matter is much appreciated.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

luutzu said:


> 1. You have too rosy a picture of organised religious institutions.
> 
> 2. How is it "narrative fallacy" when religion were being used in just about all of these genocides? Is it not organised, institutionalised, religion being use as a tool of state? And doesn't that make it true that organised religion are often cruel?




1. Tell me, did you once live under circumstances where religious tension was so high that you carried a passport at all times even though you were 5yrs old and had a perpetual airline ticket to get out of the country within an hour if things turned ugly?  Where your father carried a loaded pistol in his brief case so he could protect his family despite also being an officer in the armed forces that was supposed to defend us from harm?  Do I have a rosy picture? No, actually, I do not.  Yours is a narrow perspective capable of seeing only shades of black and white without the colour in between. Actually, forget about the white.

I am aware that there are many churches who do not preach war.  I am related to many devout Christians, one of whom is an ordained minister who leads a congregation. Two are missionaries. I know Muslims who would rank amongst the most decent and upstanding people that I have had the privilege to ever meet. They actively try to limit the extreme elements that emerge from the Muslim population.  I know Buddhists whose sole aim is to earn enough in Australia so they can do development work in Cambodia without imposing hardship on their families.  I have met athiests who are the cruelest and meanest f@ckwits I have had the misfortune to come across.

I object to your bigotry. I think it is extremely ill-founded and quite ludicrous. YouTube....you are joking, except I know you are not.


2. If the underlying basis for conflict is ultimately racially based and arose from this, then the rest are tools.  Context can be created through a range of factors.  This includes religion.  Because religion often lines up strongly with ethnicity, ethnic conflicts can be associated with religion.  When you look at an event and explain it backwards so that the story fits, that is attaching a narration.  When that narration incorrectly attributes ultimate causative effect, it is a fallacy.  If race caused the conflict, and religion was a tool to cause foment, race was the cause.  Often it is labeled as religion because it correlates.  It is not the cause but may have given it a push along. Two tribes go to war, one are given Glocks by their leaders, the other Berretts.  Do we call this a gun war? It is tribal warfare, fomented by the presence of guns.   This happens all day long in the financial press.  Pick up a paper.

I'm off this exchange.


----------



## bellenuit (21 July 2014)

What a sad story.

*Struggling to Keep Afghan Girl Safe After a Mullah Is Accused of Rape*

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/w...l-safe-after-a-mullah-is-accused-of-rape.html


----------



## luutzu (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. Tell me, did you once live under circumstances where religious tension was so high that you carried a passport at all times even though you were 5yrs old and had a perpetual airline ticket to get out of the country within an hour if things turned ugly?  Where your father carried a loaded pistol in his brief case so he could protect his family despite also being an officer in the armed forces that was supposed to defend us from harm?  Do I have a rosy picture? No, actually, I do not.  Yours is a narrow perspective capable of seeing only shades of black and white without the colour in between. Actually, forget about the white.
> 
> I am aware that there are many churches who do not preach war.  I am related to many devout Christians, one of whom is an ordained minister who leads a congregation. Two are missionaries. I know Muslims who would rank amongst the most decent and upstanding people that I have had the privilege to ever meet. They actively try to limit the extreme elements that emerge from the Muslim population.  I know Buddhists whose sole aim is to earn enough in Australia so they can do development work in Cambodia without imposing hardship on their families.  I have met athiests who are the cruelest and meanest f@ckwits I have had the misfortune to come across.
> 
> ...




How am I a bigot again?

Did I ever say that Christains or Muslims or Jews or Atheists are automatically one way or another?

I thought we were on about institutionalised religion and it's uses and abuses from the beginning of history to now. Am I wrong to say that quite often, those organisations, are cruel and closed minded?

Galileo was locked up and his books banned for saying maybe the earth rotate around the sun, what a reception Darwins book got too.

You seriously think he Church wouldn't do what they think the Bible tells them to if the democratic govt let them? They'll lock the science witches and burn them at the stake for thinking god didn't create the earth. They'd stone women to death for wearing jeans or look at a man funny.... They'd stopped abortion, contraception, stem cell research... And to hell with the lives that would save.

I don't do those things, I just say it as I see it.

Like I said before, if religion bring you peace, and I think alot, if not all, people seek it for enlightenment... That is great. But to take religion to an extreme  and interpret it literally and take all it's teachings to heart as an institution must, a person that does that will laugh at the idea that there is another god but his, will allow their daughters to be stoned to death for dishonouring the family somehow... A person like that ban and punish scientific curiosity.

You can say that that's a few bad apples, I don't think so. Those few bad apples are religious ppl taking things literally. Pope John Paul, I'm sure, meant no harm to the potential AIds victims, he simply banned condoms because it is a sin to his God... Just the consequences are not good for people who may otherwise still be with their family.


----------



## cynic (21 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> What a sad story.
> 
> *Struggling to Keep Afghan Girl Safe After a Mullah Is Accused of Rape*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/w...l-safe-after-a-mullah-is-accused-of-rape.html




Indeed it is!

Sadder yet is the sickening glee certain individuals take when capitalising on such abhorrent events in the pursuance and promotion of their personal agenda/s.

Does this sentiment resonate with anyone?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for acknowledging that VC. Your transparency on this matter is much appreciated.




So are you going to provide the verse?


----------



## burglar (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So are you going to provide the verse?




Here you stand, having chosen a rapier!

We are waiting with bated breath, for cynic to appear with light sabre in hand.



It's not going to happen! :


----------



## cynic (21 July 2014)

cynic said:


> artist, apologies for the confusion. The impatient manner of my response was only intended for the direct recipient.
> 
> If by NT you mean New Testament then my answer is no, but rest assured that the book of Genesis wasn't originally expressed in written English.
> 
> The discourse commenced with my response to a post by DB, (Page 87, post #1727) and continued over subsequent pages where it was debated hotly. The last words I had to say on the matter at the time appear on page 89 (post #1774).






Value Collector said:


> I think we would like you to post the exact bible verse, and then explain why you think they are talking about chromosomes.






cynic said:


> That's been done on this thread already! Should you find yourself genuinely interested in receiving answers to your questions, please let me know. Until then stop wasting my time!






Value Collector said:


> Did you post the exact wording of the verse? If so can you let me know which verse it was






cynic said:


> If memory serves me correctly, Bellenuit was kind enough to supply the relevant verse during our earlier discourse on this matter.




Bellenuit's post #1738 if I'm typing correctly.




Value Collector said:


> So are you going to provide the verse?




Rather than having to repeat the discourse, wouldn't it be much easier for you to read the posts commencing from #1727 on page 87 of this thread?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Please answer this one question for me,
> 
> Please name one positive effect religion has, that can not be achieved in another way.




The positive effects of religion could have been achieved in some other way eventually, but the fact is that religion got in first. 

Putting "the fear of God" into people was the beginning of today's systems of Law and Order, the Ten Commandments were guidelines for moral behaviour, Christianity brought down a brutal Roman Empire and turned it away from conquest. Of course there were inquisitions and Holy Wars along the way where people misinterpreted religion and used it for their own ends, but that has to be expected from the bunch of savages that the human race was at the time (and still is but to a lesser degree). 

We don't know how the human race would have turned out if it wasn't for religion, but at least we have some sense of right and wrong and law and order. If you look at societies such as China and the pagan Communism existing there and ask yourself is that the way we should be going, what do you say ?


----------



## Tink (21 July 2014)

Another great post, Rumpole.

VC, you talk a lot of dribble, I have already told you I have had my own experiences.
I have seen cynic's post and I commented on it. I understand it and that is why I mentioned it. 
Maybe you don't want to find it because it may make you question some things, or maybe you don't want to.
That is your choice.

Excellent post Retired Young too, well said.

As said,



Tink said:


> As you can see there are many religions in here.
> 
> Militant atheists with their messiah, Richard Dawkins.
> 
> ...




....and they all jumped up and down.

Interesting that they look at the religious but they don't look at themselves.


----------



## FxTrader (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> We don't know how the human race would have turned out if it wasn't for religion, but at least we have some sense of right and wrong and law and order. If you look at societies such as China and the pagan Communism existing there and ask yourself is that the way we should be going, what do you say ?



It's worth mentioning yet again that religion is not true because it's useful.  Christianity is simply a fraud and a hoax in terms of its key tenets, saying that such a foundation is useful for controlling people's behaviour is an argument of means justifies ends.  So then, even if such a deception were useful in helping to define a moral code for society, it's still a deception!

Christian's certainly have and deserve no monopoly on defining what is moral and the Bible itself is hardly the best guide we have on how to treat one another.  This should be evident to even the most moderately literate believer.


----------



## Tink (21 July 2014)

Don't say its Communism. All we need are a few more episodes of what happened with Dawkins in England, and we would end up like China, stopping any religious figures entering our country.

That is atheism.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> It's worth mentioning yet again that religion is not true because it's useful.  Christianity is simply a fraud and a hoax in terms of its key tenets, saying that such a foundation is useful for controlling people's behaviour is an argument of means justifies ends.  So then, even if such a deception were useful in helping to define a moral code for society, it's still a deception!
> 
> Christian's certainly have and deserve no monopoly on defining what is moral and the Bible itself is hardly the best guide we have on how to treat one another.  This should be evident to even the most moderately literate believer.




So you agree that religion is useful ? I suppose that's a start.

Religion filled a void that existed where nothing else inhibited crass human behaviour that showed no respect to anyone else but individual pleasure and self satisfaction. Without it we may still be living in societies that threw people to lions for the pleasure of the masses. Deception or not, religion played a part in the civilisation of the human race that cannot be denied.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The positive effects of religion could have been achieved in some other way




I agree,



> but the fact is that religion got in first.




So did the Air ships, But the Hindenburg disaster showed they had a fatal flaw, hence we changed what we did.



> the Ten Commandments were guidelines for moral behaviour,




The ten commandments is a pretty rubbish list to base your moral behaviour on, There is only a few of the commandments that are good, and those rules aren't owned by religion, they are basic moral rules that cultures from all around the world had and they pre date the ten commandments.

any rational group of moral people can write up a list that would be 10 times better than the ten commandments.



> but at least we have some sense of right and wrong and law and order.




Right and Wrong doesn't come from religion, Religion has just hijacked the topic.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Another week, another argument eh VC 

I think you are just envious that religion spread further and faster than your "other sources of morality", which I notice you haven't bothered to state. Can you name any successful atheist states that respect human rights and freedoms and where you would prefer to live in than this hotbed of religious strife called Australia ?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I agree,
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Air ships, But the Hindenburg disaster showed they had a fatal flaw, hence we changed what we did.




The fatal flaw was hydrogen, helium powered airships are coming back



> The ten commandments is a pretty rubbish list to base your moral behaviour on, There is only a few of the commandments that are good, and those rules aren't owned by religion, they are basic moral rules that cultures from all around the world had and they pre date the ten commandments.




please specify



> any rational group of moral people can write up a list that would be 10 times better than the ten commandments.




Thousands of years later people could do better. At the time you had to make it simple for people.





> Right and Wrong doesn't come from religion, Religion has just hijacked the topic.




From whom ? Ancient Rome ?  Nero, Caligula ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Bellenuit's post #1738 if I'm typing correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So your claim was that the bible talks about chromosomes, and since this knowledge was unknown at the time, its evidence that the bible contains revealed information.

But, In reality the bible doesn't say anything about chromosomes, your simply saying that a monk mistranslated the original text, and when the bible talks about making eve from a rib, it actually meant chromosomes. And your evidence for this is that when you remove a rib you have 23 ribs left, which is the same number of chromosomes passed to offspring.

If you can't see the confirmation bias this takes to believe, I don't think you can be helped.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> There are numerous examples of saying/doing things that are meant with the nicest and sincerest intentions but really mean nothing. When I'm at the checkout I often say - "Thankyou, I hope you have a great day". Whether or not the person has a great day will have nothing to do with my hoping, but if it is said warmly and with sincerity the person almost always responds positively and with a smile - and with a "you to."
> 
> On a day such as today, to criticise and belittle a comment such as "You are in our thoughts and prayers" is petty, weak and largely immature. Regardless of religious beliefs, most emotionally and intellectually mature people would look behind the comment to the compassionate, wholehearted and genuine message it conveyed. Surely Australian haven't become that detached from their religious heritage, that this comment can cause offense and consternation
> 
> Duckman



As always, Duckman, I’m interested in your comments even when I don’t agree with them. I’ll resist the temptation to respond by pointing out a number of _*your*_ views and attitudes that I find weak and immature.

I never see comments, viewpoints or attitudes as weak and immature if they’re based on honesty and reality. And the reality is that prayers, however sincere and well-intentioned, would have been useless in lessening the grief and sorrow of the poor people who lost loved ones in the Malaysian Airlines tragedy.
Such prayers don’t offend me, as you’ve suggested – I simply question their value and wonder why people would waste their time praying in this sort of situation.

The sort of attitudes and views that I find weak and immature are those that are _*not*_ based on honesty and reality, such as many of the views and attitudes of Muslims, Christians, and the Catholic Church in particular.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The fatal flaw was hydrogen, helium powered airships are coming back




Yes, and religions fatal flaw is taking things on faith. Nothing wrong with getting together in social groups, singing, helping each other, group charity.

But just like an airships hydrogen, adding faith in bronze age myths brings in some fatal flaws.



> please specify




Have you read the ten commandments? If the list was really meant to be a moral code for humans to live by, they really didn't do a good job.

the first 4 don't say anything I consider a morality rule, they are actually a waste of space.

1, Thou shalt have no other gods before me

2, Thou shalt not make graven images

3, Thou shalt not take the lords name in vain

4, Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy

Then after this we get into some things ok things, but all are common in cultures from around the world and all predate the bible

5, Honor thy father and thy mother

6, Thou shalt not kill

7, Thou shalt not commit adultery

8, Thou shalt not steal

9,Thou shalt not lie

and number 10 basically tells us not to want your neighbour's things, now I agree jealousy is bad, but these nothing wrong with looking at what others have and thinking that you would like stuff like that too. 

10, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey







> Thousands of years later people could do better. At the time you had to make it simple for people.




there is lots of very simple ways to improve this list.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

When I said "please specify", I was asking what cultures you claim the Ten Commandments were taken from ?

Where are these cultures now ? Christianity has survived them all. Can you explain why that is ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think you are just envious that religion spread further and faster than your "other sources of morality", which I notice you haven't bothered to state. ?




I think its the "other sources" that have tamed the religious craziness, Over a period of time we have seen gradual progression in the moral values of society through rational secular reasoning, this is some what slowed by the religious though who often don't want to budge, you can see this happening by the resistance to gay marriage, especially in the USA.

There are many highly secular countries that are very nice places to live, Australia is one of them. In fact there is a correlation between places that are highly religious and violent crime and lower education, health care etc.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> When I said "please specify", I was asking what cultures you claim the Ten Commandments were taken from ?
> 
> Where are these cultures now ? Christianity has survived them all. Can you explain why that is ?




Well the actual ten commandments was some what copied from an older set of laws from Egypt.

How ever what I meant was that cultures from all around the world had rules against Killing, stealing etc, which are the ones I suspect you like to think of when you say the ten commandments is a source of morality.

we didn't need a god to tell us that we didn't want to be killed or have our stuff stolen, its pretty common sense, offcourse as civilisations developed, rules against those things popped up every where, humans were living in civilisations and very large social groups for thousands of years before the bible was written.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think its the "other sources" that have tamed the religious craziness, Over a period of time we have seen gradual progression in the moral values of society through rational secular reasoning, this is some what slowed by the religious though who often don't want to budge, you can see this happening by the resistance to gay marriage, especially in the USA.
> 
> There are many highly secular countries that are very nice places to live, Australia is one of them. In fact there is a correlation between places that are highly religious and violent crime and lower education, health care etc.




I believe we are coming to a middle ground. I don't want to live in a highly religious country, nor a totally atheist ( or anti theist if you prefer) society either. Both are examples of extremist positions that are intolerant of opposing views. 

Better to have a society that respects other views and allows peaceful coexistence, but as a matter of history we also have to acknowledge the good and bad influences that shaped our society. I hope we can do that with an open mind.


----------



## explod (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> When I said "please specify", I was asking what cultures you claim the Ten Commandments were taken from ?
> 
> Where are these cultures now ? Christianity has survived them all. Can you explain why that is ?




At the basic level Christianity has survived because it has controlled the sheeple.

Just as the chief's witch doctor kept the tribe in order and to do as directed. 

Of course the creation of heaven was a ripper, here the sheeple would virtually work for nothing and not only that, put coins on the plate.

Of course today we have the footy and the computers and you can mortgage thevhouse to keep it all going.

Anyolehow, i'm keeping my silver coins to myself.

The govmint should have a code of ethics like the commandments embellished under the constitution.  Aw, no, that might dilute the power of the witch doctor.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> we didn't need a god to tell us that we didn't want to be killed or have our stuff stolen, its pretty common sense, offcourse as civilisations developed, rules against those things popped up every where, humans were living in civilisations and very large social groups for thousands of years before the bible was written.




Ah yes, but religion put an external Being above the despots of the time and eroded their power. That is why despots of all sorts despise religion because it is a threat to them. People started following a carpenter from Nazareth rather than Caesar. Religion was an antidote to despotism at the time. We have  international laws now, but the concept derived from the common good overriding the abuse of power.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

This notion came to me:

Let's say there is no God.  We arrived here spontaneously.  Yet religion exists.  Therefore, we as a species created religion and wage war in its name.  Given the widespread nature of religion and the notion that it springs up in physically separate areas in different guises, this argues that we have a tendency/behavior that lends itself to doing this in one way or another.  To VC's point, we are born atheist.  However, we may be predispositioned as a society to shed it in favour of belief, at least in part.  Removing religion from the agenda will simply move this practice from one form to another.  You cannot destroy energy, you just change its form. Religion gives way to nationalism etc.

Let's say there is a God and the organized or unorganized religions are paying homage to the true superior being(s).  God's instructions as recorded are full of contradictions and bizarreness. Maybe many of these actions occurred in the gap between God's literal instructions and mortal's translation and errors in communication down the years. Chinese whispers.  Nonetheless, a God capable of creating a universe and a species, ecology etc.. must surely be powerful enough to set this right if it wasn't meant to be including the possibility of having some self-determination.  Yet apes and chimps from whom we have genetically descended wage war. To the best of my knowledge, they do not do so in the name of religion.  The animal kingdom is unbelievably violent.  Look into microscopic levels..same. I am abhorred by this idea, but maybe this is the way God might have intended it to be if He exists.

Doesn't this imply that an effort to irradicate religion is pointless if God does not exist, and against His will if he does?  Either way, we will/should have religion?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I believe we are coming to a middle ground. I don't want to live in a highly religious country, nor a totally atheist ( or anti theist if you prefer) society either. Both are examples of extremist positions that are intolerant of opposing views.
> 
> Better to have a society that respects other views and allows peaceful coexistence, but as a matter of history we also have to acknowledge the good and bad influences that shaped our society. I hope we can do that with an open mind.




My position hasn't changed, Perhaps you might be just slowly realising that I am not the antitheist you may have suspected anyone calling their self atheist must be.

I am a big supporter of religious freedom, But I do believe the only way to have religious freedom is to have a secular government, and have a system of laws based on rational, thought out non religious code of ethics, and when it comes to debates on how our society should be, arguments need to have a basis that is not based on scripture.

eg, If you want to ban gay marriage, saying the bible says its wrong is not good enough, you need a well thought out and reasoned argument that isn't based on your religion.

The public school system should also be secular.

I am happy to live and let live, As I said earlier, I generally on discuss religious matters with people who are making open statements that are not correct, or if the person says they care whether their beliefs are true. I don't door knock houses or churchs, and I don't try and legislate to get lessons on evolution added to the sunday school class, But I don't want Religion indoctrination in public schools either.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah yes, but religion put an external Being above the despots of the time and eroded their power. That is why despots of all sorts despise religion because it is a threat to them. People started following a carpenter from Nazareth rather than Caesar. Religion was an antidote to despotism at the time. We have  international laws now, but the concept derived from the common good overriding the abuse of power.




On the contrary, Religion is a power tool used by despots.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> Given the widespread nature of religion and the notion that it springs up in physically separate areas in different guises, this argues that we have a tendency/behavior that lends itself to doing this in one way or another.




Yes, humans tend to fill in the gaps in their understanding will made up stories. This is what religion springing up around the world did. We are curious creatures, and we like to know things, So stories of gods filled in the huge gaps in knowledge. 

But I think we are past this, I think we are at the point where its ok to say we don't know and still live without fear of that unknown, and focus instead on uncovering the truths of the universe, Because the truth is going to be more useful and more interesting than any story in the religious texts.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> Yet apes and chimps from whom we have genetically descended wage war. To the best of my knowledge, they do not do so in the name of religion.  The animal kingdom is unbelievably violent.




Yes, humans are incredibly violent also, as Darwin said, we have the indelible stamp of our lowly origins.

This is an awesome video, the message to it really affected me when I saw it.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> On the contrary, Religion is a power tool used by despots.




Unfortunately, that is the statement of a pure bigot who can't admit there may be some good in a philosophy that has moderated the power of despots over the ages. Yes , religion can be a tool for control BY despots, but is can also be a moderator to the power OF despots.

If you can't honestly analyse the lessons of history, and look at the evidence both for and against your ingrained prejudices, then there is no point in continuing a debate with a bigot.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But I think we are past this, I think we are at the point where its ok to say we don't know and still live without fear of that unknown, and focus instead on uncovering the truths of the universe, Because the truth is going to be more useful and more interesting than any story in the religious texts.




It is semantic, perhaps, but I don't think we are past it.  Nonetheless, secularism has reduced the proportion of the population which is deeply religious or lives strictly in accordance with its tenets (actually, I'm not sure.  Is the Muslim faith growing fast enough through population growth to offset secular decline in the West?  Further, Christianity is spreading quickly throughout China as religious freedoms become more tolerated, I believe).  As science winds back the shadow of mysticism, there is less need to believe in a superior being for comfort.

This part gets me.  Ultimately, science and physics is limited at what it can see/observe/examine. This is built into the fabric of nature.  If you are a proponent of Big Bang, as is the standard belief today, there was a beginning.  Then my head gets totally messed up about what started it.  And we can go through cosmological contortions about spontaneously appearing universes/multi-verses with randomly determined physical constants that might allow this universe to survive but others not to be stable...but what started that?  And arguments akin to "it's turtles all the way down" are just avoiding the question.  That is the limit to science. Can it answer "Why are we here? What am I supposed to do given I am here?"  Due to the presence of these questions, I suspect there is also a limit to which secularism can displace religious belief of some sort.  This is a neutral statement about the ability to prove, disprove, tangible value of...religion of any particular stripe.


----------



## explod (21 July 2014)

Value Collector,

As termed by you, what is a Despot?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> ,
> 
> If you are a proponent of Big Bang, as is the standard belief today, there was a beginning.  .




Not necessarily, the Big Bang theory doesn't rule out that something may have existed prior, eg a continually crunch bang cycle 



> That is the limit to science. Can it answer "Why are we here? What am I supposed to do given I am here?"




No, but neither can religion. Science can tell you How you got here, if that's what you mean.

The purpose of your life can only be answered by you. Religion can't tell you what the purpose of your life is, everyone is different.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

explod said:


> Value Collector,
> 
> As termed by you, what is a Despot?




a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Unfortunately, that is the statement of a pure bigot who can't admit there may be some good in a philosophy that has moderated the power of despots over the ages..




Whoah, ok, you jumped to name calling pretty quickly there. How is me recognising that through out history religion has been used by despots to increase their power make me a bigot. 

Even in modern times religion is still being used by warlords and leaders. It is not an accident that theocracies tend to be very violent places to live, with very bad human rights records.



> Yes , religion can be a tool for control BY despots, but is can also be a moderator to the power OF despots.




That's what I was pointing out, you made the claim that religion moderates despots, I simply commented that it actually increases their power when its used.



> If you can't honestly analyse the lessons of history, and look at the evidence both for and against your ingrained prejudices, then there is no point in continuing a debate with a bigot




I think you need to just stop looking at the past with rose coloured glasses, assuming religion is positive.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 3, yes but all apollo members were airforce, when you are working with any specialised group in a population you will find things diverge from averages, eg, a very high degree of military members vote liberal, and at the time i served in my regiment Queensland was over represented but you cant draw conclusions that it takes a liberal voting queenslander to do what we do.







> 3. Fair point. I don't have the stats on the subset. And there is a difference between correlation and causality. Still, I am amazed at it and find the depth of belief was so strong and think, as opposed to know, that it was uncommon.




Just going back to outer space and religion for a minute, just FYI.  The surveys are for US military (2nd and 3rd columns) and US population (4th and 5th).





It implies that US military personnel are more secular than the general population whose stats I used to suggest there was something interesting going on between religion and the best of the best of the best in the Apollo program. This does not prove causality in the sense that nothing can do so in this instance. But it would seem more odd to say that incredibly talented, brave ... astronauts inferred religion rather than to say that religion may be part of the reason why these most able of an unbelievably elite group were as such.  In any case, interesting to me as it is a big outlier.  Could be nothing, but the chances of that are materially lower than to say something interesting is going on.

I am surprised at this.  My expectation, upon highlight, was more in line with what you alluded to.  But, the above is the data.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

Some despots even turn them selves into gods, look at the emperor of Japan during WW2, he was worshipped and believed to have god like qualities, he was definitely thought to be more than human by his followers. 

Same with the North Korean leaders.

And that not mentioning the long line of popes, Kings, Imams and other leaders who invoked gods to get people to follow them.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think you need to just stop looking at the past with rose coloured glasses, assuming religion is positive.




Your selective reading seems to have ignored all the times I said that religion is both good and bad. Everything I've heard from you indicates that you think it's all bad. I can't go with that approach, I don't think it's an unbiased view. 

I have some ideas why you take a relentlessly negative approach to religion. Your previous posts provide some clues. It's fairly typical of groups who have an axe to grind against religions for wrongs they suffered at the hands of the church. Negative views held by those groups for those wrongs are justified imo, but it doesn't provide a good basis for an honest intellectual debate if they allow personal feelings to dominate a wider discussion.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1. Not necessarily, the Big Bang theory doesn't rule out that something may have existed prior, eg a continually crunch bang cycle
> 
> 
> 2. No, but neither can religion. Science can tell you How you got here, if that's what you mean.
> ...




1. This is what I was referring to in relation to "turtles all the way down".  The proposition basically says that this universe came from a prior one...and so on.  Yet, this is obfuscation.  Ultimately, something started it.  Another example in the counter is that if God created the universe, who created God and who created the God that created God...?  The desire to disprove the need for a beginning from a scientific perspective and the disprove the presence of God use the same argument.  I think it is just avoiding the question.

2. Not really.  I don't think science explains why questions like that are asked. These are very critical questions for a person.  Science certainly can't answer them.  They are philosophical.   They are outside of science.  When you ask those sorts of questions, they are unanswerable in a direct sense. Some will look to religion for a response...and they will find something (even if it was in them all along, but needed a can opener to get it out).  Even if religion arises from mysticism which can be wound back by the progress of science, I believe religion's place as a life guide will remain a strong factor in a population.  Religion provides much guidance on such matters.  This is different to saying that the guidance is any good!


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Your selective reading seems to have ignored all the times I said that religion is both good and bad. Everything I've heard from you indicates that you think it's all bad. I can't go with that approach, I don't think it's an unbiased view.
> 
> .




I think you will find I have regularly admitted that there are good aspects to religions, However I have said that none of those good parts are owned by religion and can be achieved through other ways, and due to the bad side effects of religions its best to go for those other ways, Much as you would avoid a pill that has bad side effects.




> I have some ideas why you take a relentlessly negative approach to religion.




I take a negative approach because we all agree it has some nasty side effects, But no one has been able to name a benefit that can not be achieved in other ways.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I take a negative approach because we all agree it has some nasty side effects, But no one has been able to name a benefit that can not be achieved in other ways.




It comes down to the individual as to whether they take or leave religion, not for you or I to decide. In this country we have a balance of secularism and religion which I think is beneficial. Maybe we should just leave it at that.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. This is what I was referring to in relation to "turtles all the way down".  The proposition basically says that this universe came from a prior one...and so on.  Yet, this is obfuscation.  Ultimately, something started it.  Another example in the counter is that if God created the universe, who created God and who created the God that created God...?  The desire to disprove the need for a beginning from a scientific perspective and the disprove the presence of God use the same argument.  I think it is just avoiding the question.
> !




So you don't think that it's possible the universe might be infinite and eternal, I don't know for sure but I wouldn't rule the possibility out that the universe is eternal, But although it's an interesting question its not one we have to worry about to much in our daily lives, just because we can't answer that question doesn't me an we should hold onto the broze age myths.  




> 2. Not really.  I don't think science explains why questions like that are asked. These are very critical questions for a person.  Science certainly can't answer them.  They are philosophical.   They are outside of science.  When you ask those sorts of questions, they are unanswerable in a direct sense. Some will look to religion for a response...and they will find something (even if it was in them all along, but needed a can opener to get it out).  Even if religion arises from mysticism which can be wound back by the progress of science, I believe religion's place as a life guide will remain a strong factor in a population.  Religion provides much guidance on such matters.  This is different to saying that the guidance is any good




Can you give me an example of such a question?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It comes down to the individual as to whether they take or leave religion, not for you or I to decide. .




Totally agree, But as I said for religious freedom to exist, the government must be secular and mustn't favour any religion, and schooling must also be secular.

But, also it's not quite true that it is down to the individual, Children are often indoctrinated by their parents from a young age, and threats of hell fire can put a fear into even adults, and apostasy is a crime punishable by death in some religions and their are people serving jail terms for being open atheists, some have even been put to death.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, humans are incredibly violent also, as Darwin said, we have the indelible stamp of our lowly origins.
> 
> This is an awesome video, the message to it really affected me when I saw it.





Thank you.  We have a degree of self-determination that indicates we can escape our primal history.  Is it enough?  Evidence suggests "room for improvement".

I formally examined Global Politics in the past.  One of the courses I took was Conflict Resolution.  I was engaging in conflict escalation by arguing with the lecturer about why it is that we denied that war was always inevitable.  Quoting atrocity after atrocity which, to me, proved we were beyond help.  We are the descendants of chimps.  We fight. We wage war by instinct.

Then he provided a ton of evidence that man is not a tamed beast, but one which is inherently at peace and has to be aroused to war. 

I think there is reason for hope.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Totally agree, But as I said for religious freedom to exist, the government must be secular and mustn't favour any religion, and schooling must also be secular.




You can't guarantee a secular government in a society where religion exists. People with religious beliefs have a right to run for Parliament as does anyone else, that's democracy. 

As for keeping religion out of state schools, I agree. But a lot of atheists send their children to private religious schools. Do you want to ban those schools and the freedom of choice ? Why are there few if any private atheist schools ?



> But, also it's not quite true that it is down to the individual, Children are often indoctrinated by their parents from a young age, and threats of hell fire can put a fear into even adults, and apostasy is a crime punishable by death in some religions and their are people serving jail terms for being open atheists, some have even been put to death.




Yes, children are indoctrinated in many ways. If parents are beer swilling, pot smoking bogans then it's likely their kids will turn out the same way. What can you do ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> It implies that US military personnel are more secular than the general population whose stats I used to suggest there was something interesting going on between religion and the best of the best of the best in the Apollo program..




The cold war is over now, we are not fighting the godless commies anymore (at least not yet) instead we are fighting religious militants, during the cold war religion became part of patriotism. It was when "In god we trust" was put onto the US currency and "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, I don't think we can discount the political climates influence on religion during that time.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You can't guarantee a secular government in a society where religion exists. People with religious beliefs have a right to run for Parliament as does anyone else, that's democracy.




yes but you can still maintain a secular government by having rules that separate church and state, and don't favour any religions or promote religion.

Your right its democracy, not theocracy. 



> As for keeping religion out of state schools, I agree.




Good.



> But a lot of atheists send their children to private religious schools.




They are free to do that.



> Why are there few if any private atheist schools ?




I already answered that for you.




> Yes, children are indoctrinated in many ways. If parents are beer swilling, pot smoking bogans then it's likely their kids will turn out the same way. What can you do




You definitely don't actively promote alcohol and pot as good things, and restrict children's access to them. and teach children the dangers of them.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1. So you don't think that it's possible the universe might be infinite and eternal, I don't know for sure but I wouldn't rule the possibility out that the universe is eternal, But although it's an interesting question its not one we have to worry about to much in our daily lives, just because we can't answer that question doesn't me an we should hold onto the broze age myths.
> 
> Can you give me an example of such a question?




You know as well as I that neither of us will find the answer to this definitively.  But, as science looks to push the boundaries of physics, what they find is ever less likely to be useful to us on a day to day basis either.  But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose.  There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness or spend a fortune on super-colliders or satellites to peel back another 0.5 secs into the Big Bang.  We just need to know.  This need to know fills up the days of a lot of people trying to find out.

I find it hard to conceive of the notion that a multi-verse or cosmos was always there and will ever be.  That has very religious tones to it in the garb of theoretical physics (I know it's out there, but I can't see it and definitely prove to you it exists).  Given that it is such an important part of science to find out...what is the evidence?  In the absence of the ability to prove an always-been-around-universe, we must acknowledge the possibility of one which had a beginning. There is no where else to go - except to deny that we are real at all.  So what caused a beginning?  If you seek to place the burden of proof on those who value religion, ought the weight of evidence now also be shared equally by those who eliminate the need for God/beginning via the construct of a perpetual universe?  Such evidence is necessary to regard the presence of some superior being as factually incorrect.  

It is not necessary to chant around a figure of a Minoan Goddess to ask a question, "Why am I here?  Why does this edifice exist?  What am I supposed to do with my abilities?"  They are just questions, but important ones for many. This may not include you. These questions are beyond proof and science.  If you should seek the answer to that, is that something specific to the Bronze Age?  Is someone likely to find the response in an examination of particle physics instead?  If not science, it gets named religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That would be a bit weird, it doesn't really make sense to have an "atheist" school, because as I said atheism is a default position, it has no doctrines to teach, I guess you could call any school that doesn't promote religion atheist.
> 
> The point of schooling as far as I see it is the educate people, some schools want to include religion so I guess they label them selves as catholic or Islamic  etc. but if a school just avoids religion, there is no need to label them as an atheist school, they are just the default position of a normal school, you can't teach lessons on atheism, there is nothing to teach, after a 2 minutes description of it, the lesson would be over,




Private schools could openly advertise that they don't teach religion. Are there any that do to your knowledge ? I'm sure they would be very popular.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> yes but you can still maintain a secular government by having rules that separate church and state, and don't favour any religions or promote religion.




 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

                   The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

===============
We already have those rules



> They are free to do that. (Atheists sending their children to religious schools)




Bit hypocritical don't you think ?


----------



## cynic (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So your claim was that the bible talks about chromosomes, and since this knowledge was unknown at the time, its evidence that the bible contains revealed information.
> 
> But, In reality the bible doesn't say anything about chromosomes, your simply saying that a monk mistranslated the original text, and when the bible talks about making eve from a rib, it actually meant chromosomes. And your evidence for this is that when you remove a rib you have 23 ribs left, which is the same number of chromosomes passed to offspring.
> 
> If you can't see the confirmation bias this takes to believe, I don't think you can be helped.



For those that are interested, my response to the contents of this post by VC are already contained within the body of the earlier discourse. (I've managed to actually answer him the month before he joined ASF! How's that for prescience?!)

P.S. VC, did you have anything new to contribute or was your post primarily motivated by your desire to deliver further insults to those that don't happen to subscribe to your personal religion?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Private schools could openly advertise that they don't teach religion. Are there any that do to your knowledge ? I'm sure they would be very popular.




To be honest I have never looked. But as I said atheism is kind of the default position, Most people would not expect a school to push a faith unless they are an openly religious faith school. So I don't think it's something that needs advertising

Religions often start schools because it is a good way to push their agenda onto the next generation. 

If I were to start a school I wouldn't advertise things we won't be teaching, I would focus on advertising the things we will be doing.

It would be like KFC advertising that they don't sell beef, It just wouldn't make sense.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Bit hypocritical don't you think ?




Well I wouldn't do it, But some people don't feel as strongly as I do, Some even think its a good idea to teach children to believe in god.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116
> Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
> 
> The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
> ...




yes, and they are very important rules, But we have to be vigilant to make sure they are maintained and enforced, We also have a lot of grey areas though, eg our head of state is also the head of the church of England, and religion is established in the military, and in my opinion is abused.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> If I were to start a school I wouldn't advertise things we won't be teaching, I would focus on advertising the things we will be doing.
> 
> It would be like KFC advertising that they don't sell beef, It just wouldn't make sense.




I think you would make a poor businessman. Business advertise those aspects about themselves that make them more attractive than their opposition. "Our cars don't pollute as much as our opposition" is analogous to "our schools don't teach religion" . If there is such a demand for religion-less schools, that would be a selling point.



> Not necessarily, the Big Bang theory doesn't rule out that something may have existed prior, eg a continually crunch bang cycle






> This model offers intriguing possibilities of an oscillating or cyclic universe (or “Big Bounce”), where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. However, in the light of recent findings in the 1990s (such as the evidence for an accelerating universe described previously), this is no longer considered the most likely outcome.
> 
> http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_bigcrunch.html


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> You know as well as I that neither of us will find the answer to this definitively.  But, as science looks to push the boundaries of physics, what they find is ever less likely to be useful to us on a day to day basis either.  But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose.  There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness or spend a fortune on super-colliders or satellites to peel back another 0.5 secs into the Big Bang.  We just need to know.  This need to know fills up the days of a lot of people trying to find out.
> 
> It is not necessary to chant around a figure of a Minoan Goddess to ask a question, "Why am I here?  Why does this edifice exist?  What am I supposed to do with my abilities?"  They are just questions, but important ones for many. This may not include you. These questions are beyond proof and science.  If you should seek the answer to that, is that something specific to the Bronze Age?  Is someone likely to find the response in an examination of particle physics instead?  If not science, it gets named religion.




It's more than just a need to know, we do a lot of good science that helps us in unrelated areas when we seek to learn new things,  

Did you see this video I uploaded earlier?


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think you would make a poor businessman. Business advertise those aspects about themselves that make them more attractive than their opposition. "Our cars don't pollute as much as our opposition" is analogous to "our schools don't teach religion" . If there is such a demand for religion-less schools, that would be a selling point.




Yes, But people generally expect a school not to be religious unless its a faith school.

I would I would rather emphasize the strength of the rest of the school curriculum.

I would fear that if we advertised the school as an atheist school that it would be misinterpreted, people may think only atheists can attend or People like you may think its a school based on anti theism.

But as I said, The religions start schools as a way to push their agenda on the next generation, atheist don't really have a need to push anything, we don't have doctrines to teach, it takes about 30 seconds to learn what an atheist is, and because its a personal claim of belief, it can't really be taught.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1. It's more than just a need to know, we do a lot of good science that helps us in unrelated areas when we seek to learn new things,
> 
> 2. Did you see this video I uploaded earlier?





1. It is accidental if so.  Do we journey out on a massive venture with a specific purpose in mind that does not make sense on its own justified only on the basis of accidentally discovering something useful along the way?  How will pushing the n-th degree on the view to the Big Bang, which cannot be looked beyond because physics changes before time began, supposed to help?  

2. Regarding the video...Why do you exist VC?  
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

Are you a good man VC?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

Was it important to you to serve the nation, with its gratitude, with valour?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

Do I love my wife more than life itself?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

That's nonsense and obfuscation from Dawkins. That video doesn't deserve a link. I actually like Dawkin's books too. There are very incisive arguments in them.  This is not one of them.

How about the paragraph that was missed in the quote of my post? I'm interested in your view.

_I find it hard to conceive of the notion that a multi-verse or cosmos was always there and will ever be. That has very religious tones to it in the garb of theoretical physics (I know it's out there, but I can't see it and definitely prove to you it exists). Given that it is such an important part of science to find out...what is the evidence? In the absence of the ability to prove an always-been-around-universe, we must acknowledge the possibility of one which had a beginning. There is no where else to go - except to deny that we are real at all. So what caused a beginning? If you seek to place the burden of proof on those who value religion, ought the weight of evidence now also be shared equally by those who eliminate the need for God/beginning via the construct of a perpetual universe? Such evidence is necessary to regard the presence of some superior being as factually incorrect._


----------



## Julia (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> Yet religion exists.  Therefore, we as a species created religion and wage war in its name.



That sums up what I believe fwiw.


> Given the widespread nature of religion and the notion that it springs up in physically separate areas in different guises, this argues that we have a tendency/behavior that lends itself to doing this in one way or another.  To VC's point, we are born atheist.  However, we may be predispositioned as a society to shed it in favour of belief, at least in part.  Removing religion from the agenda will simply move this practice from one form to another.  You cannot destroy energy, you just change its form. Religion gives way to nationalism etc.



Why?   I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.

You seem to be ascribing to all human beings some need to be part of some organised entity or belief system.
Why can the individual not simply be content to live his/her life enjoying what is, making the best of the hard bits, and doing what they can to behave in a morally and ethically justifiable way?   (such morals being derived from a societal consensus of what is required to keep any group of people behaving in a way which is acceptable to one another, not at all derived from any sort of dictate in the Bible or other religious tome.)

Perhaps some of us are just boringly prosaic, lack the intellectual compulsion to look for some esoteric meaning of life other than that which we experience day to day, and are content enough to believe in ourselves without dependence on some institution or so called higher power.



> Doesn't this imply that an effort to irradicate religion is pointless if God does not exist, and against His will if he does?  Either way, we will/should have religion?



Having not accepted your initial premise, no.
I, for one, would be very happy if religion were to be eradicated. 

I do not, however, hold out any hope for any such outcome.  



DeepState said:


> But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose.  There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness or spend a fortune on super-colliders or satellites to peel back another 0.5 secs into the Big Bang.  We just need to know.  This need to know fills up the days of a lot of people trying to find out.



Sure, but by no means everyone.
That's not to downplay the interest of such a discussion as this, even though it will inevitably go round in circles.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> 1. It is accidental if so.  Do we journey out on a massive venture with a specific purpose in mind that does not make sense on its own justified only on the basis of accidentally discovering something useful along the way?  How will pushing the n-th degree on the view to the Big Bang, which cannot be looked beyond because physics changes before time began, supposed to help?




yes they are accidental, But no less valuable, Eg. the software they created to make hubble produce clearer images is also now used to make cancer screening scans clearer.

the technology advances made during the space race now helps put satellites in orbit etc, there is literally thousands of benefits, and they are unpredictable.



> 2. Regarding the video...Why do you exist VC?
> "That question doesn't deserve an answer".




I agree it's a nonsense question if your wanting some one to give a philosophical "the universe has a purpose for you" type answer, But if you want a description of the processes that lead to you being here it is not a nonsense question



> Are you a good man VC?
> "That question doesn't deserve an answer".




That could be answered, 



> Was it important to you to serve the nation, with its gratitude, with valour?
> "That question doesn't deserve an answer".




that can be answered



> Do I love my wife more than life itself?
> "That question doesn't deserve an answer".




that can be answered.

not all questions are invalid




> How about the paragraph that was missed in the quote of my post? I'm interested in your view.
> 
> _I find it hard to conceive of the notion that a multi-verse or cosmos was always there and will ever be. That has very religious tones to it in the garb of theoretical physics (I know it's out there, but I can't see it and definitely prove to you it exists). Given that it is such an important part of science to find out...what is the evidence? In the absence of the ability to prove an always-been-around-universe, we must acknowledge the possibility of one which had a beginning. There is no where else to go - except to deny that we are real at all. So what caused a beginning? If you seek to place the burden of proof on those who value religion, ought the weight of evidence now also be shared equally by those who eliminate the need for God/beginning via the construct of a perpetual universe? Such evidence is necessary to regard the presence of some superior being as factually incorrect_



_

I am happy to say I don't know, my personal belief is that the universe may be eternal and that it may be impossible for nothing to exist, But I don't know, and would change my opinion if scientific evidence became available.

I certainly don't spend to much time thinking about what made the hydrogen and helium, My understanding of how they were fused into the elements of the periodic table, and how these elements formed the planets, and how we later evolved is certainly enough for my monkey brain to process and think about for now, and it answers pretty much most of the basic questions.

But I support people searching for the answers._


----------



## noco (21 July 2014)

Julia said:


> That sums up what I believe fwiw.
> 
> Why?   I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.
> 
> ...




Julia, I agree with you 100%.

I am agnostic....my wife is a Catholic and attends church every weekend.

We do not badger each other as to why she goes to church and I don't.

We live in harmony about our beliefs and disbelief's and that is the way it should be in my home and around the world. We do not have to pray together to stay together.

It has always been beyond me as to why some sects have to ram their religious doctrines down other peoples throats because they believe they are right......It is all about religious domination........Islam is a classical example of domination by fear.


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Julia said:


> 1. That sums up what I believe fwiw.
> 
> 
> 2. Why?   I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.
> ...




1. My personal view is that this is probably closer to the truth than not.  But I want my views tested (not saying you should or need to).  They have been.  I still can't call the arm wrestle over...so I have this fuzzy region of belief that I cannot close.  This belief set does not involve any of the organized religions for me.  It doesn't enter my head 360 days a year.  The last five have used up the 2014/15 credit.

2. The context may not have been clear.  I mean that, even in the absence of religion, war would be waged in some other name.  It doesn't have to be nationalism pe se.  But when societies cleave, they take on very strong identities on some basis that is meaningful to them. This helps create a strong us/them that is necessary for violence to be sustained en masse.  We have argued that religion is one basis on which this occurs.  Yes.  I am arguing that something else would just pop up in the absence of religion.  Given 1. It is more likely that war arises because the society desires/requires it and religion is used as rationale in some cases.  Nationalism in others...and so on.

3. No. I probably come across that way though.  Perhaps it is because I am arguing both sides of the debate.  For me, this is an exploration rather than attempting to stake a winning flag down somewhere.  I do not believe all humans need a formal religion.  That is totally against my general observations.  It would also be a violation of my own personal situation.  In an increasingly secular society, it is clear this is not the case.  Nonetheless, I do respect the right of others to believe as they wish...subject to not harming others.  I do not think they are wrong to believe in a higher being of some sort.  I think the application of science to the debate has limitations, whilst acknowledging its validity in many fields including this one.  When religion is twisted into despicable acts, it saddens me.  But is that human nature or religion?  Which is the cause?  Would things really be better if we replaced one institution with another? We can eradicate one institution or we can aim to repair it in the knowledge that bringing down one edifice will only see another spring up to fill the vacuum which will eventually be corrupted.  I do not know. We will never have the counterfactual in my lifetime.  Knowing that, we can debate ferociously because none of us can definitively be proven wrong.  Welcome to the cauldron! 

Morality is a difficult question. We know what we mean.  I'll just use something I picked up along the way.  Acceptable norms of behavior within the context of a society as self-identified (how's that for total BS? ).  But how do you get it?  I think something like a democratic, secular, system has the best chance.  But that's in total ignorance of what other social systems might be superior that have yet to come to light. Least worst..blah.

4. You are fortunate indeed.  I hope you enjoyed the warmth of the sun and the wind around you today.  You will live a long long time.  Me, I spent all day on this thread and couldn't put it down.  I saw no sun and felt no wind.  If this keeps up, I won't need to defer consumption from capital for a future period.

5. Just mucking about.  But if you do not believe in the core aspects of religion, then the choice to tear down the edifice of religion should ultimately create something else that is essentially religion in a different name given our propensity to self generate this type of institution.  After all, if we take your position in 1. we generated it in the first place and have created other institutions capable of despicable acts too.

6. Just enough voters or benefactors that want these answers to get funding!  The debate will certainly go around in circles, but perhaps a little slower than particles in the Large Haldron Super-collider.  There is no answer.  My point here was mainly to highlight that there are very real limits to science's ability to disprove the existence of a higher being.  If one is asked to justify the existence of one, then it seems reasonable to that the onus is placed on the opposing position too if they want to claim the superior vantage point.  In terms of the scientific apologists, this question is not in the same class as Dawkin's orbital teacup as it is a fundamental purpose behind highly funded physics and astronomical research.  In the absence of a knock out blow...believe what you will...but don't harm anyone.  I have not witnessed the knock out blow, but I have witnessed people who think they have it.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2014)

DeepState said:


> You know as well as I that neither of us will find the answer to this definitively.  But, as science looks to push the boundaries of physics, what they find is ever less likely to be useful to us on a day to day basis either.  But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose.  There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness .




[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjY0vqgDMnE[/video]


----------



## Duckman#72 (21 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> As always, Duckman, I’m interested in your comments even when I don’t agree with them. I’ll resist the temptation to respond by pointing out a number of _*your*_ views and attitudes that I find weak and immature.
> 
> I never see comments, viewpoints or attitudes as weak and immature if they’re based on honesty and reality. And the reality is that prayers, however sincere and well-intentioned, would have been useless in lessening the grief and sorrow of the poor people who lost loved ones in the Malaysian Airlines tragedy.
> Such prayers don’t offend me, as you’ve suggested – I simply question their value and wonder why people would waste their time praying in this sort of situation.
> ...




Hi Bunyip

There is more crossfire going on in this thread than the Gaza Strip. The last thing it needs is the two of us adding to it. 

Prayers can/might provide comfort for those who are religious (and even those whom I suspect are ambivalent to God) but they won't mean a thing for those who are anti religious. We should both agree with this.

Duckman


----------



## Julia (21 July 2014)

I shall probably regret any involvement in this thread. 
 That said, RY I appreciate that you are musing this whole question in a largely objective fashion.  That, in itself, is a refreshing alternative to the aggressively argued "I am right and you are wrong" approach.

Most of your comments, at least those to which I've addressed some limited response, seem to be your observations of societal trends.  In that, you may likely be entirely correct.  I don't know.

My own comments are purely personal because I simply don't know what would happen if religion were not to exist, whether there would be some other quasi institutionalised response to take its place.  Given humanity's apparent compulsion to create some power in which to believe, you are likely quite correct.

But if enough of us were to say "we don't know absolutely how human beings were created, as far as we know we have but one life, that life is what we make it, without any need to refer or defer to any creator," then would we not be building a force of humanity with the will to work together for the common good?

This, as distinct from "my god is more real than your god" which is either a driving fundamental force, or, as you suggest, an idealistic front for the ever present apparent need in some people/some societies to gain power over others.

The old question of competition or collaboration, I suppose.

If we were to take the current situation re Israel v Palestinians, is this a religious conflict?  Or is it rather a territorial conflict?

(I have no wish to turn this interesting thread into a focus on what is happening in the ME at present:  it just seems like the most current example of the hatred demonstrated by both sides.)


----------



## DeepState (21 July 2014)

Julia said:


> But if enough of us were to say "we don't know absolutely how human beings were created, as far as we know we have but one life, that life is what we make it, without any need to refer or defer to any creator," then would we not be building a force of humanity with the will to work together for the common good?




I don't know. But I like "Imagine" by John Lennon very much and wish it would become real in terms of the picture he paints.  What I observe is that we naturally cleave as a people unless faced with a common enemy. I wish it were not so. I have my theories and observations of why it happens and has happened for as long as I can tell, but they offend even my own sensibilities.

I just listened to the song again. Thank you for your comment which has brought me to this again. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs

If it means anything, despite flare ups geopolitically at this time, we are actually becoming less violent as a species on a long scale. There is hope. And I am a dreamer too.


----------



## Tink (22 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread.
> 
> If my suspicions prove to be correct those posters can anticipate my continued disclosure of controversial (and therefore uncomfortable) perspectives on reality, theology, philosophy and contemporary science.




I think you may be right, cynic.
Never once have I been questioned why I agree with someone, which took me by surprise, and I replied, nice of them to pick and choose who I should be agreeing with. 
I have agreed with many.

How immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down.
Pull up a chair, and good to see you in this thread


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity.

I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary. 

No deed could truly be deemed good or evil because everything came about accidentally and hence is of no importance. 
Every able bodied person could happily stop reproducing and euthenase themselves to spare future generations from life's rollercoaster ride of pleasure and suffering. 

Pure bliss. 

Think about it! 

Are we sure that such an idealistic notion of existence being purely accidental is a truly logical, reasonable and safe philosophy to pursue!

I'd love it to be true!

Truly I would!

However, it sounds too fantastic for me to believe that my lives and deaths could be so easy!

P.S. Also, I was delivered a sign via a winged messenger within seconds of asking a higher being for guidance on the possibility of my permanent exit from this existence!

I am still undecided whether to be thankful or resentful. I got the answer that I had to have! It just wasn't the answer that I'd have preferred. Non existence would be so much easier!!


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2014)

> If we were to take the current situation re Israel v Palestinians, is this a religious conflict? Or is it rather a territorial conflict?




More territorial than religious imo, although there are elements of both. The fact that there are distinct tribes on this planet will always tend to lead to conflict, whether there are religious components or not, although the fact that some believe that land was given to them by God doesn't help the situation. It's a human trait to believe that one's own tribe deserves more than others. Leave the religious  component out though and there would still be conflict in the M.E. , over living space and fertile land resources, water supplies, systems of government, you name it.


----------



## dutchie (22 July 2014)

All you can do is sigh in disbelief...

A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed. 

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ria-law-override/story-fnii5s3x-1226996078122


----------



## FxTrader (22 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity.  I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary.



Yet another thinly veiled attack on evolution theory and abiogenesis in the guise of "accidental causation" in an attempt to justify belief in the supernatural.  Presuming to know anything certain about cosmic origins, God(s), spirit worlds etc. is at best self-delusion and at worst supreme arrogance.  "Belief" in such things is really faith based and not evidenced based belief.  Your "deep convictions to the contrary" no doubt fall into the blind faith category.



> No deed could truly be deemed good or evil because everything came about accidentally and hence is of no importance.  Every able bodied person could happily stop reproducing and euthenase themselves to spare future generations from life's rollercoaster ride of pleasure and suffering. Pure bliss.



Here we go again, there's no reason to be moral or have a sense of good and evil if you don't believe in a sky God or cosmic architect.  The religious have a claim to moral superiority because their imagined celestial dictator tells them what is right or wrong via scribble in iron-age scrolls, no moral grey areas in those stone tablets.  Just more unsubstantiated rhetorical garbage that's contiually wheeled out by the religious to justify belief.  Once again, religion and religious beliefs are not true because their presumed to be useful in controlling the behaviour of the flock. 



> Are we sure that such an idealistic notion of existence being purely accidental is a truly logical, reasonable and safe philosophy to pursue!



A rhetorical argument intended yet again to be critical of anyone who does not pursue mystical, magical explanations for existence and purpose.  It's hardly "idealistic" to pursue rational explanations for origins.



> P.S. Also, I was delivered a sign via a winged messenger within seconds of asking a higher being for guidance on the possibility of my permanent exit from this existence!
> 
> I am still undecided whether to be thankful or resentful. I got the answer that I had to have! It just wasn't the answer that I'd have preferred. Non existence would be so much easier!!



While I would normally ignore such comment as whimsical digression, given your past account of conversations with the dead you could actually be serious.  If so, you're really struggling with that fine line between reality and unreality here.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2014)

dutchie said:


> All you can do is sigh in disbelief...
> 
> A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ria-law-override/story-fnii5s3x-1226996078122




All the governments that allowed and still do allow large middle east immigration numbers into Australia have a lot to answer for imo.


----------



## artist (22 July 2014)

Tink said:


> I think you may be right, cynic.
> Never once have I been questioned why I agree with someone, which took me by surprise, and I replied, nice of them to pick and choose who I should be agreeing with.
> I have agreed with many.
> 
> ...




Tink, it was cynic, not I, who said 
"I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread." 

and it was VC, not I, who said 
"Guilty, I wanted tink to learn something,... not because of the glowing reviews, but simply because i suspect she takes things at face value, rather than taking a sceptical approach. I wanted her to at least examine this one claim for herself. "

I on the other hand simply asked you politely and sincerely if you would explain to me in your own words how you understand the link between verses in Genesis and chromosomes because you said you understand it. I don't understand it. No-one else apart from you has been able to understand it. I think it would be wonderful to establish such a connection, but I find cynic's style of communication impenetrable and frustrating.

If you include me in your put-down of people being " . . . immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down" then I find that presumptuous, erroneous and offensive.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> More territorial than religious imo, although there are elements of both. The fact that there are distinct tribes on this planet will always tend to lead to conflict, whether there are religious components or not, although the fact that some believe that land was given to them by God doesn't help the situation. It's a human trait to believe that one's own tribe deserves more than others. Leave the religious  component out though and there would still be conflict in the M.E. , over living space and fertile land resources, water supplies, systems of government, you name it.




Because these "tribes" are divided by religion, they tend to not mingle, this cause the disputes to become multi generational, any other land dispute would have long since been sorted out if you took away the "god gave us this land" and "we can't mingle with or marry them" then the two sides would have intermixed.

Same thing in Northern Ireland, catholic kids went to catholic schools, hung out with Catholics and married Catholics, Protestants did the same, religion tends to prolong fighting, I mean when you know you have god on your side, why negotiate.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Because these "tribes" are divided by religion, they tend to not mingle, this cause the disputes to become multi generational, any other land dispute would have long since been sorted out if you took away the "god gave us this land" and "we can't mingle with or marry them" then the two sides would have intermixed.
> 
> Same thing in Northern Ireland, catholic kids went to catholic schools, hung out with Catholics and married Catholics, Protestants did the same, religion tends to prolong fighting, I mean when you know you have god on your side, why negotiate.




True in some cases not in others. Religious issues tend to get forgotten and others take over. Ireland is one example. What started out as a religious battle turned into a political one, separation of Ireland from Britain. I doubt if the IRA is any more religious than the mafia. Same in the ME. It's more a battle over land and resources now than religion, although there are religious extremists on both sides.

Native American tribes fought each other, Australian Aboriginal tribes fought each other, neither having much concept of religion. War will happen for reasons other than religion. Are you going to say that the two greatest wars in the last hundred years were fought over religion ?


----------



## Tink (22 July 2014)

No, that wasn't you artist, that was bellenuit and VC.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Bunyip
> 
> There is more crossfire going on in this thread than the Gaza Strip. The last thing it needs is the two of us adding to it.



Quite true, Duckman – but one sure way to draw crossfire is to use words such as ‘weak’ and ‘immature’ in relation to a comment that was made on the basis of honesty and reality.



Duckman#72 said:


> Prayers can/might provide comfort for those who are religious (and even those whom I suspect are ambivalent to God) but they won't mean a thing for those who are anti religious. We should both agree with this.
> 
> Duckman



I certainly agree that prayers won’t mean anything to a person who isn’t religious. But in particularly traumatic situations, such as finding that your close friends or relatives have been killed in a plane blown apart by terrorists, I seriously doubt that anyone, religious or not, would receive any comfort whatsoever from having prayers said for them.
When I consider how my wife’s sister (who is extremely religious) would feel if my wife was one of the victims on that Malaysian plane, and I think about how I, a non-religious person would feel, I believe that both of us would be so absolutely consumed by grief that all the prayers in the world would give no comfort or relief to either of us.
If I think of my religious friends (and I still have quite a few from my days as a Christian), I honestly can’t see any of them taking any comfort from prayers if their loved ones had been on that Malaysian plane.

You and Pav seem to think I’m a cold-hearted bastard whose only reaction to the Malaysian airline tragedy has been to comment about how useless prayer will be to the friends and families of the victims. Believe me, my first reaction was to feel great sadness for the lives lost and for the sorrow of the families and friends of the victims. Three days later, my sadness is unabated every time I turn on the TV and see the devastation at the crash site, and hear the names of the victims.
At the same time, however, a bit of reality and clear thinking allows me to see the futility of praying for the victim’s families in the hope that it will somehow help them. In my opinion it will not.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> True in some cases not in others. Religious issues tend to get forgotten and others take over. Ireland is one example. What started out as a religious battle turned into a political one, separation of Ireland from Britain. I doubt if the IRA is any more religious than the mafia. Same in the ME. It's more a battle over land and resources now than religion, although there are religious extremists on both sides.
> 
> Native American tribes fought each other, Australian Aboriginal tribes fought each other, neither having much concept of religion. War will happen for reasons other than religion. Are you going to say that the two greatest wars in the last hundred years were fought over religion ?




yes. but religion means the groups will never mingle or intermarry, religion is the wedge holding the divide open, with out the religion, conflicts get resolved, negotiated and traded away.


----------



## bellenuit (22 July 2014)

dutchie said:


> All you can do is sigh in disbelief...
> 
> A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ria-law-override/story-fnii5s3x-1226996078122




This, apparently, is authentic........


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> yes. but religion means the groups will never mingle or intermarry, religion is the wedge holding the divide open, with out the religion, conflicts get resolved, negotiated and traded away.




Yes that's true , but it also holds between members of different tribes and ethic groups.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> War will happen for reasons other than religion. Are you going to say that the two greatest wars in the last hundred years were fought over religion ?




There was religion involved in both the German and Japanese side.

Hitler as discussed played on the traditional mistrust of Jews, which had been propagated by the catholic church.

and,

The Japanese Emperor was considered infallible, as he was a God, meaning his people were happy to follow his orders and would not go against him, so much so that after the allies had won, they ordered an end to the state religion of Shintoism



> General Douglas MacArthur, in his capacity as Supreme Commander of Allied Powers in the Pacific, brings an end to Shintoism as Japan's established religion. The Shinto system included the belief that the emperor, in this case Hirohito, was divine.
> 
> On September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, MacArthur signed the instrument of Japanese surrender on behalf of the victorious Allies. Before the economic and political reforms the Allies devised for Japan's future could be enacted, however, the country had to be demilitarized. Step one in the plan to reform Japan entailed the demobilization of Japan's armed forces, and the return of all troops from abroad. Japan had had a long history of its foreign policy being dominated by the military, as evidenced by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye's failed attempts to reform his government and being virtually pushed out of power by career army officer Hideki Tojo.
> 
> Step two was the dismantling of Shintoism as the Japanese national religion. Allied powers believed that serious democratic reforms, and a constitutional form of government, could not be put into place as long as the Japanese people looked to an emperor as their ultimate authority. Hirohito was forced to renounce his divine status, and his powers were severely limited””he was reduced to little more than a figurehead. And not merely religion, but even compulsory courses on ethics””the power to influence the Japanese population's traditional religious and moral duties””were wrenched from state control as part of a larger decentralization of all power.




But I agree, the religious aspects were not the total cause, hence in a very short period pretty much all is forgiven and we have been trading with both the Germans and the Japanese since. Where as if there was a big religious divide the wars seem to carry on for generations, there is a reason the war in Afganistan has be called "The Long War".


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2014)

Tink said:


> No, that wasn't you artist, that was bellenuit and VC.




All I wanted you to do was read the actual texts Cynic claimed talks about chromosomes, If you did that you would realise that he was speaking rubbish. 

I was just trying to promote a little scepticism in you, Because you seem to take every religious claim as true.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes that's true , but it also holds between members of different tribes and ethic groups.




yes, and we should fight against racism and xenophobia also, and any other unfounded beliefs that keep humans from working together. We are all just people, we all want very similar things, and we can work together to get them.

It's a sickening thing when you see Australia Day celebrations, which should be a day of celebrating everything great about Australia, become racist and xenophobic. Patriotism can easily switch to tribalism and racism, this should be resisted.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> yes, and we should fight against racism and xenophobia also, and any other unfounded beliefs that keep humans from working together. We are all just people, we all want very similar things, and we can work together to get them.
> 
> It's a sickening thing when you see Australia Day celebrations, which should be a day of celebrating everything great about Australia, become racist and xenophobic. Patriotism can easily switch to tribalism and racism, this should be resisted.




Can't argue with that.



Damn...


----------



## artist (22 July 2014)

Julia said:


> (I have no wish to turn this interesting thread into a focus on what is happening in the ME at present:  it just seems like the most current example of the hatred demonstrated by both sides.)




I agree, and what I am posting now I do in that spirit.

"As the sun begins to sink over the Mediterranean, groups of Israelis gather each evening on hilltops close to the Gaza border to cheer, whoop and whistle as bombs rain down on people in a warzone hell a few miles away. . . . 

. . . . 

An atmosphere of an anticipatory excitement grows as dusk falls, in the expectation that Hamas militants will increase rocket fire after breaking their Ramadan fast, and the Israeli military will respond with force.

The thud of shellfire, flash of an explosion and pall of smoke are greeted with exclamations of approval. “What a beauty,” says one appreciative spectator." 

http://www.alternet.org/world/israelis-gather-hillsides-watch-and-cheer-military-drops-bombs-gaza

I also know of Palestinian school books (not that there remain any schools as we know them in Gaza) which teach children maths by setting problems such as "There are five Israeli soldiers and I kill three of them. How many are still alive?"

I can give many such examples from across time, geography and political / religious persuasions.

I often weep for us all.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Yet another thinly veiled attack on evolution theory and abiogenesis in the guise of "accidental causation" in an attempt to justify belief in the supernatural.  Presuming to know anything certain about cosmic origins, God(s), spirit worlds etc. is at best self-delusion and at worst supreme arrogance.  "Belief" in such things is really faith based and not evidenced based belief.  Your "deep convictions to the contrary" no doubt fall into the blind faith category.
> 
> 
> Here we go again, there's no reason to be moral or have a sense of good and evil if you don't believe in a sky God or cosmic architect.  The religious have a claim to moral superiority because their imagined celestial dictator tells them what is right or wrong via scribble in iron-age scrolls, no moral grey areas in those stone tablets.  Just more unsubstantiated rhetorical garbage that's contiually wheeled out by the religious to justify belief.  Once again, religion and religious beliefs are not true because their presumed to be useful in controlling the behaviour of the flock.
> ...




The repeated disingenuous efforts to contort my postings into something other than what they are, have not excaped my attention. 

My stated position is and has always been that no religion that I've encountered to date can truly claim to hold the monoploy of truth, morality or facts, and I object to anyone arrogantly stating and/or implying that I have said anything to the  contrary! 

Please extend me the courtesy of not pretending to know my mind! I'm sure you wouldn't want me pretending to know yours!!

No one here is obliged to believe a word I say if they don't want to, but just because someone opts for non belief doesn't entitle them to claim authority over what may be considered true.Nor does it entitle them to boldly accuse me of dishonesty.

I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!

Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The Japanese Emperor was considered infallible, as he was a God, meaning his people were happy to follow his orders and would not go against him




Sounds a bit like the setup in the Catholic church where through the ages the popes have been considered infallible, believed to have supernatural powers just like the various gods that mankind has created, and Catholics have been expected to follow the orders of their pope without question. 

Fortunately, many Catholics have now progressed to the stage where they no longer agree with such outdated views, and they no longer feel obligated to follow the orders of their pope. The widespread use of contraception among Catholics is one example of this.
And yet in many parts of the world there are still Catholics who remain glued to the old Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility and godliness, and they continue to feel obligated towards total obedience to the pope.
I wonder how long it will take them to open their eyes and realize that popes are not quite the magnificent men that the Catholic church makes them out to be.
The Catholic church doesn’t help by making a saint out of one of their popes who aided and abetted a junkie, embezzler and pedophile.


----------



## lindsayf (22 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!




All this mystical speak.  The shadows and the terror.
Are you attempting to position yourself as a spiritual grand master of some kind?
Perhaps your vague language and pseudo spiritual claims will win you a few followers via PM.
Either that or you do have a very good sense of humour.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

lindsayf said:


> All this mystical speak.  The shadows and the terror.
> Are you attempting to position yourself as a spiritual grand master of some kind?



Certainly not!!!


> Perhaps your vague language and pseudo spiritual claims will win you a few followers via PM.
> Either that or you do have a very good sense of humour.




Perhaps you'd like to answer the question that I posed to FXtrader:



cynic said:


> ...
> I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!
> 
> Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?



lindsayf, if memory serves me correctly, a response to my question regarding one of your earlier posts, is yet to be received, so I won't be holding my breath!


----------



## FxTrader (22 July 2014)

cynic said:


> The repeated disingenuous efforts to contort my postings into something other than what they are, have not excaped my attention.



Of course all here should remember that only Cynic has a license to interpret Cynic correctly.  I contorted nothing, your meaning was clear enough even though you revel in metaphorical phrasing, semantic argument and obfuscation.



> My stated position is and has always been that no religion that I've encountered to date can truly claim to hold the monoploy of truth, morality or fact, and I object to anyone arrogantly stating and/or implying that I have said anything to the contrary!



Now that statement is truly disingenuous, you are a highly biased poster.  Your riddle laden dribble here has always come down on the side of religious posters from the moronic taunts of cbc to those who just slavishly parrot back religious propaganda like Tink and Pav without submitting a shred of evidence to support their strong belief in religious myth.  Your strong bias in favor superstition and myth is quite evident throughout this thread.



> Please extend me the courtesy of not pretending to know my mind! I'm sure you wouldn't want me pretending to know yours!!



Of course it's unlikely that I would know your "mind", you don't seem to know your own given how  nebulous, infinitely flexible, and deliberately obscure your expressed views are here.  Clearly you find it difficult to speak plainly on the topic at hand or you deliberately chose not to.



> No one here is obliged to believe a word I say if they don't want to, but just because someone opts for non belief doesn't entitle them to claim authority over what may be considered true.Nor does it entitle them to boldly accuse me of dishonesty.



Who suggested you were dishonest? Why would I doubt you have seen and spoken with apparitions, ghosts, spirits etc.  It must be true because you said so!



> I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!



LOL, thanks for the comic relief.



> Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?



Something I ponder every day cynic.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> ...
> Something I ponder every day cynic.



That isn't what I was asking! Now would you care to answer the question actually asked of you?


> Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?





FxTrader said:


> Of course all here should remember that only Cynic has a license to interpret Cynic correctly.  I contorted nothing, your meaning was clear enough even though you revel in metaphorical phrasing, semantic argument and obfuscation.
> ...
> Now that statement is truly disingenuous, you are a highly biased poster.  Your riddle laden dribble here has always come down on the side of religious posters from the moronic taunts of cbc to those who just slavishly parrot back religious propaganda like Tink and Pav without submitting a shred of evidence to support their strong belief in religious myth.  Your strong bias in favor superstition and myth is quite evident throughout this thread.
> ...
> ...




I've taken the liberty of bolding a few sections of one of my earlier posts to this thread. Despite some posters' claims to the contrary, this is by no means the only post in which I've expressed those sentiments!



cynic said:


> I can partially (although not totally) agree.
> My post was primarily intended as a rebuttal to the opinion that those subscrbing to a belief in a higher being/power were either illogical or indoctrinated beyond the capacity for critical thought. A brief examination of the history of major scientific pioneers strongly suggests that, not only did many hold strong religious/philosophical beliefs, but on many occasions their scientific discoveries arose consequent to pursuits inspired by those religious/philosophical beliefs!
> ...
> Yes this is very much akin to my philosophy. As it happens, even with science's progress into unravelling the mysteries of creation, much continues to remain unexplained.
> ...


----------



## Julia (22 July 2014)

Tink said:


> No, that wasn't you artist, that was bellenuit and VC.




That is simply not correct, Tink.  See below:
Also, it seems quite reasonable for anyone to ask you to explain what you understood of cynic's remarks when you agreed with them.  I note you've not responded to anyone's request to offer such an explanation.
It's hard not to agree with bellenuit's suggestion that you simply agree with anyone who is supporting even a vaguely pro-religion stance.  



cynic said:


> I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread.
> 
> If my suspicions prove to be correct those posters can anticipate my continued disclosure of controversial (and therefore uncomfortable) perspectives on reality, theology, philosophy and contemporary science.






artist said:


> Tink, it was cynic, not I, who said
> "I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread."
> 
> and it was VC, not I, who said
> ...


----------



## Tink (22 July 2014)

Sorry Julia, but you are wrong.

The discussion between VC and bellenuit was way before that one.

Please look back over the discussion.


----------



## FxTrader (22 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I've taken the liberty of bolding a few sections of one of my earlier posts to this thread. Despite some posters' claims to the contrary, this is by no means the only post in which I've expressed those sentiments!



Thanks for the carefully selected post. This meandering, rambling and self-indulgent expose' is replete with examples of your bias toward "divine belief systems" and preference for divine (supernatural) explanations for the rhetorical questions posed.  You try to suggest a harmony between modern science and fantastic religious beliefs that does not exist and leap to being an apologist for mutually intolerant belief systems that each stake a claim on having a monopoly on absolute truth in the form of their particular religious myth.  This example only reinforces the statements I have made here regarding your religious bias.  It's no mystery as to why Tink and Pav are your biggest supporters here.

My favorite quote though is...


> Firstly, I've experienced phenomena (often coincident with prayer/meditation) for which science has, as yet, failed to provide adequate explanation.



This uncritical acceptance of claimed supernatural experiences is very common indeed.  I have seen it expressed by many religious believers (praying in tongues, assumed answers to prayer, miraculous healings etc.).  Unfortunately such claims are rarely if ever testable, repeatable, or critically accessible.  If the unexplainable happens... God, no further inquiry required.  Such experiences are then used to justify religious belief, not just to those who experienced them, but then professed to others as well with evangelistic fervor.  I actually had a friend boldly declare he witnessed a leg grow longer during a faith healing event and proclaimed this "fact" on social media (much to his later embarrassment).

Assuming the "phenomena" you've supposedly experienced has no immediate rational or scientific explanation, this does not permit you to logically extrapolate that something supernatural has occurred and give you cause to justify religious myth or imply doubters or skeptics are narrow minded.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Thanks for the carefully selected post. This meandering, rambling and self-indulgent expose' is replete with examples of your bias toward "divine belief systems" and preference for divine (supernatural) explanations for the rhetorical questions posed.  You try to suggest a harmony between modern science and fantastic religious beliefs that does not exist and leap to being an apologist for mutually intolerant belief systems that stake a claim on having a monopoly on absolute truth in the form of their particular religious myth.  This example only reinforces the statements I have made here regarding your religious bias.  It's no mystery as to why Tink and Pav are your biggest supporters here.
> 
> My favorite quote though is...
> 
> ...



FXTrader, did you actually have anything new to offer to the discussion?

Perhaps an answer to that other question I asked of you?


----------



## FxTrader (22 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Perhaps an answer to that other question I asked of you?



Given this non-reply to my post why should I indulge your hypothetical question?  I thought my previous response was clear though.  Let me rephrase, the possibility that *any* of your fantastic, supernatural claims are "true" is so remote that such a question does not warrant serious consideration.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

artist said:


> Tink, it was cynic, not I, who said
> "I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread."
> 
> and it was VC, not I, who said
> ...




Artist, may I once again sincerely apologise for the confusion that has arisen. I certainly have not experienced you as anything but openly diplomatic and pleasant in your participation throughout this and other threads on this forum.

Unfortunately, based upon past history, I had cause to suspect the motives of just a couple of the posters that posed the question of Tink. As I didn't want to be seen to be singling people out, I quoted all four (if I recall correctly) when enquiring about the need for revisitation of my earlier discourse.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Given this non-reply to my post why should I indulge your hypothetical question?  I thought my previous response was clear though.  Let me rephrase, the possibility that *any* of your fantastic, supernatural claims are "true" is so remote that such a question does not warrant serious consideration.



To my understanding, the possibility of our existence is equally remote and yet we experience ourselves as extant.

Nobody is obliged to indulge me at all if they don't want to.

However those unwilling to answer questions that confront the integrity of their own personal belief systems would be most unwise to arrogantly claim the right to contest and/or oppress the beliefs of others!

Now, would you like to answer the question?

Or may I take your response/s thus far as being your definitive refusal?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 July 2014)

Sorry to interrupt all this hugging and hay yaows.

But does God exist?

If he does is he represented by those sweaty persons of Mediterranean Appearance chopping peoples heads off in Syria and Iraq?

gg


----------



## cynic (22 July 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to interrupt all this hugging and hay yaows.
> 
> But does God exist?
> 
> ...




She might not appreciate supplication from those confusing Her gender. Perhaps you could ask Her yourself and let us know what (if anything) She has to say on the matter?


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> But does God exist?
> 
> 
> 
> gg




Depends who you ask, Pav said yes and he knows its Jesus, Cynic says yes, and he says its a giant organism that we live inside akin to microbes that live in us, tink agrees with both pav and cynic, calliope says no but he likes people that believe in pav's brand, sir rumpole says he doesn't know but thinks one does but its not the type the others believe in,


----------



## bellenuit (23 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Depends who you ask, Pav said yes and he knows its Jesus, Cynic says yes, and he says its a giant organism that we live inside akin to microbes that live in us, tink agrees with both pav and cynic, calliope says no but he likes people that believe in pav's brand, sir rumpole says he doesn't know but thinks one does but its not the type the others believe in,




That about sums it up. LOL


----------



## cynic (23 July 2014)

Where would this world be without religion?! 

Just think! There'd be no "Life of Brian" style vids to cheer us up when we're feeling glum. Not to mention the wonderful offerings of comedians such as Rowan Atkinson, Dick Emery and Rowan Atkinson etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to interrupt all this hugging and hay yaows.
> 
> But does God exist?
> 
> ...




First separate the possibility of a God existing from religion. Religion is a human  interpretation of what a God is, does and wants. There is no evidence that any religion's interpretations of a higher Being's characteristics are accurate. The fact that religions differ so greatly  in their descriptions of a God indicate that if one religion is correct, the others must be wrong, or they could all be wrong. Religion is therefore based on an individuals personal choice of what type of God appeals to them.

As to whether a God exists at all, no one knows for sure. We have discovered that the Laws of Science break down the closer in time that we get to the Big Bang. Therefore the universe must have been created by processes that we do not understand at this time. Maybe we will know for sure one day, but until we do my belief is that the simplest explanation for why the universe is here is that something created it. Others may disagree, but they have as much (or as little) basis for their opinion as I have for mine.

Take your pick.

Hope that answers your question.


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> As to whether a God exists at all, no one knows for sure.




Pav and Tink do!


----------



## Tink (23 July 2014)

Ah, good to see we are all happy, have a lovely day.
Enjoy 

My own offering....

May God bless you all, peace and happiness for this very special new day.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Ah, good to see we are all happy, have a lovely day.
> Enjoy
> 
> My own offering....
> ...




Same to you Tink, and may your God go with you ...


----------



## bellenuit (23 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> First separate the possibility of a God existing from religion. Religion is a human  interpretation of what a God is, does and wants. There is no evidence that any religion's interpretations of a higher Being's characteristics are accurate. The fact that religions differ so greatly  in their descriptions of a God indicate that if one religion is correct, the others must be wrong, or they could all be wrong. Religion is therefore based on an individuals personal choice of what type of God appeals to them.




I agree with your general sentiment. But I think saying an "individuals personal choice" misses the fact that probably 99% of those who claim to follow a religion follow that in which they are brought up in. An accident of birth rather than a reasoned decision in almost every case. The fact that even people who make a reasoned decision tend to end up with the religion of their birth indicates how strong the indoctrination, for use of a better word, at an early age is.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I agree with your general sentiment. But I think saying an "individuals personal choice" misses the fact that probably 99% of those who claim to follow a religion follow that in which they are brought up in. An accident of birth rather than a reasoned decision in almost every case. The fact that even people who make a reasoned decision tend to end up with the religion of their birth indicates how strong the indoctrination, for use of a better word, at an early age is.




And made worse by threats of hell if they go against their birth religion or rejection by their family, or in some countries and religions risk of death or jail.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I agree with your general sentiment. But I think saying an "individuals personal choice" misses the fact that probably 99% of those who claim to follow a religion follow that in which they are brought up in. An accident of birth rather than a reasoned decision in almost every case. The fact that even people who make a reasoned decision tend to end up with the religion of their birth indicates how strong the indoctrination, for use of a better word, at an early age is.




Unfortunate, yes. But unless you want to ban religion altogether which would be unconstitutional, there is not much that can be done about parental control. Take religion out of schools and  allow secular chaplains (or don't fund them at all) is about all the State can do in this country.


----------



## cynic (23 July 2014)

Many of the parents I've known throughout the years do their utmost to give their children the best possible start in life. 
Having experienced their religion (whatever that religion might be) as beneficial, they naturally want to pass those benefits on to their children. 

It seems there are some misguided individuals within society that believe their unrecognised personal indoctrination is somehow superior to that of others' and have arrogantly presumed the right to dictate what is in the best interests of other people's children! 

To these arrogant individuals I ask again: 

Who do you think you are? Are you God?!!!


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Many of the parents I've known throughout the years do their utmost to give their children the best possible start in life.
> 
> Having experienced their religion (whatever that religion might be) as beneficial, they naturally want to pass those benefits on to their children.




Yeah, what's a few threats of hell fire, a sexuality based disowning or an honour killing among family, It's all for the best right.


----------



## bellenuit (23 July 2014)

*Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html


----------



## cynic (23 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, what's a few threats of hell fire, a sexuality based disowning or an honour killing among family, It's all for the best right.




Is that truly your understanding of the word "beneficial"?


----------



## DB008 (23 July 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to interrupt all this hugging and hay yaows.
> 
> But does God exist?
> 
> ...





Does God exist ???

Good question...


*Woman Lets God Drive Car, God Immediately Runs Down Guy On Motorcycle*



> A woman who smashed into and ran over a motorcyclist in Fort Wayne, Indiana, told police that she had let God drive her car when she ran down 47-year-old Anthony Oliveri, leaving him with serious injuries ”” but “ecstatic to be alive.”
> 
> Prionda Hill, 25, also rammed the back of a Ford pickup truck before running her 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix off the road onto a median next to a Rally’s burger restaurant, according to a police report.
> 
> ...





http://www.inquisitr.com/1365065/woman-lets-god-drive-car-anthony-oliveri/


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Is that truly your understanding of the word "beneficial"?




Just some of the nasty side effects of the "Beneficial" religious dogma parents may preach,


----------



## cynic (24 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Just some of the nasty side effects of the "Beneficial" religious dogma parents may preach,



Tankyou VC. I'll accept that as your admission to misconstruence of my use of the word "beneficial".

Given that there are some that believe themselves sufficiently omniscient to know better than all those theistic folk how one may or may not be permitted to live and believe, perhaps one of the anti-theists amongst us could shed light on their proposed alternative. Should any choose to do so, please ensure that the concerns raised in my earlier post are adequately addressed. 


cynic said:


> I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity.
> 
> I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tink (24 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Same to you Tink, and may your God go with you ...




Thanks Rumpole 
I had some very good news yesterday morning, so I was very excited and thankful.
Gratitude, something people are forgetting.

As a few have mentioned, there are three debates in here, God on its own, God with religion and no God/no religion.

Religion has always been the messenger, how else are people going to hear about God, if not for religion.
The atheists don't want you to think of either.
Then again, they are the beginning of a Communist society, so what do you expect, no religion allowed, only their religion.
Humans are not perfect.

I agree with the Church also, which I know some in here don't, but I don't believe a society can make up their own rules. I am glad that the Church is there standing up for the ones that can't speak.
Religion has always been about the common good for all in society, from adults to children, and for me I see that as important.
They speak for the ones that can't speak. I am glad they are there.
I also think our Christian Heritage is important.
I have said that a few times.

We have mentioned Korea and international law, but once something like that starts, its very hard to get in and take over. 

Just sharing my thoughts.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Religion has always been the messenger, how else are people going to hear about God, if not for religion.
> The atheists don't want you to think of either.
> .




Which religion is the true Messenger though, How can we tell?

I think most people that are at the point where they are willing to call them selves atheists, have done a lot more thinking on the subject than the average guy, and atheists generally encourage discussion and thinking on the subject. 



> Then again, they are the beginning of a Communist society, so what do you expect, no religion allowed, only their religion.




Firstly do you know what communism is? Atheism is not communism, Atheism is one opinion on one topic thats it, If your not convinced a god exists, your atheist, not believeing in a god doesn't mean you're communist, it takes a whole set of other beliefs to get to communism, and you don't have to be atheist to be a communist, they are separate things.

Atheists are some of the biggest defenders of religious freedom there are, I will defend your right to have a religion, to build churches, to have as many meetings as you want.

The only time we will fight, is if you try to get your religion special privileges over others or you try to bring in legislation based on your religion, But that doesn't mean I am taking away your religious freedom, I am defending every one elses right to their religion and be free from yours.

If your beating a man with a stick, and I stop you beating him, That doesn't mean I am attacking your right to have a stick, you just have to keep your stick to your self.



> I don't believe a society can make up their own rules.




Why not? we have been doing a pretty good job so far. If we took our rules from the bible, you would be able to kill gays, stone people that work on the Sabbath, kill nonbelievers etc.

I think we have done a pretty good job at putting secular based rules for our society, It's a bit weird that you think people can't make up rules, when the churches are just people also.

In fact if you don't believe we should stone gays and nonbelievers your actually going against the bible and what jesus said, because the bible clearly commands those things, and Jesus said you had to follow the commandments, not just the ten commandments, but all of them, and during the sermon on the mount he said none of the rules would change until he returned.




> Religion has always been about the common good for all in society,




Except if you disagree with them, then they generally killed you.


----------



## bunyip (24 July 2014)

Tink

What would you do if your son or daughter had a drinking problem?

This is not a trick question - I really would appreciate an answer if you have time to give me one.
Thanks


----------



## Julia (24 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Gratitude, something people are forgetting.



Agree that gratitude is important.  It is not necessary to be religious to experience gratitude.



> Religion has always been the messenger, how else are people going to hear about God, if not for religion.



Can't you see  how illogical that statement is?   If someone has thought clearly and concluded that they do not believe there is a god, or simply concluded that they don't know, and will therefore just get about their business, they're not interested in your 'messenger'.  Nothing worse than people who proselytize.



> Then again, they are the beginning of a Communist society, so what do you expect, no religion allowed, only their religion.



Communism is a political ideology.  It is not a religion.  There is no obligatory connection between atheism and communism as VC has pointed out.



> I agree with the Church also, which I know some in here don't, but I don't believe a society can make up their own rules. I am glad that the Church is there standing up for the ones that can't speak.



Oh my goodness!  the irony!   Standing up for the ones they raped and abused for decades and then covered it up!  



> Religion has always been about the common good for all in society, from adults to children,



  To actually say that religion has always been for the common good in society is blatantly and obviously untrue.  Just think of a few examples like the Twin Towers, the Israel/Palestine situation and hundreds of suicide bombers throughout the world.


----------



## noco (24 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Which religion is the true Messenger though, How can we tell?
> 
> I think most people that are at the point where they are willing to call them selves atheists, have done a lot more thinking on the subject than the average guy, and atheists generally encourage discussion and thinking on the subject.
> 
> ...




Congratulations VC.....I fully agree with all you have stated......I have no objection to religion so long as they don't ram it down my throat with a stick.

To brain wash Muslim kids 5 times a day with the Koran into believing that if you are a Christian or an infidel you should be eliminated is very evil in my mind.....they do it by spreading fear.

IMHO Islamic religion is being used as a political front for world domination.


----------



## cynic (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> ...Given that there are some that believe themselves sufficiently omniscient to know better than all those theistic folk how one may or may not be permitted to live and believe, perhaps one of the anti-theists amongst us could shed light on their proposed alternative. Should any choose to do so, please ensure that the concerns raised in my earlier post are adequately addressed.




Bump. 

Would any of the self-proclaimed suiperior minds on this thread care to take me up on my invitation for them to explain how their philosophy on existence actually works?


----------



## noco (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Bump.
> 
> Would any of the self-proclaimed suiperior minds on this thread care to take me up on my invitation for them to explain how their philosophy on existence actually works?




IMHO many religions are used as a curtain to conceal their sins........there are many religious people who believe they can commit a sin and be forgiven.......there are many religious people who believe they are above all others....there are many religious people, who believe because they are religious, they can do no wrong in the eyes of others....please don't get me wrong....there are are some good things that come out of certain religions.

I believe a majority of religious people are pure hypocrites and do not follow their teachings in the manner in which  they were taught...it is one of the reasons why, I, as an original Christian decided to become Agnostic......I could not tolerate mixing with so many hypocrites.

I perceive to look at this way.......we have laws of the land to abide by......we know these laws and if we break those laws we have have to suffer the consequences either from our pockets of by detention......many of those laws are also in the bible which at times can be misinterpreted or misused by unscrupulous people.....IMHO the bible is made up of 1/3 fable. 1/3 fiction and 1/3 truth.......because the testaments have been rewritten so many times, they are now distant from the original.   

Then there are the morale standards which in most cases are handed down from one's parents and as to what you believe is right from wrong and lets not kid ourselves, we all know when we are doing the wrong thing by ourselves and others.


----------



## cynic (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity.
> 
> I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary.
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> ...Given that there are some that believe themselves sufficiently omniscient to know better than all those theistic folk how one may or may not be permitted to live and believe, perhaps one of the anti-theists amongst us could shed light on their proposed alternative. Should any choose to do so, please ensure that the concerns raised in my earlier post are adequately addressed.






noco said:


> IMHO many religions are used as a curtain to conceal their sins........there are many religious people who believe they can commit a sin and be forgiven.......there are many religious people who believe they are above all others....there are many religious people, who believe because they are religious, they can do no wrong in the eyes of others....please don't get me wrong....there are are some good things that come out of certain religions.
> 
> I believe a majority of religious people are pure hypocrites and do not follow their teachings in the manner in which  they were taught...it is one of the reasons why, I, as an original Christian decided to become Agnostic......I could not tolerate mixing with so many hypocrites.
> 
> ...




Thanks for sharing that noco. Unfortunately, due to my bumped post's omission of a quoted excerpt from one of my earlier posts, you may have overlooked the concerns explicitly raised that I was seeking to have addressed.


----------



## lindsayf (24 July 2014)

another bizarre, immoral and disturbing artifact of a bronze age religion.

http://www.newsquare.com/new-york-n...o-new-cases-of-neonatal-herpes-following-mbp/


----------



## cynic (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> ...Sadder yet is the sickening glee certain individuals take when capitalising on such abhorrent events in the pursuance and promotion of their personal agenda/s.
> 
> Does this sentiment resonate with anyone?




Must I repeat myself?!


----------



## Tink (24 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> Tink
> 
> What would you do if your son or daughter had a drinking problem?
> 
> ...




Hi Bunyip,

I am not sure why you are asking me that, but I will answer.

What would any parent do? Find out why.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for sharing that noco. Unfortunately, due to my bumped post's omission of a quoted excerpt from one of my earlier posts, you may have overlooked the concerns explicitly raised that I was seeking to have addressed.




What exactly are the concerns your raising?

Due to your confusing writting style I am not sure if you actually asked a question. Are you talking about the bit where you said everybody could euthanise themselves?


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2014)

lindsayf said:


> another bizarre, immoral and disturbing artifact of a bronze age religion.
> 
> http://www.newsquare.com/new-york-n...o-new-cases-of-neonatal-herpes-following-mbp/




Even if the babies hadn't have caught herpies, the thought that some religious parents still let religious leaders suck the tip of their babies penis shocks me.


----------



## cynic (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire *people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity.*
> I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary.
> 
> *No deed could truly be deemed good or evil because everything came about accidentally and hence is of no importance.
> ...






cynic said:


> Tankyou VC. I'll accept that as your admission to misconstruence of my use of the word "beneficial".
> 
> *Given that there are some that believe themselves sufficiently omniscient to know better than all those theistic folk how one may or may not be permitted to live and believe, perhaps one of the anti-theists amongst us could shed light on their proposed alternative. Should any choose to do so, please ensure that the concerns raised in my earlier post are adequately addressed.*






cynic said:


> Bump.
> 
> Would any of the self-proclaimed suiperior minds on this thread care to take me up on my invitation for them to explain how their philosophy on existence actually works?






Value Collector said:


> What exactly are the concerns your raising?
> ...




I've bolded the relevant sections of my posts in order to reduce the possibility of any innocent misunderstandings and/or intentional misconstruence.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2014)

cynic said:


> I've bolded the relevant sections of my posts in order to reduce the possibility of any innocent misunderstandings and/or intentional misconstruence.




I don't agree with the premise you are making in your statements,

So when you say this, 



> Are we sure that such an idealistic notion of existence being purely accidental is a truly logical, reasonable and safe philosophy to pursue!




I can't really answer it, because it's a question that has already been loaded with a bunch of statements I don't think are correct.

You are actually committing two logical fallacies, 1, begging the question 2, asking a loaded question.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I don't agree with the premise you are making in your statements,
> 
> So when you say this,
> 
> ...




Whether loaded or not, the question is logical and remains valid!

Surely those presuming the right to challenge and condemn the rationale behind others' belief systems, shouldn't have any objection to being called upon to justify their own!


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Whether loaded or not, the question is logical and remains valid!
> 
> Surely those presuming the right to challenge and condemn the rationale behind others' belief systems, shouldn't have any objection to being called upon to justify their own!




I don't believe the things you presumed are correct, hence your logic is false, so the question is invalid.

I have no problem justifying my logic, but the presumptions you built into the question are not my logic.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Whether loaded or not, the question is logical and remains valid!
> 
> Surely those presuming the right to challenge and condemn the rationale behind others' belief systems, shouldn't have any objection to being called upon to justify their own!






Value Collector said:


> I don't believe the things you presumed are correct, hence your logic is false, so the question is invalid.
> 
> I have no problem justifying my logic, but the presumptions you built into the question are not my logic.




Are you sure about that? Weren't you one of the posters banging on about the accidental causation of our existence?!!


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Are you sure about that? Weren't you one of the posters banging on about the accidental causation of our existence?!!




No, I said I don't know what caused the universe to exist, I don't even know if its possible for the universe to not exist or if there was a time that nothing existed.

I also don't think humans existence is "accidental" we are the product of natural selection, which is not a random process, individual genetic mutations may be random, but which mutations survive is not random.

You also said,



> No deed could truly be deemed good or evil because everything came about accidentally and hence is of no importance.
> .




As I have already said, we didn't come about accidentally, we came about because of natural selection, and good and evil are just words we use to describe actions that we think are positive ( good ) or extremely negative ( evil ), these are real things because they are assessments of actions that affect the welfare of ourselves and others. And since we care about our welfare and the welfare of others we care about good and evil, and as we learn more, we get a better understanding of good and evil.

Why do we care about the welfare of others? You may ask, simply because we have evolved from a social species, and our ancestors through natural selection developed traits of caring for the group, which increased the survival rate of themselves and their cousins carrying the same genes, while the anti social individuals outside these caring groups would have died out.



> Every able bodied person could happily stop reproducing and euthenase themselves to spare future generations from life's rollercoaster ride of pleasure and suffering




Could they happily stop reproducing? I don't think so, the urge to reproduce is very strong and it certainly makes people happy to reproduce, why does the urge to reproduce exist? Simply because we are the product of ancestors who had an urge to reproduce, the individuals that didnt have the urge died out and didnt become ancestors.

Also, we have the urge to live, we are not all naturally suicidal, so i cant see the population "happily" killing them selves.



> Are we sure that such an idealistic notion of existence being purely accidental is a truly logical, reasonable and safe philosophy to pursue!




So for the reasons I gave above, i dont think this is a valid question.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, I said I don't know what caused the universe to exist, I don't even know if its possible for the universe to not exist or if there was a time that nothing existed.
> 
> *I also don't think humans existence is "accidental" we are the product of natural selection, which is not a random process, individual genetic mutations may be random, but which mutations survive is not random*.
> 
> ...




I've taken the liberty of bolding two statements within your reply. Based upon the logic of those statements you are indeed claiming accidental origin! 

Now would you like to provide a valid logical response to the concerns I raised?


----------



## Tink (25 July 2014)

Julia, I already said some wouldn't agree with the Church, but I do. 
I am glad they are there standing up for the ones that can't speak, and a voice for values. 
Someone already posted the link.
http://www.acl.org.au/our-board/
_Most Australians, and certainly many Christians, have simply had enough of the increasingly rapid erosion of traditional family values and ethics in Australia. 
We believe that our success as a nation and a community to date is largely due to our strong Christian heritage._

I am not pushing religion on people, the only reason I mentioned religion being a messenger was because it was brought up about being taught in schools, private schools. 
The only way you can stop people learning is banning it, and that's where my post went....

Its a pity that VC doesn't extend his gratitude on what built this country, with our Christian Values, how quickly we forget. The rich depth of religion speaks volumes, from music to art to architecture, the list goes on, how much it has contributed in society.

Just beautiful what man can do... enjoy if you wish.
http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html

Anyway, I have said my bit in here....


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

> I also don't think humans existence is "accidental" we are the product of natural selection, which is not a random process, individual genetic mutations may be random, but which mutations survive is not random.




Why should this logical rule of "natural selection" exist in the first place ?

The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Whether loaded or not, the question is logical and remains valid!
> 
> Surely those presuming the right to challenge and condemn the rationale behind others' belief systems, shouldn't have any objection to being called upon to justify their own!




Cynic we know what you are doing when you load a question....

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

> Now would you like to provide a valid logical response to the concerns I raised?




As I said I don't agree with the premise for your concerns, Firstly I don't think natural selection is accidental.

and secondly, even if you can describe our origin as accidental, that doesn't mean you throw everything out the window and good and evil don't exist, and we should all suicide. 

Perhaps you should explain why a species of animal that has been bred by natural selection to have strong urges to reproduce and survive would be happy to stop reproducing and kill themselves. Your logic just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should this logical rule of "natural selection" exist in the first place ?
> 
> The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.




Simply because once you have a population of self replicating organisms, the slight variations in the individuals in the population will cause the individuals to survive at different rates. The ones who variations cause them to be better suited to their environment will survive and breed the others will die out. 

it would actually be more remarkable if there was no natural selection, because this would mean no variation, and every individual survived at the exact rate, that would never happen.


----------



## artist (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.




Unfortunately, the same explanation is the only one which can be offered for the existence of god(s).

Kant wrote that, in the end, the cosmological argument reduces to the ontological argument.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Simply because once you have a population of self replicating organisms, the slight variations in the individuals in the population will cause the individuals to survive at different rates. The ones who variations cause them to be better suited to their environment will survive and breed the others will die out.
> 
> it would actually be more remarkable if there was no natural selection, because this would mean no variation, and every individual survived at the exact rate, that would never happen.




I found this a fascinating read, not just for the science, but for the exposure of how arrogant mainstream science treats its perceived "heretics" and threatens them, just like religion does.

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/fifthmiracle.htm


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> mainstream science treats its perceived "heretics" and threatens them, just like religion does.




No they don't, there are thousands of examples where scientists have completely re written the mainstream scientific understanding through new discoveries, I think you would struggle to find a religion that has given up their foundational belief.

Science can be ruthless in throwing out unfounded claims however, and no doubt peoples feelings get hurt, but so what, If you can prove what your saying is true, they can not stop you proving it, the truth doesn't go away, if Galileo hadn't have discovered Jupiter's moons eventually some one else would have.

You could wipe out all the scientific understanding from human history, and slowly it would all creep back, we would re write science and it would be the same facts discovered, If you wiped out religion, religion might regrow, but it would be a whole bunch of different stories, We would get the theory of gravity again, but we wouldn't get the jesus myth again.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No they don't, there are thousands of examples where scientists have completely re written the mainstream scientific understanding through new discoveries, I think you would struggle to find a religion that has given up their foundational belief.




People have rewritten scientific laws but when scientists suggest the possibility of intelligent design then you can plainly hear the cries of "witch, witch", even though science cannot explain fundamental ideas of how life arose or how the universe began. If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, but still there is denigration of people for even suggesting the possibility  of intelligent design.


----------



## artist (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded,  . . .




I doubt you really meant this. Possibly could be expressed better?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

artist said:


> I doubt you really meant this. Possibly could be expressed better?




Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

Tink said:


> I am not pushing religion on people, the only reason I mentioned religion being a messenger was because it was brought up about being taught in schools, private schools.
> ..




And no doubt you want religion in schools to be your religion. 




> The only way you can stop people learning is banning it, and that's where my post went....




No one is banning religion, as I said I defend your right to have a religion, to have churchs, and sunday schools, you just can't force it on others or try to influence legislation based on it.



> Its a pity that VC doesn't extend his gratitude on what built this country, with our Christian Values, how quickly we forget. The rich depth of religion speaks volumes, from music to art to architecture, the list goes on, how much it has contributed in society.




I Have lots of gratitude, Australia is a great country, It's secular based systems is one of the things that make it great. People don't need religion to be good.

What are these "Christian Values" you speak of? I have asked several times and no one seems to answer,


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> People have rewritten scientific laws but when scientists suggest the possibility of intelligent design then you can plainly hear the cries of "witch, witch", even though science cannot explain fundamental ideas of how life arose or how the universe began. If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, but still there is denigration of people for even suggesting the possibility  of intelligent design.




If some one wants the idea of intelligent design to be accepted by main stream science, They have to be able to prove it. We can not simply accept an idea because we don't know something.

I have been through this with you before, If you don't know something you say "We don't Know" no "We don't know therefore god"

The Intelligent Design movement is full of young earth creationists, who are simply trying to shoe horn their religion into science texts books. The reason they are laughed at is because the things they continually sprout have be refuted a million times.

 Their claims are not based on science at all.

Here is a big thing to think about, In the past, thousands of unexplained phenomena were given supernatural explanations, So far, all of the phenomena that have since been explained all have natural causes, so it would seem we should refrain from making up supernatural causes just because things are presently unexplained.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.




Your comparing natural laws with human law code, there is no real comparison. 

Obviously human law code is made by humans, But there is no evidence to suggest that the natural laws of the universe required a designer.

And science isn't excluding your hypothesis, its just up to you to prove before it can be included. If we included any crazy hypothesis just because it couldn't be disproven, we would have all sorts of crazy ideas in text books.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Obviously human law code is made by humans, But there is no evidence to suggest that the natural laws of the universe required a designer.




You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.

As for young earth creationists, their claims obviously can't be taken seriously but they don't invalidate the entire concept of creationism.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.




Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.




Your invoking the god of the gaps here.

God of the gaps explained.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.
> 
> Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.




All science has come up with is a lot of hand waving "maybe we'll know one day". Fine, I can live with that. Until we do know, people are entitled to believe what they want. Your belief in the absence of a god is just a belief, not backed up by evidence. My belief in a god is belief not backed up by evidence. What's the difference ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Until we do know, people are entitled to believe what they want. ?




Offcourse they are entitled to believe what they want, I have never said they are not. However if they start making positive claims, they should be expected to be asked for evidence, Especially if they are trying to put their unfounded claims into the same category as those backed by scientific evidence, or if they are making other claims about society and morals etc.  





> Your belief in the absence of a god is just a belief, not backed up by evidence. My belief in a god is belief not backed up by evidence. What's the difference




 I have never made a positive claim that "No god exists", I am just unconvinced any do. 

However you do make a positive claim that "A god exists", I know you said your an agnostic deist, but you seem to be leaning much closer to a gnostic deist.

Saying "I don't know", is more intellectually honest, than saying "I don't know, therefore god", that's the basic difference in our points of view.


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.




Only in the same way that its a possibility that a large primate lives in the rocky mountains in north America called big foot.

Does this mean we should add Big foot to biology text books, Offcourse not, we must wait for the existence of big foot to be proven before we add it to biology lessons. And the chance that a big foot exists is much more likely than a god, because we already have evidence of primates in other parts of the world, and we have fossilised evidence of other species of extinct hominid creatures,  and we find new species of animals all the time. 

But even though it is not impossible for bigfoot to exist it would be silly to believe it till its proven and stupid to add it to texts books along side proven mammals.

So when you say we should not discount the god hypothesis, you have to realise that the god claim is far less likely to be true than big foot, and its not even been proven its possible for a god to exist, Its not a 50 / 50 shot, It might be impossible for a god to exist.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Cynic we know what you are doing when you load a question....
> 
> A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your input Sir O. 

Are you really that certain that you understand me?

Have you so soon forgotten the outcome of our last dialogue? (Or perhaps you didn't recognise it for what it was?)

Sometimes people are fortunate enough to have messages from divinity delivered as gentle whispers (or perhaps even a friendly shot across the bows). Those failing to hear that which is whispered risk having the message repeated at greater and greater volumes until it becomes an overpowering SHOUT!!!


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> However you do make a positive claim that "A god exists", I know you said your an agnostic deist, but you seem to be leaning much closer to a gnostic deist.




How could I make such a claim without evidence ? I'm saying *I BELIEVE* a God exists based on the reasons I've already stated, and I've said a number of times that it is a belief , not a fact , just as your view is belief not a fact. So I'm afraid you jumped to an invalid conclusion.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So when you say we should not discount the god hypothesis, you have to realise that the god claim is far less likely to be true than big foot, and its not even been proven its possible for a god to exist, Its not a 50 / 50 shot, It might be impossible for a god to exist.




You have no basis for any determination on the likelihood of a God. What is your evidence ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You have no basis for any determination on the likelihood of a God. What is your evidence ?




I am saying it is more likely that the Bigfoot myth is true than the god myths. 

Why you ask, what's my evidence?

I already stated it, 

1, We know animals exist, and we have existing species of primates already proven in other parts of the world.

2, We Know various species of hominid have existed in the past, due to the fossil record. there are many other species of human/ape like creatures that have existed, 

So finding a previously unknown species or a previously proclaimed extinct species, is not impossible, infact it happens regularly, Many new species are found every year, and some times "Living Fossils" are found eg animals thought long extinct.

Why is it I am saying its less likely a god exists

1, We have never had any proof any gods exist.

2, We have no proof that its even possible for a god to exist.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ....
> No one is banning religion, as I said I defend your right to have a religion, to have churchs, and sunday schools, you just can't force it on others or try to influence legislation based on it.
> ...



You certainly could've fooled me!!!


Value Collector said:


> ....
> I Have lots of gratitude, Australia is a great country, It's secular based systems is one of the things that make it great. People don't need religion to be good.
> ...



I quite agree, however, people do seem to be reliant upon a belief system (i.e. religion!) of some description. History has demonstrated this right through to the current day.



Value Collector said:


> If some one wants the idea of intelligent design to be accepted by main stream science, They have to be able to prove it. We can not simply accept an idea because we don't know something.
> ...



Says whom? Has the big bang theory been proven yet?



Value Collector said:


> ....Here is a big thing to think about, In the past, thousands of unexplained phenomena were given supernatural explanations, So far, all of the phenomena that have since been explained all have natural causes, so it would seem we should refrain from making up supernatural causes just because things are presently unexplained.



Captain obvious strikes again!!! I suggest you give due consideration to the meaning of the word supernatural before using it in your posts!!!


SirRumpole said:


> You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.
> ...



Whilst I'm of a similar opinion, in fairness to the discussion I wouldn't go so far as to use such an extreme phrase as "simplest explanation". Although I must admit that I cannot presently envisage a simpler one, I do not feel entitled to preclude its existence!



SirRumpole said:


> ...
> As for young earth creationists, their claims obviously can't be taken seriously but they don't invalidate the entire concept of creationism.



Apart from wanting to respect the right of others to peacefully investigate their chosen philosophy, I am very much in agreement.



Value Collector said:


> Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.
> ...



That argument definitely cuts both ways.


Value Collector said:


> ...
> Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.



Well that's certainly news to me!!! When exactly did this change occur? Exactly how much of our science still remains? Does one plus one still equal two? Has this ever truly been proven to always be the case and all alternative possibilities conclusively eliminated from consideration?



Value Collector said:


> ... I have never made a positive claim that "No god exists", I am just unconvinced any do.
> ...



Good for you. I respect your right to hold that opinion. I do hope you'll reciprocate by respecting the rights of others to hold their own...



Value Collector said:


> ...
> However you do make a positive claim that "A god exists", I know you said your an agnostic deist, but you seem to be leaning much closer to a gnostic deist.
> 
> Saying "I don't know", is more intellectually honest, than saying "I don't know, therefore god", that's the basic difference in our points of view.



...it would seem that was wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2014)

> I am saying it is more likely that the Bigfoot myth is true than the god myths.




That is an invalid comparison, I doubt if a bigfoot primate could have created the Universe.

The valid comparison for the creation of the universe is between a God and some other process which you have not stated and which we don't even know is possible to occur. As I keep saying , name the other process and provide evidence for its existence, otherwise concede that your belief is no more valid than mine.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That is an invalid comparison, I doubt if a bigfoot primate could have created the Universe...



Whilst I share your doubts, in the absence of conclusive proof one way or the other I'll be maintaining a position of "openminded skepticism" on this one.



> ...
> The valid comparison for the creation of the universe is between a God and some other process which you have not stated and which we don't even know is possible to occur. As I keep saying , name the other process and provide evidence for its existence, otherwise concede that your belief is no more valid than mine.



+1

This seems to be the crux of the matter.

Note the abundance of accusations of deceit arising within this thread whenever requests are made for a devotee's logical substantiation of key aspects of their chosen philosophy.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for your input Sir O.
> 
> Are you really that certain that you understand me?




Understand you? Perish the thought. What fun would there be in you making it easy to be understood. Luckily for me, recognising an obvious attempt to *force someone to answer a loaded question*, is relatively simple to understand.

Funnily enough, this isn't even about you, shocking I know. It's more about showing a bit of support to VC, who has with far more patience than I would have had, debated with you, and other posters who have constantly used debating tactics that are the verbal equivalent of mustard gas.



> Have you so soon forgotten the outcome of our last dialogue? (Or perhaps you didn't recognise it for what it was?)




We had an outcome? Honestly I don't remember. I probably just abandoned our conversation from a lack of energy, enthusiasm or time, which is what happens when you throw up strawman arguments, move the goalposts, make ridiculous requests, make broad generalisations...I lose interest pretty quickly. Wait is this where you direct me to spend hours searching for the posts in a thread with over 3000 replies for our previous conversation?

Yeah. I think I'll pass on that.



> Sometimes people are fortunate enough to have messages from divinity delivered as gentle whispers (or perhaps even a friendly shot across the bows). Those failing to hear that which is whispered risk having the message repeated at greater and greater volumes until it becomes an overpowering SHOUT!!!




*Looks at the pulpit thumping above* - Do you think the above is helping or hindering your debating in this thread?

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Understand you? Perish the thought. What fun would there be in you making it easy to be understood. Luckily for me, recognising an obvious attempt to *force someone to answer a loaded question*, is relatively simple to understand.
> 
> Funnily enough, this isn't even about you, shocking I know. It's more about showing a bit of support to VC, who has with far more patience than I would have had, debated with you, and other posters who have constantly used debating tactics that are the verbal equivalent of mustard gas.
> ...




Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I must say that I'm disappointed in seeing someone whose intelligence I admire adding further accusations to this debate.
I respect your right to hold your own views on theology and like to believe that you are able to respect my right to mine.
However, our opinions clearly differ in respect to the qualities of the offerings of myself and a certain poster whom you seem to be offering support. If you truly believe that phodophobic accusations can only be applicable to myself in this debate then I am genuinely surprised and deeply disappointed.


Sir Osisofliver said:


> ...
> We had an outcome? Honestly I don't remember. I probably just abandoned our conversation from a lack of energy, enthusiasm or time, which is what happens when you throw up strawman arguments, move the goalposts, make ridiculous requests, make broad generalisations...I lose interest pretty quickly. Wait is this where you direct me to spend hours searching for the posts in a thread with over 3000 replies for our previous conversation?
> 
> Yeah. I think I'll pass on that.
> ...




No I wasn't asking you to read through pages of old posts although if you do happen to examine the posts (both yours and mine) around the time we last spoke you might just notice the event/s to which I have alluded.


> ...
> 
> *Looks at the pulpit thumping above* - Do you think the above is helping or hindering your debating in this thread?
> 
> ...



It was actually a slightly less friendly warning than the first one issued! 

My reason for this statement is threefold. 

One of those reasons is my vanity! 

The other is that despite my reservations regarding your opinion of me,I happen to like you Sir O. 

The third of my reasons I choose not to disclose at this time.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I must say that I'm disappointed in seeing someone whose intelligence I admire adding further accusations to this debate.




I am not accusing you. I am outright stating that your debating methodology when engaging with VC recently is offensive to me and what I consider to be a dishonest misuse of your intelligence. You may hold whatever opinion you like and I will take up arms to protect that right of yours. I am disappointed in your displayed behaviours. 







> I respect your right to hold your own views on theology and like to believe that you are able to respect my right to mine.
> However, our opinions clearly differ in respect to the qualities of the offerings of myself and a certain poster whom you seem to be offering support. If you truly believe that *phodophobic* accusations can only be applicable to myself in this debate then I am genuinely surprised and deeply disappointed.




Note the highlighted word as an example of your behaviour. Whilst language is at the heart of any meaningful conversation and expression of concepts, overcomplexity can needlessly complicate and act to obfuscate the issues being discussed. I also fail to see what "foot phobia" has to do with the issues at hand. Perhaps you meant something else.



> No I wasn't asking you to read through pages of old posts although if you do happen to examine the posts (both yours and mine) around the time we last spoke you might just notice the event/s to which I have alluded.




1) You asked VC to do it. He politely asked for directions multiple times. 
2) How very passive/aggressive of you to coach the same request with slightly different emphasis. Let's assume the Internet ate those posts and focus on the now. I respect your rights to hold your belief structure, I do not respect; non-respectful behaviour.


> It was actually a slightly less friendly warning than the first one issued!
> 
> My reason for this statement is threefold.
> 
> ...




Cynic, as I tell my kids, I can dislike your behaviours without having to dislike you.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Tink (25 July 2014)

Sir O, you can have your discussions with Cynic, but I, for one, was thankful that Cynic was in this thread.

Well done and thanks, Cynic


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> I am not accusing you. I am outright stating that your debating methodology when engaging with VC recently is offensive to me and what I consider to be a dishonest misuse of your intelligence. You may hold whatever opinion you like and I will take up arms to protect that right of yours. I am disappointed in your displayed behaviours.



 Thankyou for clarifying your position on this. 

My active participation in this thread is largely fuelled by my assertion of the right to make my own decisions regarding what may or may not be, free from the ridicule and denigration of those choosing to view their life differently.

I'm genuinely sorry that you've experienced my defence of my beliefs as offensive, however, I also find the repetitious stoning of theistic belief systems (that I've been witness to on this thread) extremely offensive.



> ..Note the highlighted word as an example of your behaviour. Whilst language is at the heart of any meaningful conversation and expression of concepts, overcomplexity can needlessly complicate and act to obfuscate the issues being discussed. I also fail to see what "foot phobia" has to do with the issues at hand. Perhaps you meant something else.




Yes! I believe you know perfectly well that there was a typographical error ("d" typed instead of "b").
However, I thankyou for bringing this to my attention.

I recall a certain poster using the word "compl*e*ment" when from the context of the post it seemed clear that "compl*i*ment" was what was actually intended. I chose not to comment at the time, (however,since you brought it up, you shouldn't have cause for complaint).


> 1) You asked VC to do it. He politely asked for directions multiple times.
> 2) How very passive/aggressive of you to coach the same request with slightly different emphasis. Let's assume the Internet ate those posts and focus on the now. I respect your rights to hold your belief structure, I do not respect; non-respectful behaviour.



I've experienced a theme of disrespect from a few posters on this forum, hence the curtness of my reply.



> Cynic, as I tell my kids, I can dislike your behaviours without having to dislike you.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sir O



Although I do not have children, on this point, we are very much in agreement.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Sir O, you can have your discussions with Cynic, but I, for one, was thankful that Cynic was in this thread.
> 
> Well done and thanks, Cynic




I am thankful that cynic is part of this thread and other threads as well. He is generally an articulate poster who conveys concepts well, which is what irks me about the current discussion. Not his beliefs, nor his desire to discuss those beliefs. If he (and others) genuinely wish to put forth their views and the reasons behind them, I am genuinely interested in reading it.



cynic said:


> Thankyou for clarifying your position on this.
> 
> My active participation in this thread is largely fuelled by my assertion of the right to make my own decisions regarding what may or may not be, free from the ridicule and denigration of those choosing to view their life differently.
> 
> I'm genuinely sorry that you've experienced my defence of my beliefs as offensive, however, I also find the repetitious stoning of theistic belief systems (that I've been witness to on this thread) extremely offensive.




I guess that is my point, VC _isn't_ stoning others beliefs, he's stated multiple times what his own belief structure is and the reasons behind those belief structures. He's stated he will question the beliefs of others and burst the bubbles of those that debate with logical fallacies. He's been far more polite than I would have been.  



> Yes! I believe you know perfectly well that there was a typographical error ("d" typed instead of "b").
> However, I thankyou for bringing this to my attention.
> 
> I recall a certain poster using the word "compl*e*ment" when from the context of the post it seemed clear that "compl*i*ment" was what was actually intended. I chose not to comment at the time, (however,since you brought it up, you shouldn't have cause for complaint).




phobophobia The fear of fear. Still think that could have been expressed better. Your previous post I briefly wondered if you thought their accusations were pedestrian. An issue of context as you rightly point out. 







> I've experienced a theme of disrespect from a few posters on this forum, hence the curtness of my reply.




Strive to be the bigger person. I'll freely admit the one thing that will really grate my cheese is dishonesty, because honesty is such an integral part of my life. I cannot see VC debating from a dishonest perspective. 







> Although I do not have children, on this point, we are very much in agreement.


----------



## cynic (25 July 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> I am thankful that cynic is part of this thread and other threads as well. He is generally an articulate poster who conveys concepts well, which is what irks me about the current discussion. Not his beliefs, nor his desire to discuss those beliefs. If he (and others) genuinely wish to put forth their views and the reasons behind them, I am genuinely interested in reading it.



Thanks for that Sir O. Your sentiments in this regard are very greatly appreciated


> ...
> I guess that is my point, VC _isn't_ stoning others beliefs, he's stated multiple times what his own belief structure is and the reasons behind those belief structures. He's stated he will question the beliefs of others and burst the bubbles of those that debate with logical fallacies. He's been far more polite than I would have been.
> ...



We certainly seem to have quite different views on some matters! I've always experienced you as someone that always speaks the truth as you understand it. On this occasion our understanding happens to be very different.







> ...
> Strive to be the bigger person. I'll freely admit the one thing that will really grate my cheese is dishonesty, because honesty is such an integral part of my life. I cannot see VC debating from a dishonest perspective.



Sage advice.

Perhaps I should just step out of this thread, allow the anti-theists herein free reign to drive out the remaining theists. Then what's left can become a mutual appreciation society free from fear of any logical challenge to their non theistic ideals.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That is an invalid comparison, I doubt if a bigfoot primate could have created the Universe.
> 
> The valid comparison for the creation of the universe is between a God and some other process which you have not stated and which we don't even know is possible to occur. As I keep saying , name the other process and provide evidence for its existence, otherwise concede that your belief is no more valid than mine.




Earlier in the thread you said big foot and fairies are absurd, i was making an example of big foot to show its way more possible for big foot to exist than a god.

In regards to a creator of the universe, I have said I don't know, there is probably countless possibilities, eg eternal universe, or many other natural processes, I don't have to name one, because I am happy to say I dont know, Its you that is making the positive claim by picking one.


----------



## FxTrader (26 July 2014)

cynic said:


> Perhaps I should just step out of this thread, allow the anti-theists herein free reign to drive out the remaining theists. Then what's left can become a mutual appreciation society free from fear of any logical challenge to their non theistic ideals.



By all means, keep posting here Cynic.  I would like to encourage you to post more about your whispers with divinity, conversations with apparitions and other imagined encounters with the spirit world you declare you are in contact with.  No doubt you have an audience here with those who are enamored with superstitious and mystical waffle.  For those with more rational inclinations, your attempt to use such statements in support of personal religious beliefs exposes you as a self-deluded fool, unable or unwilling to discern fact from fiction or reality from unreality.  Such an observation though is not meant to discourage you from posting more about your encounters or whispers with divinity or any other imagined supernatural encounters.

SirO's stern rebuke of your straw-man and dishonest debating methods, used to attack non-believers in your religious snake oil, just washed right over you but many others would have taken note.  I  believe respect needs to be earned and your sophistry and obfuscating style of argument deserves no such respect and neither do your extraordinary religious claims that are boldly proclaimed here without a shred of supporting evidence.


----------



## noco (26 July 2014)

*WAKE UP AUSTRALIA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.*


I also suggest you read post #428   20/12/2011

Go Dutch . . . But Why Wait Until 2015?

The Netherlands , where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism.

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands .

A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:
"The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people".

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.

With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural  society.

The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens."

It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands ..
The new  integration policy will place more demands on immigrants.
For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the  government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.

The  government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; 
"It is not the government's job to integrate  immigrants." (How bloody  true).

The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.

More specifically, the government imposed a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2014..

Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized - maybe too late - that creating a nation of tribes, will kill the nation itself.

The future of Australia , the UK , USA , Canada and New Zealand  may well be read here.. 

READERS  NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest . .."CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR  CULTURE."

Countries like Holland , Canada , USA , UK , Australia and New Zealand  have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable?
If Muslims do not  wish to accept another culture, the answer is  simple;
             "STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!"

This gives a whole new meaning to the term, 'Dutch Courage' ....  Unfortunately Australian, UK , USA , Canadian, and New Zealand  politicians don't have the ... guts  to do the same. There's a whole lot of truth  here!!!!
ELECTIONS are COMING!!!!!
A  Nation of Sheep, Breeds a Government of Wolves!
I'M  100% for PASSING THIS  ON!!!
Let's Take a Stand!!!

Borders:  Closed!

Language:  English!

Culture:  The Constitution, is the Bill of  Rights!

NO freebies  to: Non-Citizens!  We the people  are coming!!!


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

noco said:


> *WAKE UP AUSTRALIA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.*
> 
> 
> I also suggest you read post #428   20/12/2011
> ...




i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.


----------



## burglar (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.




Whenever a recession comes along these people lose their jobs at a greater rate than the general populace.
With the higher unemployment comes homelessness, crimes and other social ills.

In a post-GFC Europe, I can understand the thinking!


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

burglar said:


> Whenever a recession comes along these people lose their jobs at a greater rate than the general populace.
> With the higher unemployment comes homelessness, crimes and other social ills.
> 
> In a post-GFC Europe, I can understand the thinking!




"These people" 

Who are you talking about


----------



## DB008 (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.




I don't have a problem with multiculturalism at all.

I do have a problem with a certain religion forcing their BS onto the rest of the population.


----------



## burglar (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> "These people"
> 
> Who are you talking about




In The Netherlands, "these people" are mainly from Surinam and other former Dutch colonies.
In France, "these people" are from former French colonies.

In Shropshire, "these people" are from former British colonies.

Surinamese+Dutch


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.




It depends on how far it goes.

The essential part of multiculturalism is all people obey the same laws, and are loyal to the country that they live in. Within that framework there also should be some requirements, such as they are required to speak and understand the official language of the country of their residence. Other than that, if they want to follow Gaellic footbal or open Korean restaurants that's fine.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The essential part of multiculturalism is all people obey the same laws, and are loyal to the country that they live in. Within that framework there also should be some requirements, such as they are required to speak and understand the official language of the country of their residence. .




Agreed, 



> Other than that, if they want to follow Gaellic footbal or open Korean restaurants that's fine




Diversity is part of what makes this country great,


----------



## sydboy007 (27 July 2014)

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/aliens.cant.be.saved.says.creationist.ken.ham/39061.htm

_"It's highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone," said Bolden. 

Even if that turns out to be the case, the Answers in Genesis founder says the Earth was "specially created" by God and the sin committed on Earth would affect the rest of creation.

"You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam's sin affected the whole universe," he said.  

"This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam's sin, but because they are not Adam's descendants, they can't have salvation." 

In his view, Christ's work of salvation would only apply to humans as the descendents of Adam.  

"Jesus did not become the 'GodKlingon' or the 'God Martian'!" he wrote.  "Only descendents of Adam can be saved.  God's Son remains the 'Godman' as our Savior.  In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word).  To suggest that aliens could respond to the Gospel is just totally wrong." 

NASA may be committed to hunting for extraterrestrial life, but Ham thinks they should stop right here.  The search to find aliens, he suggests, is itself a product of man's sinful nature "driven by man's rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!"_


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Diversity is part of what makes this country great,




Sometimes I wonder. The Japanese are not diverse but they are doing ok.

 Over the years there have been many migrant groups that have contributed to building the country and the economy but recently there seem to be some that come here mainly for the social security benefits. Lack of assimilation , concentration on ones own ethnic/cultural group and a lack of a desire to contribute is eroding the foundations of what many diverse groups have built. 

We should be careful about how far we embrace multiculturalism in the future just because it's served us well in the past.


----------



## chrislp (27 July 2014)

With all this intelligent back & forth I don't understand why religious people & atheists not accept our creator (God) as the sun. 

It's scientific fact that we are created from the sun & even Jesus was. It's what keeps us alive from birth to death.

Don't mean to offend anyone but to me it's that simple. 

As to who created the sun? We can theorise all we want but it's not our creator IMO.


----------



## bunyip (27 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> Tink
> 
> What would you do if your son or daughter had a drinking problem?
> 
> ...






Tink said:


> Hi Bunyip,
> 
> I am not sure why you are asking me that, but I will answer.
> 
> What would any parent do? Find out why.




Tink – thanks for taking the time to reply.
I imagine that after finding out why your child had a drinking problem, you’d take it further by perhaps suggesting a session with a professional who’s trained to help people with drug and alcohol addiction, or maybe you’d contact Alcoholic Anonymous and get your child to go along to their meetings.
In short, as a good parent you’d do everything you could to help your son or daughter - you’d never ever write them off as unworthy of your help.

I recall you saying in one of your posts that you don’t think we can make our own rules. You’re adamant that we need religion to give us rules and guidelines to live by.
Are you aware of what guidelines the Bible gives us for dealing with a drunken son? It tells us we should hand him over the the city elders so they can stone him to death. It doesn’t mention how to treat drunken daughters, but I think we can assume that they should be subjected to even harsher treatment. After all, females are generally treated much worse that males under Biblical law.
Now, I know that neither you nor I nor any other decent person would be in favor of something as radical and brutal as that. And yet this is the sort of archaic practice that we’d be adopting if we trusted the word of God implicitly and obeyed his instructions without question.

You think we can’t make up our own rules and guidelines for living decent lives, you feel that we need the guidance of God and religion to accomplish this. I see it rather differently. I’m damn pleased that we have the intelligence to use our judgment and common sense to formulate a code of ethics and moral behavior, rather than just blindly following some of the horrible instructions in the Bible.

It’s easy to cherry-pick the nice parts of the Bible, while ignoring the ugly parts. But the ugly parts are there as well, and should be considered along with the good parts when making an overall assessment of the value of the Bible and religion.
Would we really want to live the kind of life that would result from obeying every instruction the Bible gives us? I wouldn’t and I don't think you would either – I have no wish to be a murderer, a rapist, a subjugator of women, or a low-life who would sell his daughters into slavery.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Sometimes I wonder. The Japanese are not diverse but they are doing ok.
> 
> Over the years there have been many migrant groups that have contributed to building the country and the economy but recently there seem to be some that come here mainly for the social security benefits. Lack of assimilation , concentration on ones own ethnic/cultural group and a lack of a desire to contribute is eroding the foundations of what many diverse groups have built.
> 
> We should be careful about how far we embrace multiculturalism in the future just because it's served us well in the past.




And every wave of new immigrants has been met with resistance and racism, and now, for me atleast, its hard to imagine not having their influence on our country. 

If you want examples of welfare cheats, look no further than the " flag waving, STRAYA!!! Shouting, burn out loving, Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Bogan communities"


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

chrislp said:


> With all this intelligent back & forth I don't understand why religious people & atheists not accept our creator (God) as the sun.
> 
> It's scientific fact that we are created from the sun & even Jesus was. It's what keeps us alive from birth to death.
> 
> ...




Lol, the holy trinity of fusion,

Hydrogen, helium, and gravity.

The first sun died for us, exploding its chemical element enriched guts to form the planets and us, another  reborn, from the remnants, to give us life.

Lol, I think your onto something.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

Funny comedian on sun worship

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6RT6rL2UroE[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> If you want examples of welfare cheats, look no further than the " flag waving, STRAYA!!! Shouting, burn out loving, Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Bogan communities"




Some of those exist, so do a lot of migrants from the ME who have large families and absorb a lot of family tax benefits.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Some of those exist,.




Plenty exist,


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2014)

We’ve had millions of immigrants settle in Australia, particularly since World War 2, and it worked well because most of them embraced Australia, our way of life, our culture, and did everything they could to fit in with us and make a positive contribution to our country. The didn’t tried to change us, didn’t demand special privileges, didn’t hold themselves apart from us, didn’t plan terror attacks against us, and they didn’t preach hatred of western values. In short, our immigrants were compatible with us, to our mutual benefit.

If we’d stuck with those sort of immigrants then I’d have no criticism whatever of our immigration policy. Heck, my own ancestors a few generations back were immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Wales, and a couple of other countries as well. And my wife is an immigrant.
But instead of sticking with the sort of immigrants that have generally been beneficial to our country, in more recent times we’ve stupidly allowed mass immigration from Islamic countries, and now, little by little, we’re starting to see some very negative effects, just like every other country that’s made the mistake of mass-importing people from a religion and culture that’s incompatible with the values of the host country.

Over the years I’ve followed the writings of a journo called Greg Sheridan, who grew up in a multicultural neighborhood in Sydney. For many years Sheridan sang the praises of multiculturalism, telling of how it enriched his life growing up with friends from different cultures. More recently, Sheridan has started singing a different tune. In one of his articles he related how he recently went back to his childhood neighborhood to find that it was taken over by Islamists, and it had become an unfriendly and indeed unsafe place for westerners. Now Sheridan is saying that multiculturalism has failed in Australia, or at least is in the process of failing. And I agree with him.
Here’s a link to one of Sheridan’s articles – it’s quite long but well worth a read.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...multiculturalism/story-fn59niix-1226031793805

At the bottom of the article, under the heading ‘THERE ARE NO WORRIES’, it’s interesting to note what Sheridan had to say about multiculturalism back in 1996, compared to his present day feelings on the subject.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2014)

Unfortunately the Muslim community has now become a key voting bloc which is why we had the Premier of NSW on TV this morning taking part in Ramadhan, in a blatant attempt to win votes from the Muslims. Will Sharia law be next ?


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Funny comedian on sun worship
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6RT6rL2UroE[/video]




I thought this bloke summed it up nicely when he described religion as _*'the all time champion of false promises and exagerated claims'.*_
That's certainly the conclusion I came to after being raised a Christian. One of the main reasons I abandoned religion is because it promises the world but doesn't deliver.


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2014)

Four Corners tonight is running a story about yet another bunch of religious crazies......should be worth watching.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/24/4052971.htm


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> That's certainly the conclusion I came to after being raised a Christian. One of the main reasons I abandoned religion is because it promises the world but doesn't deliver.




Maybe you just aren't meek enough


----------



## noco (28 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> We’ve had millions of immigrants settle in Australia, particularly since World War 2, and it worked well because most of them embraced Australia, our way of life, our culture, and did everything they could to fit in with us and make a positive contribution to our country. The didn’t tried to change us, didn’t demand special privileges, didn’t hold themselves apart from us, didn’t plan terror attacks against us, and they didn’t preach hatred of western values. In short, our immigrants were compatible with us, to our mutual benefit.
> 
> If we’d stuck with those sort of immigrants then I’d have no criticism whatever of our immigration policy. Heck, my own ancestors a few generations back were immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Wales, and a couple of other countries as well. And my wife is an immigrant.
> But instead of sticking with the sort of immigrants that have generally been beneficial to our country, in more recent times we’ve stupidly allowed mass immigration from Islamic countries, and now, little by little, we’re starting to see some very negative effects, just like every other country that’s made the mistake of mass-importing people from a religion and culture that’s incompatible with the values of the host country.
> ...




I agree with you 100% and the influx of Muslims via people smugglers was becoming a worry until Scott Morrison stopped the rot.....Muslims are reasonably controlled in small numbers but as soon as they have the numbers they will show their muscle and demand the use of their own Sharia law.

I did read the attached link right through and note the piece about Julia Gillard...my bolds.

*Christopher Caldwell's book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, the best book of any kind on public policy I have read, establishes definitively that this has been overwhelmingly a determined illegal immigration, not a refugee question.

The same is happening in northern Australia now, and as the Gillard government loses control of the situation, the number of illegal immigrants, almost all Muslim, will increase, exactly replicating the dynamics of Europe's disaster, though of course on a much smaller scale. 

*

Rudd and Gillard allowed the flood of immigrants, mainly Muslims, to create division and hatred  within the community.   

The English, Italian and German immigrants who arrived in an orderly fashion in the late 40's and early 50's were mainly good tradesmen and mixed in well with our community.......I was a plumber in those days, I worked with many of them and I can not speak more highly of these people with both their attitude and their skills as tradesmen.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you just aren't meek enough




lol, I know your joking. But you actually touched on a topic I think is one of the disgusting things religions, especially Christianity do.

They promise cures to the sick, job's to the jobless, money to the poor, rain to the drought stricken, babies to the infertile etc etc you name it religions promise it, and then when the improvements don't come, they blame the victim for not having enough faith or maybe they aren't a true Christian yet etc etc. 

But if random chance see's an improvement, they take full credit.


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2014)

Ever thought about the The Lord's Prayer?  Like most people brought up as Christians, I learnt to recite the prayer ‘parrot fashion’ during my childhood.  I never really thought about what it meant, I never examined it critically to see if it made sense, I was never challenged to do so by my parents, my Sunday school teachers, or by any minister of my church.
Now, as a former Christian, I present this critique of the Lord’s prayer from the perspective of an ex-Christian who isn’t afraid to depart from the Christian thinking that was drummed into me during childhood.
If anyone on this forum sees it differently to me, then by all means disagree with me respectfully and state your own views of the Lord’s prayer. Indeed, I’m posting this here in the hope that it will generate discussion on the topic.
The words in bold are the Lords Prayer. The words in brackets are my comments.

*The Lord's Prayer

Our Father, which art in heaven,* (‘Our father’?? He/she/it isn’t my father or anyone else’s.   ‘Which art in heaven’? We don’t even know if this heaven place exists or where it is if it does exist, therefore I think it’s presumptuous to declare that we know somebody who lives there.)

*Hallowed be thy Name* (‘Hallowed’ as in venerated, regarded with great respect. Read some of the biblical stories about the outrages and atrocities that God condoned, ordered, or carried out in person, then ask yourself if this character deserves to be regarded with great respect.)

*Thy Kingdom come* (Not sure about the meaning of this one....if it’s a suggestion that the kingdom of God is coming then it sure is taking a long time to get here. It’s another presumptious statement at best.)

*Thy will be done on earth* 
*As it is in heaven* (If God’s will is as described in the Bible, then I’m damn pleased that most of us don’t do that sort of thing here on earth. And if that’s what happens in Heaven, then if it exists it can’t be a very nice place and there will be a lot of disappointed people when they get there.)

*Give us this day our daily bread* (Let’s face it, if you want your daily bread then you have to work for it – nobody gives it to you.)

*And forgive us our trespasses* (Fat chance of that – the bible has dozens of stories about this vengeful god who, far from forgiving people their trespasses, subjected them to the most brutal treatment for even minor indiscretions.)

*As we forgive them that trespass against us* (This one makes me laugh – since when does the average person forgive people who wrong them? Do we forgive people who steal our money, rape our sister or daughter, deceive us? Ask the Storm Financial victims if they forgive Cassamatis and ASIC.)
*
And lead us not into temptation* (Another one that makes me laugh –we’re told that God started off the business of temptation by tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden. We’re constantly being tempted. Oh that’s right – it’s not God tempting us, it’s the devil!) 

*But deliver us from evil* (Not much chance of this one happening either – God abandoned his chosen people, the Jews, to the evil of the Nazis, and he doesn’t treat the rest of us any better if we come up against evil of any kind. Don’t kid yourself that your God is going to fight on your side if you ever find youself with your back to the wall).

*For thine is the kingdom* (There’s that kingdom again – that magical, mythical place where everything is honey and roses!)

*The power, and the glory* (What power – I’ve never seen any evidence that any supernatural being has any power. What glory – about the only glory I can see in relation to God is when people glorify and worship him/her/it without knowing if what they’re worshipping actually exists.)

*For ever and ever* (Another presumption that has no known basis of fact. Forever is a long time – we don’t even know if a god exists, let alone that he has a kingdom that will be around forever and ever.) 

*Amen*

 (Amen indeed. No doubt I’ll cop some criticism for my forthright dissection of the Lords Prayer. But I wonder how many people have really thought about what it means, rather than just reciting it parrot-fashion without thinking about it.)


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you just aren't meek enough




Yeh, could be......_'the meek shall inherit the earth'_, etc etc.

Boys boarding school from the age of 13 taught me that the meek get trampled on, and if you want to avoid getting trampled then you'd better learn to be assertive and stick up for yourself.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> Ever thought about the The Lord's Prayer?  Like most people brought up as Christians, I learnt to recite the prayer ‘parrot fashion’ during my childhood.  I never really thought about what it meant, I never examined it critically to see if it made sense, I was never challenged to do so by my parents, my Sunday school teachers, or by any minister of my church.
> Now, as a former Christian, I present this critique of the Lord’s prayer from the perspective of an ex-Christian who isn’t afraid to depart from the Christian thinking that was drummed into me during childhood.
> If anyone on this forum sees it differently to me, then by all means disagree with me respectfully and state your own views of the Lord’s prayer. Indeed, I’m posting this here in the hope that it will generate discussion on the topic.
> The words in bold are the Lords Prayer. The words in brackets are my comments.
> ...




lol, You just gave me a huge flash back from my childhood, I remember all the year 1 and 2 kids had to sit cross legged at junior parade and recite this, and that was a public school. I hope things have changed since the 80's.

They better not attempt to try this stuff when my kid goes to school.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> lol, You just gave me a huge flash back from my childhood, I remember all the year 1 and 2 kids had to sit cross legged at junior parade and recite this, and that was a public school. I have things have changed since the 80's.
> 
> They better not attempt to try this stuff when my kid goes to school.




I went to school in the 70's and we didn't bother with that stuff.

But the pollies say it in Parliament before every sitting day, so it's still well entrenched in our systems.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I went to school in the 70's and we didn't bother with that stuff.
> 
> .




I guess it comes down to the principle and teachers abusing their position of power to push their brand of religion onto the children in their care, People would go mental if a Muslim teacher started making kids do this.

Does parliament really do that? This is what I mean when we need a separation between church and state, Each member should be free to privately pray to which ever god they want before they sit, But making a prayer part of the official proceedings is wrong.


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I went to school in the 70's and we didn't bother with that stuff.
> 
> But the pollies say it in Parliament before every sitting day, so it's still well entrenched in our systems.




I wonder how many of them have actually thought about what it means, or considered whether they agree with it. Not too many would be my guess.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 July 2014)

bunyip said:


> You think we can’t make up our own rules and guidelines for living decent lives, you feel that we need the guidance of God and religion to accomplish this. I see it rather differently. I’m damn pleased that we have the intelligence to use our judgment and common sense to formulate a code of ethics and moral behavior, rather than just blindly following some of the horrible instructions in the Bible.
> 
> It’s easy to cherry-pick the nice parts of the Bible, while ignoring the ugly parts. But the ugly parts are there as well, and should be considered along with the good parts when making an overall assessment of the value of the Bible and religion.
> Would we really want to live the kind of life that would result from obeying every instruction the Bible gives us? I wouldn’t and I don't think you would either – I have no wish to be a murderer, a rapist, a subjugator of women, or a low-life who would sell his daughters into slavery.




Very true.  So many of the ultra religious say the bible should be taken literally, then spend most of their time cherry picking which parts to ignore.

One also has to ask what form of slavery they'd deign to be acceptable

In the Muslim world they're still trying to enforce the kind of laws from the Qur'an.  Not so much cherry picking as just bat s&*t crazy interpretations.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 July 2014)

noco said:


> Rudd and Gillard allowed the flood of immigrants, mainly Muslims, to create division and hatred  within the community.
> 
> The English, Italian and German immigrants who arrived in an orderly fashion in the late 40's and early 50's were mainly good tradesmen and mixed in well with our community.......I was a plumber in those days, I worked with many of them and I can not speak more highly of these people with both their attitude and their skills as tradesmen.




Just exactly how was it Rudd and Gillard when the population ponzi really took off from when Howard was elected??

From the mouth of your most worshiple leader:

_Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government. And one of the ways that you maintain public support for that is to communicate to the Australian people a capacity to control our borders and decide who and what people and when they come to this country._

To be honest, I can't ever recall Howard telling the Australian public he was for high immigration.


----------



## Tink (29 July 2014)

Bunyip, have you ever seen stoning in Australia?  
This country was built on Christian origins, in the law of the land, which runs through all our Courts etc. 
As you know, all my posts have been Christian based, being a Catholic.

Now I have a question for you, if you don't mind answering, 

-- is it God or Religion that you have a problem with?
People are still going to believe in God whether there is religion or not.

What is your answer for this?

Did your children attend a private school, if so, was it religious?

Thanks.


----------



## Value Collector (29 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Bunyip, have you ever seen stoning in Australia?
> This country was built on Christian origins, in the law of the land, which runs through all our Courts etc.
> As you know, all my posts have been Christian based, being a Catholic.
> 
> ...




That's right Tink, we don't stone people because our values are not based on the bible, and taking a biblical approach would not make this nation better,


----------



## SirRumpole (29 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That's right Tink, we don't stone people because our values are not based on the bible, and taking a biblical approach would not make this nation better,




We used to flog a few people though


----------



## bunyip (29 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Bunyip, have you ever seen stoning in Australia?



No I haven’t – because we have enough sense not to base our laws entirely on God’s word according to the Bible.


Tink said:


> This country was built on Christian origins, in the law of the land, which runs through all our Courts etc.



That’s what I was brought up to believe. But is it entirely true? Seems to me that for a country that was supposedly built on Christian origins, we didn’t get off to such a good start.
_‘Thou shalt not steal’_ was violated when the first Europeans to settle in Australia took the land from the aborigines.
_‘Thou shalt not kill’_ was violated when the European settlers slaughtered the aborigines.
_‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’_ was violated by the many white men who freely used the aboriginal women.
‘_Treat other people as you would have them treat you’_ was violated by all of the above actions, not to mention the shocking treatment of prisoners who were sent out to Australia for the pettiest of crimes such as stealing a loaf of bread because they were starving, or snaring a hare so that a man could feed his family.
Fortunately we’ve moved on from there and have established a constitution that’s based more or less on common sense and decency, both of which can be practiced with or without religion, and with or without a belief in any of the supernatural beings called gods.


Tink said:


> -- is it God or Religion that you have a problem with?



I have a problem with dishonesty - and blatant dishonesty and unrealistic claims are everywhere in anything to do with God and religion.


Tink said:


> Did your children attend a private school, if so, was it religious?



For two years my children attended a private Catholic school. We weren’t Catholics, but we believed that a private school education would benefit our kids. The Catholic school was the only private school in the small country town we lived near.
When we moved to another area, my children attended a private Presbyterian school. If we’d had access to private schools that were not owned/run by churches, we would certainly have sent our children to those schools.
Having said that, we have little if any complaint with the Presbyterian school  - it had excellent academic and behavioral standards, and to our relief it didn’t come on too strong with the religious side of things.
The Catholic school was pretty good too, although we didn’t feel entirely comfortable with the way it was constantly ramming Catholicism down the kid’s throats.

All in all though, we had mostly positive experiences with the two church-based schools we were involved with.


----------



## bellenuit (29 July 2014)

*Woman and two children killed by mob in riots over 'blasphemous' Facebook post in Pakistan*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hemous-facebook-post-in-pakistan-9633511.html


----------



## Tink (30 July 2014)

Thanks for your reply, bunyip.

_That’s what I was brought up to believe. But is it entirely true?_

Yes it is true, and it is what we stand for. 
If we all lived by those, what a perfect world it would be, and that is not singling out one or the other.

I am glad to hear you were happy with your children's schools. 
The discipline is superior in the private system, yet again, speaks volumes, discipline, authority, compassion, order.

I know you have said good about the Church here also, and no one denies the bad that has happened as well, thanks.

I reviewed the Lord's Prayer long ago, and thanks for posting it, rings true for me.


----------



## Value Collector (30 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Yes it is true, and it is what we stand for.
> If we all lived by those, what a perfect world it would be, and that is not singling out one or the other.




All of the "good" values you credit to Christianity, actual predate both bibles. They are not "Christian" values, They are secular human values, they are common across cultures all over the world and date back to pre history.

And as I said to Rumpole, who ever wrote the ten commandments did a lousy job, it's a pretty rubbish list, any thinking person could put together a better list, and as we continually point out, a lot of the other commandments are totally immoral.


----------



## Value Collector (30 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Saying "I don't know", is more intellectually honest, than saying "I don't know, therefore god", that's the basic difference in our points of view.




Hank Green from the Sci Show, explains why we all need to say "I don't know" more often. Great video.


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2014)

Humour and Ridicule are probably some of the best ways to address those who make public claims of knowing the unknowable or having divine revelation, and the English comedians seem to do it best. 

Rowan's twist on the bible here shows it for what it really is.


----------



## bellenuit (3 August 2014)

Although the earlier part is shocking, the way they try to get innocent children to fall from about the 6min mark onward is shameful. No question about it. Child abuse.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 August 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Although the earlier part is shocking, the way they try to get innocent children to fall from about the 6min mark onward is shameful. No question about it. Child abuse.




I remember during uni a deeply religious friend took me to something similar to this.  I couldn't believe what was going on.  It was like mass hysteria for 45 minutes.  I spent most of my time trying to work out just how many were truly into this, and how many were just following the crowd.


----------



## Value Collector (4 August 2014)




----------



## bunyip (4 August 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Although the earlier part is shocking, the way they try to get innocent children to fall from about the 6min mark onward is shameful. No question about it. Child abuse.





Parents who let their kids be subjected to this sort of thing are a disgrace.
Did you notice how he failed to have any effect on the tiny little kids of toddler age?

This reminds me of a hypnosis show I went to see once, where the bloke had dozens of people up on stage doing every crazy thing he told them to do.


----------



## bellenuit (4 August 2014)

bunyip said:


> Did you notice how he failed to have any effect on the tiny little kids of toddler age?




One wonders what the older kids must have been told that makes them act like that? Probably tales of hellfire or visits from the devil if they don't?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2014)

> This reminds me of a hypnosis show I went to see once, where the bloke had dozens of people up on stage doing every crazy thing he told them to do.




I think you have it there. Mass hypnosis and suggestion.


----------



## Julia (4 August 2014)

Anyone doubting the awful reality of dogmatic religion should watch 4 Corners tonight, covering the spread of ISIS in the ME, Iraq in particular.   

I hope our government will find some way of preventing these brainwashed, violent jihadists from coming back to Australia.  
Their ignorance and lack of decent education renders them utterly vulnerable to extremist exhortations.
Really worrying.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2014)

Julia said:


> I hope our government will find some way of preventing these brainwashed, violent jihadists from coming back to Australia.




I hope so too. I believe that fighting in a foreign war is a criminal offense. Perhaps the prospect of being arrested on their return should be deterrent enough to prevent them coming back, but we should also consider not letting people in from these areas in the first place.


----------



## bunyip (5 August 2014)

bellenuit said:


> One wonders what the older kids must have been told that makes them act like that? Probably tales of hellfire or visits from the devil if they don't?




Yep – hellfire and damnation - standard fare for Christianity. 
Tales of Satan and hellfire used to scare me when I was a kid. Not that my parents ever told me such lies, but the minister who conducted a weekly religious instruction class at our school certainly did. And to a lesser extent our Sunday school teachers did too. Every time my sister and I had a blue and I gave her a bit of a biff, I was convinced the damn devil had a hold on me and had saturated me with the spirit of evil. Hellfire and damnation were my future for sure!

Fortunately I came to reject such ridiculous notions as I grew up and started thinking for myself. But some people never do....what’s brainwashed into them as kids is what they believe for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2014)

bunyip said:


> . But some people never do....what’s brainwashed into them as kids is what they believe for the rest of their lives.




I can't remember the author of the quote, But someone said "Be careful the ideas you put in your head, for you may never get them out"


----------



## bunyip (8 August 2014)

I’ve done my fair share of criticising religion, and sometimes Christianity specifically. Nevertheless, from my personal experience of having been brought up a Christian, I can honestly say that the good far outweighed the bad in all the church communities that I was involved in. 
The one religion that I find difficult to find any worthwhile attributes in is Islam. Somebody sent me the following  - it’s not too far off the mark when you think about it.



This is about as honest a portrayal of Islam as you can get! 

        "Happiness"
         They're not happy in Gaza ..
         They're not happy in Egypt ..
         They're not happy in Libya ..
         They're not happy in Morocco ...
         They're not happy in Iran ..
         They're not happy in Iraq ..
         They're not happy in Yemen ...
         They're not happy in Afghanistan ..
         They're not happy in Pakistan ...
         They're not happy in Syria ..
         They're not happy in Lebanon ...

         SO, WHERE _*ARE *_THEY HAPPY?

         They're happy in Australia ..
         They're happy in Canada ..
         They're happy in England ..
         They're happy in France ..
         They're happy in Italy ..
         They're happy in Germany ..
         They're happy in Sweden ..
         They're happy in the USA ..
         They're happy in Norway ..
         They're happy in Holland ..
          They're happy in Denmark ..

         Basically, they're happy in every country that is NOT MUSLIM, and unhappy in every country that is!

         AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?

         Not Islam.
         Not their leadership.
         Not themselves.

         THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!

         AND THEN; They want to change those countries to be like THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

         Excuse me, but I can't help wondering...
         How damn dumb can you get?
         Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim Terrorists are so quick to commit suicide.
         Lets have a look at the evidence:
         - No Christmas
          - No nude women
         - No football
         - No pork chops
         - No hot dogs
         - No burgers
         - No beer
         - No bacon
         - Rags for clothes
         - Towels for hats
         - Constant wailing from some idiot in a tower
         - You have to pray five times a day
         - More than one wife
         - More than one mother-in-law
          - Your wife is picked for you by someone else.  
Then they tell them that "when they die, it all gets better"?? Why? – because there will be seventy virgins waiting for them in heaven!
The Islamic religion must surely be the epitome of stupidity, and yet they want the rest of the world to be just like them!!


----------



## lindsayf (8 August 2014)

Good one!
Funny but makes some very good observations.


----------



## noco (8 August 2014)

bunyip said:


> I’ve done my fair share of criticising religion, and sometimes Christianity specifically. Nevertheless, from my personal experience of having been brought up a Christian, I can honestly say that the good far outweighed the bad in all the church communities that I was involved in.
> The one religion that I find difficult to find any worthwhile attributes in is Islam. Somebody sent me the following  - it’s not too far off the mark when you think about it.
> 
> 
> ...



 Love every word you have written.......so well put together and agree with you 100%.


----------



## Value Collector (8 August 2014)

> Nevertheless, from my personal experience of having been brought up a Christian, I can honestly say that the good far outweighed the bad in all the church communities that I was involved in.





That's true with most groups of people, the average person is a good person. I grew up involved in sporting clubs rather than churches, and whether it be swimming club, water polo, Karate or AFL, The various clubs were all full of community orientated, charitable and genuinely nice people who remain family friends to this day.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 August 2014)

Christianity is nothing about being a "good person".

How do you even define it?

God's definition of good is what good truly is.

If we put mine or yours or anyone's thoughts up on a projector for all to see we would see how truly selfish and wicked we all are at the core. Some of the thoughts we have thought about those closest to us are so embarrassing and bad that if shown on a screen in front of everyone we knew we would run out of the room in disgrace.

Only Christ can meet the holy requirements of God. Only accepting him can make us righteous. Out own works are so far away from good that they don't even make a small debt on the requirements. It is impossible for us.


----------



## Value Collector (8 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Christianity is nothing about being a "good person".
> 
> .




Agreed.



> we would see how truly selfish and wicked we all are at the core.




Speak for yourself. 



> Only Christ can meet the holy requirements of God.




And only Bat man can save Gotham city, and only Rudolph can guide the sleigh tonight. The attributes you ascribe to your mythical superhero are meaningless until you can demonstrate his existence.  



> Only accepting him can make us righteous. Out own works are so far away from good that they don't even make a small debt on the requirements. It is impossible for us




I will give people a lot more credit for real world good deeds, than simply believing in an unproven myth.

If your god accepts faith in unproven stories as the highest form of good deed, then he is morally bankrupt, and I Have Better moralls than your god.


----------



## dutchie (8 August 2014)

This is the most realistic post in this thread.




bunyip said:


> I’ve done my fair share of criticising religion, and sometimes Christianity specifically. Nevertheless, from my personal experience of having been brought up a Christian, I can honestly say that the good far outweighed the bad in all the church communities that I was involved in.
> The one religion that I find difficult to find any worthwhile attributes in is Islam. Somebody sent me the following  - it’s not too far off the mark when you think about it.
> 
> 
> ...






This is drivel and insulting.



pavilion103 said:


> God's definition of good is what good truly is.
> 
> If we put mine or yours or anyone's thoughts up on a projector for all to see we would see how truly selfish and wicked we all are at the core. Some of the thoughts we have thought about those closest to us are so embarrassing and bad that if shown on a screen in front of everyone we knew we would run out of the room in disgrace.
> 
> Only Christ can meet the holy requirements of God. Only accepting him can make us righteous. Out own works are so far away from good that they don't even make a small debt on the requirements. It is impossible for us.


----------



## bunyip (8 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> If we put mine or yours or anyone's thoughts up on a projector for all to see we would see how truly selfish and wicked we all are at the core.



Absolute rubbish! One of the things that sickened me when I was a Christian was their constant attempts to tell me that I and everyone else was a horrible and wicked sinner. And we were expected to ask forgiveness by groveling at the feet of some being that had not one shred of credible evidence to support his/her/its existence. 
I personally helped people whenever and wherever I could, and I still do, I was a long time member of community service clubs, I was and still am a man of absolute honesty and integrity, and there were many more just like me in our church. And yet there was always this stupid accusation that were were sinners who should constantly be asking for forgiveness.

There are good and decent people in the world, and there are mongrels who are absolutely evil. To tar everyone with the same brush by saying they’re all wicked is downright pathetic, and extremely insulting to decent people.
I suppose you think that someone like Mother Theresa or Fred Hollows was selfish and wicked too, do you? 
Grow up Pav - you're making a complete fool of yourself.



pavilion103 said:


> Only Christ can meet the holy requirements of God. Only accepting him can make us righteous.




More nonsense! I think we can reasonably assume that Pope John Paul 2 accepted Christ. That makes him righteous according to you. And yet he aided and abetted the junkie, embezzler and pedophile who founded and ran the Legionaries of Christ.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 August 2014)

bunyip said:


> Absolute rubbish! One of the things that sickened me when I was a Christian was their constant attempts to tell me that I and everyone else was a horrible and wicked sinner. And we were expected to ask forgiveness by groveling at the feet of some being that had not one shred of credible evidence to support his/her/its existence. I personally helped people whenever and wherever I could, and I still do, I was a long time member of community service clubs, I was and still am a man of absolute honesty and integrity, and there were many more just like me in our church. And yet there was always this stupid accusation that were were sinners who should constantly be asking for forgiveness.  There are good and decent people in the world, and there are mongrels who are absolutely evil. To tar everyone with the same brush by saying they&rsquo;re all wicked is downright pathetic, and extremely insulting to decent people. I suppose you think that someone like Mother Theresa or Fred Hollows was selfish and wicked too, do you? Grow up Pav - you're making a complete fool of yourself.  More nonsense! I think we can reasonably assume that Pope John Paul 2 accepted Christ. That makes him righteous according to you. And yet he aided and abetted the junkie, embezzler and pedophile who founded and ran the Legionaries of Christ.




Touched a nerve?
We are all in the same boat.

That's why the whole point of the sermon on the mount was to go beyond works and to the heart and motives. To illustrate that perfect holiness (or even getting close) is an impossible standard.

Like I said, put some of the inner most thoughts on a screen and everyone will run.

RE the Pope.. I don't believe in the Pope as the head of the church or anything, I don't care about the Pope. Secondly he is in exactly the same boat. My point stands for him 100%.


----------



## Value Collector (8 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Touched a nerve?
> We are all in the same boat.
> 
> That's why the whole point of the sermon on the mount was to go beyond works and to the heart and motives. To illustrate that perfect holiness (or even getting close) is an impossible standard.
> ...




Christianity invented a make believe disease so they can sell us a make believe cure. Your showing your true colours of a snake oil salesman pav. I am not sure whether your the dishonest racketeer or you have just fallen for the slick speeches of this network marketing sham you call religion, but either way I am not buying what your selling.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 August 2014)

The disease is obvious for all to see.

If your worst most secret thoughts about those around you were put on a projector for all to see you would struggle to face those people again.

Same with me. Same with everyone.

You don't get labelled good because someone else is worse. If you are caught speeding once you've broken the law and are guilty. 

Of course there are varying degrees but we are all guilty.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 August 2014)

I do believe that you are sincere I your worldview but unfortunately you are sincerely wrong.


----------



## bunyip (9 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Touched a nerve?
> We are all in the same boat.




You didn’t touch any nerve – I just don’t like people making dumb and blatantly dishonest statements.

One of the regular posters to this forum has spent years doing voluntary work helping disadvantaged people. She doesn’t believe in your god or any other. You say this clearly decent woman is selfish and wicked despite all the effort she puts into helping those less fortunate than herself.
I say you’re so brainwashed by Christianity and religion generally that you’ve lost the ability to think objectively and rationally. You’re tied up in your own little world and you’ve lost touch with reality.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You don't get labelled good because someone else is worse. If you are caught speeding once you've broken the law and are guilty.




And if I am guilty of something, its immoral to think I can make Jesus my scape goat and get forgiveness by praying to an imaginary friend. The only moral action it to make amends to any victims of my crimes.

And a lot of the things that Christianity would try and charge me with are not crimes at all, It is simply trying to make us feel bad for our normal human nature, and trying to charge us with thought crimes.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I do believe that you are sincere I your worldview but unfortunately you are sincerely wrong.




Says the guy who has never been able to either logically or empirically prove any part of his mythical fantasy world view.


----------



## burglar (9 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The disease is obvious for all to see.
> 
> If your worst most secret thoughts about those around you were put on a projector for all to see you would struggle to face those people again.
> 
> ...




Yes, I am guilty.
But it's not my Law. 
I was not consulted.
Once I was caught speeding once.
Then subsequently, I was caught once again.

Getting to be an expensive habit.
Like I said, not my Law.

On the road  ... Villain.
On the track  ... Hero!!


----------



## pavilion103 (9 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Says the guy who has never been able to either logically or empirically prove any part of his mythical fantasy world view.




Lol


----------



## FxTrader (10 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Says the guy who has never been able to either logically or empirically prove any part of his mythical fantasy world view.



Well Pav has provided what he considers to be proof by using negation of other possibilities.  His "proof", like many other religious drones, is based on a process of elimination that invokes strong confirmation bias.

God exists because...

- Life can't come from non-life - except God itself who is a transcendent being and is the causative force behind creating life from non-life.

- Evolution theory is false, unproven science - But the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design, the basis of which relies on the thoroughly discredited concept of irreducible complexity, is true because it requires a creator.

- People are born evil, being the spawn of a sinful Adam and Eve, and without the wisdom inscribed in iron-age scrolls, have no reason to be moral - hence God needs to exist for reasons of moral clarity and direction (I am paraphrasing here but this is the general thrust of the argument)

- The Bible and Jesus say so and all of the Bible is true because God inspired every word of it (without actually writing it himself) and we all know that Jesus was just another manifestation of God because he walked on water, brought people back from the dead, and in his own way, cheated death himself.  In summary then, all other religions are false.

- Etc. (BTW, I think the above to be quite a fair assessment of what many Christians sincerely believe) 

Most of the arguments Pav has put forward here revolve around these major themes and the inerrancy of writings in iron-age scrolls.  More rational minds easily recognize the fallacy of faith-based assumptions embodied in such argumentation but this is where the problem of reasoning with the religious becomes acute.

The religious have no substantive evidence for the existence of their particular version of a sky God so rather than logically and critically examining their beliefs, they invoke faith-based rationale to justify them. The religious do this because they are heavily invested emotionally, psychologically and socially in their religious beliefs.  That they are captives to religious dogma and live out lives of servitude to religious mythology becomes a virtue to them.  Breaking free from such programming, in many cases starting from the cradle, can be extremely difficult and it's important to recognize this.  Religion with its promise of eternal life is just as intoxicating and mind altering as many drugs, the dependency on either is always sad to see and a blight on human progress and potential.


----------



## Julia (10 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> If we put mine or yours or anyone's thoughts up on a projector for all to see we would see how truly selfish and wicked we all are at the core. Some of the thoughts we have thought about those closest to us are so embarrassing and bad that if shown on a screen in front of everyone we knew we would run out of the room in disgrace.



What a load of absolute tripe!   If you have some compulsion to conclude that you are wicked and selfish, then that's up to you.  But you do not have the right to impose your delusional beliefs on other people.
I don't care if you want to believe in a god as long as you don't go round insisting that others subscribe to the same nonsense.

If I or anyone else were to start a thread suggesting everyone here is an evil being, in need of forgiveness for wickedness, there would be an outcry.  Joe would be absolutely entitled to ban me for inappropriate posting.

But you seem to think that, because you do just that in the name of your damn religion, it's quite OK.
For me at least, it absolutely is not.


----------



## lindsayf (10 August 2014)

Yes pavs assertions and beliefs are insulting delusional and immature
But that is what you get when you follow an archaic doctrine.  Maybe Pav have you done a few new units in your doctrine study and now trying out the 'project your thoughts thereby proving sinfulness' angle?
Pav is your work in here part of your 'missionary' contribution to this world?


----------



## bunyip (11 August 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Yes pavs assertions and beliefs are insulting delusional and immature
> But that is what you get when you follow an archaic doctrine.  Maybe Pav have you done a few new units in your doctrine study and now trying out the 'project your thoughts thereby proving sinfulness' angle?
> Pav is your work in here part of your 'missionary' contribution to this world?




Pav is a good example of a fanatical Christian crackpot whose been so completely brainwashed by religion that he’s lost his grip on reality.
We’re ‘_all in the same boat’_, according to him – all selfish and wicked regardless of what sort of people we are, what we’ve done with our lives, and what we do for other people. 

I hope Pav watches ‘*Four Corners’* on ABC tonight – it should give him a much needed reality check about the sort of behavior that really _does_ make_ some_ people selfish and wicked.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 August 2014)

Nevertheless, from my personal experience of having been brought up a Christian, I can honestly say that the good far outweighed the bad in all the church communities that I was involved in. Bunyip

I appreciate your honesty Bunyip. The above sentence is all I've ever tried to argue on this forum. 

I am a practical and pragmatic Christian.  If you want to go to church great, if you don't fine. I will not ram it down your throat. I will however burr up at those people who refuse to see ANY good in religion at all (specifically in a Christian environment in Australia). Only because my experience has been - like yours - an overwhelmingly positive one.

However I take strong offence to the post of Pav. I almost feel, as a supporter of religion, as if I have to apologise for his position and post. From my perspective, people that hold these types of strong fundamental religious views are in the minority and are a million miles away from the "bread and butter mum and dad" church goers. From my experience as well it is these type that are so wrapped up in religious radicalism that they too busy (or unwilling) to work on community/volunteer/charity events that so many of the churches support.

As a side issue - I watched Four Corners last night and I have my own take on it. The ABC has been saying for years now that the decline in church going numbers is due to the repulsion people have to the Church's response to sexual abuse. I would strongly argue against that. Sure it may have played a part - but the much bigger picture is that people find the Church completely irrelevant to them. It plays into the ABC argument that it is all about the abuse......but that is only part of the story in my opinion. 

Duckman


----------



## burglar (12 August 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Nevertheless, from my personal experience of having been brought up a Christian, I can honestly say that the good far outweighed the bad in all the church communities that I was involved in. Bunyip
> 
> I appreciate your honesty Bunyip. The above sentence is all I've ever tried to argue on this forum.
> 
> ...




I keep promising myself that I won't post here anymore.
But I have to say Duckman, you give good post.

For me, it was the Vietnam Conflagration.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> I am a practical and pragmatic Christian.  If you want to go to church great, if you don't fine. I will not ram it down your throat. I will however burr up at those people who refuse to see ANY good in religion at all (specifically in a Christian environment in Australia). Only because my experience has been - like yours - an overwhelmingly positive one.




My Position has never been that the various religions don't do any good. My position has always been that they don't do any good that can't be achieved in other ways, and since the bad side effects are very bad, I think it should be avoided. Like DDT, has many positive attributes, Its negative attributes outweigh the good, and since its positves effects can be achieved in other ways, we avoid DDT.

You mentioned that you yourself find the extremist parts of religion distatseful, The problem is extremism is inevitable in any religion, Offcourse the large majority will not be extremists, but the very nature of religions basically guarantees a certain amount of extremism, As long as there are moderates professing the virtues of the holy texts, there will be extremists taking the texts literally, and you can't win an arguement with a fundamentalist if you begin the arguement by agreeing that their texts are the word of a god, and faith is a pathway to truth.

Even in the "Nice Positive church groups" that you have been involved are probably some nasty side effects of religion, whether it be anti gay views that are being prolonged by the religious texts, a distrust of atheists or other groups simply because we were not raise to believe the same myths as them, guys like pav are not as rare as you think.

All the people in the below video are probably comsidered nice, good people by their churchs, but their religion has caused them to think really nasty things about atheists just because we don't believe their nonsense.


----------



## Julia (12 August 2014)

I can completely appreciate the positions of both Duckman and Value Collector above.  Over the years Duckman has participated in many discussions about religion and never once been aggressive or caused offence to anyone afaik.  Remarks about the ever increasing number of ducklings have been taken in good spirit.

Last night I watched the first part of the 4 Corners program.  It seemed largely a rehash of much that had already been covered.  I found myself almost feeling sympathetic toward the Catholic Church, much as I absolutely despise its cover-up of the vile abuse by so many of its priests and brothers.  Once the ABC has decided they have it in for an individual or an organisation, it seems they will - metaphorically - continue to kick someone who has long since capitulated.

We have the Royal Commission happening.  Seems to me no part of the church is being spared in the rigor of this enquiry, so the ABC's continued 'revelations' seem gratuitous.  Others will see it differently.


----------



## FxTrader (12 August 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> However I take strong offence to the post of Pav. I almost feel, as a supporter of religion, as if I have to apologise for his position and post. From my perspective, people that hold these types of strong fundamental religious views are in the minority and are a million miles away from the "bread and butter mum and dad" church goers. From my experience as well it is these type that are so wrapped up in religious radicalism that they too busy (or unwilling) to work on community/volunteer/charity events that so many of the churches support.



While Pav's remarks pertaining to the depravity of the human psyche and our "sinful" nature has generated a strong negative response here, doctrinally he is not a fringe dwelling fundamentalist on this point.  Christianity thrives on the notion that we are sinners in need of redemption, filthy vessels consumed by desires of the flesh, wicked to the core and lost (going to hell) without the cross.  You can try and soften this line and put a different spin on it but it's at the very core of the Christian message.  Many Christians may indeed chose to downplay this inconvenient truth about their religion but evangelists use this line to great effect and worst of all it's taught to children.

If someone claiming to be a Christian finds Pav's statements repulsive then they don't clearly understand one of the core themes of Christianity.




			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> You mentioned that you yourself find the extremist parts of religion distatseful, The problem is extremism is inevitable in any religion, Offcourse the large majority will not be extremists, but the very nature of religions basically guarantees a certain amount of extremism, As long as there are moderates professing the virtues of the holy texts, there will be extremists taking the texts literally, and you can't win an arguement with a fundamentalist if you begin the arguement by agreeing that their texts are the word of a god, and faith is a pathway to truth.



Indeed, many religious moderates seem unaware that by declaring strong belief in religious myth based on bad evidence (faith) they give sanction to fundamentalist and literalist elements, who revel in the purity of their interpretation of iron-age scrolls and the edicts therein, to stake a claim to being truer to the faith.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 August 2014)

FxTrader said:


> While Pav's remarks pertaining to the depravity of the human psyche and our "sinful" nature has generated a strong negative response here, doctrinally he is not a fringe dwelling fundamentalist on this point.




I completely agree. "Doctrinally" he is not a fundamentalist, but when viewed against the position of modern day Christianity he is. Religion is full of contradictions and remains an enigma. A puzzling conundrum that I don't fully understand - even as a attending Catholic. I like the parts that relate to my life, I encourage my family to live to the values held up by the Church, I enjoy the structure that the church plays in my life, I certainly agree with and support the Christian education my kids are afforded. Do I live in fear of eternal damnation? No. Do I believe in slavery? No! Do I cover myself in vipers to test my faith? No thanks 



FxTrader said:


> If someone claiming to be a Christian finds Pav's statements repulsive then they don't clearly understand one of the core themes of Christianity.




You've misunderstood my point. My whole argument was "live and let live".  People who are religious should be treated with respect and tolerance.  Referring to religious beliefs as brainwashed myths, fairy stories, and old wives tales  is disrespectful, dismissive and intolerant. I also believe people have a right not to believe in religion. What I found "repulsive" (your word not mine) was Pav's condescending and superior position in suggesting that everyone was wicked to the core and need their souls saving. I found it just as offensive, judgemental and unnecessary. 

If you want to then say that I am not a "true Christian" go ahead. Religion is a very complex and personal experience. I'm sorry that I don't fit nicely into your box Fx.

Duckman


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2014)

Personally I think he Buddhists have got it right.

Reincarnation and Karma. You get back what you give out.

You don't need to believe in any God, and your path to enlightenment is your own design.

It would save a lot of trouble if people lived by that philosophy.


----------



## pavilion103 (13 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Personally I think he Buddhists have got it right.  Reincarnation and Karma. You get back what you give out.  You don't need to believe in any God, and your path to enlightenment is your own design.  It would save a lot of trouble if people lived by that philosophy.




Except people don't always get back what they give out e.g the killer who gets off and is never caught.  
Or the loving family who get killed in a communist regime.  

Reincarnation.... There is no evidence for that.    

But I do admit it is a great feel good philosophy and does contain some powerful truths.


----------



## pavilion103 (13 August 2014)

And lol @ my "superior" positions.

Putting myself in the basket that I am inherently sinful and desperately need a savior to be righteous before God, with zero merit of my own, is the complete opposite of a "superior" position. It is the most humbling opinion possible.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Reincarnation.... There is no evidence for that.




That's a fine statement for someone who provides no evidence of his God


----------



## pavilion103 (13 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a fine statement for someone who provides no evidence of his God




Firstly even if it were so that I've provided no evidence for God then why criticize me for providing no evidence, yet hold your own view with no evidence?
Why is it wrong for me to provide no evidence yet ok for you to do the same?

Secondly. I have provided much evidence and have seen very little for opposing views. People seem to think that holding atheist views requires no evidence for the inconsistencies of their world views.   
But I here this....hey "one day with infinite time and infinite resources science will support the atheist view....that I hold prior to having no evidence for a self existent universe...."


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Why is it wrong for me to provide no evidence yet ok for you to do the same?




What is wrong is attacking other people's beliefs for not having evidence when you have no evidence for your own beliefs.

Reincarnation makes more sense to me than the prospect that your future life in Heaven is decided on simply whether you choose to believe in God, and only the God that your particular religion believes in. 

Life is a learning experience, and I see no reason why future and past lives can't be as well. Sometimes our bad actions rebound on us in this life, sometimes in others. I see no logical problem with that.


----------



## pavilion103 (13 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What is wrong is attacking other people's beliefs for not having evidence when you have no evidence for your own beliefs.
> 
> Reincarnation makes more sense to me than the prospect that your future life in Heaven is decided on simply whether you choose to believe in God, and only the God that your particular religion believes in.
> 
> Life is a learning experience, and I see no reason why future and past lives can't be as well. Sometimes our bad actions rebound on us in this life, sometimes in others. I see no logical problem with that.




It's merely opinion. Even in your post you've stated no evidence. Other than "it feels right to me."

I don't know why people get so defensive when someone questions their life philosophy. If it is truth that we are seeking then truth is exclusive by definition. Truth needs to be supported by evidence. 
You have every right to hold that view, but it doesn't make it right or wrong just because you have the right to hold it.

There is strong evidence (as is apparent when researched with even a little objectivity) that Christ resurrected. Therefore it is Him who I will listen to about the purpose of life, life after death etc. 

The views I post are not even my views. They are Jesus' views. I have no idea myself. No one does. I trust the one who is most reliable. Any issues anyone has with that particular worldview has to take it up with Jesus, not me. 


We make exclusive claims all the time with all topics. If we see contradictions between views, we point them out. But with life philosophies people think that "if you say I'm wrong, then that's terrible." Everyone has the RIGHT to hold whatever view they want, but it doesn't make the view itself correct. 

I'm not posting aggressively. I don't dislike anyone here. I'm simply stating my view. And as with every single other thing in life, truth is exclusive. Everyone can believe in it - it isn't exclusive in that it excludes people from it. It is exclusive in that, other contradictory views are not true. 

Like I said, not because I said it.... but because the only one who has conquered death has said it....


----------



## barney (13 August 2014)

So many legitimate arguments for and against the existence of "God"  ...... who knows for sure; obviously no one does (for sure)  It is a belief based on faith and personal experience.

I was bought up in a Christian environment ....  As an adult I have become quite *disillusioned* by many "Christian" ideals and beliefs .....

Quick example  ...... If the God of the universe revealed him/herself to me and I unequivocally believed they existed ...... then they asked me as a sign of my newfound belief *to sacrifice one of my children *as an example of my enlightenment, I would tell the God of the universe to "go to hell"

Could anyone here *put their own child to death *if God instructed you to ......  If you say yes, you are definitely off my Christmas list!

it almost scares me that so many "enlightened" people can accept blood sacrifice as a reasonable way for their God of the universe to behave


No wonder Jesus felt so rejected when they strung him up .... his supposed own Father had orchestrated his death.  Why? ..... Just so he could bring him back to life to show his power.  That is not love, that is *EGO*!

Do I think "God" exists;  A higher life force than man in the Universe .... highly possible.  

A Christian God who condones killing, murder and bloodshed .... *no thanks*!  

Bit of a rant, sorry


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> People seem to think that holding atheist views requires no evidence for the inconsistencies of their world views.
> ...."




Atheism isn't a world view, is one opinion on one topic. 




> But I here this....hey "one day with infinite time and infinite resources science will support the atheist view....that I hold prior to having no evidence for a self existent universe




I am an atheist because I have never seen any evidence that suggests a god exists, I need to have a good reason to believe something. Believing an unproven hypothisis just because it can't be disproven is just plan silly.



> There is strong evidence (as is apparent when researched with even a little objectivity) that Christ resurrected.




Such as, can you provide your best piece of evidence.




> Therefore it is Him who I will listen to about the purpose of life, life after death etc.




And what has he told you the purpose of life is?



> Everyone has the RIGHT to hold whatever view they want, but it doesn't make the view itself correct.




Exactly, so before you start pressing you personal view on others, you have to demonstrate you are correct, otherwise keep you silly religion to yourself.



> Like I said, not because I said it.... but because the only one who has conquered death has said it....




you still haven't provided evidence for that claim yet, and Jesus certainly isn't the only religious figure that was said to have risen from the dead, he is not even the only one in the bible to rise from the dead.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2014)

barney said:


> So many legitimate arguments for the existence of "God"  ......




Really, I have never seen one. Can you give us a before outline of the best argument there is for god.



> it almost scares me that so many "enlightened" people can accept blood sacrifice as a reasonable way for their God of the universe to behave




I find it extremely weird that the catholic faith involves sitting in front of a replica corpse, bashed and hung on a cross, while they simulate drinking its blood and eating its flesh. The fact that this is accepted as a good family endeavour shocks me, and the fact they say us unbelievers are immoral shocks me even more.


----------



## Ruby (13 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Secondly. I have provided much evidence and have seen very little for opposing views. People seem to think that holding atheist views requires no evidence for the inconsistencies of their world views.
> But I here this....hey "one day with infinite time and infinite resources science will support the atheist view....that I hold prior to having no evidence for a self existent universe...."




Pav, I have read everyone of your posts, and in spite of repeated requests from many posters, and repeated assertions from you that it exists, you have never provided a shred evidence for the things you claim (eg, the resurrection of Christ).   When pressed, you always back off, claim you are being victimised (my terminology), and go off in a huff, only to return later and claim you have given us your evidence.

Now I don't really mind what people believe (I respect Duckman's view and the way he expresses it)  but you are so strident in your claims for the existence of evidence I think we feel you are obliged to produce it.  You never do. 

As for providing evidence for the atheistic view - well, that is not possible; just as it is not possible to provide evidence that fairies don't exist, astrology doesn't work, and Elvis is not alive and well in Gracelands.   If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide the evidence; not the other way round.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2014)

Ruby said:


> Pav, I have read everyone of your posts, and in spite of repeated requests from many posters, and repeated assertions from you that it exists, you have never provided a shred evidence for the things you claim (eg, the resurrection of Christ).   When pressed, you always back off, claim you are being victimised (my terminology), and go off in a huff, only to return later and claim you have given us your evidence.
> 
> Now I don't really mind what people believe (I respect Duckman's view and the way he expresses it)  but you are so strident in your claims for the existence of evidence I think we feel you are obliged to produce it.  You never do.
> 
> As for providing evidence for the atheistic view - well, that is not possible; just as it is not possible to provide evidence that fairies don't exist, astrology doesn't work, and Elvis is not alive and well in Gracelands.   If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide the evidence; not the other way round.




I think Pav goes away and prays for evidence


----------



## burglar (13 August 2014)

overhang said:


> I think Pav goes away and prays for evidence




Retreat?!


----------



## barney (13 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Really, I have never seen one. Can you give us a before outline of the best argument there is for god.





Howdy VC .... Just as a pre-cursor (before we get into an incredibly uncomfortable argument about the pros and cons of the existence of a supreme deity)  .....  I enjoy and appreciate your posts

"Arguments for a God"   ........ simple really  .....

God (to me),  is simply a higher life form than man ..... (not some all empowered, all knowing, I'm better at you than everything Being which we would need to bow down and worship  ...... Rather, another existing life form that is further advanced than Man is 

Of course my concept of God may be totally erroneous, (and maybe I will burn in Hell), but, God to me is ......

An entity which has been fortunate enough to evolve to a point where it can control its own destiny, and, potentially control the destiny of other (maybe our) life forms.

My logic behind this line of thinking ........ Humans (you and I) are living breathing creatures ... ie. we appear to be real and existing ... yes??

If we are real and existing (I assume agreed?) .... and, (assuming we are not the top of the Universal "food chain"), then it is logical (for me) to accept that ........ 

A higher level "food chain" exists which is "Superior" to "my world"  ..... ie.  "GOD" (God is simply a higher evolved life form than Man) .....

On that summation .... Man may well achieve his own *God* status in the future (to other beings in the Universe)  ... he may well control and orchestrate the "existence" of other life forms (on Earth or perhaps other Planets in the Universe)  ...... Those life forms will then likely perceive him (Man) as "GOD"   ...... scary!!

If you understood the above, then .... thank you for your patience  ........  and welcome to my world  .... lol ... but don't disregard my assumption as erroneous without consideration!


----------



## FxTrader (13 August 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> I completely agree. "Doctrinally" he is not a fundamentalist, but when viewed against the position of modern day Christianity he is. Religion is full of contradictions and remains an enigma. A puzzling conundrum that I don't fully understand - even as a attending Catholic. I like the parts that relate to my life, I encourage my family to live to the values held up by the Church, I enjoy the structure that the church plays in my life, I certainly agree with and support the Christian education my kids are afforded. Do I live in fear of eternal damnation? No. Do I believe in slavery? No! Do I cover myself in vipers to test my faith? No thanks



The strong belief in religious myth is definitely an enigma given the fantastic claims and assertions made in divinely inspired magic books without compelling, corroborating evidence to support such claims.  Religious belief and the traditions wrapped around it are more mythical in nature than enigmatic.

The Catholic church would no doubt prefer that you remain puzzled about their brand of Christian myth and keep attending church for enlightenment while accepting your money in the offering plate in exchange.  Given the moral filth that has been exposed at all levels of the Catholic church I remain bemused by how many still cling to the traditions and teachings of this morally bankrupt religious institution.

It would seem that you find religious belief useful for social structure and moral instruction while conveniently discarding the uncomfortable parts you don't agree with.  You portray the indoctrination of your children in Christian myth as a positive for them because, presumably, it instills values in them at your behest as a parental proxy.  However, I assert once again that the books of the Bible and the fantastic claims therein are not true or correct because they're useful in some way.  The is no such thing as a good fraud in this context.



> You've misunderstood my point. My whole argument was "live and let live".  People who are religious should be treated with respect and tolerance.  Referring to religious beliefs as brainwashed myths, fairy stories, and old wives tales  is disrespectful, dismissive and intolerant. I also believe people have a right not to believe in religion.



People should indeed be treated with respect and tolerance as human beings.  Their religious beliefs however do not deserve respect when asserted without evidence while claiming to be absolute truth with the consequences of non-belief being eternal hellfire.  Such incredible arrogance and total confidence in the incredible claims made in magic books can and should be subjected to criticism and be dismissed as mythical nonsense.



> If you want to then say that I am not a "true Christian" go ahead. Religion is a very complex and personal experience. I'm sorry that I don't fit nicely into your box Fx.



I said nothing of the kind but no doubt many other Christians would brand you as such.  Rather I would say that, based on your statements here so far, you're a typical lukewarm moderate Christian who embraces religion as a lifestyle choice while rejecting the parts that are more contentions or objectionable - customized Christianity if you will.  Molding the Christian message into a form that is more palatable for personal consumption is simply being dishonest with yourself about the foundational tenets and core themes of your faith by wearing a intellectual blindfold.

As to complexity, religious institutions would like to portray the Christian message as complex but in reality New Testament Christianity is quite simple to understand and can easily be summarized in one sermon from the pulpit.  If religion was just about personal experience and claimed to be nothing else then human society would likely be in a much better place at the moment.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2014)

barney said:


> Howdy VC .... Just as a pre-cursor (before we get into an incredibly uncomfortable argument about the pros and cons of the existence of a supreme deity)  .....  I enjoy and appreciate your posts
> 
> "Arguments for a God"   ........ simple really  .....
> 
> ...




Oh ok, If your defining god as simply a higher life form, then yes I would have to agree, it is possible for a god to exist under that definition, how ever I think there are many better words to use to define such a thing that don't come with all the baggage of the word god.

The problem with using the word God to define a life form, is that most people use the word god to describe a creator of the universe, However any evolved being would not have been around at the beginning, and would have been the end result of a long evolution process, not the first cause of the process, and it would be the result of physics not the creator of the laws of physics.

Also, Even if we know its possible for such a life form to exist, we still don't know if one does, after all it is possible we are the most advanced creature in the universe, although I wouldn't bet on it.

I have had a guy try to get me to admit god exists by defining god as love, I told him if thats the sole definition your using for a god, then yes god exists, but I find these types of discussions where god is defined into existence are pointless, its best to stick to proper terms, if we want to talk about love, let's call it love, if we want to talk about aliens, let's call them aliens,


----------



## bunyip (14 August 2014)

Whether or not God exists is really neither here nor there to me. I don’t believe he does, since I’ve never seen any evidence of it. Nor do I believe that there’s any evidence of what’s attributed to him/her/it if he does exist. 
Creation of the human race, for example? No evidence whatsoever that God was the architect and builder of the first humans on earth. No evidence whatever that there were no humans, and then suddenly there was a man and a woman, both created by God, who could talk, breathe, reason and breed as humans can today. 

But even if God does exist, what gets up my nose is the lies that are told by people who hero-worship this god of theirs.
For example, the ‘god of compassion and love’. Try telling that to the Jews whose families were subjected to such brutality under the Nazis. Try telling the people in Iraq that their God is loving and compassionate and fair and just, as they’re driven from their homes and their men beheaded and their women taken into slavery by the sub-human animals who call themselves the ‘Islamic State’.

God of compassion and love, fair and just, always on the side of righteousness, someone you can count in in times of trouble? Ppffttt – what utter nonsense! 
If he exists, he couldn't give a stuff about you or me or anyone else. If you had a neighbor or relative who was cold and uncaring, you’d have nothing to do with them. And yet we’re supposed to worship this God character as a role model of love and compassion and fairness and decency who deserves our total admiration and respect and gratitude. And if we don’t, we’re wicked and selfish and our fate is to spend eternity burning in hell.

How any sensible, thinking adult can believe this rot is beyond me. That’s why religion starts working on people while they’re very young children, indoctrinating them with religious views while their thinking and reasoning skills are still very much underdeveloped. Religion knows perfectly well that if they miss the chance of brainwashing kids when they're little, then they have little hope of doing so in later life when the kids can think and reason for themselves.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 August 2014)

Ruby said:


> Pav, I have read everyone of your posts, and in spite of repeated requests from many posters, and repeated assertions from you that it exists, you have never provided a shred evidence for the things you claim (eg, the resurrection of Christ).   When pressed, you always back off, claim you are being victimised (my terminology), and go off in a huff, only to return later and claim you have given us your evidence.
> 
> Now I don't really mind what people believe (I respect Duckman's view and the way he expresses it)  but you are so strident in your claims for the existence of evidence I think we feel you are obliged to produce it.  You never do.
> 
> As for providing evidence for the atheistic view - well, that is not possible; just as it is not possible to provide evidence that fairies don't exist, astrology doesn't work, and Elvis is not alive and well in Gracelands.   If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide the evidence; not the other way round.




Even just take a look through something like this link below. Here is one quote from it following the evidence listed:

http://www.bible.ca/d-resurrection-evidence-Josh-McDowell.htm

_Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."_


That link provides many pieces of evidence that
1) The resurrection did occur
2) There are no other ways to account for some of these things. 


I provided a number of these points previously, but because you have asked here they are 

It isn't that I have no evidence that I tell people to look back at previous posts, it is that it get tedious repeating the same things. I hope this link helps.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 August 2014)

It is an interesting study if anyone cares to take the time to research those who went out to actively disprove the resurrection and ended up being compelled to affirm it, in the light of overwhelming evidence. 

I doubt many have researched the historicity of this event or even anything relating to the life of Christ. 

Further to that, when compared to other events in history the evidence is mind-boggling and overwhelming. 

Yet, I see incredible bias when people are prepared to accept other historical events as having occurred, or even other historical people having existed, yet reject the events which have the most overwhelming evidence because their subjective mind would rather not believe it.

People would rather not apply an consistent historical standard to the resurrection of Christ, simply because they believe that "It couldn't have happened." 

This is the reason I loathe posting evidence over and over again.... because it is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of objectivity that is present. 


But, being pressed, I have posted that above link which is one of many out there. That one was from a simple Google search.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 August 2014)

More quotes from the article among the various evidence. 

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce 
Manchester University


I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock 
Professor of Classics 
Auckland University


There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.
Clark Pinnock 
Mcmaster University


For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White 
Classical Roman Historian


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> _Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."_
> 
> 
> That link provides many pieces of evidence that
> ...




LOL, that's not evidence at all. It's simply taking the Biblical account as fact. 

When it asks this question.



> How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?




It fails to prove the tomb even existed, I mean the bible story was written decades after Jesus's alleged Burial, its quite possible the whole story of the tomb was fabricated. 

It then moves on to just guess that the authors may have spoken to eye witnesses, This is also un reliable, I can go and find eye witness accounts of people abducted by aliens, it doesn't mean its true.

All this article is doing is quoting bible stories as if they are proven historical events, Its circular reasoning at its best.

Do you Accept the eye witness accounts in the qu'ran as proof of Muhammed's stories being true. If not, why not?


----------



## pavilion103 (14 August 2014)

Have you done any research on the historicity of the tomb? 

What about on the death of Christ?

You do realise that "decades after" is an absurdly short timeframe for writing down events after they occurred in these cultures? The fact that they were written in the lifetime of eye-witnesses is extraordinary. There was no time for myth to spring up. Further more, there was no account of a "natural Jesus" and then this changed to a "supernatural Jesus." This was the original account. 

Furthermore, the apostles were in the position to know 100% whether Christ's resurrection was true or not (obviously). Secular historical writings document their deaths. They died for this fact. 
Prior to the resurrection they were cowards on the run, denying Jesus. All of a sudden they see something and are completely transformed and go to their death for the resurrection.


We could go on and on. It is easy to see why I don't bother to respond to post after post. 

The evidence is compelling.


----------



## overhang (14 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> It is an interesting study if anyone cares to take the time to research those who went out to actively disprove the resurrection and ended up being compelled to affirm it, in the light of overwhelming evidence.
> 
> I doubt many have researched the historicity of this event or even anything relating to the life of Christ.
> 
> ...




Pav I read the link you provided and is this really what you base as evidence, to quote something from your link 







> The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible



 well this hyperbole sure sounds convincing... 

I would refute your claim that when compared to other historic events the evidence is overwhelming and mind-boggling. 

If you would take the time to read this lecture you will see that in fact the evidence is far from overwhelming and actually lacks any credible evidence to suggest the resurrection occurred.  Now considering the weight of the evidence Richard Carrier presents I would think that given that was all the evidence you required that this may alter your view but then again those that are blinded by faith have difficulty with logic.

From the lecture 







> It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence.



http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html


----------



## pavilion103 (14 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Do you Accept the eye witness accounts in the qu'ran as proof of Muhammed's stories being true. If not, why not?




Well this one is easy. 

The reason I believe in Christ as reliable is because he rose from the dead. Mohammad did not. This is what separates Christ from everyone else. This is the whole basis behind why He should be believed in relation to the purpose of life, death, afterlife etc. 

The historicity of the resurrection separates it from other supernatural claims which are not verifiable with the same historical evidence. 

The simple fact is that the apostles were cowardly and on the run and then after the resurrection they go to their deaths for what they knew 100% to be truth or lie. People will die for what they think is truth (but might be wrong), but not for what they know 100% is a lie. Their deaths are recorded outside the Bible. 


Further to this, The Quaran says things about Jesus completely different to those accounts written only within decades of his life. From a historical perspective you do not believe accounts which occur 400 years after someone's life (from a less reliable source) that contradict accounts written pretty much at the time of their life (written by eye-witnesses and close associates).


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2014)

he following article asserts that most historians agree that Jesus lived, preached in the Gallilee area and was crucified on the orders of Pontious Pilate.

There is not so much evidence as to his resurrection, so I guess people who want to believe it will, others won't.

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


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Further to that, when compared to other events in history the evidence is mind-boggling and overwhelming.
> 
> Yet, I see incredible bias when people are prepared to accept other historical events as having occurred, or even other historical people having existed, yet reject the events which have the most overwhelming evidence because their subjective mind would rather not believe it.




The only "evidence" people have is the Bible, Which can be shown to be wrong in many other areas, So why should we take it as true.

Also, Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence, If there is an historical claim that a emperor name Ceaser  lived, that's not an extrodinary claim, we know men exist and some men become emperors. However if there were claims which said Ceaser was god like (which there were) we can ignore them until they are proved.


> People would rather not apply an consistent historical standard to the resurrection of Christ, simply because they believe that "It couldn't have happened."






> This is the reason I loathe posting evidence over and over again.... because it is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of objectivity that is present.




You have the lack of objectivity, you take the biblical claims for granted, while dismissing the claims of other religions, you jump through hoops to justify the claims of Christianity, while dismissing Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, That called special pleading.

Also, on the topic of Historical figures, take a character like Ceaser, there is loads of evidence, from multiple sources that show he existed, But when it comes to jesus, there is no evidence outside the bible.

No contemporary Documents, accounts or artworks exist for jesus. Ceaser on the other hand has many artworks that were made during his life at different ages, written accounts by many sources including his enemies and much more.

Show me where I can find a painting or sculpture of jesus that was done during his life.
Show me where I can find a document that was written by Jesus during his life.
Show me where I can find a document written by an enemy of Jesus during his life.

There is nothing, Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible, which was written many years after he died, by people who never met him.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> he following article asserts that most historians agree that Jesus lived, preached in the Gallilee area and was crucified on the orders of Pontious Pilate.
> 
> There is not so much evidence as to his resurrection, so I guess people who want to believe it will, others won't.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus




Even that "evidence" is pretty bias and relies on the bible.

But as I have said earlier, I am willing to take for granted that a Jewish Rabi called Jesus was getting around the area around that time, But it in no way is that evidence of the Mythical story that built over the decades and later made it way into the bible.

Its the Santa vs St Nicholas concept I explained earlier. The existence of St Nicholas does not prove the existence of Santa and his reindeer and elves etc.

So When I say I don't believe Jesus existed, I am saying the Mythical Christian story version of Jesus didn't exist. 

It's like if every time you said Santa wasn't real, If I brought out St Nicholas as evidence, it doesn't mean anything, because you weren't talking about St Nicholas.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You do realise that "decades after" is an absurdly short timeframe for writing down events .






> The fact that they were written in the lifetime of eye-witnesses is extraordinary. There was no time for myth to spring up.




Decades not long enough for myth to spring up???? Try researching the cargo cults, whole religions are now based on the US airdrops from WW2, islanders build radio towers from wood and radio's from coco nuts to try and summon the air drop gods, and they worship a figure called John Frum as their god who said he will return.

Pav, If you go down to any local pub you will hear stories recounted by eye witnesses of events of things that happened only weeks before, and the stories will bear little resemblance to the actual events.

I personally witnessed a sequence of events that happened in 2002, that has become some what of a legendary story that continues to be passed around the army and I can tell you that every year this story seems to grow further from the truth, It barely resembles the actual events any more. So 70 - 130 years is more than enough time for word of mouth stories to evolve, Have you ever played Chinese whispers.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> , But it in no way is that evidence of the Mythical story that built over the decades and later made it way into the bible.




I never said it was, as the article I linked to pointed out.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

Cargo cults sprang up throughout the islands after the US forces left after WW2.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Cargo cults sprang up throughout the islands after the US forces left after WW2.




I don't think your analogy is particularly apt.

The US air force has demonstrably greater technology than the native islanders, and so the islanders had good reason to belief the USAF were 'Gods' and so they worshipped the 'iron birds'.

If Jesus was 'just an ordinary bloke', what reason would the people around the area have to treat him as anything special  ?

Now, if he actually performed miracles...

I'm not promoting one way or the other with respect to Jesus' activities, but when I see a hole in an argument then I need to point it out.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Well this one is easy.
> 
> The reason I believe in Christ as reliable is because he rose from the dead. Mohammad did not. This is what separates Christ from everyone else. This is the whole basis behind why He should be believed in relation to the purpose of life, death, afterlife etc.




Can you see how circular that is, 

1, you believe the bible because jesus rose from the dead

2, you know jesus rose from the dead because it says it in the bible.

the Quran says Muhammad flew to paradise and back on a flying horse, Doesn't that prove to you he was gods prophet. And the Muslims even claim there is a horse hoof print on the dome of a mosque, How did that get there if the Quran isn't true??? 

The Muslims have the same evidence as you, yet you reject their stories, So you should beable to see why we atheists reject both of your stories as equal glimpses of the untrue.



> The historicity of the resurrection separates it from other supernatural claims which are not verifiable with the same historical evidence.




The historical evidence comes from the bible, Which is like using Harry potter books to prove Harry potter.



> The simple fact is that the apostles were cowardly and on the run and then after the resurrection they go to their deaths for what they knew 100% to be truth or lie. People will die for what they think is truth (but might be wrong), but not for what they know 100% is a lie. Their deaths are recorded outside the Bible.




There is no evidence for that either, How ever religious people die for their beliefs all the time. Do you accept suicide bombers as evidence of Allah and the Quran. 




> written by eye-witnesses and close associates




Can you please stop claiming the Bible was written by eye witnesses


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think your analogy is particularly apt.
> 
> The US air force has demonstrably greater technology than the native islanders, and so the islanders had good reason to belief the USAF were 'Gods' and so they worshipped the 'iron birds'.
> 
> ...




Look at the number of Gurus in India that have huge followings with nothing more than cheap magic tricks or fake pychic readings, Advanced Technology is just one way to impress the gullible, Any magician can turn water into wine.

But as I said,  it may all just be stories that got exaggerated over time that turned an interesting new age jewish rabi into a son of a god that did miracles.


----------



## bunyip (14 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The reason I believe in Christ as reliable is because he rose from the dead.




You don’t know that – you only think you know it because it’s written in the bible.
It’s entirely possible that, fearing an uprising over the murder of a high profile man, the Romans simply removed the body under cover of darkness and discarded it in some remote desert location, where it was torn apart by wild animals.  

Or it’s possible that this bloke Jesus was just an ordinary man who was pretty good at making out he had some special knowledge, some special calling from God, some special God-given powers, and as a result many gullible people flocked to him, thinking he was their saviour and their pathway to God and eternity in paradise. 
These sort of people keep springing up to this day – religious gurus who through their ability as spruikers and con artists quickly get a following from a bunch of gullible people, and so a religious sect is born and the sect leader is credited with mystical powers of which he has none.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

More examples of cheap magic tricks used to fool the gullible religious followers.

We should always be sceptical, and require evidence. Eye witness account and holy texts are not evidence.


----------



## bunyip (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If Jesus was 'just an ordinary bloke', what reason would the people around the area have to treat him as anything special  ?




The same reason that people today have for supporting cult leaders who claim to have supernatural powers. There will always be gullible people who are searching for greater meaning instead of just being content to live their lives like ordinary people.
To the gullible, religious cults and cult leaders are just what they’ve been looking for. Or at least that’s what they think initially, but sooner or later they usually become disillusioned and realize they were duped. Just as I and an increasing number of people realize that we were duped by Christianity.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2014)

> More examples of cheap magic tricks used to fool the gullible religious followers.
> 
> We should always be sceptical, and require evidence. Eye witness account and holy texts are not evidence.




Realistically, what evidence do you expect from 2,000 years ago ? Photographs ?

The Romans were hardly likely to give much time to writing about an enemy of the state, and probably the reason the apostles waited so long to do it was that they were afraid of suffering the same fate as Jesus and wanted to let the situation calm down.

So, eye witness accounts and writings are all there is to go by. They are not enough for you and me, but then no one is forcing us to take them seriously.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Realistically, what evidence do you expect from 2,000 years ago ? Photographs ?
> 
> .




For the man or the God? Because I don't really need to see evidence for an ordinary man exisiting 2000 years ago, But uf you really want to convince me that a specific man existed at a certain time in history, then I would need to see the following.

1, Contemporary artworks - eg Sculptures or paintings that were mad of him during his life. ( not 500 years after his death)

2, documents written by the person.

3, Some sort of artefacts from the persons life that link them to a time that link a person to a time.

4, Eye witness accounts that are written by the eye witness at the time or atleast around the time. (not a biblical account by unknown author that says people saw something and was written 70 -130 years later)

5, documents written about the person during there life, from outside sources, even unfriendly sources

none of this exists for Jesus, no artwork, documents, artifacts etc etc were made during his life, that seems weird to me.

But proving the man is only half of it, you then have to prove the god exists, which is what I care more about, and a god should find it easy to prove itself.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So, eye witness accounts and writings are all there is to go by.




None of the texts are written by eye witnesses, so we really need to stop calling the bible eye witness accounts.

Even if they were eye witness accounts, no more weight can be given to them than you would an eye witness account of some one saying an Indian guru levitated in front of them or they were abducted by aliens.



> If Jesus was 'just an ordinary bloke', what reason would the people around the area have to treat him as anything special ?




The Indian Gurus are just normal blokes, they have a followers who believe they have supernatural powers, same with the Dali lama and the Pope, they put there dresses on one leg at a time too. The gullible follow people, do you think that the fact the people follow the Dali Lama proves the supernatural claims about him?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2014)

> none of this exists for Jesus, no artwork, documents, artifacts etc etc were made during his life, that seems weird to me.




I think your demands ignore the politics of the time, ie Roman domination and the fact that the Jews were second class citizens, and that the Jews themselves gave Jesus to the Romans



> Tacitus was a member of the Roman consular nobility committed to the senatorial ideals of the Roman republic.  He detested both Christians and Jews.
> 
> Tacitus wrote of the fire that consumed much of Rome in 64 C.E. during the reign of Nero and the chaos which followed the fire.  Then Tacitus reported that Nero fixed blame for the disaster on Christians:
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think your demands ignore the politics of the time, ie Roman domination and the fact that the Jews were second class citizens, and that the Jews themselves gave Jesus to the Romans




the way you are thinking up justification to fill the holes reminds me of somebody trying to will the logical gaps in their favourite sci fi film ;-)

So you don't think it weird that not a single of those items exist, even as I said something from his enemies?

It's weird that you think the romans are more powerful than a god? This is the god that held the mouths of the lions shut to protect a Christian, destroyed whole cities, sent plagues against the Egyptians etc etc but he can't allow any evidence to survive.

But as I said, it depends what your trying to prove, If it is just that a guy called jesus existed and he got some followers, forget it I will give that to you, I don't really care about proving the man. But If you say he was a god, We need a lot more evidence.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But If you say he was a god, We need a lot more evidence.




Well that's fair enough, and, playing the devil's advocate again ( because I enjoy it) I'll ask pavillion why God decided to send his son in the guise of a man to set the human race straight instead of coming himself ?

Surely that would be more efficient and save a lot of death ?


----------



## bunyip (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Realistically, what evidence do you expect from 2,000 years ago ? Photographs ?
> 
> The Romans were hardly likely to give much time to writing about an enemy of the state, and probably the reason the apostles waited so long to do it was that they were afraid of suffering the same fate as Jesus and wanted to let the situation calm down.
> 
> So, eye witness accounts and writings are all there is to go by. They are not enough for you and me, but then no one is forcing us to take them seriously.




You can imagine how much the 'eye witness accounts' got stretched and varied over time, just like any modern day eye witness accounts. 
Ask half a dozen people today to describe an extraordinary event that they all witnessed, and chances are there will be considerable variation in what they tell you. Ask them again 20 or 30 years later, and the variation between their stories will widen even further.

When I was a kid there was snow in a Queensland town that sits almost on the Tropic of Capricorn. Forty years later the snowfall in that town (depending on who you ask) was anywhere between a light dusting that melted as soon as it fell, to heavy snow a foot deep that you could have skied  on. It all depends on who’s telling the story!

True, nobody is forcing us to take seriously the accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus, nor do we have to take seriously any of the other claims about God or Jesus or religion generally.
But many people do take them seriously with no more 'proof' than what's written in stone age texts, so seriously in fact that they fight wars over it, hate and condemn people who don't share their belief, and tell them they're wicked and selfish and they're destined for punishment by burning for eternity in hellfire.


----------



## bellenuit (14 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well that's fair enough, and, playing the devil's advocate again ( because I enjoy it) I'll ask pavillion why God decided to send his son in the guise of a man to set the human race straight instead of coming himself ?
> 
> Surely that would be more efficient and save a lot of death ?




Probably worth adding that if the intention of sending His son to die was to redeem us from our sins and to give us the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by believing in Him, why only do it through events happening in an obscure corner of the earth inhabited by mainly illiterate peasants. Weren't those living in other parts of the world not important to Him; those living in Asia, Africa and the Americas, not to mention our own Aboriginies. Weren't they worth saving? It is only in the last 200 years that His so called message has reached large parts of the world, so all those living in those areas prior to that have had no opportunity to be saved and enter Heaven.

Since He had the power to convey his message to everyone, no matter where they lived and no matter what stage their culture and level of communications were at in a manner that would be unambiguously clear, it certainly was totally inept to do it as it was supposedly done. Hardly the work of a deity.


----------



## bunyip (15 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The reason I believe in Christ as reliable is because he rose from the dead.



Rose from the dead? And where exactly did he rise to – some place called Heaven?
This Heaven place has been talked about for thousands of years and yet neither you nor anyone else has the faintest idea of where it is, what it’s like, or if it even exists. Think about that for a minute.....millions of people the world over think they’re going to the same place when they die, yet they don’t have any evidence that the place even exists!
I find it midly amusing that people from all walks of life, from ordinary every day people to Mafia thugs, from deranged Muslim terrorists to pedophile Catholic priests, all think they’re going to Heaven after they die, and they’re all going to live in perfect peace and harmony! And yet their only ‘evidence’ of the existence of this place is what’s written in ancient texts by stone age people with primitive minds.

At least when rumors started circulating about the existence of ‘a great south land’, it wasn’t too long before ships set sail to find this land – hence the discovery of Australia by an English sea captain called James Cook. But no such journey of discovery has been undertaken to find Heaven – the rather naÃ¯ve attitude of many people is _‘I know there’s a Heaven and I know I’m going there, because the Bible tells me so! _
I can’t think of a better example of naivety and simple-mindedness.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

> This Heaven place has been talked about for thousands of years and yet neither you nor anyone else has the faintest idea of where it is, what it’s like, or if it even exists. Think about that for a minute.....millions of people the world over think they’re going to the same place when they die, yet they don’t have any evidence that the place even exists!




String theory brings up the possibility of other dimensions that we cannot yet see. If we can't see them then we have no idea what may exist there.

Could it be a "Heaven" ? Who knows, but certainly it's a mystery why we can only see three spatial dimensions if more actually exist.


----------



## burglar (15 August 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... Hardly the work of a deity.





Hardly the work of a deity


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> String theory brings up the possibility of other dimensions that we cannot yet see. If we can't see them then we have no idea what may exist there.
> 
> Could it be a "Heaven" ? Who knows, but certainly it's a mystery why we can only see three spatial dimensions if more actually exist.




If string theory is correct, ( it's not even really a theory, it should be called string hypothesis), then it is still impossible for us to know what is in those other dimensions, and any guess we make would most likely be wrong.

Could it be heaven? well who knows if its even possible for a heaven to exist? any stories we make up to fill the gaps are likely be just as false as all the religious stories made up to explain all the other previously unknown things, its best to just say "I don't know" when we don't know.


----------



## burglar (15 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... "I don't know" ...




Here you go again, repeating it over and over.
Pav did not get it the first time or the second or even now.
He doesn't even know that he doesn't know!


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

burglar said:


> Here you go again, repeating it over and over.
> Pav did not get it the first time or the second or even now.
> He doesn't even know that he doesn't know!




To me, those three words are some of the most important words to be able to use, yet the vast majority of people are uncomfortable using them, even in their own thoughts. It's human nature to prefer to fill the gaps with stories or lies rather than admit an unknown. It's a dangerous path though, you can't have Intellectual honesty if you can't own those words.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

> To me, those three words are some of the most important words to be able to use, yet the vast majority of people are uncomfortable using them, even in their own thoughts. It's human nature to prefer to fill the gaps with stories or lies rather than admit an unknown. It's a dangerous path though, you can't have Intellectual honesty if you can't own those words.




Sure, but that hasn't stopped scientists through the ages theorising about things they don't know, eg theories about 'the ether', that the earth is surrounded by a giant dome through which lights shone to appear as stars, that the earth is flat, that the sun revolved around the earth...

No one his disproved the God theory yet, so in terms of the creation of the Universe, its as valid a theory as any other.


----------



## explod (15 August 2014)

Theories, ideas, beliefs and feelings to state a few of the stories made up and written in the Good Books of old.

We are but dust ..."and unto dust thou shalt return" is about the only fact among it all.  And the sun comes up in the morning about sums up the only real truths.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but that hasn't stopped scientists through the ages theorising about things they don't know, eg theories about 'the ether', that the earth is surrounded by a giant dome through which lights shone to appear as stars, that the earth is flat, that the sun revolved around the earth...
> 
> .




There is nothing wrong with coming up with a hypothesis, and then figuring out a way to test it, But you can't claim you know something just because you have a hypothesis. You need to be able to confirm your hypothesis before it can become knowledge, rather than just an unproven hypothesis.



> No one his disproved the God theory yet, so in terms of the creation of the Universe, its as valid a theory as any other




No, the god theory is not just as valid as anything else.

There is no "God theory", You can call it a "God Hypothesis" buts that's all it is, an unproven idea.

In Science, a theory is the highest form of scientific understanding, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.  This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

eg. the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the heliocentric theory etc etc are not the same as your god hypothesis.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> eg. the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the heliocentric theory etc etc are not the same as your god hypothesis.




Fine, I'll call God a hypothesis. What other Creation hypotheses are there ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine, I'll call God a hypothesis. What other Creation hypotheses are there ?




I guess they are only limited by your imagination, each religion has it's own, the aborigines thought a rainbow serpent did it, the Thai's thought spirits churned the earth out of milk and the jews thought a god created man and woman called adam and eve in a magical garden called eden, the maoris thought a god pulled new Zealand out of the ocean with a giant fishing hook.

But there are literally thousands of different ideas and there are many variations of each of those.

They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong, Just as we would be wrong if we tried to speculate what was in the other dimensions if the string hypothesis was correct.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I guess they are only limited by your imagination, each religion has it's own, the aborigines thought a rainbow serpent did it,...




I meant hypotheses by the scientific community.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I meant hypotheses by the scientific community.




I am not aware of any genuine scientists that have a scientifically based hypothesis for the existence of a god, most proponents of the concept are being influenced by pre existing religious ideas they have or are just unscientifically shoving their god it gaps in scientific knowledge because they can't handle saying "I don't Know"

There is a bunch of people trying to get the concept into science class rooms under the name of "Intelligent Design", But these people are using the bible as the basis for their hypothesis, not real science and they don't use the scientific method.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not aware of any genuine scientists that have a scientifically based hypothesis for the existence of a god, most proponents of the concept are being influenced by pre existing religious ideas they have or are just unscientifically shoving their god it gaps in scientific knowledge because they can't handle saying "I don't Know"
> 
> There is a bunch of people trying to get the concept into science class rooms under the name of "Intelligent Design", But these people are using the bible as the basis for their hypothesis, not real science and they don't use the scientific method.




Sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm after alternative hypotheses to the God hypothesis for the creation of the universe by the scientific community; ie how do scientists think the universe was created ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm after alternative hypotheses to the God hypothesis for the creation of the universe by the scientific community; ie how do scientists think the universe was created ?




The universe as we see it now was form out of the big bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang



> The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe.[1] The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.




Scientists don't know what caused the big bang, or what if anything existed before it.

But, there is the Big crunch hypothesis, which is an idea saying the big bang that brought this universe into existence may have been the result of a prior universe collapsing, There is growing support for the idea that the universe may in fact be infinite, which is a difficult concept to understand, and I am not going to pretend to understand it. 

there is probably lots of different hypothesis surrounding what happened before the big bang but I haven't spent a long time looking into the different ones.


----------



## noco (15 August 2014)

Now hear me ye all, I verily say unto you, enjoy life while you have it....eat drink and be merry for our maker is not about to reveal the magic potion that you were made from......stop looking for it......you will never find it.

It is all supposition......he said this........ she said maybe......but at the end of the day nobody is any the  wiser.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

noco said:


> Now hear me ye all, I verily say unto you, enjoy life while you have it....eat drink and be merry for our maker is not about to reveal the magic potion that you were made from......stop looking for it......you will never find it.
> 
> It is all supposition......he said this........ she said maybe......but at the end of the day nobody is any wiser.




That's right cobber, your shout mate


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

noco said:


> but at the end of the day nobody is any the  wiser.




I think we are a lot wiser ( in regards to our origins) now than we ever have been, we are constantly learning new things and finding new pieces to the puzzle.


----------



## noco (15 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think we are a lot wiser ( in regards to our origins) now than we ever have been, we are constantly learning new things and finding new pieces to the puzzle.




Such as?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2014)

noco said:


> Such as?




Smaller and smaller particles. quarks, neutrinos, strange and charmed, gravitons, bosons, anti matter, strings and things, dark forces and dark matter. Seems the further we go into the universe, the stranger it is. 

We don't even know what makes up 95% of the Universe, but at least now we know what we don't know.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

noco said:


> Such as?




So much, the learning curve has been massive in the last hundred years or so.

If you want to know about the origin of the diversity of life, study biology, 200 years ago nobody could explain the diversity of life, now the evolution theory is a well understood concept, we have mapped DNA, traced species through the fossil record, and more information is always coming.

If you want to know about the origin of the planets, and the origin of all the chemical elements astro physics has made countless discoveries in recent times that have been filling in gaps, 70 years ago the chemistry teachers could not have told you where the chemical elements came from, we now have a very good understanding of how they are made, and have made some of our own.

More information about the history of the universe is always coming out, in the past couple of years we have confirmed that there are most likely billions of earth like planets, etc and more is being learned about all the things rumpole said.

Science doesn't stand still, people may ignore it, but it doesn't stand still, new knowledge is always being added.


----------



## noco (15 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Smaller and smaller particles. quarks, neutrinos, strange and charmed, gravitons, bosons, anti matter, strings and things, dark forces and dark matter. Seems the further we go into the universe, the stranger it is.
> 
> We don't even know what makes up 95% of the Universe, but at least now we know what we don't know.




What we do know is there a lot more idiots in the world today than there was 50 years ago.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2014)

noco said:


> What we do know is there a lot more idiots in the world today than there was 50 years ago.




Well the population has grown, so there is also a lot more super smart people.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well the population has grown, so there is also a lot more super smart people.




I wish a few of them were in government.

:cussing:


----------



## bunyip (16 August 2014)

noco said:


> Now hear me ye all, I verily say unto you, enjoy life while you have it....eat drink and be merry for our maker is not about to reveal the magic potion that you were made from......stop looking for it......you will never find it.




Sounds good to me!



Value Collector said:


> I guess they are only limited by your imagination, each religion has it's own, the aborigines thought a rainbow serpent did it, the Thai's thought spirits churned the earth out of milk, the maoris thought a god pulled new Zealand out of the ocean with a giant fishing hook.




None of which are any more absurd that the Adam and Eve story and how the earth and everything on it was created in six days.

I reckon you'd be battling though to find any present day Maoris who still believe the primitive story about the god with a fish hook. And yet there are still billions of people who believe the story of Adam and Eve and creation of the Earth in six days.
Maybe it's the fear of hellfire and eternal damnation that keeps them believing.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2014)

bunyip said:


> .
> 
> I reckon you'd be battling though to find any present day Maoris who still believe the primitive story about the god with a fish hook. And yet there are still billions of people who believe the story of Adam and Eve and creation of the Earth in six days.
> .




lol, maybe if the Maoris had developed guns and started colonising the world first things would be different. 



> Maybe it's the fear of hellfire and eternal damnation that keeps them believing




I think you are probably right. 

When I was in New Zealand, an older Maori gentleman approached me as I was taking some scenic photos, and for about 20mins he explained the local Maoris myth that told how the mountains and valley's I was looking at were formed, and why their are large rocks surrounding the mountain for kilometres. It was actually a fun and interesting tale, and I enjoyed listening to it, it was a much different experience than talking to a fundamentalist Christian, threatening me with hell fire.

( Although anyone with a slight knowledge of geology, would notice straight away that the mountains were actually extint volcanos, and the rocks surrounding it had just been blown out during an eruption ;-) still a fun story when your not being threatened to take it seriously, I enjoy myths and legends, I am just not religious about it)


----------



## bunyip (16 August 2014)

Mass abduction of girls by extremist Islamic group Boko Haram.
Mass abduction of women in Iraq to be sold as slaves.
Mass killings of innocent people in Iraq.
A typhoon in the Philippines that kills thousands.
A bushfire in the Blue Mountains that kills people and destroys homes.
The shooting down of an airliner with the loss of 300 lives.
A major drought in Queensland that kills hundreds of thousands of livestock and causes many suicides among grazing families devastated by the drought.
Millions of Jews die at the hands of the Nazis despite their pleas to God for help. 
And so on and so on.

If any of us on this forum had the power to stop these awful things from happening, would we, as decent compassionate people, do so? I certainly would, and I think most of you would too.

We’re told that the Christian god is full of compassion and love, always on the side of decency and righteousness. He's credited with amazing powers, so powerful in fact that he can control the weather, or smite down whoever he chooses.
So why then is he sitting on his backside, watching all the horrible things happening in the world as he shrugs his shoulders and says ‘_Oh well, too bad’. _
If he’s so compassionate and caring then why is he so indifferent to people suffering? How can he sit by and do nothing while vermin who claim to be acting in his name are slaughtering innocent little kids, beheading innocent men and boys, and abducting innocent women?

Many thousands of people trapped by Islamic State terrorists in the Iraqi mountains have been saved thanks to the compassion and caring of the United States, Australia and Britain. They’d be dead by now if we’d left it to the power of prayer or the compassion of God to save them.
God if he exists should take note......the actions of the Yanks, the Aussies and the Brits are an example of how truly compassionate people act when innocent people need help, as opposed to those who pretend to be compassionate but who shrug their shoulders in indifference when the chips are down. 

If there’s one Christian lie that stands out above all others, it’s the lie about the love and compassion of God. If God exists, then there’s no way in he world that there’s any compassion in him -  the evidence is right there for us to see every day. Actions speak louder than words, and God has a habit of going missing when people are truly in need of help.


----------



## Ron09 (17 August 2014)

Well  greetings  again  all .  

    May  we  look  to  how  important , that  this  subject  is , to  financial  stability ? 

    If , there  is  to  be  continued  prosperity , we  need  to , work  towards , a  social  harmony . 

    How  can  financial  markets , be  sensibly  appraised , amid  such  global  social  disharmony ?


    Times  are  so  rapidly  changing , and  we  need  to  contribute  towards , change  that  brings  stability ,

    such  that , people  can  have  a  social  community , to  enjoy  what  they  have  worked  towards .


    21st  century , and  our  Space Age  now .  We  live  within  a  global  community .  There  is  North 

    American  free  trade , European  Union , I M F , Global Summits , World Health Org. , the Olympics , 

    the World Wide Web ,  etc  etc .  And  there  are  many  negatives , that  work  to  much  smaller  

    communities or  ideas .  This  is  an  opportunity , to  grow , forwards  and  above , the  ancient  

    cultural  separations , that  our  Grandparents  were  born  into .  United  we  Stand , Divided  we  Fail .


    I  myself , as  a  person , owe  my  very  existence , to  what  ever  ideas  or  Faith , that  my  parents

    Grandparents  and  Great  Grandparents , followed  at  their  time .  I  would  not  have  even  been  born ,

    or  been  born  someone  else , had  they  done  any  thing  differently .  I  think  that  this  applies  to  

    us  all . 


    To  me ,  God  is  still , truly  beyond  us  mere  Humans , to  truly  understand . Yet , at  times , I  feel  an

    awe ,  presence , and  a  duty , beyond  me  to  express  in  words .     Just  go  outside ,        and  feel  it .


    These  people , of  other  cultural  traditions , are  mostly  family  people , like  most  of  us .

    One  can  look  to  my  earlier  posts  on  page  111  and  112 .  Lets  look  to , the  opportunity , that  this

    social  incohesion  does  create .   We  are  all  people , the  whole  human  race .   All  of  us .


    Biologically , there  about  seven  billion  of  us  now , who  need  food  water  shelter  education  medicines

    entertainments  etc  etc .  As  a  species , the  whole  human  race , we  need  a  way  of  trading .


    Religion  IS  crazy , that's  a  part  of  our  Human Nature .  If  we  were  all  the  same , it  would  be

                     just  so  boring , we  would  look  for  some  excitement .  To  have  prosperity ,we  need

                                        To  Build  Towards   Some  Harmony . 


     Lets  do  this , for  the  kids .


----------



## DB008 (17 August 2014)

Ron09 said:


> Well  greetings  again  all .
> 
> May  we  look  to  how  important , that  this  subject  is , to  financial  stability ?
> 
> ...




No offence, but that sounds like a wish list or just pie-in-the-sky thoughts.

Can you please share some 'science' to prove your point that there is a God? Sorry, bible does not cut the mustard.


----------



## Ruby (17 August 2014)

Ron, no offence meant, but could you use fewer commas please?


----------



## Trevor_S (28 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I would agree with you if Santa and the Easter bunny were supported by historical and archaeological evidence.



Wait..  What?  There is archaeological evidence for God, let's have it then or I am calling bull**** on that.  Or are you saying there is archaeological evidence that someone, probably suffering schizophrenia, believed in a hobgoblin in the sky ? 

I don't argue with the religious but this is just taking the piss. The tooth fairy, Easter Bunny,  Father Christmas analogy is sound.

Faith is anti reason and the sooner belief in Religion is added to the DSM as a physiological disorder,  the better humanity will be.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2014)

[video=youtube_share;1df_i26wh-w]http://youtu.be/1df_i26wh-w[/video]

Hard to believe parents could turn on a child in that way.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> [video=youtube_share;1df_i26wh-w]http://youtu.be/1df_i26wh-w[/video]
> 
> Hard to believe parents could turn on a child in that way.




Don't yew jerst lerve them good ole southern rednecks ?


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't yew jerst lerve them good ole southern rednecks ?




I just don't know how people can claim to be such God fearing Christians yet their actions are so far away from anything Jesus did or commanded his followers to do.

1 Timothy 5:8 - Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and *is worse than an unbeliever*.

No idea if these parents are Christian, but one can only wish their attitude was more prevalent in society.


----------



## bunyip (1 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I just don't know how people can claim to be such God fearing Christians yet their actions are so far away from anything Jesus did or commanded his followers to do.
> 
> 1 Timothy 5:8 - Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and *is worse than an unbeliever*.




I note your bolds for the words '*is worse than an unbeliever'*, as if to suggest that people who don't believe in the Christian god are somehow horrible and wicked people.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> I note your bolds for the words '*is worse than an unbeliever'*, as if to suggest that people who don't believe in the Christian god are somehow horrible and wicked people.




My intention was to show that too many people who proclaim to be Christians show less charity than the unbeliever, or from the King James Version, the infidels.

If you're going to hold up the bible as a reason to hate a family member for beign gay, and basically kick them out, then you should at least understand just how against those Christian values you're supposedly exposing.

As VC and others have said, you don't need to be religious to be a good person, though some extremely religious groups believe even good deeds by a non believer are sinful.

It's the double standards that gets me.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2014)

There are obviously parts of the Bible and Koran which were written for the times and which are now inapplicable and embarrassing to moderate religious organisations today.

It should be incumbent on what passes for the religious hierarchies to identify and expunge those particular passages, so that they don't get latched onto by extremists and used for evil purposes.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> If you're going to hold up the bible as a reason to hate a family member for beign gay, and basically kick them out, then you should at least understand just how against those Christian values you're supposedly exposing.
> 
> .




I think it's a perfectly Christian way to act. 

Luke 14 - 26 : Jesus says "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"

So if you really believe the word of jesus and the bible, you have to be always willing to turn your back on family, and yes "Hate" them.


I am often amused when people say things like " Well that's not very Christian" or "I never thought they would do that, they are religious" when the very actions they are doing are condoned under their texts.

My Dad actually said something like that a few months ago, His friends business is next to a church and church members had parked across his driveway and blocked him in, When he asked them to move it he got attacked and received a broken nose. 

My dads comment was "Well that's not very religious of them" I laughed and said "Dad, some of the most religious people in the world will cut your head of and upload the picture to twitter, why does a broken nose shock you"

It goes back to society in general giving the religious among us unearned respect, society seems to respect anyone who labels them selves religious, so we are shocked when they act badly. Saying "I am a Christian" or "I am deeply religious" should not be a respect generating admission, At best it should mean nothing, and at worst should set of alarm bells.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> though some extremely religious groups believe even good deeds by a non believer are sinful.
> 
> It's the double standards that gets me.




Yes, a guy recently uploaded a video on youtube in response to Jaclyn Glenn (a well non atheist) doing the ice bucket challenge and donating to charity.

He basically said it's ok that she donated to charity, But because she is an atheist it doesn't count, because she didn't do it for the glory of god, so nothing she does should be considered good, because it's not the act that counts, its gods opinion of the act.

here is Jaclyn glenn responding to the guys video.


----------



## FxTrader (1 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, a guy recently uploaded a video on youtube in response to Jaclyn Glenn (a well non atheist) doing the ice bucket challenge and donating to charity.
> 
> He basically said it's ok that she donated to charity, But because she is an atheist it doesn't count, because she didn't do it for the glory of god, so nothing she does should be considered good, because it's not the act that counts, its gods opinion of the act.



The problem is not that this religious moron believes what he said in his video is true, it's just more poisonous Christian doctrine regurgitated by an indoctrinated drone, but that he is largely correct in his interpretation of what his magic book says about the uselessness of good deeds performed by the unbeliever!

That many Christians believe this stuff should not surprise anyone, it's not an aberration, it's doctrine preached from pulpits around the globe and embraced by the flock.  For the religious, morality, good deeds, philanthropy etc. only have meaning in context of the existence of a divine celestial dictator from which anything truly good must emanate and to whom the credit must always be given (a heavenly version of Kim Jong Un). 

The amusing (or disturbing if you wish) thing, as pointed out by Jaclyn, is that you don't have to perform a single good deed to inherit eternity, just have some measure of belief in the resurrection story at any stage and bingo, free ticket to paradise (no virgins included though).  Such is the warped logic and wishful thinking of captives to religious superstition.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2014)

Ron09 said:


> Well  greetings  again  all .
> 
> 
> These  people , of  other  cultural  traditions , are  mostly  family  people , like  most  of  us .
> ...




I'm trying to think of other cultural traditions that don't involve violence, bloodshed, weapons, misogyny, slave trading, guile, rape. murder, etc and I haven't even mentioned countries outside the USA where things really go pear shaped where they routinely massacre their own people, behead soldiers, blow people to smithereens and that's just getting Ireland into the picture...!!!


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2014)

> I'm trying to think of other cultural traditions that don't involve violence, bloodshed, weapons, misogyny, slave trading, guile, rape. murder, etc




Rugby League and AFL come to mind, in a milder sort of way


----------



## sydboy007 (3 September 2014)

a pretty good debunking of most anti gay religious arguments

[video=youtube_share;cHxfFfyFdKA]http://youtu.be/cHxfFfyFdKA[/video]


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Rugby League and AFL come to mind, in a milder sort of way




But with the AFL religion the code and rules were in response to a fitness need during off season cricket. Older religions are escutcheons for the human stain predating the codification. Once the rally call goes out every knucklehead who is bored working as a serf for the man, throws down the tools, leaves the family in search of bloodlust ....come to think of it, it does sound like a Collingwood supporter doesn't it


----------



## bunyip (3 September 2014)

FxTrader said:


> The problem is not that this religious moron believes what he said in his video is true, it's just more poisonous Christian doctrine regurgitated by an indoctrinated drone, but that he is largely correct in his interpretation of what his magic book says about the uselessness of good deeds performed by the unbeliever!
> 
> That many Christians believe this stuff should not surprise anyone, it's not an aberration, it's doctrine preached from pulpits around the globe and embraced by the flock.  For the religious, morality, good deeds, philanthropy etc. only have meaning in context of the existence of a divine celestial dictator from which anything truly good must emanate and to whom the credit must always be given (a heavenly version of Kim Jong Un).
> 
> The amusing (or disturbing if you wish) thing, as pointed out by Jaclyn, is that you don't have to perform a single good deed to inherit eternity, just have some measure of belief in the resurrection story at any stage and bingo, free ticket to paradise (no virgins included though).  Such is the warped logic and wishful thinking of captives to religious superstition.



Our friend Pav probably agrees with the brainwashed clown in that video - Pav thinks everyone is selfish and wicked and that decency and good deeds count for nothing.

I remember years ago when I enlisted the help of our church congregation to assist a struggling widow with three small children who had just moved an old dilapidated house on to a block of land she’d bought. The house was barely livable but she had no money to renovate it or put the power or water on. 
Some of our church congregation were electricians, plumbers, fencers, roofers, builders – a few dozen of us, including many women, descended on her house and in one weekend we completely renovated it, put in new windows, fixed the roof, installed a second hand kitchen, wired and plumbed it, pulled out a wall to enlarge a room, fixed up the fencing, all with materials donated from local businesses.
Next Sunday in church we were commended by the minister for our efforts. But in that same church service he told us, as usual, that we were sinners who needed to beg forgiveness from God!



pavilion103 said:


> Christianity is nothing about being a "good person".
> How do you even define it?
> 
> God's definition of good is what good truly is.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2014)

> Next Sunday in church we were commended by the minister for our efforts. But in that same church service he told us, as usual, that we were sinners who needed to beg forgiveness from God!




So why bother doing good deeds ?

Religion is just a power play, the muftis and priests have to get their power surge from the obedient serfs of their flock. No wonder more people are seeing through the deception.


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So why bother doing good deeds ?




There are a lot of religious folk who don't trouble them selves with helping others.

there are many sects of monks etc that believe the path to heaven is to live in isolation in a monastery, and basically ignore the outside world, preferring to spend hours a day praying, any other works are meaningless.


----------



## DB008 (5 September 2014)

*Group: Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say 'so help me God'*



> An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied reenlistment last month for refusing to take an oath containing “so help me God,” the American Humanist Association said Thursday.






> And in a Sept. 2 letter to the inspectors general for the Air Force and Creech, Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA’s Apignani Humanist Legal Center, said the airman should be allowed to reenlist without having to swear to a deity, and instead given a secular oath. Miller said the AHA is prepared to sue if the airman is not allowed to reenlist.
> 
> According to the AHA, the unnamed airman was told Aug. 25 that the Air Force would not accept his contract because he had crossed out the phrase “so help me God.” The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,” or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.




http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140904/NEWS05/309040066/Group-Airman-denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-


----------



## Duckman#72 (5 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> It's the double standards that gets me.




Completely agree. But it is the double standards of people not religion.

Duckman


----------



## Value Collector (6 September 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Completely agree. But it is the double standards of people not religion.
> 
> Duckman




Plenty of double standards in religions, not just individual people.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY[/video]


----------



## bunyip (6 September 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Completely agree. But it is the double standards of people not religion.
> 
> Duckman






Religions are primarily made up of people - take the people out of any religion and it would cease to exist.

To suggest there's no double standards in religion is absurd. Particularly in your religion – Catholicism. I could fill a book writing about the double standards in the attitudes and actions of the Catholic religion.

The Christian bible itself is full of contradictions and double standards. '_*Thou shalt not kill'*_...and yet there are lots of biblical stories that glorify killing the population of entire cities, quite often at the express instruction and with the blessing of God. 
In fact God himself clearly has double standards - _*if*_ he exists and we believe what the bible tells us about him not only ordering and condoning mass murder, but being an accomplished killer himself.
And not just any killer either, he was clearly a serial killer and cold blooded murderer of thousands of innocent people, many of them small children.


----------



## noco (6 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> Religions are primarily made up of people - take the people out of any religion and it would cease to exist.
> 
> To suggest there's no double standards in religion is absurd. Particularly in your religion – Catholicism. I could fill a book writing about the double standards in the attitudes and actions of the Catholic religion.
> 
> ...




And it is very clearly mentioned in the Koran......The non-believers of the Koran must be killed which embraces Christians and Infidels.....So we have over one billion Muslims who must kill the other five billion Islamic non-believers......They sure have a big task ahead.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n_the_koran_says_kill_can_islam_ever_be_safe/


----------



## Muschu (6 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> There are a lot of religious folk who don't trouble them selves with helping others.....




Good point.  And there are perhaps as many or more non-religious folk who also don't bother to help others.

My respect is for folk who put others' needs before their own. People of principle without a selfish base.

What is the ultimate point of accumulating a massive number of dollars?  

In my opinion it is in learning the best way to share the fortune of living a privileged life.

PS.. I don't have a religious stance, or a non-religious one.  I simply "Don't know" despite my trials, investigations and studies.  I'd like to be a person of certainty but doubt that I will get there.


----------



## Value Collector (7 September 2014)

Muschu said:


> Good point.  And there are perhaps as many or more non-religious folk who also don't bother to help others.
> .




Yep, so knowing some one is religious doesn't assist you in anyway in knowing what the persons character is, and know the person is irreligious doesn't give you any information either. So we shouldn't give any person respect just because they are religious, nor should we disrespect folk just because they are non religious




> What is the ultimate point of accumulating a massive number of dollars?




Generally to help provide for yourself and your family, and ensure your not a burden on society, also generally in order to accumulate dollars you have to be providing goods or services, so in the process you are providing for others.

Outside of that it can be fun, I have always enjoyed making money, I guess its like my favourite game, some like football, i enjoy business and finance.




> PS.. I don't have a religious stance, or a non-religious one.  I simply "Don't know" despite my trials, investigations and studies.  I'd like to be a person of certainty but doubt that I will get there




Welcome to the club of "Agnostic Atheists"


----------



## Value Collector (7 September 2014)

noco said:


> And it is very clearly mentioned in the Koran......The non-believers of the Koran must be killed which embraces Christians and Infidels.....So we have over one billion Muslims who must kill the other five billion Islamic non-believers......They sure have a big task ahead.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n_the_koran_says_kill_can_islam_ever_be_safe/




Yes, and there are similar versus in the bible.

People often charge the qu'ran with hate messages to kill non believers, and its true it does say that, but so does the bible.

if fact there is not a single message of hate in the qu'ran that is not exactly mirrored in the bible.


----------



## noco (7 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, and there are similar versus in the bible.
> 
> People often charge the qu'ran with hate messages to kill non believers, and its true it does say that, but so does the bible.
> 
> if fact there is not a single message of hate in the qu'ran that is not exactly mirrored in the bible.




I am agnostic but I would be interested to learned of these similar quotes from the Koran and the Bible.

Does the Bible mention the killing of infidels by beheading?


----------



## DB008 (7 September 2014)

noco said:


> I am agnostic but I would be interested to learned of these similar quotes from the Koran and the Bible.
> 
> Does the Bible mention the killing of infidels by beheading?




Beheading?
No

Murder?
Yes



> Kill Nonbelievers
> They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)






> Death to Followers of Other Religions
> Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)






> Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
> Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)






> Kill Followers of Other Religions.
> 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
> 
> 2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)






> Infidels and Gays Should Die
> So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)


----------



## bellenuit (7 September 2014)

*The phantom menace of militant atheism*

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nt-atheism-religious-apologists-intellectuals


----------



## noco (7 September 2014)

DB008 said:


> Beheading?
> No
> 
> Murder?
> Yes




Thank you for the trouble you have gone to establish those readings, however, whilst that may be the written word in the Bible, would it have from the new or the old testament?

Of course while those words have been quoted, they nevertheless are not executed in modern society today.

Of course as most of us know the Bible does also quote in the ten commandments "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".

So how does that work?......it sort of contradicts itself.


----------



## FxTrader (7 September 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *The phantom menace of militant atheism*
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nt-atheism-religious-apologists-intellectuals



Thanks for bringing this excellent commentary to everyone's attention here.  Reading it was a breath of fresh air and a rebuke to the religious apologists here including those who have attempted to use the term "militant atheism" to caricature those who identify as atheists as some kind of evil, morally bankrupt, intolerant and oppressive collective entity. My favorite excerpts:

On the assertion that atheism is a type of religion or religious position...



> The occasional dogmatism that followed apparently makes atheism "like a religion". It's not a charge I'd throw around if I were seeking to defend faith. When people say of dozens of political and cultural movements from monetarism to Marxism that their followers treat their cause "like a religion", they never mean it as a compliment. They mean that dumb obedience to higher authority and an obstinate attachment to dogma mark its adherents.



When the religious brand atheism as a religion they are unwittingly demeaning themselves since the normal intention of doing this is meant to be an insult and not a declaration of equivalence.

On the claim religion is necessary for moral clarity…



> Meanwhile, I'm losing count of and patience with the apologists who tell me there would be no morality without religion. The failure of the serious press and BBC to question this is as shocking as it is depressing. We are almost 150 years on from the moment in 1867 when Matthew Arnold heard the sea of faith's "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar" on Dover Beach. Are religious writers suggesting mid-Victorian Britain was a more moral country in its treatment of women, homosexuals and the poor?



As Hitches opined, there is no moral impulse that a religious person can have that an atheist can’t.  The major religions have no God given monopoly on defining what is moral nor should they and their magic books are certainly not the best guide available to us today on what constitutes moral behavior.  Finally, on the subject of being tolerant and polite to religious fanaticism…



> Since 9/11, western intellectuals have had a choice. They could have taken on militant religion, exposed its texts, decried its doctrines and found arguments to persuade young British men not to go to Syria and slaughter "heretics". But religious fanatics might have retaliated. Instead, they chose the safe option of attacking the phantom menace of militant atheists, who would never harm them. Leaving all philosophical and moral objections aside, they have been the most awful cowards.




Indeed, it's time to challenge, not appease, the fraud that is religion in its various forms.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

noco said:


> Does the Bible mention the killing of infidels by beheading?




No the bible seems to be more fond of stoning people to death, i guess that just represents the changes in fashion and culture over the centuries that separated the three major texts, eg bible part 1, bible part 2 and part 3 the Quran.

Another poster has already given you a decent run down of the verses condoning murder.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

noco said:


> Thank you for the trouble you have gone to establish those readings, however, whilst that may be the written word in the Bible, would it have from the new or the old testament?
> .




Most of the commandments for killing come from the original bible, which is exactly where the 10 commandments come from.

But they are endorsed by Jesus in the New Testament, when Jesus says that none of the original laws are to be changed, Also, which book do you think Jesus read and preached from, the New Testament wasn't written until one hundred years after Jesus died.



O







> f course while those words have been quoted, they nevertheless are not executed in modern society today



.

If you mean developed countries, then yes i agree, however thats a pretty recent thing, never forget how they acted when they had the power, also there are Christian terrorists, and Christians are still killing and burning people in the name of Jesus in less developed countries, children and adults in underdeveloped countries are still being killed for witch craft etc.



> Of course as most of us know the Bible does also quote in the ten commandments "THOU SHALT NOT KILL"



.

Yep its the big book of multiple choice, if you want to love your neighbour, read that verse, if you want to kill him, read the verse that tells you to kill him if you see him work on sunday.





> So how does that work?......it sort of contradicts itself




Yep both the bible and Quran are full of contradictions, the Quran bans killing too, hence its moderates think its the religion of peace, just as Christians think that of their brand.


----------



## noco (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Most of the commandments for killing come from the original bible, which is exactly where the 10 commandments come from.
> 
> But they are endorsed by Jesus in the New Testament, when Jesus says that none of the original laws are to be changed, Also, which book do you think Jesus read and preached from, the New Testament wasn't written until one hundred years after Jesus died.
> 
> ...




I can now understand why this thread is so appropriately named...."RELIGION IS CRAZY". 

It was in my late teens when I converted from a Christian to an Agnostic...I became disillusioned with religion and the people whom I was mixing with.......most of them were hypocrites and used religion as a shadow to cover their sins.....I was once married to a Roman Catholic who converted to Jehovah Witness...the rest is history.


----------



## dutchie (8 September 2014)

Auction of IS flag at mosque raising concerns 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...raising-concerns/story-fni0cwl5-1227050707494

Why on earth would Australia risk importing more of this?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

dutchie said:


> Auction of IS flag at mosque raising concerns
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...raising-concerns/story-fni0cwl5-1227050707494
> 
> Why on earth would Australia risk importing more of this?




Shutting that mosque down for a month or two might give them the idea that such actions are unacceptable


----------



## Muschu (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ?........Welcome to the club of "Agnostic Atheists"




Thanks VC but not wanting to be in any Club at this time.


----------



## bunyip (8 September 2014)

noco said:


> Thank you for the trouble you have gone to establish those readings, however, whilst that may be the written word in the Bible, would it have from the new or the old testament?
> 
> Of course while those words have been quoted, they nevertheless are not executed in modern society today.
> 
> ...




Yes, the Bible contradicts itself over and over again. It's only a nice book with good advice if you cherry pick the decent parts and leave out the bad parts, as Christians like to do.
I took bible classes over a period of several months when I was a teenager, and not once did the classes touch on the horrible parts of the bible, of which there are many.

In school libraries you wouldn't find a book that condones murder and rape and slavery, but the Bible glorifies all three of these horrible crimes and yet is standard issue in most schools!


----------



## bunyip (8 September 2014)

DB008 said:


> Infidels and Gays Should Die
> So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)




The bible sure is strident in its condemnation of gay people.
So are most religions, including the Catholic religion – in theory at least. But in practice the RCC rewards and protects gay priests who rape innocent young boys. It preaches one thing and then does the opposite. 
Friend Duckman, of course, wouldn’t see this as an example of double standards in religion.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

Muschu said:


> Thanks VC but not wanting to be in any Club at this time.




lol, there is no actual club, It was just a figure of speech, I was just pointing out from what your saying, you seem to be an "agnostic Atheist", because you said you don't believe in a god (so that's atheism) but also said you don't know if one exists ( which is agnosticism), which makes you an agnostic atheist.


----------



## Tisme (8 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> the RCC rewards and protects gay priests who rape innocent young boys. :




I have been told by a strident gay man on another forum that male paedophiles committing acts on boys should not be confused with homosexuals. By logical suggestion, apparently same sex paedophilia is a hetrosexual act so your use of the word "gay" is misplaced .........


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> But in practice the RCC rewards and protects gay priests who rape innocent young boys. It preaches one thing and then does the opposite.
> Friend Duckman, of course, wouldn’t see this as an example of double standards in religion.




Most likely he would use the defence he eluded too, "That's people, not religion"

eg. Christian man feeds the homeless, "That's religion". Christian priests rape boy "that's not religion, that's just people" or a Christian family reject their gay son "that's not religion, that's just people". even though in the later case it can be shown that many religions actually preach anti gay sermons, and the foundation texts mention killing gays.

Any good actions by members of the flock are always directly attributed to the faith, Any Bad actions by members of the flock are always attributed to the person. It's confirmation bias.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> I have been told by a strident gay man on another forum that male paedophiles committing acts on boys should not be confused with homosexuals. By logical suggestion, apparently same sex paedophilia is a hetrosexual act so your use of the word "gay" is misplaced .........




Yes, they should not be confused with regular homosexual males, just like a paedophile having sex with little girls shouldn't be confused with regular hetrosexual males. But, the priest that has sex with a little boy is engaging in a gay sexual act.

I think the point the "strident gay man" was trying to make was that homosexuals are not automatically paedophiles, just like hetros aren't. Gays wanting to adopt children often struggle against this stigma. My own father who is not generally a bigot expressed a concern during a discussion that if gays were allowed to adopt, they may molest the little boys, I tried to explain that there is no greater risk to that than there is a straight man adopting and molesting a female baby.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> I have been told by a strident gay man on another forum that male paedophiles committing acts on boys should not be confused with homosexuals. By logical suggestion, apparently same sex paedophilia is a hetrosexual act so your use of the word "gay" is misplaced .........




rob1966 ?

Yes, I remember him saying that...


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

noco said:


> I converted from a Christian to an Agnostic....




when you say that do you mean you became an atheist, or are you just an Agnostic Theist now?

eg. do you still believe in a god but you have just given up the Christian concepts.


----------



## Tisme (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> My own father who is not generally a bigot expressed a concern during a discussion that if gays were allowed to adopt, they may molest the little boys, I tried to explain that there is no greater risk to that than there is a straight man adopting and molesting a female baby.




I think recent events with homosexual/paedophile surrogate dads masquerading as decent hetrosexuals may indicate your father might be onto something there.


----------



## bunyip (8 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> I have been told by a strident gay man on another forum that male paedophiles committing acts on boys should not be confused with homosexuals. By logical suggestion, apparently same sex paedophilia is a hetrosexual act so your use of the word "gay" is misplaced .........





Whether we use the word 'gay' or not, the fact is that it's a blatant double standard for a religion to preach that homosexuality is a sin, and then for that same religion to protect and reward priests who sexually assault innocent little children of their own gender.
Apart from the thousands of sexual assaults on little boys within the RCC, logic tells me that there must be considerable homosexual activity between gay priests, and that it would be well known by the church. 
Nothing is done about it, despite the strident condemnation of homosexuality in Catholic doctrine.
As I've always said, actions speak louder that words, and religions would have more credibility if they practised what they preach.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> I think recent events with homosexual/paedophile surrogate dads masquerading as decent hetrosexuals may indicate your father might be onto something there.




There have been heterosexual men (in fact its the majority of sexual assaults on children are by heterosexual males) who molested their adopted daughters, should we refrain from allowing couples where one of the members is a heterosexual male from adopting children?

there has also been Heterosexual females who have molested little boys, perhaps heterosexual females shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

My point is, simply being gay doesn't increase your chances of being a paedophile any more than being straight does.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> My point is, simply being gay doesn't increase your chances of being a paedophile any more than being straight does.




Terrible things have been done to children by both gay and straight parents, whether biological or adopted.

There are other reasons for denying adoption to homosexuals. eg Lack of parental balance, lack of role models, alien environment for heterosexual children to be bought up in, etc.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

Female sexual predators exist. It's not a gay thing and it's not just men either.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There are other reasons for denying adoption to homosexuals. eg Lack of parental balance, lack of role models, alien environment for heterosexual children to be bought up in, etc.




They are not good reasons at all.

Plenty of children have been raised by only a mother or a father, so two mothers or two fathers shouldn't be an issue. 

Why can't gay people be good roles models? there is nothing stopping gay people being great parents, and being heterosexual doesn't automatically make you a good role model.

and whats this about alien environment? Gay children are raised in heterosexual homes all the time, Are you saying that if a test could be done on a baby that showed he or she was gay, then that baby shouldn't be adopted by heterosexuals?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> and whats this about alien environment? Gay children are raised in heterosexual homes all the time, Are you saying that if a test could be done on a baby that showed he or she was gay, then that baby shouldn't be adopted by heterosexuals?




Yes, and in many cases it is confusing and contradictory for them, and if they were born into that family they have little choice. So why deliberately make heterosexual children put up with the same confusion in an adoptive family ?


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and in many cases it is confusing and contradictory for them, and if they were born into that family they have little choice. So why deliberately make heterosexual children put up with the same confusion in an adoptive family ?




So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?


----------



## Julia (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> there has also been Heterosexual females who have molested little boys,



Such a situation is extremely rare compared with the number of adult males who assault children of both genders.

I think the whole surrogacy issue needs to be clamped down on.  There have already been too many examples of males using vulnerable, poverty-stricken females as surrogates to provide them with children whose future will be uncertain at best.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?



The above is out of character with your usual rational debate.  You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

Julia said:


> The above is out of character with your usual rational debate.  You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.




I think its completely rational, his argument was that its unfair to allow straight children to be raised by gay parents. By that logic  it would be unfair for gay children to be raised by straight parents, its "confusing" in his words.

I don't agree, I think parents of either sexuality can raise children of either sexuality. But using his logic, if it were possible to determine sexuality of a baby, giving a gay baby to straight parents would be immoral.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?




Interesting question. Would you be in favour of a mother having an abortion if that test indicated her baby would be gay ? Most parents want grandchildren of their own offspring so I suggest that such a test would be used to filter gays out of the population if it was available.

All else being equal, I think that a loving family with a father and mother provides the best environment for raising children.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Such a situation is extremely rare compared with the number of adult males who assault children of both genders.
> 
> I think the whole surrogacy issue needs to be clamped down on.  There have already been too many examples of males using vulnerable, poverty-stricken females as surrogates to provide them with children whose future will be uncertain at best.




Yes, female sexual predators are rare, by far the most common sexual predators are straight males.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, female sexual predators are rare, by far the most common sexual predators are straight males.




True, but there have been a number of cases of mothers pimping their children in prostitution rings, which amounts to child abuse.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting question. .




Yes and you didn't answer it.




> Would you be in favour of a mother having an abortion if that test indicated her baby would be gay ? Most parents want grandchildren of their own offspring so I suggest that such a test would be used to filter gays out of the population if it was available



.


No, I wouldn't be in favour of an abortion of a foetus simply because of its sexuality, but thats not my choice and its not the topic of the current discussion.

If my child was gay I would love him or her with all my heart just the same, and welcome their partner into my family. The fact that I am straight wouldn't stop me being a supportive father, and i think a gay couple are just as capable of raising a child as myself and my partner.



> All else being equal, I think that a loving family with a father and mother provides the best environment for raising children




Is that based on a body of evidence, or just your opinion? 

I think there is so much more to what makes a good family home than the gender of the parents, i have seen quite a few interviews of children that were raised by gay parents and they are overwhelmingly positive.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> True, but there have been a number of cases of mothers pimping their children in prostitution rings, which amounts to child abuse.




Yes, i don't think anyone would disagree that that was child abuse of the highest level. 

So with the evidence suggesting that both males and females are capable of sexual child abuse, and by far most sexual assaults are conducted by straight males, what reason (other than bigotry) do we have for trying to disqualify gay men and women based on the charge of sexual assault risk?

I am happy to entertain any other reason that can be shown to be valid, but I think the paedophila arguments need to be put to bed, other wise we must admit that couples with a member who is a straight male must also be disqualified.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So with the evidence suggesting that both males and females are capable of sexual child abuse, and by far most sexual assaults are conducted by straight males, what reason (other than bigotry) do we have for trying to disqualify gay men and women based on the charge of sexual assault risk?




Very little, but as I said, all the other factors like role models, balanced male/female outlooks add up to heterosexuals providing a more complete environment for children in the normal course of events.

There could be exceptional circumstances if a child has been abused by for examples males, and has a fear of males that can't be overcome, for that child to be placed with a lesbian couple, but these situations would be the exceptions.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Very little, but as I said, all the other factors like role models, balanced male/female outlooks add up to heterosexuals providing a more complete environment for children in the normal course of events.
> 
> .




As I said though, many households only have a mother or a father, surely a household with two mothers or two fathers could be just as capable or even more capable of raising children. And the children would still be exposed to other sexes outlook through extended family, family friends etc. 

I have a few cousins who were raised by single parents, and they turned out fine,


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I have a few cousins who were raised by single parents, and they turned out fine,




That is a false argument, trying to judge a whole by an observation of a part, and a very small one at that.

Certainly a lot of single parents raise fine children, it's also been shown that a lot of children of single parents suffer from a lack of role models from the missing parent.

Single parenthood is a less than ideal arrangement, brought about by unforeseen and unwanted circumstances, and it can't be compared to a planned arrangement like adoption.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> .
> 
> Single parenthood is a less than ideal arrangement, brought about by unforeseen and unwanted circumstances, and it can't be compared to a planned arrangement like adoption.




No, there are many cases where single parenthood is planned.

There is even cases of single mothers having ivf, and i would have to research it but i am sure i have heard of single women adopting.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_YpxX1swas[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, there are many cases where single parenthood is planned.
> 
> There is even cases of single mothers having ivf, and i would have to research it but i am sure i have heard of single women adopting.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_YpxX1swas[/video]




Just because things have been done doesn't mean they should be done. The IVF and surrogacy trade is all about making money. The welfare of the children doesn't enter into it.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Just because things have been done doesn't mean they should be done. The IVF and surrogacy trade is all about making money. The welfare of the children doesn't enter into it.




So you don't agree with Ivf either?


----------



## Muschu (8 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> lol, there is no actual club, It was just a figure of speech, I was just pointing out from what your saying, you seem to be an "agnostic Atheist", because you said you don't believe in a god (so that's atheism) but also said you don't know if one exists ( which is agnosticism), which makes you an agnostic atheist.




Of course there is no actual club.. I just did not want to be inferentially grouped.

You didn't really get my point and that may have been my fault.  I didn't have the time or interest in a longer reply.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't agree with Ivf either?




Here is a young woman who is the product of a single woman using donated sperm to make a baby, she explains how she is fine with it, and actually actively defends the process.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh9r5M4QKUc[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't agree with Ivf either?




No, as I said it's a commercial process in which the rights of children, specifically the rights to know and be raised by their biological parents, are deprecated.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No, as I said it's a commercial process in which the rights of children, specifically the rights to know and be raised by their biological parents, are deprecated.




To an extent, religious bigotry against gays is on topic here.  Otherwise perhaps this particular spat should be carried on elsewhere.

The religious love to hold onto the notion that the "traditional" family (husband/wife) is best for children but do so for religious reasons and not because it's always best for the children's welfare.  They abhor any deviation from their imaginary God's perfect order for the family unit and indoctrinate their children with this prejudice.  Society has generally moved on from such dogma but the religious continue their campaign for religious based traditions based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls.  After all, only a sky God of some description knows best how humans should interact with one another or has the authority to determine this right?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

FxTrader said:


> To an extent, religious bigotry against gays is on topic here.  Otherwise perhaps this particular spat should be carried on elsewhere.
> 
> The religious love to hold onto the notion that the "traditional" family (husband/wife) is best for children but do so for religious reasons and not because it's always best for the children's welfare.  They abhor any deviation from their imaginary God's perfect order for the family unit and indoctrinate their children with this prejudice.  Society has generally moved on from such dogma but the religious continue their campaign for religious based traditions based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls.  After all, only a sky God of some description knows best how humans should interact with one another or has the authority to determine this right?




The problem with your argument is that I'm not religious.

I don't like the fact that some people born of ivf or surrogacy have to search for years to find their biological parents (if they ever do), get their medical history and determine their lineage. These are things you and I take for granted but for children of IVF and surrogacy they have no such rights, and I ask you what right do you have to deny them these things ?

As for bigotry against gays, the points above apply to both gay and heterosexual people who have children by those methods.

All your talk about "sky gods" is so much piffle which is irrelevant to this debate.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The problem with your argument is that I'm not religious.



Yet you post drivel about "radical" atheists and their imaginated oppression of religion and religious freedom.  My argument was against religious dogma in general with respect to the traditional family unit.



> I don't like the fact that some people born of ivf or surrogacy have to search for years to find their biological parents (if they ever do), get their medical history and determine their lineage. These are things you and I take for granted but for children of IVF and surrogacy they have no such rights, and I ask you what right do you have to deny them these things ? As for bigotry against gays, the points above apply to both gay and heterosexual people who have children by those methods.  All your talk about "sky gods" is so much piffle which is irrelevant to this debate.



I kindly remind you again that the IVF/surrogacy debate is clearly off topic here, either create a new thread or stay on topic please.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Yet you post drivel about "radical" atheists and their imaginated oppression of religion and religious freedom.  My argument was against religious dogma in general with respect to the traditional family unit.




There are such things as radical atheists who want to destroy religious freedom. Lots of religions have dirty laundry which needs to be washed, but a lot of good people are religious and shouldn't be condemned en masse.



> I kindly remind you again that the IVF/surrogacy debate is clearly off topic here, either create a new thread or stay on topic please.




The usual tactic of someone who knows he has lost an argument.

I've said all I've wanted to say on IVF/surrogacy, but if someone else wants to start another thread, I'll contribute.

Others have made comments on the ivf or surrogacy issue, but you appear to have singled me out because I previously made comments supporting some aspects of religion which differ from your own. I see that as prejudicial harassment.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There are such things as radical atheists who want to destroy religious freedom.



These radical atheists are a figment of your imagination, created to attack a false perception of what atheism and atheists stand for.



> Lots of religions have dirty laundry which needs to be washed, but a lot of good people are religious and shouldn't be condemned en masse.



You grossly understate and underestimate the impact of religion on human society with your "dirty laundry" metaphor. The poisonous implications of believing things strongly for bad reasons on bad evidence should be clear to any objective, rational person.  

You erect yet another straw man to attack, I don't condemn anyone en masse and never have.  I do attack religion and the organizations which perpetuate religious mythology for good reason.



> The usual tactic of someone who knows he has lost an argument.



What a silly, egotistical statement.  I never entered into your off topic argument on IVF and surrogacy nor did I ever intend to.



> I've said all I've wanted to say on IVF/surrogacy...



At last and none to soon!



> Others have made comments on the ivf or surrogacy issue, but you appear to have singled me out because I previously made comments supporting some aspects of religion which differ from your own. I see that as prejudicial harassment.



LOL, how ridiculous. I have merely stated the obvious that your off topic diversion is best expressed elsewhere.  Play the victim if you wish but it's undignified posturing on your part and totally unjustified.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

> These radical atheists are a figment of your imagination, created to attack a false perception of what atheism and atheists stand for.




Richard Dawkins made a statement that people who have a religious belief are "mentally ill".

That sounds pretty radical to me.

Did you vote for Tony Abbott by any chance ? He's a confirmed Catholic, as is Malcolm Turnbull.

Is this country being run by madmen ?



> What a silly, egotistical statement. I never entered into your off topic argument on IVF and surrogacy nor did I ever intend to.




You simply sought to deflect and disparage an argument with silly accusations and waffle about "sky gods".


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There are such things as radical atheists who want to destroy religious freedom.




No, most atheists are involved in protecting religious freedoms, however the average religious person doesn't respect religious freedom or understand what it means, So when they see an atheist trying to protect religious freedom by stopping the religious groups forcing religion onto others and the government, they think we are taking their rights away, when in fact they never had the right to force religion onto others.

Society has the right to not have other religions forced on them, and it also has the right to have no religion, that is what religious freedom means. So if I say "No, you can't inject your religion into a public school" I am not taking away religious rights, I am defending them.

It should be easy to understand, But the religious groups don't seem to understand that religious freedom means no religious group gets special treatment, and denying them special treatment is not taking away their rights.

eg. you have the right to have a stick, but you don't have the right to beat people with it, me stopping people hitting others with sticks itn't taking away your stick rights, its protecting others rights to not be beaten.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, most atheists are involved in protecting religious freedoms, however the average religious person doesn't respect religious freedom or understand what it means,...




I don't disagree with any of that, I was simply pointing out that there are extreme atheists like Dawkins who make outrageous statements about religious people.

I also pointed out previously that many atheists send their children to religious schools, so perhaps religion has something going for it.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't disagree with any of that, I was simply pointing out that there are extreme atheists like Dawkins who make outrageous statements about religious people.
> 
> .




I don't see Dawkins as being that extreme, If your going to point to Dawkins giving lectures and writing books as the atheist extreme, simply look at ISIS. I would feel comfortable having a chat to dawkins, the ISIS people, not so much



> I also pointed out previously that many atheists send their children to religious schools, so perhaps religion has something going for it




And the religious side of things is mostly not the big attraction, status, facilities etc all play a part.

And as I have said, religion tends to have a level of unearned respect in our society, So even if a person is a non believer, they may be under the popular illusion that exposure to religion makes you a better person. Just because they are an atheist doesn't mean they have done a lot of thinking on the subject, or care much about it.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

> I would feel comfortable having a chat to dawkins, the ISIS people, not so much




Quite so, but I wouldn't be talking to Dawkins about religion, he's far too intolerant.



I also question whether the real motivation behind ISIS is religion or simply power, megalomania and tribalism. Religion may be an excuse, but I have a feeling that such conflicts would develop simply because people are different and develop loyalties towards who they see as "their own kind", whether this be religious factions or simply the area that they originate from.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Richard Dawkins made a statement that people who have a religious belief are "mentally ill". That sounds pretty radical to me.



Only if you refuse to acknowledge and/or deny the disastrous impact of religion on human society and progress over the ages.  You carelessly misuse the "radical" tag in conjunction with atheism as if there is some kind of equivalence between those outspoken about the many fallacies of religion and religious belief and those violently attacking and oppressing unbelievers.  Doing so suggests a bias toward religious belief and a misunderstanding of the goals and methods of someone like Dawkins.

Dawkins challenges intellectual acceptance of religious belief in a way that is confronting no doubt.  Labelling him a radical atheist is dishonest and absurd.



> Did you vote for Tony Abbott by any chance ? He's a confirmed Catholic, as is Malcolm Turnbull.  Is this country being run by madmen ?



LOL, off topic but the actions of the current government do suggest more than just poor judgement on a number of issues.



> You simply sought to deflect and disparage an argument with silly accusations and waffle about "sky gods".



Nope, just tried to bring the discussion back on topic.  I made no "accusations" and mention of sky gods is definitely on topic.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I also question whether the real motivation behind ISIS is religion or simply power, megalomania and tribalism. Religion may be an excuse, but I have a feeling that such conflicts would develop simply because people are different and develop loyalties towards who they see as "their own kind", whether this be religious factions or simply the area that they originate from.




That's the other thing, religion just doesn't get unearned respect, it constantly gets excuses made for it.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That's the other thing, religion just doesn't get unearned respect, it constantly gets excuses made for it.




And so do tyrants ("Hitler was a Catholic")

So what religious forces are at work in the Ukraine ?


----------



## Julia (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I also pointed out previously that many atheists send their children to religious schools, so perhaps religion has something going for it.



Usually such a choice isn't driven by the religious aspect nearly as much as the so called religious school generally providing better behavioural standards than state schools and the likelihood that your kids are going to be associating with other kids raised with similar values to your own.  Most of the religious schools are much less expensive than the non-church-aligned private schools.  So it's a choice somewhere between the state offering and the top of the line private school.



Value Collector said:


> And as I have said, religion tends to have a level of unearned respect in our society,



Once, perhaps.  I don't think much at all now, especially after the exposure of all the abuse and its cover-up.


> So even if a person is a non believer, they may be under the popular illusion that exposure to religion makes you a better person.



Again, I think most people are more intelligent than to so assume.



Value Collector said:


> That's the other thing, religion just doesn't get unearned respect, it constantly gets excuses made for it.



Yes, so true.  But only the rusted on disciples will accept those excuses.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

> Usually such a choice isn't driven by the religious aspect nearly as much as the so called religious school generally providing better behavioural standards than state schools and the likelihood that your kids are going to be associating with other kids raised with similar values to your own.




Yes, that is disappointing isn't it ?

I see no reason why State schools can't provide the same level of standards. Private schools can of course throw kids out but I don't see why disruptive kids can't be thrown out of State schools until such time that they can prove they are going to behave. It's then up to the parents to look after them until the child's standards improve.

Anyway, I can't discus that subject here, the "off topic" police will be after me.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So what religious forces are at work in the Ukraine ?




I haven't said any are, Not all wars are religious based, But where there is a religious divide, they don't tend to be resolved as quickly as the conflicts that are non religious.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Once, perhaps.  I don't think much at all now, especially after the exposure of all the abuse and its cover-up.
> 
> .




Generally, you will find it is still quite normal for society to give respect to people who are religious. for example its not unusual to hear comments when people are describing people such as, "Oh she's a good person, she goes to church" or "yeah, they are a good church going family". 

This is what I mean by unearned respect, It gives the impression that a person with all the same attributes, but that doesn't go to church, must not be quite as good, And people that make those comments seem to give extra credit to people that are religious.




> Again, I think most people are more intelligent than to so assume.




It's not about intelligence, It's about what the average person thinks are good traits. Most people are brought up to respect religion, even if you don't believe it yourself, your not supposed to challenge a person on their ideas because that would be rude, however its fine for them to spout their ideology without the risk of being called rude.






> Yes, so true.  But only the rusted on disciples will accept those excuses




Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2014)

Here is a good documentary of faith schools, if you want to hear some parents explain why they make their choices, and also explains many of the dangers of faith schools.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.




Unless you actually get into the mind of the ISIS people you can't tell what motivates them. You conceded some time ago that some of them could be psychopathic. That is a mental illness and they would kill for any reason, or even no reason at all.

 You also said that there is a dislike for people on "the other side". Those GI's that you pointed out cheering at the drone strikes are all religious are they ? As an ex soldier and not a religious person, what would you have killed for ? Not religion obviously, so there must be "something else".

Maybe some ISIS people joined because "they wanted to be part of something big, and to make a contribution". Just like some others who join militaries.

So I have provided several reasons why there are wars going on that provide motivations not dependent on religion. 

And please don't misrepresent what I say, it does you no credit.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Unless you actually get into the mind of the ISIS people you can't tell what motivates them. You conceded some time ago that some of them could be psychopathic. That is a mental illness and they would kill for any reason, or even no reason at all.



One does not have to try and get into the mind of an ISIS follower, why not just believe what say about their own motives.  They are motivated by religious fervor and dictates to kill infidels and establish an Islamic Caliphate, the fundamentalist view of the obligations of a true Muslim.  The "mental illness" in this case is taking the claims in their magic book to seriously and literally.  Religion is the root of the problem, the psychopathy of their actions is best explained by their unquestioning devotion to Islamism and fundamentalist Koranic mythology.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

FxTrader said:


> One does not have to try and get into the mind of an ISIS follower, why not just believe what say about their own motives.  They are motivated by religious fervor and dictates to kill infidels and establish an Islamic Caliphate, the fundamentalist view of the obligations of a true Muslim.  The "mental illness" in this case is taking the claims in their magic book to seriously and literally.  Religion is the root of the problem, the psychopathy of their actions is best explained by their unquestioning devotion to Islamism and fundamentalist Koranic mythology.




That's a simplistic assessment.

Certainly some of them are grade 1 religious lunatics, we don't know what proportion of them are. There is more than one motivation for wanting to fight. Thousands of Australians signed up for the petty conflict called the Boer war. What the hell for ? Adventure and excitement probably, I doubt if religion was uppermost in their minds.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a simplistic assessment.



That's their assessment of their own motives; you just refuse to believe them and instead try to overlay your own view that there must be other motives.  ISIS followers are largely religious simpletons so I don't expect more complexity in their motivations and they certainly don't suggest there is anything more to consider.



> Certainly some of them are grade 1 religious lunatics, we don't know what proportion of them are. There is more than one motivation for wanting to fight.



They declare their motives for fighting quite openly and at the root of it is religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

FxTrader said:


> That's their assessment of their own motives; you just refuse to believe them and instead try to overlay your own view that there must be other motives.  ISIS followers are largely religious simpletons so I don't expect more complexity in their motivations and they certainly don't suggest there is anything more to consider.
> 
> 
> They declare their motives for fighting quite openly and at the root of it is religion.




I never said religion can't be a motive . Religion is ONE motive, there are probably others as well. You can't do much about the genuine religious nutters except kill them or gaol them for life, but people who just want a bit of adventure will probably realise it's not worth the effort and the horror, and those sort of people can be worked on for intelligence on the ringleaders.

Again you make simplistic generalisations, applying one motive to a whole set of people involved in a complex scenario. That is simple minded to say the least.


----------



## FxTrader (9 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I never said religion can't be a motive . Religion is ONE motive...
> Again you make simplistic generalisations, applying one motive to a whole set of people involved in a complex scenario. That is simple minded to say the least.



It's the key and most important motive, anything else is peripheral and of much less significance and you simply don't seem to comprehend this.  I choose to believe what they say about their own motives while you insist these religious fanatics must have more complex motivations, they don't.  

Chose to imagine and concoct a more complex explanation if you wish but don't arrogantly assume for a moment that you are better informed than I am about the motivations of fundamentalist Islamists.  I chose to believe them and you don't, let's leave it at that.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2014)

FxTrader said:


> It's the key and most important motive, anything else is peripheral and of much less significance and you simply don't seem to comprehend this.  I choose to believe what they say about their own motives while you insist these religious fanatics must have more complex motivations, they don't.
> 
> Chose to imagine and concoct a more complex explanation if you wish but don't arrogantly assume for a moment that you are better informed than I am about the motivations of fundamentalist Islamists.  I chose to believe them and you don't, let's leave it at that.




Again you judge ALL the ISIS people on the words of a few. If you want to make a judgement based on such a tiny sample size, that's up to you.

Have you ever heard the word "mercenary" at all ?


----------



## Julia (9 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Generally, you will find it is still quite normal for society to give respect to people who are religious. for example its not unusual to hear comments when people are describing people such as, "Oh she's a good person, she goes to church" or "yeah, they are a good church going family".



A couple of decades ago I'd have agreed with you but not now.   We need to simply disagree here.



> It's not about intelligence, It's about what the average person thinks are good traits.



So how is your average person going to discern those good traits?  Surely via a measure of intelligence, and more importantly, education.  There is no reason these days for any so called average person to unthinkingly believe that because someone goes to church they are a good person.  All the evidence contradicts such a supposition.



> Most people are brought up to respect religion,



Again, I simply disagree.  Most people I've ever met across many more years than you've yet chalked up, hold religion in no particular respect at all.  Events over the past few years have only exacerbated this lack of respect, not to mention outright condemnation.



> Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.



There is a widely recognised hypothesis around disaffected, ill educated young people, feeling out of place, alienated from their environment, which produces non-aligned sense of hatred, something that is easily nurtured by fire breathing preachers into a focus-driven purpose such as jihad.

Rumpole raised that many people join the military for a similar reason, ie the sense of belonging to some coherent whole.  Same phenomenon applies in bikie gangs.   Not necessarily only religion at all.



FxTrader said:


> It's the key and most important motive, anything else is peripheral and of much less significance and you simply don't seem to comprehend this.  I choose to believe what they say about their own motives while you insist these religious fanatics must have more complex motivations, they don't.
> 
> Chose to imagine and concoct a more complex explanation if you wish but don't arrogantly assume for a moment that you are better informed than I am about the motivations of fundamentalist Islamists.



Why not just accept that you have one strong belief and others have somewhat alternative beliefs?
No real need to suggest arrogance on the part of someone who just takes a different slant, surely.



SirRumpole said:


> Unless you actually get into the mind of the ISIS people you can't tell what motivates them. You conceded some time ago that some of them could be psychopathic. That is a mental illness and they would kill for any reason, or even no reason at all.



A good example is the Australian whose son proudly held up the severed head.  The father is a diagnosed schizophrenic.


----------



## bellenuit (10 September 2014)




----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Unless you actually get into the mind of the ISIS people you can't tell what motivates them. You conceded some time ago that some of them could be psychopathic. That is a mental illness and they would kill for any reason, or even no reason at all.
> 
> You also said that there is a dislike for people on "the other side". Those GI's that you pointed out cheering at the drone strikes are all religious are they ? As an ex soldier and not a religious person, what would you have killed for ? Not religion obviously, so there must be "something else".
> 
> ...




You asked what I would kill for, now if i told you, would you believe me, or just say, no no, it must be something else.

The soldiers calling in the air strikes were not praying as they did it, they didn't call them in to drop the bomb in jesuses name, so I wouldn't assume that, but when the group has an open religious name eg Isis, we have to believe them, unless you have some other evidence of other motives.

Yes there are psychopaths, but not in the large numbers seen supporting Isis, also the psychopaths can only operate if the sane men stand by and do nothing, and its religion that convinces them to stand by and let the greater "good" happen


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You asked what I would kill for, now if i told you, would you believe me, or just say, no no, it must be something else.




I'm afraid you fail to honestly read my posts. I'm simply saying that there are other motives for joining militias than religion, but religion is obviously the motive for some.

Mercenaries fight in a lot of wars. Do they have to have a religious belief to do that ?

 If you don't want to answer the question I asked, that's up to you. I don't care one way or the other.


----------



## FxTrader (10 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Why not just accept that you have one strong belief and others have somewhat alternative beliefs?  No real need to suggest arrogance on the part of someone who just takes a different slant, surely



I don't have a strong belief about the motivations of religious extremists; I just accept what they say about their own motivations for their actions.  If an apologist for religion asserts that other motivations are in play of equal importance to religious convictions then where is the evidence for this "belief"?  The apologist claims the primary motivation can't be just religion it can also be mercenaries beheading people for money and hoards of mentally ill people with Kalashnikovs dressed in black - how absurd.  It is arrogance to presume to know better than the perpetrators themselves what their motivations are and produce no evidence to support such a view.



> There is a widely recognised hypothesis around disaffected, ill educated young people, feeling out of place, alienated from their environment, which produces non-aligned sense of hatred, something that is easily nurtured by fire breathing preachers into a focus-driven purpose such as jihad.
> 
> Rumpole raised that many people join the military for a similar reason, ie the sense of belonging to some coherent whole. Same phenomenon applies in bikie gangs. Not necessarily only religion at all.



Whatever the background of an ISIS fighter, religion unites them around a common cause and empowers them with the moral justification to perform acts of vicious violence and murder with the promise of paradise through martyrdom.  Without a religious foundation, their actions would be that of fractious groupings of rebels waring with each other for territorial power.  

ISIS stated intention is to form an Islamic Caliphate and this is a rallying point for Muslims around the world to such an extent that we see thousands of foreign fighters being recruited for this cause.  Not only do I believe them when they say this, their actions are consistent with their stated intentions.  Religion and religious unity are the poison at the core of this movement and this needs to be clearly understood by apologists for religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2014)

> It is arrogance to presume to know better than the perpetrators themselves what their motivations are and produce no evidence to support such a view.




It is arrogance to believe that you know the motivations of EVERY person fighting in that conflict. Religion is obviously a motive for some, but you can't say it is for all. 

I think that you are just completely anti religion and will blame religion solely for every ill in the world. 

You don't acknowledge that a lust for power, psychopathy, hatred of other tribes, desire for land and resources or money play any part at all.

Well, keep your bigoted opinions, but wars happen for factors other than religion and if you can't see that, then that is your problem.


----------



## FxTrader (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It is arrogance to believe that you know the motivations of EVERY person fighting in that conflict. Religion is obviously a motive for some, but you can't say it is for all.



Indeed I don't claim to know all the motivations of every ISIS fighter, only the publically stated motivations of the movement and individual supporters.  Their actions confirm their intentions and stated motives.  You continue to assert that other motives are of equal significance to religion in this conflict without evidence and have deluded yourself into thinking you have a strong argument in the process.



> I think that you are just completely anti religion and will blame religion solely for every ill in the world.



What a silly, emotive statement.  Your thinking is wrong, I regard religion for what it is - myth.  People taking myth to seriously and acting accordingly on the dictates of religious dogma is a serious problem for human society, the consequences of which are manifest daily around the globe.  You would have to be intellectually deficient, unobservant or indoctrinated not to acknowledge this.



> You don't acknowledge that a lust for power, psychopathy, hatred of other tribes, desire for land and resources or money play any part at all.



Only the contrary I do acknowledge other factors are in play but the powerful unifying factor is religion.  That you are in denial about this is quite clear.



> Well, keep your bigoted opinions, but wars happen for factors other than religion and if you can't see that, then that is your problem.



The refuge of a tireless apologist for religion and the crimes committed in its name, call me a bigot because I point out that religion, in all its mutually intolerant forms, is the core unifying force for a movement like ISIS.  Keep your head buried the sand if you wish and in doing so stay far away from Iraq and Syria where you can be killed for not believing in the right version of Islam and for no other reason.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2014)

> Keep your head buried the sand if you wish and in doing so stay far away from Iraq and Syria where you can be killed for not believing in the right version of Islam and for no other reason.




That is an important point. When it comes down to variants of the same religion fighting each other this indicates that there is something else other than the religion being the primary motivating cause. It then comes down to tribalism, or a dislike for other points of view, whatever they are. 

As for believing the stated motives of the ISIS fighters, did it occur to you that a psychopath is hardly likely to publicly state "I'm going to fight in Iraq because I like killing people", he is more likely to come up with a plausible excuse like "I'm going to help my brothers defend their homeland and save the lives of my family" etc.

So taking what these people say on face value is a trifle naive I think.



> Only the contrary I do acknowledge other factors are in play but the powerful unifying factor is religion. That you are in denial about this is quite clear.




Maybe you are missing the point that religion could be an excuse, not a reason, for some anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2014)

Atheist US Air Force sergeant to take military to court over requirement to take oath with 'so help me God'

I'm with the sergeant on this, if you don't believe in God, your oath is worthless

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/atheist-must-swear-to-god-or-leave-us-air-force/5732994


----------



## bellenuit (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Atheist US Air Force sergeant to take military to court over requirement to take oath with 'so help me God'
> 
> I'm with the sergeant on this, if you don't believe in God, your oath is worthless
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/atheist-must-swear-to-god-or-leave-us-air-force/5732994




It is not the fact that it is worthless that I see as the problem here. It is being asked to state those words in a country whose constitution demands separation of church and state.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Mercenaries fight in a lot of wars. Do they have to have a religious belief to do that ?
> .




Have I ever said that religion is the only reason people fight in wars?

No, I haven't.

what I have said is that religion is the cause of a lot of conflicts, (not all) and the religious conflicts tend to drag on for generations due to the non-negotiable position of the religious dogma, and the fact that people know their god is on their side.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That is an important point. When it comes down to variants of the same religion fighting each other this indicates that there is something else other than the religion being the primary motivating cause. .




they are not really the same religion, Sunni and Shiites, are like Protestants and Catholics, they believe some of the same things, but are different religions, and have through out history fought each other.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Have I ever said that religion is the only reason people fight in wars?
> 
> No, I haven't.




Oh, ok then, so you just delight in making ad hominen attacks like this:



> Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.




for fun ?


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh, ok then, so you just delight in making ad hominen attacks like this:




Firstly, how is this 







> Well rumpole isn't even religious according to him, but he is here saying that these murderous religious fanatics can't really be murdering for their religious beliefs, it must be something else.




an ad hominen? an hominem attack is when you attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. at no point was I attacking your character or a personal trait.

I said


> Have I ever said that religion is the only reason people fight in wars?




Because you kept asking things like, do mercenaries fight for religion? what religion are they fighting about in the Ukraine?

As if I at some stage had said that all conflicts are caused by religion, which I haven't, offcourse not all wars are directly related to religion. my position has always been that a lot of them are, not all, and that when the divide involves religion, it can make a conflict drag out for generations, which other wise would be resolved.

My recent comments have been in relation to you claiming that religion is not the main cause for the current ISIS conflict, even though the people involved are claiming it is, they are killing based on religion, and they call them selves the "Islamic" state.


----------



## pixel (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> ...It then comes down to tribalism, or a dislike for other points of view, whatever they are. ...




Tribalism is the basic root of all religious beliefs:
Humans are social animals because it was essential for the survival of the extended family/ clan/ tribe - call it what you like - that each individual would defend the tribal hunting grounds and territory.
When the apes grew brains and began to reason some basics, the smarter group members may well have recognised that and devised some ruses to keep the dimmer ones in line. What could be closer at hand than inventing ghosts and superior beings that demanded obedience and became grumpy (with thunder and lightning as reinforcement) when teenage dumbo cast an eye where he shouldn't. Keeping the family members in line by such basic mental persuasion made it far easier to maintain the Patriarch's position without having to resort to fights every time a horny youngster with more hormones than brains craved a piece of the Chief's harem. He was told how honourable it was to look at them from afar, defend them by defending the King, and wait his turn; if he behaved himself and stayed devoted to God, King, and Tribe, then his time would come in Paradise/ Eden/ Valhalla to get his full contingent of houris, maidens, wenches to feast on and with to his lusty desires.

The problem starts when these fanciful creations are perpetuated in folklore; and once fairytales are injected into every kid's brain, and parents are admonished to bring their offspring up "in the one and only true faith", it becomes "the one and only truth" for the overwhelming majority. The few independent thinkers will quickly find out that it's safer to pay lip service and rub the customary mud into their own navels, than to try and persuade their dimmer neighbours of a different truth.

So, what started out as a plot to support one tribal chief with the bigger dung heap over any neighbouring tribe's ambition to increase theirs, has become ingrained in tribal members' minds to the extent we see today: Priests, Rabbis, Muftis, ... each have reasons of their own to maintain the status quo. Sure beats working in the mud or fighting for one's living. Much easier to keep teaching "the one and only true faith" to the dimmer sections of the tribe; and if you can prevent budding intellect from growing and thinking, you've got it even easier.

Is there really a difference between "No education for girls" and "No women priests"?

Keep 'em dumb and on their backs. Our tribe must outbreed all others. Our dung heap is the biggest.

PS: Wars aren't necessarily fought over religion. I believe the main reason for wars is tribal greed: The dung heap needs to be increased at all cost. And the more an ever-increasing dung heap benefits the key members of the ruling class/ family/ hangers-on, the more likely it will be supported by the religious leaders. IMHO it's only at that stage that religious doctrine is bent into shape to be used to turn younger family members into killing machines and cannon fodder.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2014)

Nice summary pixel, I think you are spot on there.

Religion may have been needed once to keep things in order, but now that we have ordered systems of government and law enforcement (mostly), religion's value to society is diminishing. There is little we can do constitutionally to outlaw it, we can just hope it fades out in time.


----------



## pixel (10 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Nice summary pixel, I think you are spot on there.
> 
> Religion may have been needed once to keep things in order, but now that we have ordered systems of government and law enforcement (mostly), religion's value to society is diminishing. There is little we can do constitutionally to outlaw it, *we can just hope it fades out in time.*




I'm not quite that optimistic, Sir R.
Remember that, by definition, half of any country's population has an IQ that's average or less 

Also, the US system of government would have to be considered as "ordered", yet you still have the Bible Belt, Salt Lake City, and the Religions of Wall Street and Las Vegas dominating hearts and minds.

Not to mention the Middle East, vast parts of Africa and Asia, and most of South America, where people are kept poor and persuaded to keep breeding, so they can't afford to study or even think. Instead, they're told it's all God's/ Allah's will that they submit to their lot, pay homage and support to their religious leaders, and wait for their time in Paradise, which in reality will be six foot under, if that deep.


----------



## bunyip (11 September 2014)

pixel said:


> Tribalism is the basic root of all religious beliefs:
> Humans are social animals because it was essential for the survival of the extended family/ clan/ tribe - call it what you like - that each individual would defend the tribal hunting grounds and territory.
> When the apes grew brains and began to reason some basics, the smarter group members may well have recognised that and devised some ruses to keep the dimmer ones in line. What could be closer at hand than inventing ghosts and superior beings that demanded obedience and became grumpy (with thunder and lightning as reinforcement) when teenage dumbo cast an eye where he shouldn't. Keeping the family members in line by such basic mental persuasion made it far easier to maintain the Patriarch's position without having to resort to fights every time a horny youngster with more hormones than brains craved a piece of the Chief's harem. He was told how honourable it was to look at them from afar, defend them by defending the King, and wait his turn; if he behaved himself and stayed devoted to God, King, and Tribe, then his time would come in Paradise/ Eden/ Valhalla to get his full contingent of houris, maidens, wenches to feast on and with to his lusty desires.
> 
> ...






pixel said:


> I'm not quite that optimistic, Sir R.
> Remember that, by definition, half of any country's population has an IQ that's average or less
> 
> Also, the US system of government would have to be considered as "ordered", yet you still have the Bible Belt, Salt Lake City, and the Religions of Wall Street and Las Vegas dominating hearts and minds.
> ...



I'd say that's a pretty good summary, Pixel.

What intrigues me is why people of even average intelligence can't think independently enough to question the religious dogma they're brought up with.
I was brought up in a Christian family that had me going to church and Sunday school every Sunday of my childhood, taking bible study lessons, believing that God was loving and compassionate and righteous, always ready, willing and able to help his followers out when they needed a hand.
My wife was brought up in a strongly Catholic family in Ireland, was indoctrinated with all the usual Catholic rituals and hoo-ha from an early age. Yet long before we met, both of us were thinking independently enough to question and doubt the religious beliefs we were raised with, until finally we rejected them as nonsense.
Neither of us is a radical of extraordinary intelligence – we’re just level-headed, sensible people who think things through and make up our own minds, rather than believing something because it was taught to us and is the accepted majority view.
Why do so many people seem to have trouble doing this – why is independent thinking so difficult for them – I just don’t get it.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2014)

> My recent comments have been in relation to you claiming that religion is not the main cause for the current ISIS conflict, even though the people involved are claiming it is, they are killing based on religion, and they call them selves the "Islamic" state.




Well, I think it's possible that these loonies are really just after money and power and use religion as the excuse to get it. 

Like Hitler used "lebensraum" as his justification for expansion and enslavement.

You can make people follow you if you have a plausible excuse to delude them with. It doesn't mean you actually have to believe the excuse.

And furthermore, your use of the word "religion" as an all encompassing term is too broad. Why don't you refer to Islamic militants, as they are the people causing the problems ? Would you call the people you may work with who go to church on Sunday "terrorists" ?


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> Neither of us is a radical of extraordinary intelligence – we’re just level-headed, sensible people who think things through and make up our own minds, rather than believing something because it was taught to us and is the accepted majority view.
> .




But the majority view in Oz is that the organised religions should be treated with scepticism ... I don't know anyone who admits to believing the codified doctrines, but I'd wager many people keep the door open to some all powerful being that might just be there for reward and punishment.

The King James bible has several editions and the Catholic bible has an apocrypha tacked on the back of it to give a moralistic dimension to the religion. No doubt the Koran has gone through some fairly serious mods to accommodate prevailing sentiments over history too. It would be implausible for even an imbecile to think the whole thing is 100% God's own digest.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> It would be implausible for even an imbecile to think the whole thing is 100% God's own digest.




A few slips of the chisel on the stone tablets eh ?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2014)

Who says religion is all bad ?



> "As Jaws, I start off as a bad guy and turn into a good guy whereas in this I appear to be a good guy and turn into a really nasty guy."
> 
> In 1992 Kiel suffered a serious head injury in a car accident which left him needing to walk with a cane.
> 
> ...


----------



## bellenuit (11 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Who says religion is all bad ?




Nobody on ASF as far as I am aware.


----------



## bellenuit (11 September 2014)




----------



## Duckman#72 (11 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> Religions are primarily made up of people.




 Not one of your sharpest openings Bunyip, but in your own special way you have opened the door to my argument. 

I can separate the Catholic Church from individual people. I don't believe you can. I am not saying that the abuse that happened was right - it was appalling, but these are rogue individuals who make up a small percentage of the Priests, Sisters and Brothers serving in the Church. The Catholic Church is no more condoning the actions of these people than the Australian Defence Force who paid off and intimidated young cadets who complain of sexual abuse by higher ranking officers. 

It amazes me to think that non-Catholics can have more behavioural expectations of Priests than Catholics actually do!!!

Duckman


----------



## Julia (11 September 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Not one of your sharpest openings Bunyip, but in your own special way you have opened the door to my argument.
> 
> I can separate the Catholic Church from individual people. I don't believe you can. I am not saying that the abuse that happened was right - it was appalling, but these are rogue individuals who make up a small percentage of the Priests, Sisters and Brothers serving in the Church. The Catholic Church is no more condoning the actions of these people than the Australian Defence Force who paid off and intimidated young cadets who complain of sexual abuse by higher ranking officers.
> 
> ...



Duckman, I do think your above post is disingenous.   If we accept that the abuse occurred via a relatively small number of individuals, there is now no question that it was systematically covered up over a very long period of time by the Catholic Church as an institution.
That is where your argument completely falls over.   

Even when it was all reluctantly brought into the open the Church sought to minimise the damage to itself at the expense of the victims.  I cannot think of any actions more damaging to the institution than that.


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Duckman, I do think your above post is disingenous.   If we accept that the abuse occurred via a relatively small number of individuals, there is now no question that it was systematically covered up over a very long period of time by the Catholic Church as an institution.




Julia, so was the abuse within the Australian Defence Force, but that doesn't mean the organization was rotten to the bone. Nor does it mean there wasn't extraordinary people doing their best for their country within that organization. Nor do I think their core value as stated by the army...."Courage, moral and physical, to act in the best interest of the Nation and the army" was negated by the disgusting actions of perpetrators and the self preserving actions of cowardly leaders. 

As for the response by the Church, of course it wasn't adequate and they've admitted they made mistakes fighting victims. But what is fair when it comes to compensation? Is being molested by a priest worth more than being molested by a family friend, scout leader, teacher or sibling? 

Duckman


----------



## lindsayf (12 September 2014)

Duckman I am reacting to what you have written.
I do not at all agree with you equating abuse in the ADF (or other parties) with the abuse by clergy.
Clergy are abusing children.  Children that are completely powerless to defend themselves.
They are being abused by figures that are held up to be mentors and spiritual gaurdians, figures that ask us to see them as the pariahs of the community, trustworthy and beyond reproach.  Parents handover the care and education to them, or the care and guidance is or was provided in institutions where the parents are off the scene - the latter children even more vulnerable.  This complete and appalling betrayal of trust causes lifelong and life shortening psychological damage.......and this is what the church has covered up, minimised, deflected in many ways including shuttling the rapists away for scrutiny, not involving police, allowing them to continue their deeds elsewhere...etc etc etc

The church is an institution based on so many moral pillars- now so very degraded by how it has responded to its own failure to act according to its own tenets.

I do not wish to downplay the abuse in the ADF...but it is not useful to equate it to the above.  It is a little like a straw man being set up.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 September 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Duckman I am reacting to what you have written.
> Clergy are abusing children.  Children that are completely powerless to defend themselves.
> They are being abused by figures that are held up to be mentors and spiritual gaurdians, figures that ask us to see them as the pariahs of the community, trustworthy and beyond reproach.  Parents handover the care and education to them, or the care and guidance is or was provided in institutions where the parents are off the scene - the latter children even more vulnerable.  This complete and appalling betrayal of trust causes lifelong and life shortening psychological damage




I don't disagree with these comments Lindsay, except I don't believe the clergy would like to think of themselves as pariahs. Lovely Freudian slip).  I am not arguing with you regarding the complete betrayal of trust. However I do have a problem with the way you seem to apportion a much greater degree of severity and mental torture on abuse by the clergy. Your statement above would be just as relevant if you replaced the word clergy with scout leader, school teacher, father, mother, swim coach. As parents we place trust and reliance on large numbers of people in the community to do the right thing - call me naÃ¯ve but I don't expect ANYONE in the community to indecently deal with my children. 

You tell me who in the eyes of a 7 year child has created the greater betrayal - the mother who turns her blind eye to a partner sexually molesting her daughter or the local priest.

Look we all have our opinions - some on this forum such as Julia and Bunyip see things in black and white, right or wrong, wet and dry. I don't see it that way. I am not supporting the Church in the stance it has taken over the years and agree with many of the deserved criticisms that Julia and Bunyip have expressed.  

Duckman


----------



## pixel (12 September 2014)

I  can't for the life of me see any connection between the subject of this thread, *Religion*, and criminal acts by members of an institution/ company/ body corporate.
When we talk about Religion, we refer to the belief system, the essence of teaching; we may then include the underlying evolutionary/ historic/ psychological basis for such beliefs, and mental and behavioral implications on its subjects.
Clergy who abuse altar boys, teachers who maim children's body and spirit, officers who brutalise cadets, and bishops/ headmasters/ generals who condone and cover up such disgraceful acts, are not doing so for religious reasons, but as administrators and managers of an institution. In that regard, abuse for which "the Church" or "the School" or "the Military" may be blamed, has got nothing to do with the ideology behind those institutions, but everything to do with perversion of some of their members. Their transgressions are exacerbated after the fact by a hierarchy that tries to minimise any damage to the institution by covering it up and sweeping complaints under the carpet.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2014)

> Your statement above would be just as relevant if you replaced the word clergy with scout leader, school teacher, father, mother, swim coach.




Actually I believe that abuse in the defence force, especially when committed by a senior officer on a more junior person, is also a serious offence, because there is a power relationship between the offender and the victim, similar to that between parent and child. Balanced against this this the fact that the victims are adults, but still such acts are abuses of power for which the offenders seem to have suffered little punishment.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (12 September 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> I don't disagree with these comments Lindsay, except I don't believe the clergy would like to think of themselves as pariahs. Lovely Freudian slip).  I am not arguing with you regarding the complete betrayal of trust. However I do have a problem with the way you seem to apportion a much greater degree of severity and mental torture on abuse by the clergy. Your statement above would be just as relevant if you replaced the word clergy with scout leader, school teacher, father, mother, swim coach. As parents we place trust and reliance on large numbers of people in the community to do the right thing - call me naÃ¯ve but I don't expect ANYONE in the community to indecently deal with my children.
> 
> You tell me who in the eyes of a 7 year child has created the greater betrayal - the mother who turns her blind eye to a partner sexually molesting her daughter or the local priest.
> 
> ...




Hey Duckman,

I'll join my voice with lindsayf and say that I don't like what you've done there in comparing ADF and Catholic Church. I'd encourage you to think about how the victims in each of these cases would feel about your statements.

The vast majority of cases of the church involved *young* children. The vast majority of cases of the ADF did not. Sure, both organizations acted to "protect" the organisation and trampled the victims, but if that is the similarity you are drawing between them you haven't made that clear...and I don't see the point of making that comparison. The actions of one do not excuse the other.

Can you see why the offences of one are an order of magnitude greater than the other? While both are heinous crimes, the offences against mostly children make the church's actions "more offensive" in my view and this extends into the cover-up.

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with your posts, but they taste very apologist simply because one happens to be a religious organization.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Julia (12 September 2014)

I probably don't need to say that I'm 100% with the remarks of lindsayf and Sir O.

To compare the relative lack of power on the part of a junior ADULT in Defence, an organisation known for toughness, with a little kid of as young as five or six in many cases, in the institutions charged with protecting them in every way is an utter distortion of the awful impact of the pain, confusion and terror experienced by so many victims of the churches.

The comparison is about as appropriate as Cardinal Pell's suggestion that the situation in the church was no different from a trucking company being held responsible if one of their drivers should happen to molest a young woman.  

And yes, Duckman, I sure as hell do see the situation in black and white.  Shades of grey throughout much of life but imo not a single one when it comes to the physical, moral, emotional and sexual assault of a defenceless child.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2014)

Julia said:


> I probably don't need to say that I'm 100% with the remarks of lindsayf and Sir O.
> 
> To compare the relative lack of power on the part of a junior ADULT in Defence, an organisation known for toughness, with a little kid of as young as five or six in many cases, in the institutions charged with protecting them in every way is an utter distortion of the awful impact of the pain, confusion and terror experienced by so many victims of the churches.
> 
> ...




I certainly agree with your views regarding the responsibility of churches. That responsibility is now being exposed very publicly by a Royal Commission as it should be. On the other hand, abuse in the Defence Forces seems to be being hushed up. 

The Royal Commission is enquiring into the response of institutions into sexual abuse of children. The Armed forces are institutions and if they cannot be enquired into by the current RC, I see no reason why another Commission should not be held into their response to abuse within their ranks. Or are our governments afraid of the outcome ?

It's worth mentioning that enquiries held by the defence forces themselves into abuse may well be presided over by abusers. Andrew Wilke said that he was involved in such incidents both as a victim and a perpetrator and seems to have laughed it off with the excuse that it's a part of life in the Defence Force. Should it be ?


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2014)

Where are the parents in all of this? My mother would never have left me alone with any male adult, let alone a priest..... the rumours were strong then as they are now and probably for centuries prior.

I can't imagine the dilemma of a child being told by his parents to behave for the priest and that priest firstly describing and then perpetrating that behavioural filth. To me it's a betrayal from all the adult guardians.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> Where are the parents in all of this? My mother would never have left me alone with any male adult, let alone a priest..... the rumours were strong then as they are now and probably for centuries prior.
> 
> I can't imagine the dilemma of a child being told by his parents to behave for the priest and that priest firstly describing and then perpetrating that behavioural filth. To me it's a betrayal from all the adult guardians.




Fair point, but what about the kids in orphanages run by the churches ?


----------



## Julia (12 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> Where are the parents in all of this? My mother would never have left me alone with any male adult, let alone a priest..... the rumours were strong then as they are now and probably for centuries prior.
> 
> I can't imagine the dilemma of a child being told by his parents to behave for the priest and that priest firstly describing and then perpetrating that behavioural filth. To me it's a betrayal from all the adult guardians.



Rumpole has correctly pointed out that much of the worst abuse occurred in orphanages.  This, of course, made it all the more heinous:  these little kids had absolutely no one to care about them, or to advocate on their behalf.
Some of them had the courage to run away, appeal to the police, who promptly returned them to their abusers.
Their attempt brought a further beating.  One child was then locked in a cage, badly beaten, for many days.

The picture I'll never dispel from my mind is from the testimony of one then very young boy who had been repeatedly raped, left bleeding each time, who actually had bricks tied to his feet before he was thrown into a swimming pool.  What sort of depraved mind could possibly do that?  And from the shepherds of God who purport to provide the origin of what a proper moral compass should be.   That Christianity is the basis of the very ethics to which decent people should adhere.
What breathtaking hypocrisy!

But that aside, you're quite right.   Where indeed were the thoughts of the parents?   I'd suggest they were entirely absorbed in the complete trust they had in priests whom they'd been indoctrinated to believe were god's representatives and that any notion they were capable of evil would simply never have entered their heads.


----------



## lindsayf (12 September 2014)

to those seeking to equate clergy abuse with abuse by other parties;  

Of course any sexual, emotional, psychological, physical abuse (you cant have the first without the next 2 and probably the third) that occurs between one powerful figure and one vulnerable figure is abhorrent and the results devastating.  
But this ignores the additional layers of abuse and impact that occur when clergy is the perpetrator and the church engaged in the covering up.
The things that set the clergy abuse apart is the role they have in society.  They are by virtue ( sad to use that word here) of thier (clerical) role in community and society, seen to be moral and spiritual guides, supporters of the vulnerable and the downtrodden and trustworthy beyond question.  In this capacity they are able to easily groom and abuse in a way that betrays not only the child, but the family and the community at large.  If the child speaks out they will ( at least historically) be met with denials at least ( and threat and intimidation as followups from the abuser)  because it is too outrageous to be true and too difficult to face.  As the truth comes out then the family members that were unable to protect/did not believe their children are faced with the horror and guilt of the disgusting betrayal that has occurred almost under their noses.

The part religion plays here is that it wrongly and effectively provided the individual with a cloak of respectability - and this enables the abuse in a way that it could not have otherwise.  Another way that religion enables this is that due to a distorted moral framework courtesy of the silly text book they use, the abuse has been able to rationalised, justified and repented for-so now they can carry on.  Another part ( and I know this is controversial to some) is the stupid culture of sexual repression such as in the catholic clerical system.  There is little hope that an individual will develop healthily emotionally, psychologically or sexually as a cleric within this system.  I have no evidence to suggest causation here (and there are no doubt other factors at play) but I suggest there is a correlation between the incidence of child abuse and the culture of sexual repression that young clerics must exist in with unlimited access to, and power over, the flock.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2014)

> Another part ( and I know this is controversial to some) is the stupid culture of sexual repression such as in the catholic clerical system. There is little hope that an individual will develop healthily emotionally, psychologically or sexually as a cleric within this system. I have no evidence to suggest causation here (and there are no doubt other factors at play) but I suggest there is a correlation between the incidence of child abuse and the culture of sexual repression that young clerics must exist in with unlimited access to, and power over, the flock.




It's interesting that the abuses that we know of seem to be mainly by the Catholic church.

What of CofE, Uniting, Baptists, Congregationalists etc ?. Answer; these allow priests to be married.

There is no guarantee that similar abuse hasn't gone on in these churches, but if it had to a large degree you would think the complaints would have come out by now.


----------



## bellenuit (12 September 2014)

Another very insightful article by Sam Harris

*Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon*

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

This paragraph is so true and reflected in this thread.....

_Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants””political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry._


----------



## bunyip (12 September 2014)

I’m not even sure why Duckman is making a comparison between sexual abuse in the Catholic church vs sexual abuse in the military forces. His original statement suggested that people, not religion, were guilty of double standards. Duckman would say I’m looking at it in too much of a ‘black and white’ way, but either there’s double standards in religion, or there isn’t, regardless of what's occurring in any other organisation. You’d have to be living in dream land to claim there’s no double standards in religion, particularly in the Catholic religion.


----------



## Julia (12 September 2014)

lindsayf said:


> to those seeking to equate clergy abuse with abuse by other parties;
> 
> Of course any sexual, emotional, psychological, physical abuse (you cant have the first without the next 2 and probably the third) that occurs between one powerful figure and one vulnerable figure is abhorrent and the results devastating.
> But this ignores the additional layers of abuse and impact that occur when clergy is the perpetrator and the church engaged in the covering up.
> ...



Probably the best post I've ever read on this subject.  Thank you, lindsay, for so appropriately saying everything I was struggling to express.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 September 2014)

Just that famous Christian charity and love on display yet again.

http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/bogota/pruebas-de-sergio-articulo-515085

The mother of a 16-year-old gay Colombian boy who committed suicide last month has come forward with shocking allegations that officials at her son’s Catholic school had bullied him to death.

According to El Espectador, Sergio Urrego had endured relentless bullying and harassment from administrators at Gimnasio Castillo Campestre, a Catholic high school in Bogota, after they confiscated his phone and discovered a photo of him kissing his boyfriend on it.

School officials reportedly blocked Urrego’s requests for transfer and forced him to visit a school psychologist. After weeks of torture, multiple class suspensions and accusations of being an “anarchist,” an “atheist” and a “homosexual,” Urrego jumped from the roof of a shopping center in Bogota.

Shortly before he took his own life, Urrego posted the lyrics to Pink Floyd’s “Goodbye Cruel World” on his Facebook wall:


----------



## pavilion103 (13 September 2014)

This is so silly. People in every group do horrendous and stupid things. Ironic thing is that those Christians acting in that way are acting the opposite of what the profess to believe. It's not Christianity's fault it's the fault of the individual or the church leader. Christianity itself actually DISAGREES with their actions.  

Unfortunately the double standards are prevalent. Christian bashing is fine but disagreeing with homosexuality or pointing out idiots from other groups is seen as intolerant.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 September 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> This is so silly. People in every group do horrendous and stupid things. Ironic thing is that those Christians acting in that way are acting the opposite of what the profess to believe. It's not Christianity's fault it's the fault of the individual or the church leader. Christianity itself actually DISAGREES with their actions.
> 
> Unfortunately the double standards are prevalent. Christian bashing is fine but disagreeing with homosexuality or pointing out idiots from other groups is seen as intolerant.




It's the double standards of those who call themselves Christians then act in many ways very unchristian like.

I'd be just as abhorred if the poor boy I posted about had been bullied by officials in a Government school.


----------



## pavilion103 (13 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> It's the double standards of those who call themselves Christians then act in many ways very unchristian like.  I'd be just as abhorred if the poor boy I posted about had been bullied by officials in a Government school.




Of course those people are hypocrites. Of course. But I'm saying it's the same with every single group. And those people within each group are a poor reflection on themselves now the group that they belong to (unless the fundamental teachings of that group condone the action).

A shame everyone is always just pointing out the Christian ones and believing that because those people call themselves Christians that they reflect the actual Christian principles. But that is the media for you. They want to sell papers and advertising.   

Every group has people with double standards in it. If there are any that don't let me know and I'll join!


----------



## sydboy007 (13 September 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Of course those people are hypocrites. Of course. But I'm saying it's the same with every single group. And those people within each group are a poor reflection on themselves now the group that they belong to (unless the fundamental teachings of that group condone the action).
> 
> A shame everyone is always just pointing out the Christian ones and believing that because those people call themselves Christians that they reflect the actual Christian principles. But that is the media for you. They want to sell papers and advertising.
> 
> Every group has people with double standards in it. If there are any that don't let me know and I'll join!




Fair enough.  there's bad apples in every barrel eh.

But what happens when the barrel actively defends the bad apples.  Say it helps to move that bad apple or two to another barrel till it causes trouble then another barrel. Would that kind of action be considered that the actions of the bad apples are condoned?

Do you believe the school officials were right in what they did to a 16 year old boy?  If not, should they be allowed to continue in their roles?  What happens if they do the same thing again?  How many times can someone do bad things in the name of an organisation / religion / group without being expelled before we just have to accept that the bad behaviour is tolerated and sometimes protected from censure by the group?

I'd not have an issue with things so much if those undertaking actions against Jesus / Mohammed were forced out, but quite often they're protected or lauded as standing up for what's right.


----------



## Pager (14 September 2014)

Another Beheading in Iraq, this time a British aid worker.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-haines-beheading-recap-updates-4256832

RIP, David Haines

About time people woke up to the fact Religion is pure evil, Christian or Muslim between them they have killed more people and caused more suffering through the ages than just about anything else.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2014)

Sir Rumpole]

Who said religion was all bad ?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=bellenuit said:


> Nobody on ASF as far as I am aware.







			
				Pager said:
			
		

> About time people woke up to the fact Religion is pure evil,




No bigotry there eh ?


----------



## noco (15 September 2014)

The Muslim community want to build a mosque at Currumbin on the Gold Coast and the locals are up in arms protesting and I don't blame them.

I was in Latoka Fiji back in 1993 and there was a mosque there and the Muslims would start wailing out over loud speakers at 5 am in the morning and this what will happen at Currumbin.

The Muslim community are disgusted at the protest by the locals but you don't hear them expressing their disgust at the beheadings in the Islamic state......you do not hear the Muslims in Australia say we will go to the Middle East and try to stop the radicals...but you do hear of the 150 or so Muslim Australians traveling to help the cause of the IS..

Gawd I hate to think what this country will be like in another 30 years!!!!



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...test-hate-attack/story-fnihsrf2-1227058301127


----------



## Hodgie (15 September 2014)

noco said:


> The Muslim community want to build a mosque at Currumbin on the Gold Coast and the locals are up in arms protesting and I don't blame them.
> 
> I was in Latoka Fiji back in 1993 and there was a mosque there and the Muslims would start wailing out over loud speakers at 5 am in the morning and this what will happen at Currumbin.
> 
> ...




I believe that the proposal was for an industrial area so the noise probably isn't the number 1 issue here. People shouldn't be getting awoken from their homes at least.

They could have chosen better timing for something like this in light of what is going on overseas right now. I live really close to Currumbin and I think it makes us look quite intolerant. I'm not a fan of religion at all and have never been to church of any kind but you won't see so much protest for a place of worship for any other religion to be setup here.

I personally don't want the mosque to go up in Currumbin because of the fact that it's a waste of the limited industrial space we have here on the Gold Coast we require for expansion into the future but that's not the issue we are hearing about in the media.

In General I think the Australian public is fairly racist so I don't think that the Muslim community wants to speak up on most issues. One of My aunty's husband has copped race motivated abuse in recent times because of what is going on overseas (he also received abuse from random Australians around the time of September 11 back in 2001). The stupid thing is he isn't even a muslim, he is just of Turkish decent and has lived in Australia for the last 25 years and is a police officer here. I think that people that are of Middle Eastern appearance just want to keep their heads down right now. The prevailing public opinion of protesting the mosque shows how Australian's in general view the Muslim community right now and how we put them in the same boat as the militants overseas beheading people.

There is supposed to be over a billion Muslims worldwide, a very small proportion are what we see in the media. Just because a community of people are not actively showing their disgust for something does not mean they support it. I don't actually know any Muslim's personally but I do not have any judgments toward their community in Australia as a whole.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 September 2014)

Hodgie said:


> There is supposed to be over a billion Muslims worldwide, a very small proportion are what we see in the media. Just because a community of people are not actively showing their disgust for something does not mean they support it. I don't actually know any Muslim's personally but I do not have any judgments toward their community in Australia as a whole.




THEY are slaves who fear to speak	
For the fallen and the weak;	
They are slaves who will not choose	
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,	
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think;	
They are slaves who dare not be	
In the right with two or three.	

A Stanza on Freedom  By James Russell Lowell

Definitely not easy to do, but it is the only way forward if we are to push back on those who use fear and hate to force their own agendas on the rest of us.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2014)

This is a great video that shows the discrimination some groups in society have towards atheists, But all shows that atheists are some of the most giving people.


----------



## noco (15 September 2014)

Hodgie said:


> I believe that the proposal was for an industrial area so the noise probably isn't the number 1 issue here. People shouldn't be getting awoken from their homes at least.
> 
> They could have chosen better timing for something like this in light of what is going on overseas right now. I live really close to Currumbin and I think it makes us look quite intolerant. I'm not a fan of religion at all and have never been to church of any kind but you won't see so much protest for a place of worship for any other religion to be setup here.
> 
> ...




I know the area well as I worked for the foundry up Currumbin Creek and there are lots of houses across the road from that industrial site.....I am damn sure I would not wish to be woken up every morning at 5 am with loud speakers that one would be able to hear over a 3 km radius....they are in Australia now and they should live the Australian way of life or go back to where they come from.

If your next door neighbor started mowing his lawn at 5 am in the morning would you be happy?......I think not......you would be the first one to run to the police or the council to lay a complaint.
.


----------



## bellenuit (15 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No bigotry there eh ?




Ah, but that came after I wrote that comment. We were talking past tense


----------



## Hodgie (15 September 2014)

noco said:


> I know the area well as I worked for the foundry up Currumbin Creek and there are lots of houses across the road from that industrial site.....I am damn sure I would not wish to be woken up every morning at 5 am with loud speakers that one would be able to hear over a 3 km radius....they are in Australia now and they should live the Australian way of life or go back to where they come from.
> 
> If your next door neighbor started mowing his lawn at 5 am in the morning would you be happy?......I think not......you would be the first one to run to the police or the council to lay a complaint.
> .




Fair enough, I wasn't sure of the exact location I just heard it was an industrial area.

That may be a perfectly valid point about the noise but I think that a lot of the protest was due to the fact that the Australians on the Gold Coast did not want any Muslims around rather than a noise consideration. The link you provided earlier spoke of comments such as “Terrorists born in Australia are not Australians – they are Muslims” and “Muslims are not welcome in Australia, go back to where you came from”.

I think it shows a lot of the views of the average Australian, it's not a good look for us.

P.S. I used to live on Currimbin Creek Road, small world eh.


----------



## Hodgie (15 September 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Ah, but that came after I wrote that comment. We were talking past tense




I guess the bigotry was always there, just unannounced at that stage.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> This is a great video that shows the discrimination some groups in society have towards atheists, But all shows that atheists are some of the most giving people.





I call BS on that:- anyone who has been to the USA would know there are keywords programmed into the noggins of the locals that are considered anti American and "atheist" is one of them. That girl knew the outcome before it began and was not really surprised at all. She should have pasted "Islamic" on the board to get a real reaction from 300+million gun happy residents.


----------



## Julia (15 September 2014)

> About time people woke up to the fact Religion is pure evil,






SirRumpole said:


> No bigotry there eh ?






Hodgie said:


> I guess the bigotry was always there, just unannounced at that stage.




Is it bigotry - particularly when Pager's remark was made in the context of the depraved behaviour of ISIS - to so denounce religion?   It's a particularly unpleasant and harsh word imo and doesn't seem any more required here than, for example, following the many similar sentiments from FX Trader, VC, and myself for that matter.

Just wondering why suddenly it's OK to label someone a bigot because they despise what is done in the name of religion?



Hodgie said:


> Fair enough, I wasn't sure of the exact location I just heard it was an industrial area.



Last week, ABC Radio Evenings had an interview with the local councillor about this.  I didn't take too much notice because it's a long way from me, but she listed many concerns, very much including noise for surrounding residents, can't remember most of the others now, but just a dislike of Muslims seemed not to feature much.
Doesn't mean it isn't there, however.  Most people are too conscious of the ever present political correctness police to make any such criticism.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2014)

> Just wondering why suddenly it's OK to label someone a bigot because they despise what is done in the name of religion?




The quote from Pager was "Religion is pure evil". This is obviously untrue. People you meet every day may have religious beliefs, go to church on Sundays and never hurt anyone. Why should they or their beliefs be called "pure evil" ?

By all means denounce extremist religious nutcases, but making such a broad and ridiculous statement about religion in general is obviously bigoted, thus the criticism I made of that statement.


----------



## Hodgie (15 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Is it bigotry - particularly when Pager's remark was made in the context of the depraved behaviour of ISIS - to so denounce religion?   It's a particularly unpleasant and harsh word imo and doesn't seem any more required here than, for example, following the many similar sentiments from FX Trader, VC, and myself for that matter.
> 
> Just wondering why suddenly it's OK to label someone a bigot because they despise what is done in the name of religion?
> 
> ...




With that bigotry comment I didn't mean to specifically target anyone at all. I was just saying that if in fact there are bigots around on ASF they were always there, they had just not commented on this thread. I could have probably been more careful with my wording there. No offense intended.

I would be what I see VC refer to as an agnostic atheist. I'm not particularly against any religion, there has just been no evidence for me to be convinced or believe in what any of them teach. 

I admit I have not closely followed the developments in the whole Mosque issue further than what I hear on the radio and see in the news because other than it taking up room which I personally think could be used for better purposes I'm not too bothered about it. I do not know how informed the general public are in terms of noise pollution or any other issues which may arise. I do know however that most of the locals that were ringing up the radio station on the way home from work on Friday were not concerned with these issues, nearly every caller was commenting on what is occurring overseas right now and it was very much a 'how dare they come into our country' vibe to it. It was one of those times when the radio host had to cut people off because the radio station did not want to be seen to be promoting the comments or thoughts of some of the callers. I am also aware that there were flyers and other things of similar effect which were spreading hate of the Mulsim community in an effort to deter the mosque going up.

There was a local Gold Coast politician on the radio station as a guest which actually brought up some of these other issues mentioned. The radio host stopped him and said that they understand that there are other issues here but we all know that the protest of the Australian public has nothing to do with these other issues. Although being a politician he did not want to comment on anything to 'edge' so he stuck to those other issues.


----------



## Julia (15 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The quote from Pager was "Religion is pure evil". This is obviously untrue. People you meet every day may have religious beliefs, go to church on Sundays and never hurt anyone. Why should they or their beliefs be called "pure evil" ?
> 
> By all means denounce extremist religious nutcases, but making such a broad and ridiculous statement about religion in general is obviously bigoted, thus the criticism I made of that statement.



What Pager said in full was:


> About time people woke up to the fact Religion is pure evil, Christian or Muslim between them they have killed more people and caused more suffering through the ages than just about anything else.



and was said in response to yet another vile beheading of, of all people, an aid worker. 

I don't know what the actual statistics would be but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pager's suggestion that religion has through the ages caused more suffering than just about anything else is pretty right.   
And, although he doesn't seem to post much these days, I've known Pager for a long time and never ever seen any evidence of bigotry.  Seems more to me like distress at what is happening, coupled with perhaps a fear of it ultimately extending as far as Australia.

If you yourself were not somewhat sympathetic to religion, then I doubt you'd have used such a term.
Should I, because I largely agree with Pager, also be labelled a bigot?

Hodgie, thank you for additional information.


----------



## Pager (15 September 2014)

There I go again, maybe I should think what im saying before I post!, I do realise Religion is very important to a lot of people and does both help and give people a meaning (for the lack of other words) in there lives and does help and provide support to millions

Maybe I should have written that Religion has been hijacked by the evil rather than saying it is in itself evil, but I do find myself questioning it and not just with what’s happening today but down through the ages, Wars and all kinds of atrocity’s have been committed and/or justified in the name of varies Religions, Christianity being one of the more blood thirsty.

And yes maybe my post was in anger, I just cannot understands how human beings can be so cruel and the cruellest of them all seem to be driven by and justify what they do with there Religion, yet what does this God do to stop it?.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> anyone who has been to the USA would know there are keywords programmed into the noggins of the locals that are considered anti American and "atheist" is one of them..




And that's the discrimination she was trying to point out, and that's the reason it is important to draw attention to it. 

The fact that people have all these negative thoughts about atheists is not good.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Should I, because I largely agree with Pager, also be labelled a bigot?




Do you think religion is "pure evil" ?



> Maybe I should have written that Religion has been hijacked by the evil rather than saying it is in itself evil,




I would accept that statement as more representative of the truth.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think religion is "pure evil" ?
> 
> 
> 
> I would accept that statement as more representative of the truth.




Probably not pure evil, but a lot of the foundational beliefs of most religions are evil, So I would say that religions are evil. atleast by this definition below.



> evil - profoundly immoral and wicked




We could get into the discussion of religious people vs religions themselves, if that's the conversation people want to have my position would be.

Religions are evil

People are mostly good, but can be convinced to be evil by religion.

I attended a church service recently, and was shocked at the immorality of the concepts behind the songs and the preaching.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2014)

Julia said:


> I don't know what the actual statistics would be but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pager's suggestion that religion has through the ages caused more suffering than just about anything else is pretty right.
> .




Make sure you include the irreligious Alec The Great, The Mongols, the Tartars, the Visigoths, etc and of course the tribe that gave us a lasting name the Vandals, the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Chinese reds, etc ... I think you'll find religion is a distant second to plain old empire builders.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Probably not pure evil, but a lot of the foundational beliefs of most religions are evil, So I would say that religions are evil. atleast by this definition below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So you think that a religion that teaches "love thy neighbor as you would yourself", is profoundly evil ?

I think that's pretty warped logic.



> People are mostly good, but can be convinced to be evil by religion.




As they can by a lot of other things, drugs, patriotism, lust, greed and power.



> I attended a church service recently, and was shocked at the immorality of the concepts behind the songs and the preaching.




That's a broad statement. Can you specify ?


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think religion is "pure evil" ?
> 
> 
> 
> I would accept that statement as more representative of the truth.




Without people religion would not exist, therefore people are to blame for what they do in the name of their own made up excuse.


----------



## Julia (15 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think religion is "pure evil" ?



I think the world would be a much better place without it.
I'm OK with VC's definition below.

And Rumpole, seems to me from your past posts, you only believe Christians are OK, given your distaste for Muslims arriving on our shores.
Not sure how that would not also be classified as 'bigotry' if we must use that abrasive word?



Value Collector said:


> Probably not pure evil, but a lot of the foundational beliefs of most religions are evil, So I would say that religions are evil. atleast by this definition below.
> 
> We could get into the discussion of religious people vs religions themselves, if that's the conversation people want to have my position would be.
> 
> ...


----------



## noco (15 September 2014)

Religion would be fine if there was just one moderate Bible and everyone followed it the way it was meant to teach a better way of life.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So you think that a religion that teaches "love thy neighbor as you would yourself", is profoundly evil ?




Ok, let's forget about the fact that picking that verse is cherry picking of the highest degree, because many of these people are willing to turn their backs on neighbours if they are gay or heavens forbid "atheist". 

But let's focus on one of their foundational beliefs, human sacrifice and scapegoating. A foundational belief for Christianity is that Jesus was tortured and slain as a human sacrifice, to some how pardon mankind for its sins. There are several things that make this doctrine immoral and evil.

Firstly, human sacrifice for any reason, to me seems plain immoral, and if I had seen it taking place, I would have had to do my best to stop it, yet the religious folk revel in the idea of it. They even sang a song with this lyric.



> In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
> A wondrous beauty I see,
> For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
> To pardon and sanctify me



.

Now if we get past the idea of human sacrifice being immoral, the concept of scape goating still exists. The idea that some one else being killed 2000 years ago can free you of the responsibility of your crimes, is immoral, if you think you are forgiven and all is good simply by piling your crimes onto Jesus, I find that immoral. In my mind forgiveness can only come from the victim of your crimes.

But if we get past that, there is still the Christian doctrine that salvation doesn't come from your actions, but comes from believing in Jesus, and all you have to do is believe, eg a murderous rapist will get into heaven as long as he believes a story on faith, where as a non religious person, who is sceptical, but who has never harmed and lived life helping others will not make it to heaven, because its faith not actions that count, to me thats immoral. 

There are plenty of other concepts that are immoral, this is just the tip of the ice berg, because as i said i was focusing on foundational beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2014)

noco said:


> Religion would be fine if there was just one moderate Bible and everyone followed it the way it was meant to teach a better way of life.




How do you determine how it was "meant" to be taught?

No doubt all the religious groups around the world agree with you, as long as your taking their version of the "moderate" book, and what they think its "meant" to be teaching.

Considering there is over 10,000 brands of Christian, not to mention the various sects of Jews and Muslims, all with different teachings of the god Yahweh / god of Abraham. How do you expect them to ever come to agreement on their mythology.

And when you add in all the other religions outside of the Yahweh myths, you have a big task ahead to try and come to agreement.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

> And Rumpole, seems to me from your past posts, you only believe Christians are OK, given your distaste for Muslims arriving on our shores.
> Not sure how that would not also be classified as 'bigotry' if we must use that abrasive word?




Peaceful Muslims are ok in their place, but if there are too many of them then then starting wanting their own laws which contradict what we already have and would not be acceptable to most people in this country whether they be Christians, atheists or anyone else. We have a good secular community so far and I don't want to see religious law, no matter whose it is.

As to the allegation of "bigotry" , if I said "all Muslims are evil", then I would be a bigot, just like anyone who says "religion is pure evil" is a bigot because they fail to consider the other side of the story.


----------



## noco (16 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> How do you determine how it was "meant" to be taught?
> 
> No doubt all the religious groups around the world agree with you, as long as your taking their version of the "moderate" book, and what they think its "meant" to be teaching.
> 
> ...




Yes VC, and that is where the problem lies.....and we wonder why we have so much dissension among the people in this great world.......Each one is trying to force their religion on others and if you don't accept their view, it can in some religions, result in death.

And what is the solution??????????.....I don't know and I am damn sure nobody else does either.......One thing I do know is they will finish destroying mankind most likely with nuclear devices a long time before "Climate change" takes place.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2014)

noco said:


> And what is the solution??????????......




I think a big part of the solution would be to treat all religious claims with scepticism, and be open to the idea that all these religious claims are perhaps equal glimpses of the untrue, because the can't all be right, but the could all be wrong.

The awful side affects come from people with the most faith, if they had just a little doubt in their mind, they probably wouldn't have the confidence to fly planes into buildings.


----------



## noco (16 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think a big part of the solution would be to treat all religious claims with scepticism, and be open to the idea that all these religious claims are perhaps equal glimpses of the untrue, because the can't all be right, but the could all be wrong.
> 
> The awful side affects come from people with the most faith, if they had just a little doubt in their mind, they probably wouldn't have the confidence to fly planes into buildings.




The problem with some religions is the fact that many people are brainwashed and have had the fear of God instilled them by threats if they don't follow.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2014)

noco said:


> The problem with some religions is the fact that many people are brainwashed and have had the fear of God instilled them by threats if they don't follow.




Yes I quite agree, and it can be almost impossible for a lot of people to shake off these fears even in adult hood.

So I guess that's another evil side of religion, the practice of indoctrination of children. I think there is a fine line where teaching children about the culture of their family and religious beliefs can turn into indoctrination that becomes child abuse.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So I guess that's another evil side of religion, the practice of indoctrination of children. I think there is a fine line where teaching children about the culture of their family and religious beliefs can turn into indoctrination that becomes child abuse.




So I guess that's another evil side of boganism, the practice of indoctrination of children. I think there is a fine line where teaching children about the culture of their family and boganistic beliefs can turn into indoctrination that becomes child abuse.

Children tend to turn out like their parents, whether religious or otherwise.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So I guess that's another evil side of boganism, the practice of indoctrination of children. I think there is a fine line where teaching children about the culture of their family and boganistic beliefs can turn into indoctrination that becomes child abuse.
> 
> Children tend to turn out like their parents, whether religious or otherwise.




Docs remove children from bogan homes based on child abuse claims all the time.

But, look my main point is, that when religious teaching goes to the extreme, it can cause long term harm, this is a form of child abuse. Taking advantage of a child's under developed mind, and filling it with garbage is wrong in my opinion.

As I said its a fine line, and it's impossible to know from the outside except in extreme cases when this line is being crossed. I have heard an interview with a lady who was sexually molested by a priest as a child, however she claims the churches teachings of hell caused more long term grief in her life than the sexual abuse.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

> But, look my main point is, that when religious teaching goes to the extreme, it can cause long term harm, this is a form of child abuse. Taking advantage of a child's under developed mind, and filling it with garbage is wrong in my opinion.




Now that you are using the word *extreme*, I agree with you. That is a comedown from your previous statement that "religion is evil", implying all of it is. That's all I'm saying, that extremes of anything is bad, but there is a point where most things can be taken in moderation without damage and with benefit.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Now that you are using the word *extreme*, I agree with you. That is a comedown from your previous statement that "religion is evil", implying all of it is. That's all I'm saying, that extremes of anything is bad, but there is a point where most things can be taken in moderation without damage and with benefit.




I am not coming down from my position which was that the foundational beliefs of most religions (including Christianity) are evil. 

And In practise, they lead a lot of people to do evil things, and many evil things such as indoctrinating children and threatening them with torture and hell fire unless they believe you are condoned in our society. It's impossible to know the extent from the outside, but it would be going on, and I didn't say only the extreme cases are bad, I said the extreme cases are the only ones that are obvious.

You can look at the beheadings and suicide bombings and say they are the work of evil people, But some of the blame must fall on the indoctrination that a lot of these people had from a young age, without it, the adults would not have been as willing.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

> And In practise, they lead a lot of people to do evil things, and many evil things such as indoctrinating children and threatening them with torture and hell fire unless they believe you are condoned in our society.




I was brought up in a Methodist household and I never had anything of that. I think you are condemning a lot of people because of the acts of a few. It's a biased view to say the least.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (16 September 2014)

Hey Sir R 

So I once got into a bit of a philosophical debate with a Fundamental Christian preacher...out there stuff, young earth, Intelligent design, faith healing the whole box and dice.

If you don't mind I'm going to ask you the same question I asked him in relation to "indoctrination" vs "child rearing".

(remember that this guy was a preacher as well).

The decision around faith and living a spiritual life is a complex decision that for some people encompasses their entire life. Here we are as a bunch of adults debating concepts that are challenging to our adult and developed minds....

So at what age can a minor truly make a conscious and informed decision to follow a particular faith or ideology? Is there a point that is "too young"?

If you're interested his response was *5 years old*.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hey Sir R
> 
> So I once got into a bit of a philosophical debate with a Fundamental Christian preacher...out there stuff, young earth, Intelligent design, faith healing the whole box and dice.
> 
> ...




Hi Sir O,

I don't think religion should be taught in State schools. Nor do I think "anti religion" should be taught.

If people choose to send their children to a religious school then they have to accept that religion would be taught.

But unless you want to get into the homes of everyone in the country, eradicating religious "education" of children in the home is impossible, so what you or I or Value Collector think is irrelevant in this matter. Parents will do what they want, like it or not.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (16 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Hi Sir O,
> 
> I don't think religion should be taught in State schools. Nor do I think "anti religion" should be taught.
> 
> ...




You didn't answer my question. The question is not about anyone else's actions whether that is "indoctrination" or "child-rearing", "state sponsored religious education" or whatever. The question is about the decision of a minor to consciously decide to believe in a certain philosophy. What age do you think?

Cheers 

Sir O


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> You didn't answer my question. The question is not about anyone else's actions whether that is "indoctrination" or "child-rearing", "state sponsored religious education" or whatever. The question is about the decision of a minor to consciously decide to believe in a certain philosophy. What age do you think?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sir O




I think it's been determined that peoples brains run more on hormones than logic up to the age of about 20, but a lot  have done some pretty silly things by that age, mostly not concerned with religion.

 So if you want an answer I would say 20. What do you think ?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (16 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's been determined that peoples brains run more on hormones than logic up to the age of about 20, but a lot  have done some pretty silly things by that age, mostly not concerned with religion.
> 
> So if you want an answer I would say 20. What do you think ?




My thoughts are relevant only to my own spawnlings but your number is actually higher than mine. 

So now we come down to boiling the frog, or in other words, what is "extreme" and therefore indoctrination and child abuse (those kids of Sharrouf holding severed heads comes to mind) and what is not "extreme". 

It's all too difficult to point to a place and say, this is extreme, but that thing there, which is almost the same, that is not. We are all going to be different, and how dare you tell me where it should be and how I should raise my kids, damn big brother what is this 1984, all pigs are equal!!!  /sarcasm

Can you therefore see that indoctrination of any degree is a very slippery slope indeed, "extreme" or "moderate" and why some would believe that it is essentially child abuse?

I personally believe that teaching kids to think is far more important than teaching kids to think a certain way.

Cheers
Sir O


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

> Can you therefore see that indoctrination of any degree is a very slippery slope indeed, "extreme" or "moderate" and why some would believe that it is essentially child abuse?




I think it's a very slippery slope to try and define "indoctrination". Some people think that children are being indoctrinated into a "Left" agenda at school by a biased social science or history syllabus.

Fully agree with you though that teaching children how to think in a rational way is probably being neglected, although it's been a while since I've had anything to do with the school system.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I was brought up in a Methodist household and I never had anything of that. I think you are condemning a lot of people because of the acts of a few. It's a biased view to say the least.




So are you saying that none of the Methodists church's foundational doctrines are immoral?

or are you just saying you didn't experience any indoctrination. 




SirRumpole said:


> I think it's a very slippery slope to try and define "indoctrination".
> .




Same with any child abuse laws.

for example we can all agree on the extreme cases of violent child abuse, but there is a massive grey area hovering between giving a child a smack on the hand and whipping a child with an electrical lead, offcourse religious indoctrination is no different.

However just as society frowns on hitting children now, so it should frown on indoctrination.

I personally was smacked relatively few times growing up, But it would be silly of me to say make out that all children enjoy homes with now violence, and silly of me to encourage hitting children.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So are you saying that none of the Methodists church's foundational doctrines are immoral?
> 
> or are you just saying you didn't experience any indoctrination.




I'm saying I did not experience indoctrination. I ceased going to church as soon as I could as I thought it was a waste of time. For a lot of people imo, church is a social club. A place that parents know their children can go and meet others in a safe environment (pedophile priests excepted. I never saw any of those either. The Ministers I had were good people).




> Same with any child abuse laws.
> 
> for example we can all agree on the extreme cases of violent child abuse, but there is a massive grey area hovering between giving a child a smack on the hand and whipping a child with an electrical lead, offcourse religious indoctrination is no different.
> 
> ...




Again, what are the "extremes" . If a parent wants their child to see the difference between good and evil and wants to use lessons in the Bible as an example of both, that's fine by me. If they want to go into "you are a sinner unless you take Jesus into your life", that's heading towards extreme in my book.  I'm sure other people have different views of extremes, but that's just human nature.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2014)

I've not yet seen anyone disprove the premise that, although religion can definitely be held to account for some bad behaviours, there is no good/decent/productive/selfless (insert your word of choice) behaviour that is peculiar and exclusive to religious people.

That's largely the basis on which I reject it plus a loathing for anything which replaces critical thinking with mindless dogma.

Rumpole, reasonable point about people finding enjoyment in a social sense in a church, but again, there are plenty of social opportunities available without the need to include religion in it.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

Julia said:


> I've not yet seen anyone disprove the premise that, although religion can definitely be held to account for some bad behaviours, there is no good/decent/productive/selfless (insert your word of choice) behaviour that is peculiar and exclusive to religious people.




Agreed



> That's largely the basis on which I reject it plus a loathing for anything which replaces critical thinking with mindless dogma.




Agreed again. You and I can live without it, but if people voluntarily want to engage in religion without hurting others, then I don't think they should be labelled as "evil".



> Rumpole, reasonable point about people finding enjoyment in a social sense in a church, but again, there are plenty of social opportunities available without the need to include religion in it.




Yes, but people tend to congregate with other people who share their views. I like playing golf so I go to a golf club, I don't find anything in religion that interests me, so I don't go to church. If religious people don't criticise my club, I don't see why I should criticise theirs if they are not affecting me.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (16 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's a very slippery slope to try and define "indoctrination". Some people think that children are being indoctrinated into a "Left" agenda at school by a biased social science or history syllabus.
> 
> Fully agree with you though that teaching children how to think in a rational way is probably being neglected, although it's been a while since I've had anything to do with the school system.




That's an interesting response Sir R, and I've already said that where do you draw the line in the sand? People get very emotional when their kids are involved...I know I do. When we see examples like Sharrouf's kids, it's impossible not to feel for those kids. As a Father myself I am horrified about what kind of person would do that kind of damage to a child. I'd like to see those kids in a better environment, but what do we do...take away the children of people who hold extremist views and "re-educate" them within our Foster Care System?

Just look at something as simple as a spank.

*You're taking away my rights as a Parent!!!!
*I was belted as a child and it never did me no harm!!!!
*Bloody nanny state!!!!!
*Cultural discrimination!!!!!
*Etc Etc.

IMO spanking is a lot less damaging than indoctrination.....wiki definition.
As a pejorative term, indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics believe that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism.[4] Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[5] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism, temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[6]

I guess the question to me revolves around this point...when we see something as obviously wrong (sharrouf's kids), do we simply wash our hands of it because its a sensitive, complex issue and its hard...or do we act? 

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2014)

> I guess the question to me revolves around this point...when we see something as obviously wrong (sharrouf's kids), do we simply wash our hands of it because its a sensitive, complex issue and its hard...or do we act?




If Sharrouf and his son return to this country, the child should be taken away from his parents and never see them again. He should be deradicalised with foster parents who have no connection with his religion. Sounds tough , but it's in the child's interests.


----------



## bunyip (17 September 2014)

Pager said:


> I just cannot understands how human beings can be so cruel and the cruellest of them all seem to be driven by and justify what they do with there Religion, yet what does this God do to stop it?.




Absolutely nothing – and he never has done to stop horrible things from happening to decent people, and he never will. Right down through the centuries we see examples of big talk from this god who claims to be loving and righteous and compassionate, but never any action to back it up when the chips are down and somebody needs help. And yet his supporters turn a blind eye to this fact so they can continue with the outdated nonsense about their imaginary friend who’s so righteous and powerful and compassionate.
Surely an aid worker in the Middle East, there to help people less fortunate than himself, would be worthy of some help from this god who Christians believe to be so compassionate and powerful. Surely thousands of innocent people trapped on a mountain in Iraq and facing certain death from thirst or hunger or deranged, murdering lunatics, were deserving of some help from the god they worshipped. Surely millions of Jews caught up in the madness of the Nazis in Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s, were deserving of some help from this compassionate god who they worship.
But no – nothing except talk and perpetuation of the ‘compassionate and caring’ myth. It’s pretty damn pathetic.
This was one of the many ridiculous lies perpetuated by the religion I was brought up in,  that eventually caused me to turn away from Christianity.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> I guess the question to me revolves around this point...when we see something as obviously wrong (sharrouf's kids), do we simply wash our hands of it because its a sensitive, complex issue and its hard...or do we act?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sir O




We roll back the post modernism nonsense about nothing is absolute truth and re-establish the central theme of core values, or for that matter the expulsion of core values, that allows us to have a voice and a say on who, what, when, where and how. It doesn't need a threat of laconic conflict as an excuse to do what we all know has to be done and what our enemies within can't believe we aren't deploying already.

My concern is the way we are ignoring an heard of elephants in the kitchen in the hope they won't stampede and break some china cups....eventually their sheer weight will collapse the house unless tamed and sent outside to play.


----------



## bunyip (17 September 2014)

A WARNING FROM DICK SMITH:
You may be aware that "Dick Smith" chain franchise stores are being pressured by the Islamic Council of Australia to gain 'Halal Certification' otherwise they will be proscribed and banned from Muslim custom. This is their response:

_A MESSAGE FROM DICK SMITH.
"*We at Dick Smith's have received a number of letters from people asking if we will be putting the Muslim Halal logo on our food.

To acquire Halal certification, payment is required to the endorsing body (the Islamic Council) and involves a number of site inspections of both our growers and processors in order to ensure that our practices comply with the conditions of Halal certification.

It is important to note that this does not reflect the quality of the food being processed or sold – it only means that the products are approved as being prepared in accordance with the traditions of the Muslim faith.

We are aware of an increasing number of large companies both in Australia and overseas, such as Kraft and Cadbury, who have obtained accreditation to use the Halal logo. We don’t believe they have done this because of any religious commitment but rather for purely commercial reasons. Perhaps these large organisations can afford to do this.

While we have a choice however, we would prefer to avoid unnecessarily increasing the cost of our products in order to pay for Halal accreditation when this money would be better spent continuing to support important charitable causes where assistance is greatly needed.

We point out that we have never been asked to put a Christian symbol (or any other religious symbol) on our food requiring that we send money to a Christian organisation for the right to do so*._

Others would add that money paid to ANY Muslim 'organisation' (and you had better believe it: these people ARE 'organised') can easily find its way into the hands of Islamic extremist-fanatics and murderers, irrespective of assurances to the contrary.

What other assurances do we accept from Muslims?

Oh, that's right,
'Islam is a religion of PEACE'!

How less Australian can companies get, than to place money into the hands of those who seek to exploit us?"

This is an example of how the leaders of Muslims in Aus/NZ are bullying large commercial organisations (especially in the food industry) into paying what is no more than blatant extortion money. The amazing part is that these weak-kneed organisations (Cadbury/ Schweppes/ Nestles/ Kraft etc.) actually pay the large sums demanded by these self-appointed religious bureaucrats. Of course, the manufacturers promptly pass this levy on to unwitting consumers as cost increases. Next time you buy a block of Cadbury's chocolate, look for the Halal Certification seal on the wrapper. So, regardless of your own religious faith, you end up subsidizing Islam.

The Council also controls the Muslim voter bloc which, as yet, does not have sufficient critical mass to make a difference - but give them time.

Several state jurisdictions are under pressure to adopt or permit Sharia Law in Marriage, Family and Property matters and some, under the delusion that they are being progressively liberal, are permitting this. This has already happened in some local authorities in the U.K.

Google the U.K. Education Department's current investigation into the conduct of Muslim-run schools in the Birmingham area of England.

How many more warnings do people need?
http://morningmail.org/dick-smith-foods-reject-halal/


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2014)

If the Muslims want Halal food, I suggest they open their own supermarkets and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## Joe Blow (17 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> _A MESSAGE FROM DICK SMITH.
> "*We at Dick Smith's have received a number of letters from people asking if we will be putting the Muslim Halal logo on our food.
> 
> To acquire Halal certification, payment is required to the endorsing body (the Islamic Council) and involves a number of site inspections of both our growers and processors in order to ensure that our practices comply with the conditions of Halal certification.
> ...




Bunyip, just for the sake of accuracy, I want to point out that what you have quoted there is not a verbatim quote from the Dick Smith website. What is actually on Dick's website is:



> We have received a number of letters from people asking if we will be putting the Muslim Halal logo on our food.
> 
> To acquire Halal certification, payment is required to the endorsing body and involves a number of site inspections of both our growers and processors in order to ensure that our practices comply with the conditions of Halal certification. It is important to note that this does not reflect the quality of the food being processed or sold – it only means that the products are approved as being prepared in accordance with the traditions of the Muslim faith.
> 
> We are aware of an increasing number of large companies both in Australia and overseas, such as Kraft and Cadbury, who have obtained accreditation to use the Halal logo. We don’t believe they have done this because of any religious commitment but rather for purely commercial reasons. Perhaps these large organisations can afford to do this. While we have a choice however, we would prefer to avoid unnecessarily increasing the cost of our products in order to pay for Halal accreditation when this money would be better spent continuing to support important charitable causes where assistance is greatly needed.




http://www.dicksmithfoods.com.au/media/news/halal-certification-our-food

I'm not sure where that last paragraph came from, but it is not from Dick Smith or his company. It's always a good idea to follow links personally to confirm that quotes on other websites are reproduced accurately.

Not taking sides here, just making sure that Dick Smith is not misrepresented here at ASF.


----------



## bunyip (17 September 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> It amazes me to think that non-Catholics can have more behavioural expectations of Priests than Catholics actually do!!!
> 
> Duckman






Do we?? I don’t know what you expect of Catholic priests, Duckman, but what I and every other decent person expects from them is decency, respect for other people, and the most severe condemnation and punishment for priests who abuse their positions by sexual exploiting little kids. This should include the Catholic church booting them out of the priesthood and the  church, publicly denouncing them and handing them over to the police, and cooperating in every way with police action to bring charges against them and make those charges stick.
What we _*don’t*_ expect is for these vermin to be protected and promoted by church hierarchy who are every bit as low as the scum they protect.


----------



## bunyip (17 September 2014)

Joe Blow said:


> Bunyip, just for the sake of accuracy, I want to point out that what you have quoted there is not a verbatim quote from the Dick Smith website. What is actually on Dick's website is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fair enough then Joe, thanks for pointing that out. While I'd be pretty confident that Dick has not in fact ever been pressured by any other religion, if he hasn't actually said so then I should have left that part out. My mistake there.


----------



## Value Collector (17 September 2014)

i have no problem with food companies choosing to get halal certification, to me its no different from a kosher certification or even a heart tick or any other paid for labelling such as world wildlife fund, or the many others.

These things don't add a cost, they generally come from the marketing budget, and are paid for by greater acceptance of the product. Eg the marketing budget will get spent anyway, whether its tv ads, facebook promotion or in store samples, and the costs on average will be recovered.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> i have no problem with food companies choosing to get halal certification, to me its no different from a kosher certification or even a heart tick or any other paid for labelling such as world wildlife fund, or the many others.
> 
> These things don't add a cost, they generally come from the marketing budget, and are paid for by greater acceptance of the product. Eg the marketing budget will get spent anyway, whether its tv ads, facebook promotion or in store samples, and the costs on average will be recovered.




Supermarkets choosing to get a certification is up to them. For consumers (hopefully the people who actually matter) a heart certification indicates some benefit for the consumer, a halal certification indicates a tick from some looney religious organisation that the food conforms to their supposedly archaic requirements. I think I would deliberately choose to avoid such produce, as I would avoid going to church wherever possible.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Supermarkets choosing to get a certification is up to them. For consumers (hopefully the people who actually matter) a heart certification indicates some benefit for the consumer, a halal certification indicates a tick from some looney religious organisation that the food conforms to their supposedly archaic requirements. I think I would deliberately choose to avoid such produce, as I would avoid going to church wherever possible.



+1.   Mostly because of halal animal slaughter rules.

I can't see a valid comparison with the Heart Foundation tick.  That is given on sound nutritional basis and, given the massive problem in this country with obesity, the population needs all the nutritional help it can get.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Supermarkets choosing to get a certification is up to them. For consumers (hopefully the people who actually matter) a heart certification indicates some benefit for the consumer, a halal certification indicates a tick from some looney religious organisation that the food conforms to their supposedly archaic requirements. I think I would deliberately choose to avoid such produce, as I would avoid going to church wherever possible.




Supermarkets don't get certification, individual products do. So if your a company that makes products that already meet the halal requirements, why not get the certification if it will mean you get a few extra sales.

Halal just means "lawful", under Muslim law, Muslims, like many religions have rules about what they can eat. A halal certification just means it conforms to Muslim law. Even some banks offer Halal home loans, would you avoid a bank because they offer loans marked as halal?

For example, a well known fish processor recently got halal certification, because they were able to show that no pig products were used in the processing their fish. They will probably get more sales now as muslims choose their product over another uncertified product.

It doesn't affect you, the product wasn't changed.

Just like oreo chocolate biscuits recently advertise that they are vegan, because they don't contain diary or animal products, Just because I am not vegan doesn't mean I should avoid the biscuits.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

Julia said:


> +1.   Mostly because of halal animal slaughter rules.
> 
> .




When it comes to animal slaughter, it's never going to be pleasant. However, Saying that for the majority of the last 1500 years, the Halal method of animal slaughter was the best practice and most humane method for killing an animal.

Halal law states that animals can only be killed if the sharpest blade available is used, and the method is a swift cut to the throat severing the vital blood and air passages, and all undue stress on the animal is avoided. When these laws were introduced, they were ahead of their time, and until the advent of the modern methods involving electric shock and stun guns in the last 100years or so, they were the best practise. 

which brings us back to one of my main problems with religion, they resist change and get stuck in old laws even when newer ways are found.

But, our modern methods are not perfect, there are many stories of pigs waking up after the electric shock or c02 and still alive and awake as they pass through the gas burners that disinfect the body and burn of its hair, or cows that aren't killed by the stun gun puncturing their skull.

the modern methods can have so many problems, its law that the throat is still cut after the stun gun, electric shock or c02 immersion.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2014)

VC, I could do without all the graphic description, thanks.  If the animal is properly stunned that has to be preferable imo, except for intravenous euthanasia which obviously isn't going to happen.

You're welcome to buy all the halal food you like.  I would be looking for an alternative.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

Julia said:


> VC, I could do without all the graphic description, thanks .




Sorry, I didn't think I was being graphic, I was just discussing the topic.



> If the animal is properly stunned that has to be preferable imo



,

Yes, I agree, and 88% of animals processed for the halal market are stunned. 

My main point is that I am all for pointing out terrible things that religion do or have done, I just don't think the Halal meat processing is one of the terrible things. It's probably one of the good things they have done.

Offcourse there is all sorts of misinformation about halal because most people don't know what it is, but the reality is it's nothing to worry about. 



> You're welcome to buy all the halal food you like.  I would be looking for an alternative




Some of the alternatives are not that flash, and as I said a lot of foods are already halal, so no changes are required to processing facilities. the fact that Australian law requires the throat to be cut after stunning makes most places halal by default.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2014)

Julia said:


> VC, I could do without all the graphic description, thanks.  If the animal is properly stunned that has to be preferable imo, except for intravenous euthanasia which obviously isn't going to happen.
> 
> You're welcome to buy all the halal food you like.  I would be looking for an alternative.




Almost all the meat sold as Halal in Australia involves non-lethal stunning to render the animal unconscious before killing.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2014)

McLovin said:


> Almost all the meat sold as Halal in Australia involves non-lethal stunning to render the animal unconscious before killing.



How can you be so sure of that?   I hope you're right.
(I have no greater confidence that non-halal killing is meticulous about animal welfare.)


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2014)

Julia said:


> How can you be so sure of that?   I hope you're right.
> (I have no greater confidence that non-halal killing is meticulous about animal welfare.)






> The standard for meat production in Australia is that all animals must be effectively stunned (unconscious) prior to slaughter. The vast majority of halal slaughter in Australia complies with this standard. The only difference with halal slaughter is that it uses a reversible stunning method, while conventional humane slaughter uses an irreversible stunning method.




http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-halal-slaughter-in-Australia_116.html

Almost all animals are slaughtered in a Halal way. Some of that meat will not be certified Halal because of it coems into contact with things that make it no longer Halal (don't ask me what those things are because I've got NFI! ) or because the producer can't be bothered with the expense of certification etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2014)

Regardless of the benefits or otherwise of Halal food, if you have to pay the Islamic Council for certification, in today's circumstances do you know where that money is going to ?


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Regardless of the benefits or otherwise of Halal food, if you have to pay the Islamic Council for certification, in today's circumstances do you know where that money is going to ?




Yeah it must be going to terrorism.

I'm out of this thread.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2014)

McLovin said:


> Yeah it must be going to terrorism.
> 
> I'm out of this thread.




Bye McLovin.

Everyone says it MUST be such and such in order to disparage others. False argument. PERHAPS some money is going to terrorism. Who handles the money, what are their links with terrorists ? These things should be investigated.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> . PERHAPS some money is going to terrorism.




do you know of any information that suggests it does?



> Who handles the money,?




Why don't you call them and find out more about their organisation? Have you done any research into their organisation?




> These things should be investigated




We have some very good anti terrorist agencies in Australia, who's job it is to investigate such things and monitor financial transactions. It is not our job to assume every Muslim organisation or charity is funding terrorism.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2014)

> It is not our job to assume every Muslim organisation or charity is funding terrorism.




Neither can we assume they are not.

You seem to have changed your tune about religion. Are you NOW giving them the benefit of the doubt ?


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

Julia said:


> How can you be so sure of that?   I hope you're right.
> (I have no greater confidence that non-halal killing is meticulous about animal welfare.)




Here is what the Halal Australia says about animal welfare, you will see animal welfare is at the core of the halal laws.

It ensures that not only are the animals killed swiftly, but also other rules about not taking babies from mothers, and not mishandling them.



> Is Halal meat slaughtered humanely?
> 
> Treating animals humanely and with utmost respect is integral to Islamic teachings. Animals are recognized in Islam as being “nations such as yourselves”. In the context of Halal there are many requirements that advance these objectives. For example, young animals are not to be taken from their mothers too early to minimize their distress and animals must not be subjected to harsh treatment. Muslims are to “lead [animals] in a beautiful way” and as such must not be pushed, pulled, mutilated or slaughtered in front of each other. They must never be shown the knife to be used for the slaughter. Animals must also be offered a drink of water before slaughter. The instrument must be extremely sharp to ensure one swift, clean cut of jugular veins, trachea and esophagus, so as not to cause undue suffering. Islam even specifies the arteries that are to be cut to ensure the maximum convulsion of the muscles and withdrawal of blood so as to cause the animal to lose consciousness of the pain. Modern scientific principles confirm the efficacy of this technique.
> 
> .


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Neither can we assume they are not.




I think we should Assume innocence until proven guilty, or at least until we have evidence that wrong doing is going on rather than basing the assumption on bigotry.



> You seem to have changed your tune about religion. Are you NOW giving them the benefit of the doubt




Have I ever said we should assume all religious groups are terrorists?

I haven't changed my tune, as I said there is lots of things wrong with Islam, and Halal isn't one of them, of all the things they have done wrong, Halal animal treatment is something they got right. I am not a fan of attacking a group based on misinformation, and I don't like to assume guilt. 

Talk about Halal meat and people go nuts, ask them what it is, and they give you a dumb look or some crazy explanation.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think we should Assume innocence until proven guilty, or at least until we have evidence that wrong doing is going on rather than basing the assumption on bigotry.




You are correct, but when do we start collecting evidence ? After the first beheading on our streets or should we be taking preventative action ?

Our police forces took preventative action this morning based on investigations. In such a case where terrorism is closely linked with a religious organisation we should be within our rights to satisfy ourselves that the organisation is not supporting a terrorist group.

I for one hope that our Police and Intelligence services are following any lines of enquiry that lead to exposing terrorists and their supporters.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You are correct, but when do we start collecting evidence ? After the first beheading on our streets or should we be taking preventative action ?
> 
> Our police forces took preventative action this morning based on investigations. In such a case where terrorism is closely linked with a religious organisation we should be within our rights to satisfy ourselves that the organisation is not supporting a terrorist group.
> 
> I for one hope that our Police and Intelligence services are following any lines of enquiry that lead to exposing terrorists and their supporters.




I mentioned before that we have very good intelligence agencies who's job it is to investigate such matters, so it's not up to the average punter to make assumptions and spread misinformation, unless they have some how come across evidence, then they should report it to the authorities.

To assume any organisation that has anything to do with Islam must be put on the stand and prove itself innocent to make the bigots happy would be making australia a worse place to live.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I mentioned before that we have very good intelligence agencies who's job it is to investigate such matters, so it's not up to the average punter to make assumptions and spread misinformation, unless they have some how come across evidence, then they should report it to the authorities.
> 
> To assume any organisation that has anything to do with Islam must be put on the stand and prove itself innocent to make the bigots happy would be making australia a worse place to live.




Who said anything about "putting people on the stand" ? Investigations should be done, that's all. If evidence is found, it should be acted on.

If it wasn't for investigations already done, some "average punter" would have had his head cut off, so I think we have a right to express our opinions.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Who said anything about "putting people on the stand" ? Investigations should be done, that's all. If evidence is found, it should be acted on.
> 
> If it wasn't for investigations already done, some "average punter" would have had his head cut off, so I think we have a right to express our opinions.




And you just have to trust that those investigations are being done. It's not up to the public to make public assumptions and accusations, for all you know the intelligence agencies have looked at the halal group and found no links, but here you are on a public forum trying to spread a seed of doubt about an organisation you know nothing about other than they are Muslim.

You are sort of suggesting they take the stand, because you seem to think they should have to be publicly proved innocent before you will trust them, or some sort of public investigation be done against any organisation members of the public care to name.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Here is what the Halal Australia says about animal welfare, you will see animal welfare is at the core of the halal laws.
> 
> It ensures that not only are the animals killed swiftly, but also other rules about not taking babies from mothers, and not mishandling them.



Yeah, right.  That's all just fine then.  Repeated investigations have shown that such reassuring motherhood statements are just that, and in fact animals are frequently abused in the most horrible ways.  This is not confined to any secular or religious group.



SirRumpole said:


> You are correct, but when do we start collecting evidence ? After the first beheading on our streets or should we be taking preventative action ?
> 
> Our police forces took preventative action this morning based on investigations. In such a case where terrorism is closely linked with a religious organisation we should be within our rights to satisfy ourselves that the organisation is not supporting a terrorist group.
> 
> I for one hope that our Police and Intelligence services are following any lines of enquiry that lead to exposing terrorists and their supporters.



Well, thank you, Rumpole.  We have had saturation coverage all day of the most intense counter-terrorist action to ever happen in Australia, and no one here until now has even considered it worthy of a mention.

Why?   Is there so much concern about the potential to offend "moderate Muslims"?  Even from people here who have so vehemently previously criticised all religion.   
Perhaps some of these people might be able to explain why there exists a rally of Muslims against today's actions by authorities:
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/09/18/200-protest--govt-aggression--in-sydney.html

Are we all so confident that we don't actually have home grown terrorism right here in Australia that we don't feel it warrants any comment?

That it's all some sort of beat up in order to strike fear and compliance into the heart of Australians?

A couple of weeks ago I raised the thought that if disaffected Muslim youth are denied, via cancelling of their passports, the opportunity to go and fight with ISIS in the ME, their frustration will exacerbate their obviously already existing hatred of Australia, despite their having been born here.
Today's news reports include the fact that every one of those in today's events had had their attempts to travel from Australia thwarted.

What, then, is the point of this?   Isn't it better to let them go and vent their murderous intent in the main battlefield, instead of randomly executing some innocent Australian, plucked off the streets?

I'm just really interested to know people's reactions to today's events.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

> Yeah, right.  That's all just fine then.  Repeated investigations have shown that such reassuring motherhood statements are just that,  fact animals are frequently abused in the most horrible ways.  This is not confined to any secular or religious group.




No doubt not every individual in the industry is 100% compliant 100% of the time, but what's that got to do with halal products or methods?

I mean, if your concern is that individuals could break rules and mishandle an animal, thats got nothing to do with halal, so I can't see how the problem would be resolved by avoiding halal meat, you would have to go vegan to avoid it.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2014)

In regards to the terrorist plot in Australia, I wasn't shocked, it's the 3rd or 4th major plot thats been thwarted. And I am happy that the authorities have uncovered the plan and put an end to it. It has given me confidence in their work.

I am concerned that more than likely a terrorist action will happen, they can not stop them all, eventually the dice will roll the wrong way. All I can hope for is that they can stop them long enough for a gradually shift if the general population away from religious ideas.

This is the main reason I speak out publicly to try and assist people to move away from religious ideas and instead value critical thinking.  

I don't believe moderate religion is the answer, where ever there are moderates you will breed a level of extremism, the extremists are recruited from moderates, the vast majority of extremists come from moderate homes that laid the foundational beliefs that extremism could be build on.


----------



## lindsayf (18 September 2014)

Well it certainly reinforces the title of this thread.  The events of the day are born in a ridiculous devotion to a ridiculous doctrine.  There have been a few 'Australian' 'leaders' and recruiters in the extremist islamic movement so there was/is always a likelihood some of the mindless BS was going happen here.  So while the news is horrific from an Australian way of life perspective, it is also not completely surprising that these elements exist and are active right here..  The behaviour of the 'moderates' is a complex topic.  Some speak up but the vast majority are silent - why are the vast majority silent?  Is it out of fear of retribution in their own community if they spoke up or is it something else?  In any case does it matter what the moderates do or dont do?  It is much more about the extremist jihadists than them and there seem to be plenty of them and plenty of available young recruits.
I am pleased that our police etc are active on this front - there are enough indicators here and elsewhere to tell us that we need to take some measures to protect the community.  If the moderates have to, and they will, pay a price for this then so be it.  I would very much  like to see a street march by the moderates separating themselves politically and religiously from the extremists-rather than bemoaning the 'unfair' treatment of a few suspects.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No doubt not every individual in the industry is 100% compliant 100% of the time, but what's that got to do with halal products or methods?
> 
> I mean, if your concern is that individuals could break rules and mishandle an animal, thats got nothing to do with halal, so I can't see how the problem would be resolved by avoiding halal meat, you would have to go vegan to avoid it.



Sigh.  I already said 







> This is not confined to any secular or religious group.



I do not eat meat.  That does not mean I have to be vegan which involves no consumption of any product or byproduct or any part of any animal, eg eggs.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

> You are sort of suggesting they take the stand, because you seem to think they should have to be publicly proved innocent before you will trust them, or some sort of public investigation be done against any organisation members of the public care to name.




Misrepresentation once again. Once more , when did I suggest a PUBLIC investigation ? I don't expect the AFP to shout from the rooftops WE ARE INVESTIGATING THE ISLAMIC COUNCIL, I just think they should do it via their normal processes, and if they have nothing to hide I'm sure that the council would cooperate.

In most criminal investigations there are  more suspects than perpetrators, which means that  innocent people get investigated and cleared. That's a fact of life. I would equally expect investigation of the Catholic church if there was any suspicion of a link between them and a terrorist group.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Misrepresentation once again. Once more , when did I suggest a PUBLIC investigation ? I don't expect the AFP to shout from the rooftops WE ARE INVESTIGATING THE ISLAMIC COUNCIL, I just think they should do it via their normal processes, and if they have nothing to hide I'm sure that the council would cooperate.
> 
> In most criminal investigations there are  more suspects than perpetrators, which means that  innocent people get investigated and cleared. That's a fact of life. I would equally expect investigation of the Catholic church if there was any suspicion of a link between them and a terrorist group.




So as i how, how do you know that they have not already been investigated?

And at what point do you refrain from publicly suggesting the organisation may be involved in terrorist activity?

Because as you said your not expecting the investigation to be made public, and you have no idea if they have already been investigated, and you have no information to suggest they have done anything wrong. So it seems your comments are just flinging mud, for no reason.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

Julia said:


> I do not eat meat. .




Ok, that's fine, but when you said you would rather look for alternatives than eat halal it gave me the impression you were eating meat, and you just wanted to avoid halal meat for some reason, I was just trying to say that there is no extra animal cruelty involved in halal, and that the whole purpose of halal is to minimise cruelty.

A lot of people that are against halal have some pretty strange ideas as to what it is, I was just trying to bring the facts to light. The only reason I know so much about halal is because I was offended when I was younger and my butcher started saying all his meat was halal, when I researched it though, I realised it was not evil and was actually a good thing.



> That does not mean I have to be vegan which involves no consumption of any product or by product or any part of any animal, eg eggs




I understand now that you don't eat meat, but if animal rights is the issue, then eating egg products should be avoided also.

 In my opinion the life of a broiler hen (meat chook) is better than that of a laying hen. I mean they both end up at the slaughter house, the laying hens just spend 2 years in tight cages prior to the slaughter house. broilers on the other hand are not caged up, and living conditions only get tight in the last 2 weeks or so, because they only spend 40days on the farm, and the majority of that they are small with lots of room to move, only when they are full size does it get cramped, but then they are shipped off, and a fresh load of chicks brought in.

Any way, this is getting off topic, I have no problem with vegans or vegetarians or what ever people want to eat. I am just interested in facts.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

> So it seems your comments are just flinging mud, for no reason.




Your staunch defense of a class of organisation you have been throwing mud at throughout this thread is touching. 

Some may say hypocritical, but I won't throw that piece of mud.


----------



## bunyip (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But, our modern methods are not perfect, there are many stories of pigs waking up after the electric shock or c02 and still alive and awake as they pass through the gas burners that disinfect the body and burn of its hair,* or cows that aren't killed by the stun gun puncturing their skull.*




VC

Most cattlemen visit an abattoir every so often to see their own cattle slaughtered. Their objective is to see the carcass hanging up so they can assess the fat levels and other relevant details that can help them to modify their breeding programs so they produce cattle with better carcass attributes – hence more money for their bottom line.
I’ve visited abattoirs a couple of time myself in this capacity. I can tell you that the purpose of a stun gun is not to penetrate the skull and kill the animal. As the name suggests, the stun gun is only for the purpose of stunning the animal by delivering a blow to the back of the head. Once the animal is rendered unconscious, the slaughtermen move in to cut the throat so as to deliver a quick and painless death, and to bleed the animal as much as possible before the carcass is hung up for processing.


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Your staunch defense of a class of organisation you have been throwing mud at throughout this thread is touching.
> 
> Some may say hypocritical, but I won't throw that piece of mud.




Are we talking about motorcycle groups with individuals not allowed to consort, locked up on suspicion, constantly monitored and harangued? It's a wonder they haven't converted to Islam to get the cops and govt off their backs.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

Tisme said:


> Are we talking about motorcycle groups with individuals not allowed to consort, locked up on suspicion, constantly monitored and harangued? It's a wonder they haven't converted to Islam to get the cops and govt off their backs.




I know you're joking, but some of them have.

Middle East bikie groups are an increasing problem.


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I know you're joking, but some of them have.
> 
> Middle East bikie groups are an increasing problem.




I have a feeling the VLAD laws were in response to the MEB gangs and memberships of "those types" in established clubs.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> VC
> 
> As the name suggests, the stun gun is only for the purpose of stunning the animal by delivering a blow to the back of the head. Once the animal is rendered unconscious, the slaughtermen move in to cut the throat so as to deliver a quick and painless death, and to bleed the animal as much as possible before the carcass is hung up for processing.




yes, I know, I have seen the process also, and I have heard stories of the stun gun not rendering the animal unconscious.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Your staunch defense of a class of organisation you have been throwing mud at throughout this thread is touching.
> 
> Some may say hypocritical, but I won't throw that piece of mud.




As I said, there are many good reasons to attack religion, why attack the good parts? the more people conducting inspections inside meat processing facilities the better, Why care if a food processor pays to have another group conduct routine inspections.

and secondly, I have never been in favour of bigotry, As I have said many times, I am a big supporter of religious freedom, they can build as many churches, mosques etc as they like, as long as they fund it themselves, they can have as many religious groups as they like, as long as It doesn't infringe on the rights of the non religious.

And they have the right not to be discriminated against, it not up to us as individuals to be making accusations and requests for investigations, Until they are proven to be doing the wrong thing, or unless you have other evidence, we have to assume innocence.

(please note when I say it's not up to us I mean me and you, the authorities can investigate, but they will probably not make investigations public, so we have to assume the group is ok, unless the authorities say they aren't)  

The authorities have already proven their investigations work, so until the authorities publicly charge them or raid them, the rest of us have to assume their innocence. Other wise we will start to adopt a society where bigotry rules and racism thrives.

Trust me the average Muslim on the street is going to be copping enough dirty looks and abuse to make them resent other groups and widen the cultural gap, they don't need it from me and you.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> As I said, there are many good reasons to attack religion, why attack the good parts?




Excuse me VC, it was you who said "religion is evil", not me.

How can something evil have any "good parts" ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Excuse me VC, it was you who said "religion is evil", not me.
> 
> How can something evil have any "good parts" ?




I said many of the foundational beliefs of religion are evil.

and then I gave the definition of evil. 



> profoundly immoral and wicked





I still stick by that statement, But to say every religious concept is evil, would be untrue, or to say all religious groups are evil is also untrue.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

> or to say all religious groups are evil is also untrue.




Agreed, but you have to have some strategy for sorting out the good groups from the evil ones, and when it comes to terrorism, you can't go on trust alone.


----------



## Julia (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I understand now that you don't eat meat, but if animal rights is the issue, then eating egg products should be avoided also.



Why?  If one uses free range eggs?
And now I suppose there will be a further lecture about not being able to trust criteria for free range etc.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Agreed, but you have to have some strategy for sorting out the good groups from the evil ones, and when it comes to terrorism, you can't go on trust alone.




and flinging mud at all Muslim organisations is not a good strategy, and its not up to us, we have intelligence agencies to deal with that, Until they say different or unless you have some other evidence which you should pass along to them.

just like its not your job to search bags at the airport, you can't walk around the airport making public accusations that all the muslims may be terrorists. you just have to trust that the authorities have done their job.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Why?  If one uses free range eggs?
> And now I suppose there will be a further lecture about not being able to trust criteria for free range etc.




Because the free range laying hens still end up at the slaughter house, just like the broiler hens.

and the diary cows (and their male calves) end up in the slaughter house just like the meat cattle.

Just because we have a temporary use for animals generating by products, doesn't mean they are spared the slaughter house.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> just like its not your job to search bags at the airport, you can't walk around the airport making public accusations that *ALL* the muslims may be terrorists.  (my caps and bolds)




There you go again, misrepresentation at its worst, I don't know how many times I have to pick you up on this.

SOME Islamic groups/individuals MAY BE terrorists. How do you determine who is ? You carry out investigations on SUSPECTS to see if there is any evidence. Who do you suspect ? Groups that transfer money overseas perhaps. 

You trace the money and see where it goes. If it goes to genuine recipients fine, no action is taken and no one needs to know there has been an investigation. If it goes to dodgy groups you investigate further. That's what the intelligence agencies should do, and all I'm saying is I hope they are doing it.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There you go again, misrepresentation at its worst, I don't know how many times I have to pick you up on this.
> 
> SOME Islamic groups/individuals MAY BE terrorists. How do you determine who is ? You carry out investigations on SUSPECTS to see if there is any evidence. Who do *you* suspect ? Groups that transfer money overseas perhaps.
> 
> You trace the money and see where it goes. If it goes to genuine recipients fine, no action is taken and no one needs to know there has been an investigation. If it goes to dodgy groups you investigate further. That's what the intelligence agencies should do, and all I'm saying is I hope they are doing it.




It's not up to me or you. I think that is the issue here. I am not saying the authorities can't or shouldn't investigate whom ever they have reasonable suspicions off wrong doing. None of my comments have been in relation to proper intelligence work done by the authorities.

My comments have all been directly at you, making assumptions that the halal group may be a terrorist organisation, For some reason you didn't like the idea of products getting halal certification, and you used the excuse that they may be using the funds generated for terrorism. I am simply saying that for you to say such a thing about a group you know nothing about is wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

> My comments have all been directly at you, making assumptions that the halal group may be a terrorist organisation,




I wasn't actually thinking of the "halal" group. The O.P. on this subject mentioned the Islamic Council of Australia that gives the certification, which I believe covers a wide spectrum of the Islamic community. It's not unreasonable to believe that some groups within this extended organisation maybe supporting terrorism. For PC reasons are you suggesting that this possibility be ignored ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> . For PC reasons are you suggesting that this possibility be ignored ?




No, I believe the authorities can investigate until their hearts are content. But the average punter such as you and I should not make unfounded accusations or treat other citizens with contempt, at least until they have been shown to be doing the wrong thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, I believe the authorities can investigate until their hearts are content. But the average punter such as you and I should not make unfounded accusations or treat other citizens with contempt, at least until they have been shown to be doing the wrong thing.




Pardon me for expressing my views as a citizen in a free country. If you want to have a go at someone I suggest there are others in this thread and other threads expressing a much more bigoted view than myself who you have chosen to ignore, but that's cherry picking for you I suppose.


----------



## Julia (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Because the free range laying hens still end up at the slaughter house, just like the broiler hens.
> 
> and the diary cows (and their male calves) end up in the slaughter house just like the meat cattle.
> 
> Just because we have a temporary use for animals generating by products, doesn't mean they are spared the slaughter house.



Well, obviously they do.  But it's a different story killing a creature as fragile as a chicken compared with cattle which we know have been in many instances brutally and unnecessarily cruelly treated prior to their killing.

The best we can do in thanks for the sacrifice animals make for us is treat them with respect while they are still alive.



Value Collector said:


> My comments have all been directly at you, making assumptions that the halal group may be a terrorist organisation,



I didn't interpret anything Rumpole said as that at all.  You seem determined to argue for the sake of it.

If he, or anyone else declines to feel enthusiastic about consuming anything categorised as halal, for whatever reason, that's their choice and their business.

One day you describe everything to do with all religion as one of the great scourges of life, and the next you're doggedly defending it.
Might be best to just leave you to it.  I notice some other previous participants in the discussion have dropped out also.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Well, obviously they do.  But it's a different story killing a creature as fragile as a chicken compared with cattle which we know have been in many instances brutally and unnecessarily cruelly treated prior to their killing.




Yes, But the halal rules are about avoiding that cruelty, and would I be wrong in suggesting you consume dairy products? If so your animal product consumption leads to cows and bobby calves being processed, not just chickens.



> The best we can do in thanks for the sacrifice animals make for us is treat them with respect while they are still alive.




I agree.



> I didn't interpret anything Rumpole said as that at all.  You seem determined to argue for the sake of it.




What did you think he meant when he said this?



> Regardless of the benefits or otherwise of Halal food, if you have to pay the Islamic Council for certification, in today's circumstances do you know where that money is going to ?
> 
> PERHAPS some money is going to terrorism. Who handles the money, what are their links with terrorists ? These things should be investigated.




________________________-




> If he, or anyone else declines to feel enthusiastic about consuming anything categorised as halal, for whatever reason, that's their choice and their business.




Yes offcourse, but they should at least understand what the thing actually is before condemning it, especially if the condemnation is being asserted publically. 



> One day you describe everything to do with all religion as one of the great scourges of life, and the next you're doggedly defending it.




Have I ever said everything religion has done is bad? No.

I think you will find my stance has always been that there are positive benefits, However I don't believe any of them belong solely to religion and all can be achieved in other ways, and none outweigh the bad side effects.

Do you think I would protest a catholic organisation funding the construction of a hospital? Offcourse I wouldn't, unless they were doing some other crazy stuff like faith healing etc.

I have said many times, there is a lot to attack Islam about, but being offended over a halal certification is not one of them.

I think I am one of the most consistent posters here, I always tried to point out when criticism was unjustified or based on bigotry, racism or xenophobia rather than facts.


----------



## bunyip (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> yes, I know, I have seen the process also, and I have heard stories of the stun gun not rendering the animal unconscious.




OK. 
When you mentioned _*'cows that aren't killed by the stun gun puncturing their skull'*_, I assumed that you were unaware of how a stun gun functions, which is not to puncture the animals skull, but to simply hit them a stunning blow usually to the back of the head that leaves them unconscious.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

> So 200 Muslims demonstrate on the streets in protest of the police raids and the ultimate arrests.
> 
> It is pretty obvious those 200 condone terrorism.....the sleeping logs are awake.
> 
> ...




Re: Has the 100 year Jihad (war) begun ... ???  Post #98

A comment that perhaps VC may like to give his opinion on.


----------



## DB008 (19 September 2014)

Can't remember if I've posted this one already...

Friday, 15 March, 2002, 12:19 GMT


*Saudi [religious] police 'stopped' fire rescue*



> Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
> 
> In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.
> 
> ...




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

Is religion crazy?

YES.....


----------



## dutchie (19 September 2014)

DB008 said:


> Can't remember if I've posted this one already...
> 
> Friday, 15 March, 2002, 12:19 GMT
> 
> ...




Disgusting.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

bunyip said:


> OK.
> When you mentioned _*'cows that aren't killed by the stun gun puncturing their skull'*_, I assumed that you were unaware of how a stun gun functions, which is not to puncture the animals skull, but to simply hit them a stunning blow usually to the back of the head that leaves them unconscious.




The captive bolt pistols (stun guns) are of three types: penetrating, non-penetrating, and free bolt.

You are correct, most used today are the non penetrating type, but these types are also less effective, which may result in the animal not being rendered unconscious. I don't work in the industry and have only had very limited exposure, but I have family involved in the industry so have discussed the pros and cons of the various methods as it is an interesting topic.


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Re: Has the 100 year Jihad (war) begun ... ???  Post #98
> 
> A comment that perhaps VC may like to give his opinion on.




I don't know much about their reasons for protesting, so can't really comment,


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know much about their reasons for protesting, so can't really comment,




Do you think it's bigoted to assume that they all condone terrorism ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think it's bigoted to assume that they all condone terrorism ?




I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, it's probably best to ask them why they are protesting.

I have no idea, I haven't taken any notice of it, they may think the people are innocent, and that's why they are protesting, who knows. 

You seem to know more about it than me, why do you think they are protesting?


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, it's probably best to ask them why they are protesting.
> 
> I have no idea, I haven't taken any notice of it, they may think the people are innocent, and that's why they are protesting, who knows.
> 
> You seem to know more about it than me, why do you think they are protesting?




I've no idea why they are protesting, I'm simply asking your opinion on the comment (not made by me),



> It is pretty obvious those 200 condone terrorism.....the sleeping logs are awake.




Do you think that is a bigoted statement or not ?


----------



## Value Collector (20 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think that is a bigoted statement or not ?




It could be, i guess it depends on the information he is using to come to that conclusion.

I read the article he linked, and it didn't say any of those 200 people had said they supported terrorism, it seemed they were angry because their homes had been raided or they felt their community was being unfairly targeted. 

I would probably think that out of the 200 people, there are various reasons each person is feeling the need to protest, and if you were to assume it is because all 200 support terrorism you would probably be wrong. 

Perhaps instead of asking me, you should be questioning the original poster why he made that statement, that would probably provide more clarity on whether it was based on bigotry.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

> I would probably think that out of the 200 people, there are various reasons each person is feeling the need to protest, and if you were to assume it is because all 200 support terrorism you would probably be wrong.




No doubt. I wonder if it would be prudent for police to examine the tv broadcasts of the demonstrators and investigate their phone records to see if there are any links with radical elements, or should we just assume that they are innocent until they do something wrong ?


----------



## noco (20 September 2014)

*I would probably think that out of the 200 people, there are various reasons each person is feeling the need to protest, and if you were to assume it is because all 200 support terrorism you would probably be wrong. 
*
Did you hear any of them condemn the plot to blow up Parliament house.....did you hear them condemn those who plotted to enter Tony Abbotts private court yard.....did you hear any of them condemn how one of those radicals wanted to publicly behead an innocent person who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time....did you hear them condemn the beheading of various journalist in the middle East......did you hear them condemn the son of one of the Australian radicals holding the head of a beheaded man.

None of the other 499,800 Muslims would protest against the wrong things these ISIS radicals are executing because of  intimidation and fear for their lives.

No they were there protesting about how the Federal Police broke up there planned terrorism...they were caught red handed and they are embarrassed about it all because they believed they were smarter than the Feds, so they protest.

So if they don't condemn then they must condone.

If they don't like the way we operate our security well then I suggest to those protesters, go back home and practice you evil Sharia law there.

We are a peaceful nation and we don't need this type in our country...why should we live in fear for our lives with all this crap that is going on?


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ba-who-were-they/story-fnihslxi-1227064573689


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

> If they don't like the way we operate our security well then I suggest to those protesters, go back home and practice you evil Sharia law there.




Fine, if they were born overseas, send them back. If they were born here there is nothing we can do.


----------



## noco (20 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine, if they were born overseas, send them back. If they were born here there is nothing we can do.





Oh yes we can.....if they do the wrong thing they will be locked up.

That head mufti was not born here.

*Protest organiser, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is a Sunni Muslim organisation and those who attended the event included its Australian head, Sheik Ismail Al-Wahwah, who has in the past called for Australia to become an Islamic state ruled by sharia law.*

We don't want Sharia law here thank you.

If they do not want to abide by our laws and rules.....if they do not want to assimilate into our community,  then  I say to them 6u99er off back to where you came.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 September 2014)

Funny how the "liberals" who view religious education as a low priority tend to view teaching "values" more highly than the conservatives who want to pass on religious indoctrination.  Strange that the Liberals want to teach children the value of empathy for others and helping others and tolerance, while conservatives view hard working religious obedient and well mannered children as more important. 

http://qz.com/268014/the-very-different-child-rearing-habits-of-liberals-and-conservatives/


----------



## Value Collector (20 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if it would be prudent for police to examine the tv broadcasts of the demonstrators and investigate their phone records to see if there are any links with radical elements, ?




If the police have a genuine suspicion about certain individuals, then I have no problem with them making discreet investigations, If they made public comments about certain people before conducting investigations, that would be wrong. Mud sticks, It would be the equivalent of accusing someone of being a paedophile before you even have any evidence.



> or should we just assume that they are innocent until they do something wrong




Yes we ( you and me) should assume they are innocent until they are proven otherwise, or we have evidence that suggests wrong doing.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Funny how the "liberals" who view religious education as a low priority tend to view teaching "values" more highly than the conservatives who want to pass on religious indoctrination.  Strange that the Liberals want to teach children the value of empathy for others and helping others and tolerance, while conservatives view hard working religious obedient and well mannered children as more important.
> 
> http://qz.com/268014/the-very-different-child-rearing-habits-of-liberals-and-conservatives/




Very interesting.

These "little Conservatives" with so little empathy for others, little tolerance and virtually no creativity are going to grow up and some of them will end up in government deciding the lives of the rest of the population.

That explains a lot about the current government I think.


----------



## Value Collector (20 September 2014)

noco said:


> Did you hear any of them condemn the plot to blow up Parliament house.....did you hear them condemn those who plotted to enter Tony Abbotts private court yard.....did you hear any of them condemn how one of those radicals wanted to publicly behead an innocent person who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time....did you hear them condemn the beheading of various journalist in the middle East......did you hear them condemn the son of one of the Australian radicals holding the head of a beheaded man.
> 
> None of the other 499,800 Muslims would protest against the wrong things these ISIS radicals are executing because of  intimidation and fear for their lives.
> 
> ...




Thats a pretty big logical fallacy you are making there,

Just because you haven't heard some one condemn something, does not mean they support it.

I haven't heard my elder neighbour condemn those plots yet either, do you think she supports terrorism?

People can protest police drug raids for many reason, it doesn't mean they support heroin trafficking. They may protest the drug raids if they think the people are innocent, if they thought they were unfairly targeted on racial grounds or if excessive force was used etc


----------



## sails (20 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Thats a pretty big logical fallacy you are making there,
> 
> Just because you haven't heard some one condemn something, does not mean they support it.
> 
> ...




Hmmmm... if your neighbour made it known he belonged to the same group as those carrying out murderous atrocities you would think he would speak out if he didn't support such atrocities otherwise he risks being branded with the same brush.  Pretty simple really.

You are not comparing apples with apples, imo


----------



## Julia (20 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Funny how the "liberals" who view religious education as a low priority tend to view teaching "values" more highly than the conservatives who want to pass on religious indoctrination.  Strange that the Liberals want to teach children the value of empathy for others and helping others and tolerance, while conservatives view hard working religious obedient and well mannered children as more important.






SirRumpole said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> These "little Conservatives" with so little empathy for others, little tolerance and virtually no creativity are going to grow up and some of them will end up in government deciding the lives of the rest of the population.
> 
> That explains a lot about the current government I think.




Vast generalisation, of course, plus the fact that you're quoting from America where the definition of "Liberal" is different from that which we understand in political terms here.


*



			A liberal, in the American sense, is one who falls to the left in the political spectrum; In other parts of the world, however, liberalism is the belief in laissez-faire ...
		
Click to expand...






			Laissez-faire is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, ..
		
Click to expand...


*
If you're going to ascribe characteristics to any side of politics, then it might be good to include such as economic management.   Not much good having all the lofty aspirations if you haven't figured out how you're going to pay for them.

Hard to see what it has to do with the thread topic anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

> Vast generalisation, of course, plus the fact that you're quoting from America where the definition of "Liberal" is different from that which we understand in political terms here.




I was quite aware of what the term "liberal" meant in the context of the figures quoted; ie they would  generally be Democrat voters in the US.

So I equate "Conservative" in this context with the Coalition and I see quite a few similarities between the approaches of our government and the values attributed to "Conservatives" in the US.


----------



## Value Collector (20 September 2014)

sails said:


> Hmmmm... if your neighbour made it known he belonged to the same group as those carrying out murderous atrocities you would think he would speak out if he didn't support such atrocities otherwise he risks being branded with the same brush.  Pretty simple really.
> 
> You are not comparing apples with apples, imo




So i am right to assume that every catholic that has not made a public declaration that made it to the print of television media supports the molestation of children.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So i am right to assume that every catholic that has not made a public declaration that made it to the print of television media supports the molestation of children.




We also don't see Catholics demonstrating on the streets about the Royal Commission, and calling it "discrimination" against Catholics.


----------



## Julia (20 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So I equate "Conservative" in this context with the Coalition and I see quite a few similarities between the approaches of our government and the values attributed to "Conservatives" in the US.



My comment was directed more to syd and his disingenous posting of an American observation.

If you just label the government 'conservative' you are (I suppose intentionally given your Labor allegiance) aligning it with the worst aspects of conservatism, ie religious dogmatism, obsession with tradition etc., and ignoring the small 'l' liberal philosophy of encouraging people to make every effort to be self motivated, not to depend on the government to make decisions for them, and to discourage the nanny state so beloved of the more socialist philosophy.
It would just be good to have some objective recognition of the good and bad in both sides of politics rather than always pointing only to just a negative.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

Julia said:


> My comment was directed more to syd and his disingenous posting of an American observation.
> 
> If you just label the government 'conservative' you are (I suppose intentionally given your Labor allegiance) aligning it with the worst aspects of conservatism, ie religious dogmatism, obsession with tradition etc., and ignoring the small 'l' liberal philosophy of encouraging people to make every effort to be self motivated, not to depend on the government to make decisions for them, and to discourage the nanny state so beloved of the more socialist philosophy.
> It would just be good to have some objective recognition of the good and bad in both sides of politics rather than always pointing only to just a negative.




I actually think the Howard/Costello government was a good example of a Conservative government, up to the point when they gave in to their business backers and tried to bring in Workchoices.

 It seems we are always going to swing between Left and Right in this country because both major parties represent sectional interests, business or unions and no one including Palmer or the Greens represents the average consumer.

So the choice rests with which sectional interest you would prefer to side with. The lesser evil for me is the unions. At least they represent people living in this country and not foreign shareholders. But yes this is off topic for this thread, but I've said it all before anyway.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Vast generalisation, of course, plus the fact that you're quoting from America where the definition of "Liberal" is different from that which we understand in political terms here.
> 
> 
> *
> ...




The point I was highlighting from the polling, and which you seem to have failed to understand, was that people who believe in teaching religious faith seem to not be interested in many of the "values" of the major faiths ie empathy for others, helping others and tolerance.  Admittedly with it being a US poll the religious faith is likely to be Christian.

You were the one ascribing politics to it.

This is the religion is crazy thread, and the main thrust of why I posted the article was the inconsistency between teaching religious faith but then not seeing as important major components of that faith.


----------



## noco (20 September 2014)

This what Rudd and Gillard wanted......allow an influx of Muslims (50,000 in 5 years)to create dissension and division in the community.

What has happened at Maroochydore  and Currumbin in the past couple of days gives a good indication of how the average Australian is reacting to the growth of Islam in Australia.

I am sure we will see more of these demonstration against Islam in the coming days, weeks, months and years.

Wake up Australia before it is too late.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-at-maroochydore/story-fnihsrf2-1227064978766


----------



## Value Collector (20 September 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> We also don't see Catholics demonstrating on the streets about the Royal Commission, and calling it "discrimination" against Catholics.




Maybe not street protests, but I have heard lots of Catholics protesting through social media.

And if you want a direct correlation with terrorism, the was plenty of street protests in Northern Ireland, by Catholics, i doubt you could say they all supported the Ira.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Maybe not street protests, but I have heard lots of Catholics protesting through social media.
> 
> And if you want a direct correlation with terrorism, the was plenty of street protests in Northern Ireland, by Catholics, i doubt you could say they all supported the Ira.




I think that both Catholics and Muslims should be glad that bad apples are being removed from their organisations. I can't see any reason why either group should complain about genuine investigations unless they have something to hide.


----------



## Julia (20 September 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> The point I was highlighting from the polling,



Your 'poll" link goes to something called "Quartz".  Who or what is Quartz?   Why should we take as fact what your chart suggests?  There is no information about :
who was surveyed
how many people were surveyed
how was it conducted
what were the actual questions

or any other aspect of methodology.

I note the item following your 'poll' is


> Is your dog a pessimist or an optimist?




which possibly offers some clue about the rigour of any methodology.
Sounds like something "New Idea" would put up.



> ..... people who believe in teaching religious faith seem to not be interested in many of the "values" of the major faiths ie empathy for others, helping others and tolerance.



That's just a really silly generalisation, even if the 'research' were to be valid which I doubt.
Plenty of people who are committed to religion will be kind and helpful to others, just as plenty who are atheist or agnostic will be also.

And as I've said earlier, no mention is made of other vital characteristics such as the value of personal independence rather than depending on a nanny state, and economic and financial literacy.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Your 'poll" link goes to something called "Quartz".  Who or what is Quartz?   Why should we take as fact what your chart suggests?  There is no information about :
> who was surveyed
> how many people were surveyed
> how was it conducted
> ...




The poll was done by PEW research.  A more detail analysis of the polling can be found at http://www.people-press.org/2014/09...n-the-most-important-values-to-teach-children 

All readily available if you'd read the quartz article and clicked on the mentioned links.

I think the relative importance given to hard work probably satisfies your demands to avoid the nanny state and be financially independent, along with being responsible as the top choice for both groups.

Further information on how the PEW group organised their polling can be found at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ion-survey-and-launched-a-new-research-panel/

_This survey includes more than 10,000 adults. Why did you decide to survey so many people for this report – isn’t a nationally representative sample usually around 1,000 people?

There are many reasons, but the most important is that having a larger number of people participating in the survey allows us to better describe the characteristics, attitudes and behaviors of smaller segments of the larger, nationwide public. For example, the larger sample allows us to interview a larger number of campaign donors, people with consistently conservative or liberal attitudes or regular primary voters. These individuals, even as smaller shares of the public, may have an outsize impact on the phenomenon of political polarization._

PEW research are fairly well regarded in the polling they've done over many years.  They're polling analysis is reported in many publications around the world.  

After reading Matt Taibbi's The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap, I can see the above IS representative of the conservative politicians and their voter base.  Lots of talk about God, yet little of his charitable kindness.  Welfare "cheats" thrown into jail, often due to Government mistakes, while bankers pleading guilty to money laundering for drug cartels face no personal consequences for their crimes.  No jail time, and the company pays their fines as a cost of doing business.  Barclays stole at least -- _at least_ -- five billion dollars from the pension funds, small towns and individuals who were owed money by Lehman Brothers.  The smoking gun of their deceit was laid bare, the legal system acknowledged their deceit, but then did absolutely NOTHING about it, while retirees had their pensions massively scaled back due to the pillaging of those funds.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 September 2014)

noco said:


> Wake up Australia before it is too late.




Easy there tiger. Take a drive up Castle Hill and report back on any voices.  

I know I know. It's all b.s.


----------



## noco (21 September 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Easy there tiger. Take a drive up Castle Hill and report back on any voices.
> 
> I know I know. It's all b.s.




I have posted this before on two threads, but I am happy to do it again just for you.

BTW....did you know Castle Hill is 2 feet short of a mountain......it has a panoramic view sweeping 360 degrees of the best city in the world..

http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/

*They have opened the doors to illegal invaders who are bringing in a religion that goes totally against our way of life. They are using Islam to create divisions in our society and turn citizen against citizen. At the same time, they have neglected our own needy; our aged and veterans, the  very citizens who have contributed so much to our country and who should now be enjoying the fruits of their labour. Instead, they are living on the brink of poverty.*

I do hope you read the full link.


----------



## noco (29 September 2014)

This young lady from the from the Daily Telegraph, Tanya Smart, sure had a lot of gutz in seeking out the reaction of the public.

No doubt she would have been pleased to have removed the charade once and for all. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...familiar-streets/story-fnii5s41-1227073346610


----------



## pixel (29 September 2014)

noco said:


> This young lady from the from the Daily Telegraph, Tanya Smart, sure had a lot of gutz in seeking out the reaction of the public.
> 
> No doubt she would have been pleased to have removed the charade once and for all.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...familiar-streets/story-fnii5s41-1227073346610



There is an easy solution, which has been known since time immemorial:
*"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."*

The phrase may have been first applied to tourists, but it is even more applicable to people who want to stay and become citizens of a new country. Leave your superstitions behind, learn the lingo and adapt.


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2014)

It is a terrifying thought that in the United States 69% of the population are nut-jobs who believe in creationism  of some sort, and only 31% believe in evolution and the numbers are lessening. And these nut-jobs are the ones we are relying on to combat the Islamic nut-jobs.




.


----------



## bunyip (10 October 2014)

The terrible suffering of tens of thousands of people continues at the hands of the barbarians known as ISIS. (Islamic *Scum* Of Iraq And Syria)
These bastards make the Vikings look like angels – surely it’s not too much to expect the Christian god to step in and strike them down.
There wouldn’t be any need for planes and bombs and ground troops to stop them....._*IF*_ the Christian god would only live up to his reputation of love and compassion and righteousness. 
But his track record is less than impressive when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is. 
So we’ll have to rely on guns and planes and bombs and military personnel to sort out these monsters. Then if we’re successful the Christians will say_ ‘Praise be to our just and merciful God, once again he’s helped us to triumph over evil.’_


----------



## explod (10 October 2014)

bunyip said:


> The terrible suffering of tens of thousands of people continues at the hands of the barbarians known as ISIS. (Islamic *Scum* Of Iraq And Syria)
> These bastards make the Vikings look like angels – surely it’s not too much to expect the Christian god to step in and strike them down.
> There wouldn’t be any need for planes and bombs and ground troops to stop them....._*IF*_ the Christian god would only live up to his reputation of love and compassion and righteousness.
> But his track record is less than impressive when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is.
> ...




Agree.  The flocks follow the God taught to them as children. It bwcomes an icon in the subconcious and has been passed down through the generations from its beginning when the chiefs of thecfar flung tribes decided he wanted total control over his people.  So he created the wotch doctor who lived apart and took prominance as the first sprirt (a God). on fear of nasty spell the chief had full control.
We have the Queen of England who is the icon of the crown which all people follow, even to thevdeath in war.

The story of jesus was one facilitated by emporer Constantine 2000 years ago when he realised the potential of it to control the wide spread empires.

We still have the same religion today but close to home the football does a great job o keeping the people preoccupied and away from questioning thier role of looking after the imterest of the wealthy (still the real Gods) and keeping us in our place.

Fear of course is the big stick of it all and just about every day we have to go to page 9 of the paper to get past the photos of jet fighters and pictures of the Rabbit in jungle greens(so to speak).

I feel sorry for the sheeple who are really slaves to the real Gods, the international money controllers.

Have a good weekend. And perhaps pop into the library and pick up a copy of the "golden bough" or"the god delusio"

there has been a lot of chritcism of such texts, and that is because they reveal the real truths.  Decide for yourself by objectively reading them.


----------



## noco (10 October 2014)

bunyip said:


> The terrible suffering of tens of thousands of people continues at the hands of the barbarians known as ISIS. (Islamic *Scum* Of Iraq And Syria)
> These bastards make the Vikings look like angels – surely it’s not too much to expect the Christian god to step in and strike them down.
> There wouldn’t be any need for planes and bombs and ground troops to stop them....._*IF*_ the Christian god would only live up to his reputation of love and compassion and righteousness.
> But his track record is less than impressive when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is.
> So we’ll have to rely on guns and planes and bombs and military personnel to sort out these monsters. Then if we’re successful the Christians will say_ ‘Praise be to our just and merciful God, once again he’s helped us to triumph over evil.’_




Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.


----------



## bellenuit (10 October 2014)

Source: Pew Research

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

What I find really worrying is that even though we think of ISIS or Al Qaida as extremists but the normal Muslim population as moderate, still sizeable minorities (and in some cases majorities) of the Muslim populations in the above countries support policies/acts that we in the West (at least most of us) would regard as extreme and unacceptable. I think it safe to assume that immigrant Muslims in this country would hold views on the above topics in proportion to those of their country of origin. One would assume that those born in this country would be more tolerant, but I would think only for those that are raised outside the influence of radicals in their community.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2014)

bellenuit said:


> View attachment 59781
> 
> 
> View attachment 59782
> ...




Be more useful to have that kind of survey on the Muslims living in the West wouldn't you think?


----------



## bellenuit (11 October 2014)

luutzu said:


> Be more useful to have that kind of survey on the Muslims living in the West wouldn't you think?




More useful than what. This forum is on "Religion Is Crazy" and the poll result stands on its own right as an indication of Muslim attitudes in predominantly Muslim countries. Of course other polls would be useful too, but why say "more useful" unless the results are not in line with your opinion and you want to downplay them by pretending they are somehow not significant because they don't include attitudes of Muslims living elsewhere. It would be pointless just to calculate for this thread, but as a guesstimate these countries probably account for 90% or more of the world's muslims. 

Figures (commissioned by BB4 4) for those in the UK, a first world country with a large Muslim population that now has been part of their society for many generations (and hence one would expect to be no longer influenced by extremist acts and policies of their original countries) still show a not insignificant minority holding what the rest of us would regard as extremist views.

*NOP Poll of British Muslims*

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291


----------



## luutzu (11 October 2014)

bellenuit said:


> More useful than what. This forum is on "Religion Is Crazy" and the poll result stands on its own right as an indication of Muslim attitudes in predominantly Muslim countries. Of course other polls would be useful too, but why say "more useful" unless the results are not in line with your opinion and you want to downplay them by pretending they are somehow not significant because they don't include attitudes of Muslims living elsewhere. It would be pointless just to calculate for this thread, but as a guesstimate these countries probably account for 90% or more of the world's muslims.
> 
> Figures (commissioned by BB4 4) for those in the UK, a first world country with a large Muslim population that now has been part of their society for many generations (and hence one would expect to be no longer influenced by extremist acts and policies of their original countries) still show a not insignificant minority holding what the rest of us would regard as extremist views.
> 
> ...




That poll and your interpretation of it as applying equally to Muslims living or growing or born in Western societies is like a poll of third world people on whether eating high level of fatty food and meat and burgers are good or not. I think you'll find they will all say it's the best kind of diet - high fat, high protein... then from that, concludes that ethnic people living in the West have no clue about cholesterol or a balanced diet.

Or ask them what's their favourite TV show then imply that all them here love those shows and dislike Baywatch or Friends or How I met your Mother.

I'm saying you're not sampling correctly.

Trust me, my thinking and opinions are very very different to my cousins or aunts and uncles living back in my native country.


----------



## luutzu (11 October 2014)

bellenuit said:


> More useful than what. This forum is on "Religion Is Crazy" and the poll result stands on its own right as an indication of Muslim attitudes in predominantly Muslim countries. Of course other polls would be useful too, but why say "more useful" unless the results are not in line with your opinion and you want to downplay them by pretending they are somehow not significant because they don't include attitudes of Muslims living elsewhere. It would be pointless just to calculate for this thread, but as a guesstimate these countries probably account for 90% or more of the world's muslims.
> 
> Figures (commissioned by BB4 4) for those in the UK, a first world country with a large Muslim population that now has been part of their society for many generations (and hence one would expect to be no longer influenced by extremist acts and policies of their original countries) still show a not insignificant minority holding what the rest of us would regard as extremist views.
> 
> ...




I read the comments on that poll, the results sound reasonable to me. 
What were you expecting? That they all think like us, or think like White people?

Though I'm pretty sure a lot more admire bin Laden than they admit to in that poll.

This former CIA head of the bin Laden Unit - in charge of hunting him and kill him - Michael Scheuer... the guy deeply admire bin Laden. He just said that bin Laden bat for the wrong team, that he's against us and our interest so he must be hunted down and stopped.

When you're at war, the worst thing you can do is disrespect your enemy. It makes you feel good to call them evil and barbarians and what not... it does more harm than good to actual, useful, plans to defend and defeat the enemy wanting to feel good like that.


----------



## pixel (11 October 2014)

Only in America
MT. VERNON, TEXAS ... W#0REHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE!
Diamond D's brothel began construction on an expansion of their building to increase their ever-growing business. In response, the local Baptist Church started a campaign to block the business from expanding -- with morning, afternoon, and evening prayer sessions at their church.
Work on Diamond D's progressed right up until the week before the grand reopening when lightning struck the w#0rehouse and burned it to the ground.
After the cathouse was burned to the ground by the lightning strike, the church folks were rather smug in their outlook, bragging about "the power of prayer."
But late last week Jill Diamond, the owner/madam, sued the church, the preacher and the entire congregation on the grounds that the church ... "was ultimately responsible for the demise of her building and her business -- either through direct or indirect divine actions or means."
In its reply to the court, the church vehemently and voraciously (sic) denied any and all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise.
The crusty old judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply, and at the opening hearing he commented: "I don't know how the hell I'm going to decide this case, but it appears from the paperwork that we now have a w#0rehouse owner who staunchly believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that thinks it's all bulls'h1t."

PS. Disclaimer: see http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/prayer.asp


----------



## Calliope (11 October 2014)

luutzu said:


> Trust me, my thinking and opinions are very very different to my cousins or aunts and uncles living back in my native country.




I wasn't aware that we had Vietnamese /Muslim communities in Australia. 



> Another well remembered exodus of Vietnamese Muslims was after the Vietnam War in 1975. A large number of Muslims migrated to other countries such as America, France, Malaysia, India, Canada and Australia because they had feared persecution from the newly installed socialist government.




http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia/Vietnam/Muslims of Vietnam.htm


----------



## luutzu (11 October 2014)

Calliope said:


> I wasn't aware that we had Vietnamese /Muslim communities in Australia.
> 
> http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia/Vietnam/Muslims of Vietnam.htm




I'm not a Muslim. 

My mother's side are all Catholics, my father's side's Buddhists. My mum pray to both, haha... not pray but light incense during New Year's, and make offerings during the year.

Though I like the Confucian cultural practice of worshipping your ancestors. That after they pass away, you have their image on the family altar and light incense and pour tea everyday or when you can... so that you remember them.


----------



## bunyip (13 October 2014)

pixel said:


> Only in America
> MT. VERNON, TEXAS ... W#0REHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE!
> Diamond D's brothel began construction on an expansion of their building to increase their ever-growing business. In response, the local Baptist Church started a campaign to block the business from expanding -- with morning, afternoon, and evening prayer sessions at their church.
> Work on Diamond D's progressed right up until the week before the grand reopening when lightning struck the w#0rehouse and burned it to the ground.
> ...



LOL -  That one gave me a laugh!


----------



## Julia (13 October 2014)

On the existence or otherwise of a god, the following is from a TED Talk on creativity.

A teacher asked her class of very young children to draw a picture of anything they liked.
One little girl was working earnestly at her drawing and the teacher asked what it was.
"It's a picture of God", said the child.  "Oh", said the teacher, "but no one knows what God looks like."

"They will in a minute", said the child.

Kind of says it all.  You can make a god out of anything.


----------



## bunyip (13 October 2014)

Julia said:


> On the existence or otherwise of a god, the following is from a TED Talk on creativity.
> 
> A teacher asked her class of very young children to draw a picture of anything they liked.
> One little girl was working earnestly at her drawing and the teacher asked what it was.
> ...




Quite right, Julia, you can make a god out of anything. And that’s exactly what the human race has done throughout history.
The sun, the moon, thunder and a host of other natural phenomenon were revered and in some cases feared for their power. When the ancients failed to come up with a rational explanation for these phenomenon, their response in many cases was that it must be a god or at least caused by a god. Hence the invention of the sun god, the moon god, the god of thunder, the rainbow serpent, and various other creations of the mind that were all credited with the possession of supernatural powers just like that other creation of the human mind - the Christian god - and were worshipped with just as much fervor and reverence as Christians bestow upon their god.


----------



## pixel (16 October 2014)

I've recently finnished Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons"; seen the movie years ago, found the book even better.
That has kind of "primed me" to take notice when I came across a youtube clip, in which a bunch of Christian Vigilanti Funnymentalists offer proof that the Illuminati still exist and brainwash TV audiences into Satanic cults that preempt the Second Coming. It's about 8 minutes long and truly amusing:

*X-Factor Australia - Satanic Baphomet EXPOSED !!! Global Illuminati Brainwashing Agenda! *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmTHenjZV9Y


----------



## Julia (16 October 2014)

I started "Angels and Demons" a few years ago after all the fuss about the more well known effort "The Da Vinci Code".
Couldn't get past around 30 pages because the writing was so bad.


----------



## DB008 (24 October 2014)

*Re: Religion IS crazy! - Yes it is...*

Don't know which thread to put this one in....

*Liberia's Gay Community Under Attack Over Ebola Outbreak*



> DAKAR/NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Leroy Ponpon doesn't know whether to lock himself in his flat in Monrovia because of the deadly Ebola virus, or because he is gay. Christian churches' recent linking of the two have made life hell for him and hundreds of other gays.
> 
> Ponpon, an LGBT campaigner in the Liberian capital, says gays have been harassed, physically attacked and a few have had their cars smashed by people blaming them for the haemorrhagic fever, after religious leaders in Liberia said Ebola was a punishment from God for homosexuality.
> 
> "Since church ministers declared Ebola was a plague sent by God to punish sodomy in Liberia, the violence towards gays has escalated. They're even asking for the death penalty. We're living in fear," Ponpon told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by telephone from Monrovia.







> Earlier this year, the Liberian Council of Churches said in a statement that God was angry with Liberians "over corruption and immoral acts" such as homosexuality, and that Ebola was a punishment.
> 
> In May, Archbishop Lewis Zeigler of the Catholic Church of Liberia said that "one of the major transgressions against God for which He may be punishing Liberia is the act of homosexuality," local media reported.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/liberia-gay-ebola-outbreak-_n_6034256.html


----------



## sydboy007 (25 October 2014)

Better take your own towels

[video=youtube_share;kbgWX-t0EYA]http://youtu.be/kbgWX-t0EYA[/video]

oh and according to Pat, you'd better be careful who you shake hands with as well.

[video=youtube_share;wRSQBnqsUgU]http://youtu.be/wRSQBnqsUgU[/video]

Me thinks 50% hate, 50% bigotry, and 50% stupidity.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 October 2014)

*Re: Religion IS crazy! - Yes it is...*



DB008 said:


> Don't know which thread to put this one in....
> 
> *Liberia's Gay Community Under Attack Over Ebola Outbreak*
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/liberia-gay-ebola-outbreak-_n_6034256.html




I put that up there with pat Robbinson blaming Haitians for the 2010 earthquake

[video=youtube_share;59NCduEhkBM]http://youtu.be/59NCduEhkBM[/video]

oh and Pat even sounds a little bit jealous of the Muslims re wife beating

[video=youtube_share;O39c1BpVgLc]http://youtu.be/O39c1BpVgLc[/video]


----------



## bellenuit (26 October 2014)

*After Refusing to Sit Next to Women, Hareidi Men Leave Plane*

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186470#.VEzjUYezvBx


----------



## Tisme (27 October 2014)

Religion IS crazy! 

I was doing some homework on the validity of religion and true science and after a while it became apparent there are lots of venerated people wrapped under the swaddling cloth of religion whose discoveries, theories and practices where at best worthless to the outcomes.

Sure we can look back on Socrates, Euclid, Ptolemy, Aristotle, etc and say to ourselves they started the thinking process, but did they invent antibiotics? = no, did they invent the car engine? = no, the light bulb? = no, CaT scanners? = no, rocket ships = no way in hell! Nor did the blokes with too much time on their hands who wrote the Bible and the Koran.


----------



## Tink (27 October 2014)

I don't know how many times it has been repeated in this thread where science originated.

Like rebellious children putting down their parents.

When are they going to realise they both contributed in society.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I don't know how many times it has been repeated in this thread where science originated.  Like rebellious children putting down their parents.  When are they going to realise they both contributed in society.




And that God is actually the creator of science and to say he is the best scientist ever to exist is an understatement of epic proportions.


----------



## pavilion103 (27 October 2014)

Tisme said:


> Religion IS crazy!  I was doing some homework on the validity of religion and true science and after a while it became apparent there are lots of venerated people wrapped under the swaddling cloth of religion whose discoveries, theories and practices where at best worthless to the outcomes.  Sure we can look back on Socrates, Euclid, Ptolemy, Aristotle, etc and say to ourselves they started the thinking process, but did they invent antibiotics? = no, did they invent the car engine? = no, the light bulb? = no, CaT scanners? = no, rocket ships = no way in hell! Nor did the blokes with too much time on their hands who wrote the Bible and the Koran.




Let's get excited and amazed at all those great inventions but just not the creator of the entire universe!


----------



## Tisme (27 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I don't know how many times it has been repeated in this thread where science originated.
> 
> Like rebellious children putting down their parents.
> 
> When are they going to realise they both contributed in society.




I think true science originated in post Catholic Europe/Britain, the befores were just froth and bubble; although the Chinese no doubt would claim they invented everything thousands of years before dinosaurs.


----------



## luutzu (27 October 2014)

Tisme said:


> I think true science originated in post Catholic Europe/Britain, the befores were just froth and bubble; although the Chinese no doubt would claim they invented everything thousands of years before dinosaurs.




What year is that post Catholic Europe? If by true science you mean the modern scientific method of doing a literature review, propose a hypothesis, describe in detail the variables and methods to measure it and test the hypothesis... describe to the detail that it could be repeated by other scholars/scientists, then conclusion and suggested implication  and further research etc... then it's relatively new - around 1850s?

But great sciences and its methods had been advanced long before this, in countries and cultures that is not Britain. There's the Greek philosophers and mathematicians who established the basis for rational thinking, the Arab astronomers, and yes, the Chinese philosophers, historians and generals who made conclusions based on observation s and not just hunches.

There's a saying that all philosophy after Socrates are just footnotes? Modern sciences are all micro steps, all incremental advances. That's not being dismissive of it. In my opinion, it's what made science "real science" and our world advances on that approach and we're eating and living (and killing) better because of it. BUT...

But I sense that you're a bit dismissive of the achievements of scientists and thinkers before this approach.

First, it didn't come about because the Western or British scientists are smarter and thought of it while others didn't. It came about because the Magna Carta eventually led to such thing as private property and intellectual properties and copyrights... with the law protecting private property, scientists and businesses start to trademark and publish their findings, thereby sharing it with the world - the world got a bit smarter, other inventors and scientists get to know what's out there and either go a bit better or put their effort elsewhere... that or wait until the copyright expires. 

The Magna Carta and the rights of Man etc... that was only meant to be for free Men, and free Men then were only the Lords. Many happy accidents and a lot of self interests and here we are.

----

With regards to China and their claims... I have never heard they ever claim to invent everything. They did consider themselves the Middle Kingdom, control all that is civilised under heaven while others are savages and barbarians... but they weren't the only ones with that kind of arrogance before or since.

Though they did invent paper money, bank cheques, printing, paper, gunpowder, fireworks, the compass, sailed their blue water naval fleet across Asia, India, the Middle East, Africa to project military might before an Emperor's death and near financial bankruptcy shut that down, leaving Columbus and Western countries to start their colonisation and become real powers.

If countries and people that so dominate and influence the world for so much of world's history could be laughed at and are either a basket case or a sick man only known for cheap knock offs; despite the wealth and undoubt creativity and intelligence, despite the great advances and our contributions to this modern world... perhaps history ought to tell us that we too could fall like all great powers has before us. I think it starts with establishing an empire then feeling invincible because of it.


----------



## pixel (28 October 2014)

Thank you, luutzu;
for a very concise and unbiased digest of the history of science.
In the context of religion, it may be worth adding a few non-British influences.

When Britain was still asleep in the Dark Ages, Arab scholars were busily studying Greek philosophers, Indian numerals, Egyptian art; they saw no conflict between "Western" ideas and the Qur'an. Their bridgehead in parts of Spain became a melting pot and provided much of the impetus that centuries later sparked the European Renaissance. Even after their defeat in 732, Arab scholars and artisans were highly regarded in Central Europe and invited to teach medicine and other sciences.

In Italy (of all places!) a few thinkers began comparing their findings with Church Doctrine, which was found wanting. Free thinkers like Leonardo broke taboos and measured and dissected bodies, so they could understand how to draw correct portraits. Johann Gensfleisch (German for _goose flesh_; no wonder he changed his name to Gutenberg) built the first functioning reusable printing press, which, for the first time, made ideas more readily available to ordinary people. No longer were thoughts controlled by religious and state rulers. It took a few centuries to filter through, but in the 18th century, Friedrich Schiller could finally plead freedom of ideas_ "Sire, geben Sie Gedankenfreiheit."_

Some of these geniuses worked within the confines of the Church; Gutenberg's first book was the Bible. But he would be well aware that the benefits of his device wouldn't stop there. Luther, Erasmus, Melanchthon, to name but a few, could have their ideas disseminated on "fliers", in defiance of Church Doctrine. Copernicus' description of planetary motions spread across Europe in print. Would Shakespeare's plays have had the impact they did without people being able to read them?


----------



## DB008 (28 October 2014)

Doesn't anybody find it ironic that there is a 'Royal Commission in Child Abuse', yet the prophet of a major religion (Mohammed, Islam), married a 7 year old?


http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

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



> ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr (b. 613/614 CE – d. 678 CE[1]) (Arabic: عائشة‎ transliteration: ‘Ā’ishah, [ʕaːʔiʃa], also transcribed as A'ishah, Aisyah, Ayesha, A'isha, Aishat, Aishah, or Aisha) was one of Muhammad's wives.[2] In Islamic writings, her name is thus often prefixed by the title "Mother of the Believers" (Arabic: أمّ المؤمنين umm al-mu'minīn), per the description of Muhammad's wives in the Quran.[3][4][5]
> 
> The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[6] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[7][8][9]




Opps, I forgot, Islam is above everyone/everything?


----------



## sydboy007 (28 October 2014)

DB008 said:


> Doesn't anybody find it ironic that there is a 'Royal Commission in Child Abuse', yet the prophet of a major religion (Mohammed, Islam), married a 7 year old?
> 
> http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/
> 
> ...




Don't really see the link to be honest.

The RC is looking into recent events where the actions of people can still be punished, where changes can be made to stop it occurring.

I do agree that in the west we seem to worry about offending others far too much.  As long as issues are discussed in a factual manner I don't really care if someone chooses to be offended.  It's when you get people making up stories that I draw the line.

Facts are reasonably easy to verify, stories tend to change depending on the target audience.


----------



## pixel (28 October 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Don't really see the link to be honest.
> 
> The RC is looking into recent events where the actions of people can still be punished, where changes can be made to stop it occurring.
> 
> ...




Correct, Syd;
If one wants to drag up dirt from the past, when some people's standards differed from a select few of today, there won't be an end to it.
Ooo-Ahh! The Aztecs cut living victims' hearts out!
Ooo-Ahh! The Conquistadors slaughtered American Natives!
Ooo-Ahh! The British traded African slaves from Arabs and forced them to work on their plantations!
Need any more? Solomon wasn't monogamous! Romans meted out the death penalty by crucifixion. And you wouldn't want to be accused of witchcraft or heresy during the years of Inquisition.

So, let's stick to the topics of today and discuss how we can change people's attitudes to one another. How we can eliminate Stone-Age ideas from today's interpretation of religious beliefs and spread the notion of tolerance across society.
*Classism, Monotheism, Nationalism, Racism are but different faces of Crazy Intolerance.*


----------



## burglar (28 October 2014)

pixel said:


> *Classism, Monotheism, Nationalism, Racism are but different faces of Crazy Intolerance.*




+100


----------



## DB008 (28 October 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Don't really see the link to be honest.
> 
> The RC is looking into recent events where the actions of people can still be punished, where changes can be made to stop it occurring.
> 
> ...




Massive numbers of child marriages that are coming out in NSW recently. 



> Shame of our child brides: Court hears how woman was raped and beaten as it’s revealed hundreds are forced into arranged and unregistered marriages across NSW
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/shame-of-our-child-brides-court-hears-how-woman-was-raped-and-beaten-as-its-revealed-hundreds-are-forced-into-arranged-and-unregistered-marriages-across-nsw/story-fni0cx12-1226824176047







> Man ‘marries off daughter, 12’ in Islamic ceremony: bride believed sharia law ‘override’
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/man-marries-off-daughter-12-in-islamic-ceremony-bride-believed-sharia-law-override/story-fni0cx12-1226996078122




Also



> Prison for Afghan mullah who raped a 10-year-old girl inside his mosque
> 
> According to Sharia Law, which the Mullah tried to rely on in court, rape is considered a form of adultery for which both parties are responsible. Amin's defence lawyers argued that he should be sentenced to 100 lashes and then released – but that would have meant the girl also receiving the same punishment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2014)

pixel said:


> So, let's stick to the topics of today and discuss how we can change people's attitudes to one another. How we can eliminate Stone-Age ideas from today's interpretation of religious beliefs and spread the notion of tolerance across society.




I suppose you must have some plan in mind, but I haven't got a clue what it is. Could you please enlighten me on your notion of spreading tolerance across society by ignoring history and burying our heads in the sand. Is it based on Abbott's notion of "Team Australia"?


----------



## luutzu (29 October 2014)

pixel said:


> Thank you, luutzu;
> for a very concise and unbiased digest of the history of science.
> In the context of religion, it may be worth adding a few non-British influences.
> 
> ...




Like a breath of fresh air.


----------



## luutzu (29 October 2014)

Calliope said:


> I suppose you must have some plan in mind, but I haven't got a clue what it is. Could you please enlighten me on your notion of spreading tolerance across society by ignoring history and burying our heads in the sand. Is it based on Abbott's notion of "Team Australia"?




A good start might be to think that the other person might also be just as human as you are. They want the same thing in life as you do - want to work hard and enjoy life; want a family, want a future for their children; want to be able to pray to whoever they want to; want to not be labeled and prejudged based on your bigotry or experience with some idiots that looks a little like them... that might be a start.

Blanketing an entire race and religion as inherently evil is probably a bad start. It could be good if you're willing to listen and reason, but failing that...


----------



## Weatsop (29 October 2014)

Calliope said:


> I suppose you must have some plan in mind, but I haven't got a clue what it is. Could you please enlighten me on your notion of spreading tolerance across society by ignoring history and burying our heads in the sand. Is it based on Abbott's notion of "Team Australia"?




I'm an atheist with a lot of respect for religion...

Sure they're wrong, and sure they've done a lot of damage, and will do a lot of damage yet.

But humans got a tribal impulse. We can't deny it. We should fight it! Yes. But we can't pretend it doesn't exist. Religion represents a way to unify at least a little bit of humanity, to forget, sometimes, how much we hate each other.

From an evolutionary point of view, hatred of the different makes a ton of sense. Image you have a land with a bunch of tribes. They all have stories. But imagine there's a mutation, a change in our uniquely complex social structure, that give the carrier of this particular mutation a violent hatred for anyone who believes differently. Anyone who has DIFFERENT stories.

It doesn't matter the belief. There's no way for genetics to prescribe a particular belief. But imagine there's the propensity in a human to mistrust, hate, even violently respond to, another human with different stories. Whatever those stories are.

All the peaceful tribes do nothing. This one hateful tribe goes out in the dark, and kills their neighbours in their sleep, because those neighbours don't believe in X. Takes their land. Probably their women.

Whose genes win?

Any humans who do not attack, eventually die. Because attack, in humans terms, and over generations, always wins.

So here we are! We are a species who naturally hates the different. Who bands around the unifying core, not really caring what that core is. It's irrational, but it makes us feel comradeship for our tribe, and hatred for the other.

The ancient Humans who didn't do that, are dead.

And of course we came up with gods. It only takes one smartarse to say "I know what it's all about!" for others to follow along. Shout that same today - "I know what's going on!" - and you'll get followers. A lot of humans - maybe a minority of the readers from this forum, but still, a lot of humans from each generation - will believe what they are told. 

But for ancient humans looking for a reason to kill the others, religion was a massive multiplier. Not just different in songs and stories. Different in GOD. In a thing you can't argue with. It's the ultimate rally cry..

Roast me a delicious goat! And also, kill the unbeliever! And the god you only believe because I tell you it's true, will reward you in some untestable way.

And when a parent teaches a child what is real, a child believes. If a parent teaches that Belforal The Mighty makes the summer come, a child MUST believe that. Have some kids. Teach them whatever they like. With the exception of some well-tested persuasive tropes, they'll believe it. 

Until they hit science, which is based on the maxim: don't take anyone's word for it. That's dangerous, and of course old structures resent it.

A religion only needs to get a little over the average to take over. Enough parents who join in a moment of misery, or out of expedience, or out of a vague loyalty to the beliefs of their parents. Mostly, they join when they are kids and don't know any better.

If you never mentioned god until people were 21, religion would die.

BUT ANYWAY.

So there we were, generation after generation. Killing each other, killing the peacemakers, and rewarding the violent muppets...

...and it's not long we've gotten out of that. And it'll take a lot of generations to breed violence out of ourselves. It's going to be hard, and there's an excellent chance we'll wipe ourselves out before we manage it. But right now we have to accept: there's a strong trait in humanity, that believes anything, and hates anyone who believes otherwise.

Take a look a politics, and you can smell that trait like a fish on a footpath. Parties have swapped policies, and the followers have transferred their hate to the new tribe without hesitation.

Organised religion is, as those who have used it in the past have clearly noticed, a tool. Plenty of us are violent hateful idiots. We all are, at least a little bit. But at least a little of that stupidity can be mitigated if we accept a decent religion, and use it, as a way of allowing people to accept each other. To make a religion that brings all humans into the tribe.


We're irrational. Sometimes the irrational can bring out the best is us.


----------



## Tink (29 October 2014)

Just regarding the Gutenberg Bible and the first printing press, it was in the 1450's.


----------



## FxTrader (29 October 2014)

Weatsop said:


> I'm an atheist with a lot of respect for religion...



Religious myth, legends and the fantastic claims therein deserve no respect and should be accorded none by anyone claiming to be an atheist.  One's basic human rights and dignity should be respected, not their belief in imaginary sky Gods, demons, spirits, edicts etc. and all the supernatural claims used to justify such belief.



> Organised religion is, as those who have used it in the past have clearly noticed, a tool



Indeed, a tool to manipulate, control, deceive and subjugate the minds of gullible believers and give them a false confidence, hope and surety about eternity. 



> Plenty of us are violent hateful idiots. We all are, at least a little bit.



Speak for yourself and not on behalf of anyone else with such generalization.



> But at least a little of that stupidity can be mitigated if we accept a decent religion, and use it, as a way of allowing people to accept each other. To make a religion that brings all humans into the tribe.



As an atheist, I have no desire to become part of any religious tribe.  If there is such a thing as a "decent" religion how would you define it and to what end?  Engaging or promoting any religion as a useful tool for controlling human behaviour is a slippery slope that leads to religious fascism, theocracy and domination.



> We're irrational. Sometimes the irrational can bring out the best is us.



Really?  So irrational religious beliefs should be encouraged to bring out the best in people?  I suggest that being rational about human wellbeing and caring about the welfare of others makes more sense than needing or claiming a heavenly reward or motivation for doing so.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 October 2014)

When the Aids epidemic broke, Mother Theresa left India with heaps of nuns to set up a hospital in the US to care for the dying because no one else wanted to.
So sorry, as with Weatsop I have respect for religion too and find some of the intolerance shown in this thread distasteful.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/blog-oltre-tevere-by-giacomo-galeazzi/detail/articolo/10445/


----------



## McLovin (29 October 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> When the Aids epidemic broke, Mother Theresa left India with heaps of nuns to set up a hospital in the US to care for the dying because no one else wanted to.
> So sorry, as with Weatsop I have respect for religion too and find some of the intolerance shown in this thread distasteful.
> 
> http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/blog-oltre-tevere-by-giacomo-galeazzi/detail/articolo/10445/




Half a million odd women were raped in during the India-Pakistan war. She was adamant that even under those circumstances abortion was never right. It's a shame her compassion didn't extend beyond her religious dogma.


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Religious myth, legends and the fantastic claims therein deserve no respect and should be accorded none by anyone claiming to be an atheist.  One's basic human rights and dignity should be respected, not their belief in imaginary sky Gods, demons, spirits, edicts etc. and all the supernatural claims used to justify such belief.
> 
> 
> Indeed, a tool to manipulate, control, deceive and subjugate the minds of gullible believers and give them a false confidence, hope and surety about eternity.
> ...




An excellent summation of commonsense, FxTrader


----------



## Weatsop (29 October 2014)

Man, you can tell I was drunk when I wrote that!

Look, here's what I was clumsily trying to say: *religion is for idiots, but there are a LOT of idiots.*

My neighbour, for example. To her, science is just the big scary thing that tells her what to do, that she doesn't have a hope of understanding. She resents science - it seems arbitrary to her (thanks, media!). She hears about global warming, or the thing that'll give her cancer, or whatever, and she has no idea where that information comes from, no idea what scientists actually do, no idea how reliable this information is. 

Her jaw dropped when told her that the moon comes out in the day - I actually pointed to the moon. She'd never noticed. When I asked her where she thought it went on moonless nights... it was obvious she hadn't thought anything about it. She's never read past the first two sentences of a newspaper article in her life. She thinks global warming is from all the powerplants and car engines being hot. She's still worried about the ozone layer, on account of the "ultra-valides maybe still coming down".

She's not part of science, she has no ownership. It's this thing that pushes her around, and she's helpless to do anything about it. The world is this completely unknowable place.

*And once a week she goes to a building where a nice old man tells everyone to be decent to each other, and that the big sky fairy loves her. And the world makes sense to her.*

Take that away, and she's just adrift. She'd feel helpless - fact is, she IS helpless. She's an idiot. But she's got a right to feel safe, and part of something - surely? What do we gain by taking that away?

---
My brother is a smart feller - straight-A student as a kid, the smartest person I've ever met - but he's gone born-again. He spent a couple of decades in a self-destructive alcoholic funk because he sees all the awful evil crap that happens in the world, and he just can't take it. (Despite the indignation above, the evidence would suggest that humans are pretty bloody awful, and some proportion close to ALL of us can be pretty damn evil under the right circumstances). 

Then he finds religion. At some level he probably knows it's a cop-out, but he genuinely needs to believe in god, now. It's all that keeps him sane. I'm genuinely surprised he's still alive - but in the past few years, he's actually been happy. Religion did that.

I was talking about my old job, about the plans we made for pandemics, and about the worst-case ones (basically, there's a level beyond which we just can't make meaningful plans - we just have a menu of resources and options, and that's all we can do). And I enjoy thinking this through, it's a challenge. But he just has to hide - he can't deal with the thought of all the people he knows dying. So he says "God wouldn't let that happen".

It's a terrible thing to say if you're involved in pandemic planning, but he works in a factory. Why should he be scared? What would that gain us? How does it hurt us for him to have that comfort, however false it is?

As much as I'd like everyone to be able to look at reality, the simple fact is that a lot CAN'T. *I'd say most of us have our delusions - as invisible to ourselves as other people's idiotic beliefs are invisible to them.*

God is so obviously something people made up, that I can't understand how anyone who actually believes in a god manages to function day-to-day. Why don't they walk into trees? How could you be so stupid and still remember to breathe?

But plenty of people can't take reality. They can't. Wishing they could won't change it. With nothing but reality, plenty of people would just break.

...I, for one, try hard not to think about the Fermi Paradox. Not quite delusional, but still avoidance of reality...

When my dad was dying, my non-religious family just pretended he wasn't. He was on his death bed and they were planning a camping trip. He couldn't even talk. Dunno what he thought of the plans. They'd visit him a few hours each day, and leave him alone the rest of the time - even knowing he had a fear of dying alone. They couldn't accept reality. Just couldn't do it.

So what I'm saying is, humans seem to need delusions. I might think I don't have any, but then religious people think that, too. Thinking you're not deluded doesn't seem a very effective measure of whether or not you're deluded! Religion *can* do a lot of good. It's very flawed, but so are humans.

And having a nice old man, each week, tell people to be decent to each other... Well, that seems like something worthwhile.

So instead of just hating religion, I prefer to hate the bad parts.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2014)

That's a pretty good dissertation Weatsop except for the following



			
				Weatsop said:
			
		

> God is so obviously something people made up, that I can't understand how anyone who actually believes in a god manages to function day-to-day. Why don't they walk into trees? How could you be so stupid and still remember to breathe?




Well, I believe in God and I'm still breathing, and I don't walk into trees.

I go with the old quote by Gallileo
*
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
*


It depends on how you want to believe in God. If you take the religious route then you are an intellectual slave. If you just prefer to say thanks for letting us be here and use your brains to control your own life, then I see no problem with that.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 October 2014)

McLovin said:


> Half a million odd women were raped in during the India-Pakistan war. She was adamant that even under those circumstances abortion was never right. It's a shame her compassion didn't extend beyond her religious dogma.




I thought the Aids hospital when no one would go near the patients except the nuns was a good thing, but of course it doesn't count because she had anti abortion beliefs. 

Half a million! That is terrible.  Gee McLovin, you must have contributed to a non religious charity that set up abortion clinics in India? 
What there wasn't any? But surely it was necessary!! 

She had no part in the rape of half a million women but it sounds real bad doesn't it when you say it that way. This is an example of what I mean. She didn't stop these Hindu women having abortions.  She wasn't running the country and was only a member of a religion with a very tiny minority. Yet somehow it makes it look like it's her fault no one did anything.

You can always criticise anyone for their views if you try especially if you do a search on the Web to gather evidence as there are people with a deep hatred of religion who will willingly supply the information.

Live and let live is my philosophy. The fact that her religion is anti abortion does not stop the actual good she did.
Actions are louder than words.

The grey sisters (also known as the family care sisters) are nuns that operated in the housing commission flats near where I was growing up. The good they did was amazing however I am sure you can find some criticism of them on the web.


----------



## Tink (30 October 2014)

The perfect example of the wolves suppressing freedom, you must be part of the Communist party, McLovin.

Good on you, Knobby, and thanks


----------



## McLovin (30 October 2014)

Tink said:


> The perfect example of the wolves suppressing freedom, you must be part of the Communist party, McLovin.




Please tell me how you reached that conclusion, Tink. And no running away or deflecting with "Knobby already said it perfectly" as you usually do when asked to justify a statement. You tell me, specifically, what part of my post was advocating "suppressing freedom".

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.


----------



## Tink (30 October 2014)

You are the first to say that people should be allowed to speak their mind, and now you are saying she can't?

Yes, Knobby did say it exactly as stated.


----------



## McLovin (30 October 2014)

Tink said:


> You are the first to say that people should be allowed to speak their mind, and now you are saying she can't?




Where on Earth did I say that?


----------



## Tink (30 October 2014)

I thought you were for freedom of speech.

OK, so you want a Communist country where we are not allowed to express our views.


----------



## McLovin (30 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I thought you were for freedom of speech.
> 
> OK, so you want a Communist country where we are not allowed to express our views.




Wow. Are you just trolling now or are you really that poor at reading and comprehension? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth.


----------



## Tink (30 October 2014)

Maybe you should read your own posts, McLovin.


----------



## McLovin (30 October 2014)

Tink said:


> Maybe you should read your own posts, McLovin.




Where did I say she wasn't entitled to her own opinion and that I was for "suppressing freedom"? You still haven't answered the question. Not that that's a surprise.


----------



## Tink (31 October 2014)

I have already answered your questions.

Anyone that expresses good in here gets attacked by the wolves.

You are the one that commented that she didn't think like you, no compassion, yet she just helped a lot of people and believes in preserving life.

So which babies are you going to keep, the boys or the girls
Just line them all up and shoot them

Socialists/Communists are destroyers.


----------



## Hodgie (31 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I have already answered your questions.
> 
> Anyone that expresses good in here gets attacked by the wolves.
> 
> ...




As an outsider looking in it does look as though the suggestions you are making about Mclovin seem to be quite far from the actual content of his post. There is a long stretch between an abortion and shooting babies after birth, that just seems a little farfetched.

As far as I can tell, the only thing he has said is that religion stood in the way of women having the choice to not have a baby which was the result of a rape and this could ultimately change the rest of the women's lives. I think that is the topic raised here.

I understand that you may have issue with him placing the blame on Mother Teresa as she did a lot of good for the world but the remarks you make don't address the issues that he actually raised which I think just derails the discussion. In my view you have created a straw man argument by providing comments such as gunning down babies and suppression/communism which as far as I can tell were comments that were never made prior to you making them. It makes it difficult for any discussion to arise when this argumentative style is used. I don't think it's going to go anywhere meaningful or worthwhile with that approach.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are many opposing views.


----------



## McLovin (31 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I have already answered your questions.
> 
> Anyone that expresses good in here gets attacked by the wolves.
> 
> ...




Tink you are all over the shop. Have you been over imbibing on the consecration wine? It's funny watching you contort yourself into ever more bizarre conclusions. You still haven't answered my question, not that it really matters anymore. 

So I am now a Communist, baby shooting, freedom suppressor. What else can we add to the list? Oh yes, I'm a wolf too.

Anyway, thanks for the laugh, it brightened my day.



			
				Hodgie said:
			
		

> As an outsider looking in it does look as though the suggestions you are making about Mclovin seem to be quite far from the actual content of his post. There is a long stretch between an abortion and shooting babies after birth, that just seems a little farfetched.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the only thing he has said is that religion stood in the way of women having the choice to not have a baby which was the result of a rape and this could ultimately change the rest of the women's lives. I think that is the topic raised here.




Spot on.


----------



## Tink (31 October 2014)

Well I am glad you got a laugh, but it is truly happening, picking and choosing the sex of their baby.

Whatever happened to being grateful for what we have/get?


----------



## Weatsop (31 October 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a pretty good dissertation Weatsop except for the following
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah yeah, I should have been clearer: whenever I see something that a person believes that's just too silly for words, I shrug and don't think less of them - because I would be just as blind to my own silliness, and I can't see any reason to think that I just happen to hold all the right beliefs.

Like I said: thinking you're right is absolutely no indicator for actually being right.

I don't think less of the faithful. From an objective point of view, people with faith may just have an ability to perceive some sense of the divine - an ability I lack. Like colour blindness.

Both points of view can co-exist, at least in my head. I can have no belief in a god because, duh, but I also have to accept the possibility that people with faith have *more information than me*.

Fact is, a universe that looks atheist is entirely consistent with a god who doesn't want people to be sure he/she/it/they exists. A god who doesn't want to be proven, will never be proven. That's fine.

We all just have to go with what we can see.


...and who the hell am I to tell other people what they see?


----------



## Tisme (31 October 2014)

See how religion starts conflict !!! You people are nuts


----------



## Julia (31 October 2014)

Tisme said:


> See how religion starts conflict !!!



And that's my objection to it.  I couldn't care less if someone wants to put their trust and faith in something I personally can't believe in.  None of my business as long as they don't come badgering me to do the same.

But inevitably there's conflict between atheists and believers.  Agnostics, at least, sit non-commitedly on the sidelines.

And then more conflict between branches of the believers where they feel justified in killing their opponents.

And so it escalates.


----------



## Tisme (31 October 2014)

Julia said:


> And that's my objection to it.  I couldn't care less if someone wants to put their trust and faith in something I personally can't believe in.  None of my business as long as they don't come badgering me to do the same.
> 
> But inevitably there's conflict between atheists and believers.  Agnostics, at least, sit non-commitedly on the sidelines.
> 
> ...




Yep.

I must admit though I was very intrigued at visiting the dead sea scrolls in New York and the remarkable accuracy of the comparable texts between the scrolls and the KJ bible. It kinda put the notion in my sceptical head that aborigines might actually be telling the dreamtime that their prehistoric families did.


----------



## Weatsop (31 October 2014)

Julia said:


> And that's my objection to it.  I couldn't care less if someone wants to put their trust and faith in something I personally can't believe in.  None of my business as long as they don't come badgering me to do the same.
> 
> But inevitably there's conflict between atheists and believers.  Agnostics, at least, sit non-commitedly on the sidelines.
> 
> ...




Humans will always find something to fight about. Look at the hatred Bolt's reader have for the Greenies. Look at football hooligans beating up people who are identical in almost every demographic detail, apart from which team they support.

Humans suck. We'll find any excuse. Religion gets blamed a lot, but it's just an enabler.

And personally I don't believe many true agnostics actually exist. It's a pretty complicated position about the epistemological impossibility of having any useful discussion about god, which probably only philosophy professors actually understand enough to believe.

If you go with the broader meaning of agnosticism - that a person has doubt - then all people are agnostics and the term becomes meaningless. Atheists can't be sure, since a sufficiently powerful god who doesn't want to be seen is indistinguishable from the absence of god; and the faithful can't be sure, since without doubt there can be no faith.

Do you presently believe in the existence of a god? No? Then you're an atheist. A rock, for comparison, is also an atheist. So are babies.

Most people who say they're agnostics are just atheists who are too chicken to admit it.

That's my thing:* beating on the agnostics.*


----------



## Julia (31 October 2014)

I seem to recall you (or perhaps it was someone else) saying all the above before, weatsop.

Personally I just don't care enough to be bothered even wondering if there's a god or not.  I have no way of knowing.  I do not assert there is no god and neither do I assert there is one.  Therefore I am, if anything, agnostic.

Certainly I'm not interested in offering myself as some sort of sparring partner for you on the issue.
Believe what you like.    If I felt obliged to accept a label, it would just be "I don't care".


----------



## Weatsop (31 October 2014)

Julia said:


> I seem to recall you (or perhaps it was someone else) saying all the above before, weatsop.
> 
> Personally I just don't care enough to be bothered even wondering if there's a god or not.  I have no way of knowing.  I do not assert there is no god and neither do I assert there is one.  Therefore I am, if anything, agnostic.
> 
> ...




Actually, I think apathy is a good form of agnosticism.

Just keep in mind, atheism doesn't mean you have assert that there is no god. It only means that you don't believe there is one. The common example being a teacup floating along in the same orbit as Mars. I can't prove it's NOT there, but without a pretty good reason to think it IS, I'll go on *not* believing that it's there.

Many would say "there is no god" and "there is no teacup", but that's just a linguistic shortcut. Same as you can say "there is no santa" - even though you can't be 100% sure - he might just be magic enough to alter your memories to make you think you bought that junk.

Not trying to spar, just it's a common misconception of what atheism is, and it leads to a lot of confusion. Especially among atheists. Funny how if you tell someone that people of a certain label believe a certain thing, a lot of people will pretty uncritically believe that thing.

You can be an agnostic AND an atheist.


----------



## bunyip (1 November 2014)

Two healthcare workers recently contracted Ebola after working with Ebola patients in Africa. Both became gravely ill but survived the disease after weeks of medical treatment. The woman, an American nurse (I think), said in her first interview on TV after her recovery....._’'I’m so grateful to have been cured – first and foremost I want to thank God”._
The man, a doctor, said as he walked out of hospital after his final test came back clear..._”Praise be to the lord”._

I wonder if either of them considered what their outcomes would have been without medical treatment. Would they have survived their illness, would God have saved them?
Was it God who was risking his life to give them first class medical care, or was it the dedicated medical staff? Was it God who worked long and hard and spent millions of dollars in research to find out the best way of treating Ebola? Or was it the medical people and the scientists?
Do the medical staff deserve any credit for saving the lives of these two people and countless others, or does the credit belong to God?

This is a pretty good example I think of the way Christianity has brainwashed people into believing that anything good that happens in the world is always the work of God.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2014)

I understand completely your point, but I guess they'd been through a very frightening time both physically and psychologically and the comments might even have been a figure of speech.   I agree that it would have been desirable to express gratitude to the people who provided medical care.

I occasionally catch myself saying stuff like "Oh, god" when I'm really irritated, or "for god's sake".  It doesn't mean for a moment that I'm actually calling on any sort of supernatural deity.


----------



## bunyip (2 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I understand completely your point, but I guess they'd been through a very frightening time both physically and psychologically and the comments might even have been a figure of speech.   I agree that it would have been desirable to express gratitude to the people who provided medical care.
> 
> I occasionally catch myself saying stuff like "Oh, god" when I'm really irritated, or "for god's sake".  It doesn't mean for a moment that I'm actually calling on any sort of supernatural deity.




Points taken, Julia. And yes, I was aware that it may have been a figure of speech. All the same, I think they should have given thanks first and foremost to the medical people who risked their lives to nurse them back to health. If they wanted to add the God bit as an aside, then that’s up to them. But for God to be first in line when they were handing out gratitude was a bit rich I thought. 

So many people are brought up with the mentality that God has a hand in everything good that happens. And while the more realistic ones will abandon that belief as they grow up and start thinking for themselves, many of them nevertheless continue with the ‘_thank God’_ reaction whenever something turns out positively. 
It gets a bit irritating sometimes. When I was under treatment for Leukemia I had one devoutly religious relative who asked me every few weeks if I feeling any better. And if I said yes, her automatic response was _‘thank God_’. 
It started really getting up my nose to the extent that one day I said to her _‘Listen – how do you think I’d be faring if I wasn’t undergoing medical treatment – do you think God would save my life? I’d be dead – that’s how I’d be faring. So if you really want to thank anyone then I suggest you thank the medical staff who are treating me, and the medical scientists who developed the treatment’. _
Her response was ‘_Oh, God is helping too’. _
Anyway, thankfully the message got through to her and she laid off with the ‘_thank God’_ routine after that.


----------



## Value Collector (4 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> Most people who say they're agnostics are just atheists who are too chicken to admit it.
> 
> That's my thing:* beating on the agnostics.*




Actually the terms atheist and agnostic describe different things, 

Atheist / Theist are terms used to describe belief.

Agnostic / Gnostic are terms used to describe knowledge.

the terms are not mutually exclusive, for example I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist.

You put yourself in a dangerous position if you are going to claim not to be an Agnostic Atheist, Because if you say that your a Gnostic Atheist, then you are claiming to know a god doesn't exist, and that's a positive claim you might not be able to back up, and that makes it an intellectually dishonest position.


----------



## FxTrader (4 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You put yourself in a dangerous position if you are going to claim not to be an Agnostic Atheist, Because if you say that your a Gnostic Atheist, then you are claiming to know a god doesn't exist, and that's a positive claim you might not be able to back up, and that makes it an intellectually dishonest position.



The term atheist should not really exist, yet it does and it's a term that is generally reviled by the religious for totally irrational reasons.  While I identify as an atheist from time to time, I generally prefer not to since the vitriol and sometimes outright loathing and hatred the use of this term attracts from some religious types makes rational discussion of religion impossible.  Simply declaring oneself an unbeliever based on lack of credible evidence seems less offensive to the flock.

Declaring oneself to be an agnostic atheist is a plausible but unnecessary qualification of one's position in my opinion.  If the existence of any God is unknowable, then declaring non-belief on this basis is redundant phrasing. I don't know any atheist who claims to know for certain that a God does not exist, rather that any current God concept is improbable and compelling, indisputable evidence for any God non-existent.

Playing semantic games with such terms runs both ways.  Why call oneself a gnostic Christian for instance since this is implicit in the belief system.  What is intellectually dishonest and frankly dimwitted is the certain confidence that any God exists based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls and related magic books.


----------



## Value Collector (5 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> The term atheist should not really exist, yet it does and it's a term that is generally reviled by the religious for totally irrational reasons.




I think its a perfectly sound word to use, and often the best word to use. Put "A" if front of "Theism", simply means "lack of Theism", When referring to a person with a lack of belief, the person is an Atheist.

The fact that groups have  a distaste for another group and the word that best describes them means we need to stop sheltering them from the concept and who we are.





> Declaring oneself to be an agnostic atheist is a plausible but unnecessary qualification of one's position in my opinion



.  

It's helpful because the first thing theists ask in a debate is can we prove there is no god, explaining that we are actually agnostic, and that it is them that must prove their belief stops the switching of the burden of proof.

Also, it puts them in their place when they say things like, "I don't mind agnostics, but atheists are terrible people who just hate god"



> If the existence of any God is unknowable, then declaring non-belief on this basis is redundant phrasing. I don't know any atheist who claims to know for certain that a God does not exist, rather that any current God concept is improbable and compelling, indisputable evidence for any God non-existent.




Many atheists do make the mistake of making positive claims to know there is no god, so explaining the agnostic part can be helpful in getting them to think about it deeper, and help them avoid making snap positive claims in the future.



> Playing semantic games with such terms runs both ways.  Why call oneself a gnostic Christian for instance since this is implicit in the belief system.  What is intellectually dishonest and frankly dimwitted is the certain confidence that any God exists based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls and related magic books




Pav would describe him self as a Gnostic Christian, and getting him to understand the 4 position, eg Gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist. I think helped embed the concept that it was up to him to prove his claim, also any time I can get a theist to openly admit to being an agnostic theist is a good day, it helps if that seed of doubt can be firmly planted by getting them to spend time examining their own position.


----------



## bunyip (5 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Pav would describe him self as a Gnostic Christian, and getting him to understand the 4 position, eg Gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist. I think helped embed the concept that it was up to him to prove his claim, also any time I can get a theist to openly admit to being an agnostic theist is a good day, it helps if that seed of doubt can be firmly planted by getting them to spend time examining their own position.




I don’t think there’s much chance of getting friend Pav to prove his claim – all he’s been able to come up with so far as proof of the existence of God and the resurecction of Jesus is what’s written in the Bible. One day he might, just might, realise that what was written thousands of years ago by unnamed authors when very few people could read or write, and much of it written most likely from stories and legends told around desert campfires over probably hundreds of years, is not credible proof of anything. But I’m not holding my breath with somebody like Pav – in my experience fanatics believe what they want to believe, proof or no proof.


----------



## Weatsop (5 November 2014)

Nice one, VC, well said.

It's trivial to point out that the existence or non-existence of god is impossible to prove (with the sole exception being if god exists and WANTS to be proven). Agnosticism is a much deeper position than doubt, and atheists can (and should) doubt at least at a basic level.

Theists should doubt, too, as long as they value "faith"...

...at least until god decides that they shouldn't.


----------



## Weatsop (5 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> I don’t think there’s much chance of getting friend Pav to prove his claim – all he’s been able to come up with so far as proof of the existence of God and the resurecction of Jesus is what’s written in the Bible. One day he might, just might, realise that what was written thousands of years ago by unnamed authors when very few people could read or write, and much of it written most likely from stories and legends told around desert campfires over probably hundreds of years, is not credible proof of anything. But I’m not holding my breath with somebody like Pav – in my experience fanatics believe what they want to believe, proof or no proof.




Pav mistakes the case if he thinks there needs to be proof. Or even that there CAN be.

The old and famous contradiction in the bible (there are many, but this is the famous one): the descent of Jesus from King Dave via Joseph is given twice in the bible. *Each time the descent is different*. You can't have more than one descent! It just can't happen. Therefore, the bible is flawed. You don't need to think about any interpretation or metaphor, it's shown very clearly.

...and that's missing the main point, that Christian dogma claims that Jesus *isn't Joseph's son anyway*. Why does the bible say (twice!) that Jesus is Joseph's son when that means he's NOT god, as Christian dogma requires?

DOESN'T MATTER.

If god wants us to doubt, then the bible MUST be flawed, or we might not doubt.

If god wants us to doubt, then the universe MUST look atheist. That is, it must be explainable in the absence of a god. 

God's not an idiot, he won't get caught out.

So all these people who try to prove god, or deny science on the grounds that god invalidates it (e.g. the anti-evolution crackpots in the US) are basically saying: *god is an idiot*.

If god wants us to know, we'll know. He's all powerful. He could just flip the switch marked "know of My Terrible Existence". If we don't know, it's because he doesn't want us to know. And there's nothing any of us could do to outwit god. If we could prove the existence of god despite his opposition, we would have outsmarted him.

Pffff.

So anyone who says something proves the existence of god is blaspheming. They are calling god an idiot.


----------



## luutzu (5 November 2014)

In my culture, we're told that we descended from the Mountain Phoenix and the Dragon lord of the East Sea. That the two one day meet, laid 100 eggs - 50 males, 50 females - so we're all inbreds like you Jews, Christians and Muslims. Anyway, we don't believe that story to be true, that it's a folk tale, the story of our Creation... something to inspire the kids.

So why is it that the stories of Genesis, create the world in six days... all that can't be disprove? Is Zeus still around or is he just Liam Neeson?


----------



## FxTrader (5 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> If god wants us to know, we'll know. He's all powerful. He could just flip the switch marked "know of My Terrible Existence". If we don't know, it's because he doesn't want us to know. And there's nothing any of us could do to outwit god. If we could prove the existence of god despite his opposition, we would have outsmarted him. So anyone who says something proves the existence of god is blaspheming. They are calling god an idiot.



Such rationale will not phase a religious fundamentalist who will simply reject the basic premise that their God, its design, its will or its word is flawed in any way by definition (the gender specific pronoun *he* can't really apply to a monotheistic God concept) - doubt is for fallen unbelievers under Satan's influence.  For the fundamentalist, God has spoken (past tense) in the form of creation, revealed truth in scripture, and its prophets.  No further revelation is required.

The problem with asking the religious to provide evidence for their belief in religious myth and superstition (as demonstrated many times in this thread) is the extremely low standard of evidence (or what is carelessly called evidence) they will accept as justification for strong belief in such myth.  Where this so called evidence is clearly shown to be a farce or outright fraud the response is obfuscation and misdirection (e.g. attacks on evolution theory, science, appeals to the good deeds people do in the name of religion, its usefulness, semantic argument etc.)

The added complexity in debating the religious is the deep emotional, intellectual and social investment they have made in a particular religious tradition.  Reason and rationality frequently fails to make an impression because being truly honest with oneself about what you really know for certain to be true and factual and what you actually accept on blind faith creates a state of self-awareness that can create conflict with other members of the cult of belief.  The consequences of such conflict can be dire indeed depending on the tradition or cult.

It's safer and less confronting not to question or doubt and construct or embrace sham arguments in defense of the faith.  The myth of eternal life in a heavenly paradise is just to intoxicating for many to let go of with the first casualty being any true desire to question why one should believe fantastic claims in magic books for essentially bad reasons.


----------



## Tisme (6 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> In my culture, we're told that we descended from the Mountain Phoenix and the Dragon lord of the East Sea. That the two one day meet, laid 100 eggs - 50 males, 50 females -




Phht that's nothing when it comes to the origins of man, the aborigine's Wandjina didn't wait for the place to be habitable they just moulded everything from a plastic lump of stardust.... no fuss no muss.

When it comes to the Bible, Adam was jilted by his blasphemous first lover (Lilith) who took off back to heaven where there was plumbing and electricity, so Eve was sent bush as his new squeeze. First case of divorce....


----------



## bunyip (7 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> The myth of eternal life in a heavenly paradise is just to intoxicating for many to let go of with the first casualty being any true desire to question why one should believe fantastic claims in magic books for essentially bad reasons.




It’s the old story....tell people what they want to hear and thousands will flock to listen and believe you without question no matter how outrageous your claims. And not just in religion either – people who set themselves up as investment gurus use this very same tactic to entice people into wealth creation schemes. Cassamatis of Storm Financial, for example. 
Works like a charm and always will work thanks to human nature being what it is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 November 2014)

I am repeating what I have read and there is nothing to the contrary that I have seen. The genocide of Jews was because of Anti-Semitism :- 







> hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. *The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism* as it is usually understood. *The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions* of Arabs or other Semites.




Christian Anti-Semitism/Anti Judaism exists today. It manifests in various forms but I would not be paranoid of persecution. Maybe it is a deep seated belief and people don't say but quietly believe and practice. 

Now, the battle for religious supremacy has a new contender. Islam. Are non religious folk safe from religious ideologies in the modern world? Depends on what country you live in.



> Bunyip posted -
> It’s the old story....tell people what they want to hear and thousands will flock to listen and believe you without question no matter how outrageous your claims.




This quote from a perpetrator of genocide -



> A few days later Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, a three-star general in the SS who had fought in the invasion of the Soviet Union, disagreed. *He stated: "If for years, for decades, a doctrine is preached to the effect that the Slav race is an inferior race, that the Jews are not even human beings, then an explosion of this sort is inevitable."*


----------



## sydboy007 (8 November 2014)

Orange is definitely the new balck.

[video]www.tmz.com/videos/0_b8qlub73[/video]


----------



## luutzu (8 November 2014)

Tisme said:


> Phht that's nothing when it comes to the origins of man, the aborigine's Wandjina didn't wait for the place to be habitable they just moulded everything from a plastic lump of stardust.... no fuss no muss.
> 
> When it comes to the Bible, Adam was jilted by his blasphemous first lover (Lilith) who took off back to heaven where there was plumbing and electricity, so Eve was sent bush as his new squeeze. First case of divorce....




You're pulling my legs with Lilith right?

I'm pretty sure there's a fantastic story of Creation in every culture, strange that we dismiss others out of hand but take ours quite seriously. I can tell you that up until about 7, I thought us Viet, particularly me, haha, was awesome because I descended from a dragon king.

You're supposed to grow out of that stuff but if a person really believe in it, they can find some things in nature or history to support it. A good example is Ha Long Bay in Vietnam. Hanoi's old name was Thang Long - place where the dragon rise to Heaven... and Ha Long is where that dragon descend, and because the dragon was so powerful it kick up all those rocks in the bay.

In the Journey to the West, the Monkey King and all that... I remember thinking how awesome it was that 1 day in Heaven equals 100 years on earth. In Nolan's Interstellar, 1 hour on some planet equals 7 years on Earth - it's based on some relativity or something.


Anyway, just about all Chinese and other Asians influenced by Chinese culture... we all favour the Year of the Dragon - what with the Emperor being the dragon - and a couple of years ago when it was the Year of the Water Dragon, a lot of expecting Asian mothers actually choose to have a (safe) premature C-section just so their son would be born in this lucky year. Most actually plan conception for birth in that year. The others favourable one being the Monkey, then maybe the Horse... Buffalo they don't like too much.

Strange superstition to non-Asians but not that much different from Genesis and what not.


----------



## Weatsop (10 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> It's safer and less confronting not to question or doubt and construct or embrace sham arguments in defense of the faith. The myth of eternal life in a heavenly paradise is just to intoxicating for many to let go of with the first casualty being any true desire to question why one should believe fantastic claims in magic books for essentially bad reasons.




Yeah, I think a lot of folk don't actually believe. They want it to be true, and seem to think if they try hard enough to believe, it will be true. But most "religious" folk *don't actually act like they believe*.

If I thought an old book was the actual word of God The All Powerful, I'd know that thing backwards and forwards. Yet most Christians think they go to heaven when they die, and look down on their families, even though that's not what the bible actually says. Or they think it's perfect despite the bible clearly contradicting itself (JC's descent from King David being the famous one).

I mean, have they actually *read* the damn thing? And... if they truly believed, *wouldn't* they read it?


----------



## bunyip (11 November 2014)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...fication-due-to-social-media-pressure/5877584

No doubt there will be different opinions on this - mine is that any customer who insists on halal certification for foods they buy from Aussie companies should be told in no uncertain terms to take their business elsewhere.


----------



## herzy (11 November 2014)

Would you say the same for kosher? 

How about vegan?

How about gluten free?


----------



## Weatsop (11 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...fication-due-to-social-media-pressure/5877584
> 
> No doubt there will be different opinions on this - mine is that any customer who insists on halal certification for foods they buy from Aussie companies should be told in no uncertain terms to take their business elsewhere.




Hell yeah! Anyone who isn't exactly the same as me is unaustralian and should live in a hole in the ground until they die!!!

In fact, we should make a list of people who eat blue cheese, right? And then when the aliens come we'll know who to give them for their organ harvesting, because eating mouldy cheese is MESSED UP.

...or, hang on...

MAYBE we could accept that other human beings actually exist, and sometimes like things that we don't like? 

Sometimes they even like things that we don't really care about very much, but it's something with a funny word that we don't really understand, but as long as it *doesn't actually effect us in any way whatsoever* maybe we should just *get over ourselves *and live our lives without sticking our faces into other people's business?

Here's an idea:

*Any Australians who think it's Australian to tell other people how to live their lives should take their opinions elsewhere. *

Maybe to New Zealand, because when New Zealanders curse you out for being an over-reacting redneck, their accent makes it sound funny.

Hah. "Rudnuck".

And yeah, I just told people how to live their lives, but it's different because I'm right.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> No doubt there will be different opinions on this - mine is that any customer who insists on halal certification for foods they buy from Aussie companies should be told in no uncertain terms to take their business elsewhere.



Theological determinism -- coming to a store near you.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2014)

> Sharia law is Islam’s legal system. It derives from the Koran and the Hadiths, the sayings and customs attributed to the Prophet Mohammed, as well as fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars.
> Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.
> There are reported to be around 85 such courts in the UK – however campaigners say there could be far more.
> The Sharia Law event at the Law Society’s headquarters on Chancery Lane, central London on June 24 has already sold out.
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...et-formal-training-in-Islamic-Sharia-law.html

This may have been raised earlier but I haven't been involved with this thread very much. Is it realistic to think what you see above will be attempted in Australia? Religious laws as interpreted from a religious book. It raises the question of how much we value our democracy and the "civilised" laws that apply to all Australian. The creation of a separate, possibly integrated, set of rules and regulations that directly opposes this nation's egalitarian ideology.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

ISIS members discuss the trading Kurdish females they have captured, 

They actually quote from the Qu'ran to justify their actions.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

The bible has been used many times to justify slavery, too.

Religion, IMO, just lets people justify doing whatever they like, good or bad.

---
PS: how many sexually repressed young men from any background would be all giggly and excited like these arseholes at the thought of buying themselves a hotty? 

If you were a 19 year old virgin and there was a slave market down the road, and all your mates are saying it's a great idea, wouldn't you at least be tempted to work some extra shifts for the money?

And I can't think of anywhere more sexually repressed than Saudi Arabia. The rich men get lots of wives, the young men aren't even allowed to talk to a girl in public. Plenty of them will NEVER have sex. Ever. Their whole lives.

...then these guys get a slave-market.

Surprised at the outcome?


----------



## Tisme (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> The bible has been used many times to justify slavery, too.
> 
> .




 Yes but that was a long time ago in Australia ......hang on we never had slavery did we, so we should blame the USA for our poor performance as Christian slavers?

As with all things, because someone did it doesn't make it a righteous precedent. Anti Christian acts found in the ten commandments are predicated on a malignancy that has beset the human species right from the religious getgo it seems.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

Tisme said:


> Yes but that was a long time ago in Australia ......hang on we never had slavery did we, .




we did actually, sugar slaves as they were called.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> we did actually, sugar slaves as they were called.
> 
> View attachment 60259




The Kanakas.  A lot of Aboriginal slavery occurred as well.

Then there were the coolies.


----------



## bunyip (12 November 2014)

herzy said:


> Would you say the same for kosher?
> 
> How about vegan?
> 
> How about gluten free?




I’m opposed to food being certified on religious grounds, and the certification fees going to _*any*_ religion.

I’m not opposed to foods being certified for health reasons, such as organic certification or gluten-free certification.


----------



## bunyip (12 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...et-formal-training-in-Islamic-Sharia-law.html
> 
> This may have been raised earlier but I haven't been involved with this thread very much. Is it realistic to think what you see above will be attempted in Australia? Religious laws as interpreted from a religious book. It raises the question of how much we value our democracy and the "civilised" laws that apply to all Australian. The creation of a separate, possibly integrated, set of rules and regulations that directly opposes this nation's egalitarian ideology.




Yes, it’s definitely realistic to think Sharia law could infiltrate Australia. Some of the more radical Muslims are openly demanding it.
That’s the problem with Muslims – they leave their own countries because of the oppression they suffer under Islamic laws and attitudes, they come to a county where they can live free from oppression. Then little by little they force changes in their adopted countries to make them like the countries they came from where they were unhappy.
The more their numbers grow, the faster they force these changes. They've done it in every country in which they've gained a foothold, to the detriment of that country.....Britain, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, and many others.
If they’d leave their old attitudes behind them, if they’d leave their old religious factional hatreds behind them, if they’d ditch their oppressive and dictatorial religion, if they’d come to their new country with the attitude of _*‘Righto, here’s our chance for a new start, no need for any of that crap we left behind, let’s embrace this wonderful new free country and everything about it, and start enjoying life for a change.’*_
But for some reason they just can’t seem to do that.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> But for some reason they just can’t seem to do that.



The quran says so. The fanatics and moderates read the same book. While one mob plays out a chapter in Iraq/Syria the other mob works a chapter to fit the society to their approval on a moderate level. Please keep Aussies informed so they can can accept or reject the direct challenge to our non-religious-controlled way of life in Australia.


----------



## herzy (12 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> I’m opposed to food being certified on religious grounds, and the certification fees going to _*any*_ religion.
> 
> I’m not opposed to foods being certified for health reasons, such as organic certification or gluten-free certification.




Interesting. On one level (being anti-religion), I agree with you. On another level though, it's just supply/demand, so I don't really care if companies do it. 

Would you consider vegan to be 'health' or ideological? What if there are, say, fish scales used to make beer - it doesn't affect health, but wouldn't classify as vegan. 

What about non-religious Jews and Muslims - who prefer the meat because they have an almost innate feeling that it's inherently unclean unless kosher/halal, but don't actually practice the religion? 

Much easier to just let the markets do their thing


----------



## bunyip (13 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> The quran says so. The fanatics and moderates read the same book. While one mob plays out a chapter in Iraq/Syria the other mob works a chapter to fit the society to their approval on a moderate level. Please keep Aussies informed so they can can accept or reject the direct challenge to our non-religious-controlled way of life in Australia.




Therein lies just one of the problems with religions....._*some*_ of their members get so devoted to their magic books and the instructions contained within, that common sense goes out the window and they don’t think rationally.
The more fanatical the religion, the more common sense is replaced with stupidity.


----------



## bunyip (13 November 2014)

herzy said:


> Would you consider vegan to be 'health' or ideological?



I know very little about vegan - I have no opinion on it.




herzy said:


> What about non-religious Jews and Muslims - who prefer the meat because they have an almost innate feeling that it's inherently unclean unless kosher/halal, but don't actually practice the religion?




Even if these people don't actually practice their religion, such 'innate feelings' are based on religious beliefs that are irrational and illogical - for example, the view that a pig is unfit for human consumption because he doesn’t chew the cud. 
It’s nonsensical for anyone to believe they’ll suffer some fearful fate because they eat meat from a certain animal, or because the animal wasn’t slaughtered according to religious beliefs and customs.
The only reason anyone believes this nonsense is because of what it says in in their magic book, and because it’s brainwashed into them from early childhood.
If they bothered to think about it rationally and logically and with a modicum of common sense, they’d throw out these silly ideas as the more sensible people among them do.


----------



## bunyip (13 November 2014)

I’d never heard of ‘*Raphael the archangel’* until today when a fanatically religious relative claimed that someone she knows who is going in for complex and risky neurological surgery will be safe because Raphael the archangel will be there with them to ensure the success of the operation.
Apparently the outcome won’t have much to do with the skill of the surgeon and the rest of the medical team.....a successful outcome will be the work of good ol’ Raphael. 

Having never heard of this Raphael character before, I jumped on Google to check out him/her/it. And I have to say, when it comes to weird and completely unsubstantiated religious beliefs, this one is right up there with the best of them! 
According to what I’ve learned on Google, Raphael is the angel of healing who works to heal people's minds, spirits, and bodies so they can enjoy peace and good health to the fullest. One woman on the website was even asking Raphael to heal her dog and her cat as well as herself!

Anyway, it all sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I mean, I’m probably wasting my time with those two to three hour walks each day starting at 4am to try and stay fit and healthy. And perhaps I don’t need my healthy eating plan and my low stress lifestyle to look after mind and body. From now on I can just hand over the job of my personal health management to Raphael.
Of course I’d have to believe in him first, and that might be the hardest part. How anyone can believe in this sort of stuff is beyond me....I don’t see me joining their ranks any time soon.


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> I know very little about vegan - I have no opinion on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree that it's irrational and silly, but it's still the way they feel. I meant to distinguish personal preference from an actual religious value (I do know have a lot of friends who call themselves Jewish, don't eat pork, and celebrate the holidays, but aren't remotely spiritual). Equally, some people may not like the idea of palm oil being in their products (for environmental reasons), and wish for that to be labelled. Although one seems more logical to me (and assumedly you too), it's still ultimately a matter of opinion. 

This is, however, way off topic - Bunyip feel free to read my comments in the halal-dedicated thread if you're interested.


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> I’d never heard of ‘*Raphael the archangel’* until today when a fanatically religious relative claimed that someone she knows who is going in for complex and risky neurological surgery will be safe because Raphael the archangel will be there with them to ensure the success of the operation.
> Apparently the outcome won’t have much to do with the skill of the surgeon and the rest of the medical team.....a successful outcome will be the work of good ol’ Raphael.
> 
> Having never heard of this Raphael character before, I jumped on Google to check out him/her/it. And I have to say, when it comes to weird and completely unsubstantiated religious beliefs, this one is right up there with the best of them!
> ...




+1. I've always lamented the fatal flaw of the (scientifically proven to be effective!) placebo  It always seems to be out of reach when I need it.


----------



## pavilion103 (13 November 2014)

Important to differentiate between mythical beings and historical people. Not all faith claims are equal. In fact they are not even close.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> I’d never heard of ‘*Raphael the archangel’* until today when a fanatically religious relative claimed that someone she knows who is going in for complex and risky neurological surgery will be safe because Raphael the archangel will be there with them to ensure the success of the operation.
> Apparently the outcome won’t have much to do with the skill of the surgeon and the rest of the medical team.....a successful outcome will be the work of good ol’ Raphael.
> .




It's a no lose bet for them,

Friend gets healed = Raphael is real, and blessed the procedure

Friend dies on the table = God is mysterious, has a plan and my have needed another angel. 




pavilion103 said:


> Important to differentiate between mythical beings and historical people. Not all faith claims are equal. In fact they are not even close.




Are you saying Raphael the "archangel" is a historical person.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2014)

Anyone foresee upcoming religious influences on Australian society?


----------



## Ruby (14 November 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Important to differentiate between mythical beings and historical people. Not all faith claims are equal. In fact they are not even close.




Are you able to differentiate between the mythical beings and historical people in your faith Pav?


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

Here's one for the pro-Christian, Islam haters out there. 

[video]http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201411131934-0024345[/video]

Video here:


Woman gets attacked and stripped for dressing inappropriately. Men are jeering and laughing (and pulling her clothes off). Kenya is 70% devout Christian.

It's interesting that I haven't seen this on Western media - only Al Jazeera. 

Could media portrayal cause us to over-vilify Islam and under-criticise Christianity?


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2014)

herzy said:


> I agree that it's irrational and silly, but it's still the way they feel. I meant to distinguish personal preference from an actual religious value (I do know have a lot of friends who call themselves Jewish, don't eat pork, and celebrate the holidays, but aren't remotely spiritual). Equally, some people may not like the idea of palm oil being in their products (for environmental reasons), and wish for that to be labelled. Although one seems more logical to me (and assumedly you too), it's still ultimately a matter of opinion.
> 
> This is, however, way off topic - Bunyip feel free to read my comments in the halal-dedicated thread if you're interested.




You're right, Herzy, this is off topic. I'll just make one last comment on the matter by saying that I've eaten quite a few pigs in my time, and they weren't the slightest bit dirty or unclean because they didn't chew the cud. (which is one of the requirements of the Jewish faith for animals to be considered fit for human consumption).

And those grunters tasted pretty damn good too!

I may have a look at the halal thread - I wasn't aware of its existence.


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2014)

Human imagination at its best is evident in the many stories on the net from people who claim to have actually seen or spoken to Raphael the archangel.
One woman said she was thinking of Raphael when next thing a beautiful green light floated in from the sea and entered her living room. 
Others too have claimed to have seen this green light that was definitely Raphael.
Another one claimed that Raphael ‘spoke to her from the clouds’!

Nothing new here – I’m sure many of us have had experiences where we were expecting to see or hear something, and next thing we 'saw' it or 'heard' it only to discover a second or two later that our mind was just playing tricks on us.
Just a few days ago about 6 in the evening I was expecting my wife home from town. Next thing I heard the sound of tyres on our driveway and I looked out and saw her car coming in. The image and the sound looked and sounded like the real thing, except that it was only my mind’s eye deceiving me – it was another ten or fifteen minutes before she arrived home.
I can relate other experiences where I was thinking of something, and next thing I saw and/or heard it as clear as day, only to discover that I didn’t really hear or see it at all.
So I can see how an avid believer in angles and other such fantastic beings could ‘see’ and ‘hear' them and be absolutely convinced that what they’d seen and heard was real.

Equally interesting is to read some of the requests people send out to their pal Raphael. The one I liked best was from the woman who asked Raphael to not only fix up her health problems, but to cure her cat and dog as well.

You’ve gotta admit that this Raphael feller is pretty darned impressive – he’s not only a people healer extraordinaire with the level of skills that most doctors and naturopaths can only dream of, but he’s an accomplished vet as well.


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It's a no lose bet for them,
> 
> Friend gets healed = Raphael is real, and blessed the procedure
> 
> Friend dies on the table = God is mysterious, has a plan and my have needed another angel.




I think it’s called ‘God’s divine plan’. 

Someone cashes in his chips instead of pulling through a medical crisis and returning to good health – it was part of God’s ‘divine plan’.

Someone beats the odds and recovers his health....praise be to God and his right hand man Raphael the archangel.

You can see why religion likes to get people in early childhood and indoctrinate them while they’re young and impressionable. 
The odds would be against anyone believing this stuff if they head it for the first time when they were adults.


----------



## bellenuit (14 November 2014)

What I find interesting regarding the concept of angels is the depiction of them having wings. Although the Bible only alludes to 1 or 2 specific angels (I can't recall which) as being winged, the various Christian churches have always portrayed angels as winged creatures. There is an equivalent in Islam with Mohammad ascending to Heaven on a winged horse.

Since Heaven was always regarded as somewhere "up there" which could only be got to by some sort of flight and as the only animals that ever were seen to be capable of flight were birds, it is obvious why angels and Mohammad's horse would need to be winged to get to heaven. Note also how when humans die and go to heaven, they are said to be taken by the angels (well they are the ones with wings). Little did they know at that time that the air density needed to support winged flight only went up twenty or so kilometres and beyond that gradually became a vacuum in which wings would be useless. It didn't matter that Heaven was somewhere up in the stars well outside our atmosphere.

This again shows that religious stories are man made constructions not fact and written based on the limited understanding of science at that time.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

bellenuit said:


> What I find interesting regarding the concept of angels is the depiction of them having wings. Although the Bible only alludes to 1 or 2 specific angels (I can't recall which) as being winged, the various Christian churches have always portrayed angels as winged creatures. There is an equivalent in Islam with Mohammad ascending to Heaven on a winged horse.
> 
> Since Heaven was always regarded as somewhere "up there" which could only be got to by some sort of flight and as the only animals that ever were seen to be capable of flight were birds, it is obvious why angels and Mohammad's horse would need to be winged to get to heaven. Note also how when humans die and go to heaven, they are said to be taken by the angels (well they are the ones with wings). Little did they know at that time that the air density needed to support winged flight only went up twenty or so kilometres and beyond that gradually became a vacuum in which wings would be useless. It didn't matter that Heaven was somewhere up in the stars well outside our atmosphere..




Are you saying if we created the stories today, angels would be wearing rocket backpacks and space suits.


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2014)

bellenuit said:


> What I find interesting regarding the concept of angels is the depiction of them having wings. Although the Bible only alludes to 1 or 2 specific angels (I can't recall which) as being winged, the various Christian churches have always portrayed angels as winged creatures. There is an equivalent in Islam with Mohammad ascending to Heaven on a winged horse.
> 
> Since Heaven was always regarded as somewhere "up there" which could only be got to by some sort of flight and as the only animals that ever were seen to be capable of flight were birds, it is obvious why angels and Mohammad's horse would need to be winged to get to heaven. Note also how when humans die and go to heaven, they are said to be taken by the angels (well they are the ones with wings). Little did they know at that time that the air density needed to support winged flight only went up twenty or so kilometres and beyond that gradually became a vacuum in which wings would be useless. It didn't matter that Heaven was somewhere up in the stars well outside our atmosphere.
> 
> *This again shows that religious stories are man made constructions not fact and written based on the limited understanding of science at that time.*




The biblical story of Jonah and the whale is another case in point. Jonah was a naughty boy, and God was so ticked off with him that he banished poor old Jonah to live inside a whale for several months, or was it years.
The primitive story tellers of the day would have assumed that a huge animal like a whale must have a massive throat that would be well and truly capable of swallowing a man whole.
Little did they know  that whales eat plankton and other tiny marine life, and have a smallish throat canal that would be incapable of accommodating a human.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100122193315AA7VxtL


----------



## So_Cynical (14 November 2014)

herzy said:


> Here's one for the pro-Christian, Islam haters out there.
> 
> [video]http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201411131934-0024345[/video]
> 
> ...




Lets not get to carried away.



			
				aljazeera said:
			
		

> In the video, reportedly taken at a bus stop, the woman is seen surrounded by men who assault her for *allegedly* dressing improperly.




Its Africa and mostly Christian and very very tribal, and Male dominated and poorly policed....anything could be behind that assault.


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2014)

bellenuit said:


> What I find interesting regarding the concept of angels is the depiction of them having wings. Although the Bible only alludes to 1 or 2 specific angels (I can't recall which) as being winged, the various Christian churches have always portrayed angels as winged creatures.




https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111216121809AAZXV5a

One of the biblical stories has angels being so smitten with some of the most beautiful women on earth that they came down from heaven and mated with them.
An interesting concept indeed.....I wonder if the resulting babies had wings?


----------



## Julia (14 November 2014)

On attribution of  miracles:   the mother of a friend of mine was diagnosed about two years ago with bladder cancer.  She was told it was advanced and not treatable.  She was recommended to have an examination every year just to see if it was spreading further.  Never any symptoms from this tumour.

Last week the results of the most recent examination came back:  there is no tumour.  It has completely vanished.

If they'd been religious and prayed to God for deliverance from this tumour, then likely its non-existence would be attributed to the goodness and wonder of God.

Maybe there was an error in the interpretation of the original scan and there never was any tumour?

Maybe it has indeed just vanished and we need to say nothing more than "we don't know what may have happened".
But whatever, to a religious devotee this would probably be considered proof of god fulfilling a prayer.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Julia said:


> On attribution of  miracles:   the mother of a friend of mine was diagnosed about two years ago with bladder cancer.  She was told it was advanced and not treatable.  She was recommended to have an examination every year just to see if it was spreading further.  Never any symptoms from this tumour.
> 
> Last week the results of the most recent examination came back:  there is no tumour.  It has completely vanished.
> 
> ...




Most likely a misdiagnosis. Happens all the time. A good recommendation for getting a second opinion.


----------



## artist (14 November 2014)

Julia said:


> .......
> 
> Last week the results of the most recent examination came back:  there is no tumour.  It has completely vanished.
> 
> ...





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

"The spontaneous healing of cancer is a phenomenon that has been observed for hundreds and thousands of years and after having been the subject of many controversies, it is now accepted as an indisputable fact.

.......

Spontaneous regression of cancer is not a rare occurrence as thought to be; in an average month during 2002, medical journals published more than four articles on the subject. 
.......

Regression is more commonly associated with groups of tumors like the embryonal tumors in children, carcinoma of the female breast, chorionepithelioma, adenocarcinoma of the kidney, neuroblastoma, malignant melanoma, sarcomas, and carcinoma of the bladder and skin"


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> Lets not get to carried away.
> 
> 
> 
> Its Africa and mostly Christian and very very tribal, and Male dominated and poorly policed....anything could be behind that assault.




SC, how exactly did I get carried away? 

Obviously the woman was attacked because her attackers viewed her as inappropriately dressed, which is subjective. Call that 'alleged' if you want, but it's semantics. 

I'm not saying they did it because they were Christians. I'm just counter-balancing the anti-Islam stuff we see posted here. I do feel that if Muslims had done it, it would because Muslims are evil or Islam incites hatred against women. But when Christians do it, we dismiss it as 'tribal' or some other confounding variable.

As you say, often there are many factors at play (tribal, male dominated, poorly policed...) in both this scenario and much of the Middle East.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2014)

artist said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/
> 
> "The spontaneous healing of cancer is a phenomenon that has been observed for hundreds and thousands of years and after having been the subject of many controversies, it is now accepted as an indisputable fact.
> 
> ...



Yes, thanks, artist.
The point in posting was not particularly to comment on the incidence of either misdiagnosis or spontaneous regression.  Rather offering an example of what a religious person who had prayed for a cure of cancer, might attribute to the work of God.  In other words, existing bias forming a conclusion which would not be shared by non-religious people.

Isn't something along these lines what some Catholic nun was made a saint for a couple of years ago?  I think the name was something like MacKillop.  The necessary criteria for sainthood was a couple of 'miracles', I believe.


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Yes, thanks, artist.
> The point in posting was not particularly to comment on the incidence of either misdiagnosis or spontaneous regression.  Rather offering an example of what a religious person who had prayed for a cure of cancer, might attribute to the work of God.  In other words, existing bias forming a conclusion which would not be shared by non-religious people.
> 
> Isn't something along these lines what some Catholic nun was made a saint for a couple of years ago?  I think the name was something like MacKillop.  The necessary criteria for sainthood was a couple of 'miracles', I believe.




Mary MacKillop

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


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

Yes lots of cancer patients are said to be healed by god, you hear anecdotal stories every where, but I can't remember who said it, but some one pointed out that he never seems to help amputees regrow limbs, yet most Christians admit he would have the power to do it if he chose, but yet he doesn't,..... Strange.


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Isn't something along these lines what some Catholic nun was made a saint for a couple of years ago?  I think the name was something like MacKillop.  The necessary criteria for sainthood was a couple of 'miracles', I believe.




Yeh, some of those ‘miracles’ attributed to Catholics who are made saints are quite laughable.
Interesting that it took the Catholic church 70 odd years to decide whether to make Mary Mackillop a saint.....must be plenty of procrastinators in the hierarchy of the RCC!

I wonder what ‘miracles’ Pope John Paul 11 performed to earn his sainthood.
Considering that he gave his blessing to the ‘Legionnaires of Christ’ organization which was run by a priest he was close to who was well known within the church as a junkie, embezzler and pedophile who lured boys and young men into the Legionnaires of Christ and then sexually abused them, the real miracle is that some irate parent didn’t put a bullet in John Paul 11.

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


----------



## bellenuit (15 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Interesting that it took the Catholic church 70 odd years to decide whether to make Mary Mackillop a saint.....must be plenty of procrastinators in the hierarchy of the RCC!




Around the time Mackillop was to be canonised, there were several other people from around the world also to be canonised. Nearly all those being canonised, including Mackillop, were from countries where Catholicism was in decline. I remember thinking at the time that this was just a marketing ploy by the Vatican, to stir up interest in those countries.


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> You’ve gotta admit that this Raphael feller is pretty darned impressive – he’s not only a people healer extraordinaire with the level of skills that most doctors and naturopaths can only dream of, but he’s an accomplished vet as well.




Thinking about Raphael and his supposed healing abilities, I can only continue to be impressed.
 If just one in 200 of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics believes in Raphael and utilizes his healing abilities, that’s 6 million people putting their health in his hands.
If just 0.2% of these 6 million are feeling unwell on any given day, that equates to around 12 thousand patients a day to whom Raphael administers his healing powers. 
12 thousand patients a day??!! - now that’s impressive by any standards! My own doctor can’t even come close to matching those figures! Clearly Raphael has a prodigious capacity for hard work and long hours!


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2014)

Do Australians think they are immune or protected from this absolute change to society? The following video reveals the Theological Determinism of the religion known as islam. This is happening in the U.K. now where a foothold has been gained and is being built upon.




[video=youtube_share;KaVXXQsAOjM]http://youtu.be/KaVXXQsAOjM[/video]


----------



## sydboy007 (16 November 2014)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-hiv-positive-preacher-slept-with-flock.html



> On Sunday, September 14, when Reverend Juan McFarland stood behind the pulpit to deliver his sermon, rather than offering the members of Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, a word from the Lord, the minister dropped one hell of a bombshell on his congregants.
> 
> According to numerous accounts from Shiloh members in attendance that day, Pastor McFarland told his longtime church family that he had full-blown AIDS.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (16 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Do Australians think they are immune or protected from this absolute change to society? The following video reveals the Theological Determinism of the religion known as islam. This is happening in the U.K. now where a foothold has been gained and is being built upon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Only a matter of time...


----------



## bunyip (17 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Anyone foresee upcoming religious influences on Australian society?





I meant to reply to the above but it slipped my mind.

Islam will have an increasing influence on Australian society, and it’s already happening because we’re stupidly allowing it to happen. 
The root cause of the riots in Sydney several years ago was young Lebanese Muslim men targeting young women and calling them sluts and wh***s because of the way they were dressed.
Some areas of Sydney now are so Islamic that they’re almost ‘no go’ zones for non Muslims.
And the factional hatred between Muslims is also becoming a problem within Australia, as seen in the TV docco a few months back on the sectarian violence between Sydney Muslims which resulted in one Muslim being king hit by another Muslim from a different sect in Syria. Seems to me that Muslims hate each other as much as they hate non – Muslims. 
As I said in an earlier post, the problem with Muslims is that when they emigrate to a new country they bring with them the problems and attitudes that were the cause of their unhappiness and conflict in their old country. Then little by little they force changes on their new country so that it gradually becomes like their old country where they were so unhappy.
And we, the 98% of Australians who are non – Muslim, allow it to happen by bending over backwards to cater to the demands of the 2% who are Muslims. We learn nothing from what we see happening in other countries where Muslims have caused immense problems anywhere they’ve gained a foothold.

When Dutch politician Geert Wilders came to Australia to tell us about the enormous problems his country has landed itself with by laying out the welcome mat to Islamists, and to try and warn us that we’ll face the same trouble from Muslims here in Australia unless we take steps to prevent it, he was ridiculed and condemned by many stupid people, including twits like Q & A host Tony Jones, and that airhead Mark Dreyfus who served as Attorney General in the Gillard government.
Our politicians, particularly on the Labor side, continue to learn little or nothing from the negative experiences of other countries who have allowed mass Muslim immigration. Only recently we had Bill Shorten stating that we should increase our intake of people affected by the recent troubles in the Middle East. That poor silly bastard never learns....he was one of the senior members of the Rudd government whose ridiculous limp-wristed policy flooded us with illegal Muslim immigrants, and yet it’s clear that Shorten would repeat their mistake if he ever became PM. He flatly states that a Labor government would not turn back the boats – you don’t have to be too bright to work out that this would once more cause a flood of illegal Islamic immigrants to Australia.
Now some half witted doctor and some human rights lawyer moron want to make beautiful Tasmania a dumping ground for illegal Islamic immigrants. How downright stupid and irresponsible and inconsiderate towards Tasmanians can you get!

About the only positive I can see in this entire Islamic business is that baby boomers like me will quite likely have passed on before Australia goes completely to rack and ruin at the hands of Islam.
Good luck to anyone who thinks Muslims will just slot in and become ordinary Aussies like the millions of immigrants from other religions and countries who have come down to Australia and quickly fitted in and become one of us. What a rude awakening you’re in for! By the time you wake up and open your eyes it’ll probably be too late. It probably already is.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Good luck to anyone who thinks Muslims will just slot in and become ordinary Aussies like the millions of immigrants from other religions and countries who have come down to Australia and quickly fitted in and become one of us. What a rude awakening you’re in for! By the time you wake up and open your eyes it’ll probably be too late. It probably already is.




Bunyip,there is little chance of the present generation of Islamists who were born here of slotting in. Take for example the four brothers who absconded to Syria to kill infidels.



> The brothers all lived at home in Sydney’s western suburbs with their Lebanese-born mother, their father, who works as a taxi driver, and their teenage sister.
> 
> It is understood the youngest was studying for his HSC at a public high school and the older brothers had stable jobs before they left.




To all intents and purposes they had slotted but they never lose the barbarity instilled in them by their religion, and which excuses any barbarity on their part providing it is against infidels, or with IS, other muslims they regard as inferior.



> Unlike other Australians recruited to IS, the siblings were not known to authorities and had not been on any watch lists.
> 
> Dr Rifi said *the brothers were religious, but not “hard line or radical”*.




So there you go. And there are probably thousands of men and boys like them, with no real grievances to speak of, against us, who are itching to join the IS and lop off a few heads and end up in paradise.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/th...to-islamic-state/story-fni0fiyv-1227125456838


----------



## bunyip (18 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> Bunyip,there is little chance of the present generation of Islamists who were born here of slotting in. Take for example the four brothers who absconded to Syria to kill infidels.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_A Sydney mother has been devastated by the news that her four sons ”” aged 17, 23, 25 and 28 ”” have been lost to the barbaric jihadist group.
The brothers all lived at home in Sydney’s western suburbs with their Lebanese-born mother, their father, who works as a taxi driver, and their teenage sister._

Calliope – I’d wager that the parents of these boys have done next to nothing to leave their oppressive religion behind them in the country they came from, and start a completely new life in Australia, free from the attitudes and constraints of Islam. You can't start a new life in a new country by recreating the life you left behind in your old country.
I’ll bet they still dress like Muslims, think like Muslims, have the same backward attitudes of Muslims, pray several times a day to Allah, and have made little effort to fit into our lifestyle and culture and become one of us. 
If that’s the case then the parents are partly responsible for the choice their sons have made.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> When Dutch politician Geert Wilders came to Australia to tell us about the enormous problems his country has landed itself with by laying out the welcome mat to Islamists, and to try and warn us that we’ll face the same trouble from Muslims here in Australia unless we take steps to prevent it, he was ridiculed and condemned by many stupid people, including twits like Q & A host Tony Jones, and that airhead Mark Dreyfus who served as Attorney General in the Gillard government.



I have just watched that interview with Geert Wilders (is that a wig ) and Tony Jones on You Tube. Jones does the right thing and scans Wilders for b.s. With sincerity and truth,  Wilders gob smacks Jones every time. Wilders observations are seen as alarmist because people think if there are any issues then government or police will deal with them. That to me is the best route to take. There is no doubt that sharia law is restrictive, regressive, intolerant, criminal, cruel and nonsense and that is what Wilders  message is.


----------



## Tisme (19 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> _A Sydney mother has been devastated by the news that her four sons ”” aged 17, 23, 25 and 28 ”” have been lost to the barbaric jihadist group.
> The brothers all lived at home in Sydney’s western suburbs with their Lebanese-born mother, their father, who works as a taxi driver, and their teenage sister._
> 
> Calliope – I’d wager that the parents of these boys have done next to nothing to leave their oppressive religion behind them in the country they came from, and start a completely new life in Australia, free from the attitudes and constraints of Islam. You can't start a new life in a new country by recreating the life you left behind in your old country.
> ...




Well you know how first colonists are:- they wipe out the existing society, subjugate the residents, force convert them to some religious nonsense and the despotic regime is complete. It might be a tough road ahead for the Arabs, but with persistence and perseverance, mixed with lack of will from the locals,  they might get Oz over the line as a barbarian caliphate some time in the future


----------



## Value Collector (19 November 2014)

> A Sydney mother has been devastated by the news that her four sons ”” aged 17, 23, 25 and 28 ”” have been lost to the barbaric jihadist group.




Perhaps if she had instilled some scepticism in them, and raised them with a bit of doubt and not told them the Qu'ran was the infallible word of a god things might have been different.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Perhaps if she had instilled some scepticism in them, and raised them with a bit of doubt and not told them the Qu'ran was the infallible word of a god things might have been different.




Maybe if she told them that eating pork was fine they may have opened a spare rib restaurant instead of going to war.


----------



## luutzu (19 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Perhaps if she had instilled some scepticism in them, and raised them with a bit of doubt and not told them the Qu'ran was the infallible word of a god things might have been different.




What if those idiots decision to go had more to do with other things than just religion/Islam?
Youthful ignorance, misplaced sense of justice and heroism or whatever it is that led young people to join armies.
Whatever it is, I'm glad they're out of the country.

Recently saw a couple of lectures by Max Blumenthal regarding July's "Operation Protective Edge" on Gaza. Blumenthal said that at a funeral of an American who left the US to join the IDF for that war, Kerry was there and said that he stood in awe of the heroic and courageous this and that of that American kid who left the safety of his home in the US to fight for Israel's freedom and democracy etc... 

Palestinians and most neutral observers would see Israel's war differently, but you know, perspective, relativity, our side is good their side is evil and what not.


----------



## FxTrader (19 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> What if those idiots decision to go had more to do with other things than just religion/Islam?
> Youthful ignorance, misplaced sense of justice and heroism or whatever it is that led young people to join armies.
> Whatever it is, I'm glad they're out of the country.



Religion (Islam) is the core motivation behind those "idiots".  Why? Because they say so, over and over again.  It's time for apologists for religion to wake up and listen to what such people are saying about their own motivations and believe it instead of living in the fantasy land of imagined ulterior motives.



> Palestinians and most neutral observers would see Israel's war differently, but you know, perspective, relativity, our side is good their side is evil and what not.



Equating what Jewish people do to protect their democratic state to ISIS in such a way is a shameful false equivalence.  However, once again, religion rears its ugly head on both sides of this conflict.


----------



## luutzu (19 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe if she told them that eating pork was fine they may have opened a spare rib restaurant instead of going to war.




As the old say goes, war is where old men make plans and young men die carrying it out.

I think that if you look closely at it, most wars, even religious ones, are not done because of religion. Religion is one of the tools politicians, kings and generals use to first recruit then unite and empower soldiers (and terrorists) to go and fight and kill and die for whatever objectives the masters of men have in mind. These objectives, while it might include the establishment of a religion onto the conquered, are always for political, geopolitical advantages and whatever money and resources that flow from those gains.

It's harder to convince the masses to join you and wage war for money and power... so it always have to be done for justice, freedom, for God.

God, unkind as he is, does not care for oil or gas or territory... it's all His, no matter where it is on Earth. But you can't say that if you want to be Masters of War.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 November 2014)

You guys seriously need to get a life. Posting in here all day every day for months on end is such a waste of time.

The topic is so broad as to be useless. All religions are thrown into one and no one even understands what Christianity is. It's all based on perceptions and things they've heard on the grape vine. I'd also argue against the Christianity that you guys are arguing against because I don't believe in that either.

Go spend time with family, work on projects. Don't waste your life going around in circles.


----------



## luutzu (19 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Religion (Islam) is the core motivation behind those "idiots".  Why? Because they say so, over and over again.  It's time for apologists for religion to wake up and listen to what such people are saying about their own motivations and believe it instead of living in the fantasy land of imagined ulterior motives.
> 
> 
> Equating what Jewish people do to protect their democratic state to ISIS in such a way is a shameful false equivalence.  However, once again, religion rears its ugly head on both sides of this conflict.




Emotions aside, objectively speaking.. do you think ISIS or any terrorists consider themselves such? 
No one goes to war thinking they're the bad guys. That's just a fact. 

You need to look into Israel and Palestine. It's not as you say it is.

Firstly, Israel does not represent the Jewish people - and a lot of Jewish people are saying this, not me. For Israel to say it represent all Jewish people is like the Islamic Republic of Iran saying it represent all that is Islam and all Muslim people.

Democracy in Israel? For whom? Anyway, not interested in another endless debate.


----------



## Value Collector (19 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> It's harder to convince the masses to join you and wage war for money and power... so it always have to be done for justice, freedom, for God.
> 
> .




So add some scepticism to the youth, and don't tell them their holy books are infallible, and you will have inoculated them against the charlatans who would abuse there beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (19 November 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You guys seriously need to get a life. Posting in here all day every day for months on end is such a waste of time.
> 
> .




Not nearly as much time as you have wasted sitting in church.



> no one even understands what Christianity is



.

Christians can't even decide on that, every Christian has a different opinion on what Christianity is.




> It's all based on perceptions and things they've heard on the grape vine. I'd also argue against the Christianity that you guys are arguing against because I don't believe in that either.




I always ask what you believe in and why, the beliefs you have explained to me in the past are completely unjustified and lead you to have some really antisocial beliefs, that's what I argue against.



> Go spend time with family, work on projects. Don't waste your life going around in circles




Go spend time with family, work on projects. Don't waste your life going to church.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> As the old say goes, war is where old men make plans and young men die carrying it out.
> 
> I think that if you look closely at it, most wars, even religious ones, are not done because of religion. Religion is one of the tools politicians, kings and generals use to first recruit then unite and empower soldiers (and terrorists) to go and fight and kill and die for whatever objectives the masters of men have in mind. These objectives, while it might include the establishment of a religion onto the conquered, are always for political, geopolitical advantages and whatever money and resources that flow from those gains.
> 
> ...




Adventure, excitement, being part of a gang/group, revenge against isolationalism and perceived victimisation, power over other people, and with Islam, the prospect of having female slaves running after them is a pretty powerful attraction for those young men that don't yet have the reasoning capacity to realise that the whole adventure thing is likely to get them killed; these motivations have been used to sign young men up for stupid wars like Crimea, Boer and WWI.

I don't think that most of the IS recruits give a damn about the Koran, it's the excuse, the reasons are as above.


----------



## FxTrader (19 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Emotions aside, objectively speaking.. do you think ISIS or any terrorists consider themselves such? No one goes to war thinking they're the bad guys. That's just a fact.



What ISIS members, its collaborators and leaders want is an Islamic Caliphate and the vision is much broader than just Iraq and Syria.  The brutal, savage way they have set out to achieve this is justified by their interpretation Islam.  Of course they think they are achieving something good, for them.  That their actions are plainly evil is quite evident to any objective person that has any interest in peace and social harmony.  It's important to acknowledge that some religions and religious beliefs are more poisonous to society than others.



> You need to look into Israel and Palestine. It's not as you say it is.



I have "looked into" and read about the Middle East situation for years.  I do not claim that the actions of Israel in Palestine are justifiable on moral grounds.  However, drawing parallels to ISIS and their actions is just mischievous obfuscation and you know it.


----------



## luutzu (19 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Adventure, excitement, being part of a gang/group, revenge against isolationalism and perceived victimisation, power over other people, and with Islam, the prospect of having female slaves running after them is a pretty powerful attraction for those young men that don't yet have the reasoning capacity to realise that the whole adventure thing is likely to get them killed; these motivations have been used to sign young men up for stupid wars like Crimea, Boer and WWI.
> 
> I don't think that most of the IS recruits give a damn about the Koran, it's the excuse, the reasons are as above.




Yea, you have some diehard believers who fight for God and eternal glory (and virgins), most just do it because it pays the bill. I heard that most of the native ISIS recruits joined because ISIS pay some $US300 a month - I'd imagine that's a very good wage living in a war torn region like the ME; same goes for Sunni ex-Iraqi military personnel because the Shiite gov't in Baghdad just don't pay or don't welcome them.

Don't know about Crimea or Boer but heard that most in Europe join WW1 against the Ottoman because they grew up on Homer's the Illiad - fighting where Troy was, where Achille and Hector and what not; the ANZAC join the Navy to see the world then WW1 happen or something.

I remember in the 90s my parents was pretty upset hearing this former South Vietnamese Vice President (and also its Air Marshall) talking about how Communism isn't so bad, how Hanoi is just as Vietnamese as Saigon was and we all should make peace. My parents are all for peace and reconciliation and all that, but they're pretty upset that this dude didn't see that when he ordered his men to battle. Now he said it because his son or daughter is getting married to a high ranking Politburo's kid.

Friends or enemies can switch on a dime, and it's always the young and the poor that suffer and die for it.


----------



## luutzu (19 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> What ISIS members, its collaborators and leaders want is an Islamic Caliphate and the vision is much broader than just Iraq and Syria.  The brutal, savage way they have set out to achieve this is justified by their interpretation Islam.  Of course they think they are achieving something good, for them.  That their actions are plainly evil is quite evident to any objective person that has any interest in peace and social harmony.  It's important to acknowledge that some religions and religious beliefs are more poisonous to society than others.
> 
> 
> I have "looked into" and read about the Middle East situation for years.  I do not claim that the actions of Israel in Palestine are justifiable on moral grounds.  However, drawing parallels to ISIS and their actions is just mischievous obfuscation and you know it.




Let be perfectly clear (channeling Israel's spokesman here, haha)... I completely agree with that Commandment "Thou shall not kill." I make no exception to that rule. So I'm not excusing what ISIS or what the IDF or Hamas or other good and bad guys do. Let's be perfectly clear about that - all killings are wrong, no matter who does it.

Israel is what they call a colonial settler country - a foreign entity that moves in and start to get rid of the natives. Whatever reason it has for creating Israel is what it is - all nations have and will do it if and when they have the arms and the opportunity. 

Does the fact that Israel follow the Old Testament and claim that all Historic Palestine as land God gave to the Hebrews, does that make it different from ISIS who claim whatever it is they claim based on their Prophet Muhammed? Or does being well organised, well armed, well trained, well fed, well PR-ed, killing with drones and jets instead of knives and swords... does that make it more right? 

If you take religion out, what Israel is doing is quite insane - insane to its own people, forget about how bad it is for the Palestinians. 

Anyway...


----------



## bunyip (20 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Let be perfectly clear (channeling Israel's spokesman here, haha)... I completely agree with that Commandment "Thou shall not kill." I make no exception to that rule. So I'm not excusing what ISIS or what the IDF or Hamas or other good and bad guys do. Let's be perfectly clear about that - all killings are wrong, no matter who does it.
> 
> Israel is what they call a colonial settler country - a foreign entity that moves in and start to get rid of the natives. Whatever reason it has for creating Israel is what it is - all nations have and will do it if and when they have the arms and the opportunity.
> 
> ...



Two questions for you.

1. _*In theory*_ I agree with 'thou shalt not kill', but how about if an axe-wielding madman broke into your home and starting hacking up your family, would you kill him if that was the only way to stop him, and would you then consider your actions were wrong?


2. How do you think the Israelis should respond to Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel to try and kill their people and destroy their country?


----------



## DB008 (20 November 2014)

*Religious extremism main cause of terrorism, according to report*

*Since 2001 religious extremism has overtaken national separatism to become the main driver of terrorist attacks around the world, according to the Global Terrorism Index*




> Religious extremism has become the main driver of terrorism in recent years, according to this year’s Global Terrorism Index.
> 
> The report recorded 18,000 deaths in 2013, a rise of 60% on the previous year. The majority (66%) of these were attributable to just four groups: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida.
> 
> ...





http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Two questions for you.
> 
> 1. _*In theory*_ I agree with 'thou shalt not kill', but how about if an axe-wielding madman broke into your home and starting hacking up your family, would you kill him if that was the only way to stop him, and would you then consider your actions were wrong?
> 
> ...




I'm not Gandhi, or Jesus, and turn the other cheek. If someone is about to kill you, you have the right to self-defense, if that mean killing him. I would still consider killing wrong then, but I would find it justifiable - I have no alternative.

But with Israel, they're in the same situation right? It's kill or be kill.

2. Did history began only when Hamas fired its rockets? 

When you were at school, did you ever see a skinny tiny 7th grader coming up to a 12th grade football captain and smack him? If they had a fight and you're the school principal, would you believe the 12th grader that he did nothing, that he was trying to talk to the kid and out of nowhere the bleeding nose, broken arm and blacked eyed kid just go terrorist on him. Or would you believe the kid that he is sick of giving up his lunch money and fought back.

Too simplistic?

If Israel want peace, it can have it tomorrow. That's what money and power does - it give you what you want. Just it doesn't give you everything.


----------



## bunyip (21 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Let be perfectly clear (channeling Israel's spokesman here, haha)... I completely agree with that Commandment "Thou shall not kill." I make no exception to that rule.






luutzu said:


> I'm not Gandhi, or Jesus, and turn the other cheek. If someone is about to kill you, you have the right to self-defense, if that mean killing him. I would still consider killing wrong then, but I would find it justifiable - I have no alternative.



OK. So after stating that you believe in ‘thou shalt not kill’, and claiming that you make no exception to that rule, you’ve now made it clear that you would in fact make an exception to that rule in certain situations. 
I’m always amused by people who claim they don’t believe in violence or killing, yet when you press them a little you find out that they wouldn’t hesitate to use force, even lethal force if necessary, to protect themselves or their family in life-threatening situations.
Anyway, fair enough - I think most of us would do the same.



luutzu said:


> If Israel want peace, it can have it tomorrow. That's what money and power does - it give you what you want. Just it doesn't give you everything.



You still haven't said how you think the Israelis should respond to Hamas trying to kill them and destroy their country by lobbing rockets at them.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> You still haven't said how you think the Israelis should respond to Hamas trying to kill them and destroy their country by lobbing rockets at them.




How should the Palestinians respond to the continual encroachments of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza strip ?


----------



## Hodgie (21 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> OK. So after stating that you believe in ‘thou shalt not kill’, and claiming that you make no exception to that rule, you’ve now made it clear that you would in fact make an exception to that rule in certain situations.
> I’m always amused by people who claim they don’t believe in violence or killing, yet when you press them a little you find out that they wouldn’t hesitate to use force, even lethal force if necessary, to protect themselves or their family in life-threatening situations.
> Anyway, fair enough - I think most of us would do the same.




I was at a team building off-site for work recently and amongst other things the MC had us participate in an activity where he asked certain questions and you raise your hand if the answer to that question was yes.

One of the questions he asked was "Would you ever kill another person for any reason?". Other than a few jokers in the room who raised there hand everyone pretty much sat still.

He then asked the question, "If you could travel back in time and kill any person and there are no repercussions for yourself whatsoever would you do it?" With thoughts of the likes of people like Hitler, Stalin and bin Ladin in mind, the majority of the hands in the room shot up quite quickly.

I think that a lot of people will do things that they vow they would never do given the right circumstances. Obviously this hypothetical scenario cannot actually eventuate but I think the point made is still valid. the MC posed a few other questions of similar nature such as "Would you ever rip the wings off a fly?" etc which all resulted in a similar matter to the above. 

The exercise was supposed to relate back to business somehow but I forgot the rest of what he said (oops).


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

Hodgie said:


> I was at a team building off-site for work recently and amongst other things the MC had us participate in an activity where he asked certain questions and you raise your hand if the answer to that question was yes.
> 
> One of the questions he asked was "Would you ever kill another person for any reason?". Other than a few jokers in the room who raised there hand everyone pretty much sat still.
> 
> ...




Another interesting moral dilemma is the trolley problem,


----------



## luutzu (21 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> OK. So after stating that you believe in ‘thou shalt not kill’, and claiming that you make no exception to that rule, you’ve now made it clear that you would in fact make an exception to that rule in certain situations.
> I’m always amused by people who claim they don’t believe in violence or killing, yet when you press them a little you find out that they wouldn’t hesitate to use force, even lethal force if necessary, to protect themselves or their family in life-threatening situations.
> Anyway, fair enough - I think most of us would do the same.
> 
> ...




I did say I still think it's wrong to kill in self defense. I'd do it if it ever comes to it, and will justify it... but still think it's wrong.

*Operation Protective Edge:*

Hamas/Palestinian rockets:
- killed 5 Israelis and 1 migrant worker.
- damaged 1 home (rocket hit a roof and landed in the kitchen, family survived with little injuries if I remember right)
- Put pot holes in carparks or farm land.

When Israel goes into Gaza, some 67 of its soldiers died.

*Now to the Palestinian side:*

- some 2200 Gazan death (400 to 600 of which whom are children);
- estimate 10,000 injured/maimed;
- included in the deaths are some 65 families (grandpa down to cousins, uncles, children)... 65 families were completely wiped out - no more relation, no more bloodline.
- 500,000 or so dislocated;
- some 250,000 homeless;
- Est. $5 billion in damages to housing and infrastructure;
- est. that at current rate of building supplies permitted into Gaza by Israel, would take 20 years to rebuild.
- winter is coming if not already there... let's just hope the 10,000 injured have a hospital and not out living in a tent outside their flattened home.

That "operation" was "disproportionate". Disproportional use of force is a war crime, according the UN and Human Rights peaceniks. 

But let say it is justifiable, that rockets were launched into Israel, the dead children were used as human shields; that Hamas forced Israel to kill and that is just painful for Israelis, but justifiable.

What if... what if history and that war did not start at the moment Hamas lobbed its rockets into Israel?

*IMMEDIATE CONTEXT:*
(you can check these facts)
- Hamas agreed with Fatah to join a Unity Gov't for Palestinians;
- Fatah agreed, Israel don't like and want Western intervention; the US want to see where Unity leads, the EU want to see where that lead... Israel and the Palestinians can now negotiate a peace settlement, end the siege of Gaza etc.
- 3 Israeli youths were kidnapped (let say by Hamas' order), Israeli security and Netanyahu knew the kids were murdered soon after they were kidnapped because one of them called Emergency and gunshots etc. were heard. This fact was sealed from public and a manhunt and search and rescue operations in the West Bank was ordered.
- some 800 to 1000 just released Hamas prisoners were rearrested...
- Hamas lobbed its rocket into Israel, and no more Unity Palestinian party to negotiate with.


------

So it might be best to put some context into these kind of thing.

After WW2, it is understandable to create a completely Jewish state. You can justify that on grounds of self-defense against genocide from another Hitler. But the world has changed a great deal. Jewish people hardly need Israel to protect them; Jewish people around the world are by a large margin tolerated, welcomed, fairly well to do and some are very rich and some are very politically influential and hold some of the highest offices of gov't in most Western powers, notably the US.

The US have Jewish Mayor of NY, Chicago; US Senators, Congressman; Secretary of State; National Security advisors; bankers; billionaires; filmmakers... Trust me, these people can protect both themselves and their Jewish people.

Israel has the 3rd or 6th most powerful military in the world. It is a nuclear armed power. With the possible exception of Iran being a minor problem, Israel is effectively a regional hegemon in the Middle East. It also have a very very powerful friend whose lawmakers and presidents and governors seem to have to visit Israel and kiss its PM's ring if they want a chance at getting into office.

In other words, with the exception of the Palestinians, no one in the world is going to go up to Israel and slap it across the face.

So why do Palestinians do it? They're just suicidal? Don't want to live in peace?

They are occupied. Their land were taken and divided up and given to Israel in 1948... they fought and loss, and ever since 1967 all they want is to create a state of their own on the 20% of land that was theirs. They know they have no chance to regain all of it... just 20% as agreed to by the entire world except Israel and the US.

Is that asking too much?

Now, that once 20% is much less... new settlements, new buffer zones around those settlements; generations of Palestinians living in refugee camps; the 20% of their land are slowly being taken away, all the most arable land and water sources are taken and used by settlers...

And since July this year, more and more Jewish settlements are granted by Israel into East Jerusalem - an area agreed by international community as the future capital of a Palestinian State; its holy site are being being stepped on and there are even plans to build Synagogue on it... 

Violence is not going to solve this conflict, definitely not for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians know it. With each war a lot of their people die, after each terrorist attack their family will lose their home and bus to Gaza or other refugee camp, with each war Israel will - for security reasons or otherwise, expand more settlement and annex more land.

So when you deprive people of their dignity, take away all their hope for a better future... can you really blame them when they react with violence? What would you do? Live like dogs?

Max Blumenthal quoted a Palestinian man from Gaza in his recent trip there, the man said: 
"Everytime I build my business, they destroy it; Every time I raised by sons, they killed them; Every time I plant new trees, they pulled it up."

How do you do that to people and expect to live in peace.


----------



## bunyip (21 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> I did say I still think it's wrong to kill in self defense. I'd do it if it ever comes to it, and will justify it... but still think it's wrong.
> 
> *Operation Protective Edge:*
> 
> ...




Mate, I didn’t ask for your opinions on the entire Israel/Palestine conflict. I simply asked how you think Israel should respond to Hamas trying to wipe them out and destroy their country by lobbing rockets at them.


----------



## luutzu (21 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Mate, I didn’t ask for your opinions on the entire Israel/Palestine conflict. I simply asked how you think Israel should respond to Hamas trying to wipe them out and destroy their country by lobbing rockets at them.




I answered you before with a scenario, you asked me to answer it properly.

Here goes:

Israel has the right to defend itself.
No nation could stand by and let missiles rain upon its people;
"Never again."
"The only Democracy in the Middle East."
"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."


You want one line and one-sided answers? There's plenty of those around.


----------



## bunyip (24 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> I answered you before with a scenario, you asked me to answer it properly.
> 
> Here goes:
> 
> ...




Simply questions deserve simply answers, not bloody great long responses and in-depth analysis that most people don’t bother reading anyway.
Thank you for finally giving me one.

I’ve heard both the Palestinians and the Israelis state their case in claiming ownership of the land occupied by Israel. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on the ownership issue.

Any media reporting on this issue is invariably heavily biased in favor of the Palestinians and against the Israelis – big bad Israel portrayed as demons for killing innocent people. 
Little is said about the Hamas cowards who deliberately fire their rockets from schools and hospitals and residential areas so that maximum casualties will result from the inevitable Israeli retaliation.
Little is said about Israel attempting to minimize casualties by broadcasting their intention to hit a specific area, and advising residents to leave immediately. Little is said about the Hamas cowards telling people to stay where they are and ignore the Israeli warnings, and threatening them with violence if they don’t.

Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors who would gladly cut every Israeli throat if they could. For years the Arabs have stated their intention to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’.
They only reason they haven’t been able to do it is that the Israelis have the ability to defend themselves.

One thing I know for sure is that if someone was trying to kill me and my family and destroy our home, it wouldn’t take me long to hit back and give them an even heavier dose of their own medicine. Israel has every right to do the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

bunyip said:
			
		

> I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on the ownership issue.




But that is the crux iof the whole Israel/Palestine problem isn't it ? 

You can't just wave the ownership issue away and pretend it has no relevance. If Israel did not keep encroaching onto Palestinian occupied land destroying Palestinian homes and putting up Jewish settlements in their place then perhaps there would be no need for the rockets fired on Israel. 

It's not the Israelis being driven into the sea, it's the Palestinians.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

But when does the conflict end?

Will the hard lined Jewish who believe god gifted the land to them ever give up their god given right?

Will either side ever negotiate with real intent to settle on a solution when they know their god is on their side, and the other side a godless heathens?

Will they lay down their religions long enough for their future generations to intermarry and work together?

I don't think so.

This is the core of what makes religion crazy, it creates the most divisive "Us and them" mentality there is. 

In general Jewish marry Jews, children go to Jewish schools, socialize with other Jewish families, live and work in Jewish neighbourhoods, and the Muslims act the same. 

It's the worst kind of tribalism, It's almost impossible to over come, that's why these things last for generations, There will be no end as long as religion is seen as an important, unquestionable thing. 50 years we will still have conflict.


----------



## bunyip (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> But that is the crux iof the whole Israel/Palestine problem isn't it ?
> 
> You can't just wave the ownership issue away and pretend it has no relevance. If Israel did not keep encroaching onto Palestinian occupied land destroying Palestinian homes and putting up Jewish settlements in their place then perhaps there would be no need for the rockets fired on Israel.
> 
> It's not the Israelis being driven into the sea, it's the Palestinians.




Every man and his dog seems to have an opinion on what the crux of the problem is. I doubt if people like you and me sitting in the comfort of our home offices really know. And the biased reporting from the media sure as hell isn’t a reliable source of information on which to make a judgment. So I won’t.

Perhaps VC is somewhere close to the mark in saying it’s the worst kind of tribalism. Chuck in a couple of fanatical religions for good measure, and you've got a problem that’s almost impossible to overcome.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Every man and his dog seems to have an opinion on what the crux of the problem is. I doubt if people like you and me sitting in the comfort of our home offices really know. And the biased reporting from the media sure as hell isn’t a reliable source of information on which to make a judgment. So I won’t.
> 
> Perhaps VC is somewhere close to the mark in saying it’s the worst kind of tribalism. Chuck in a couple of fanatical religions for good measure, and you've got a problem that’s almost impossible to overcome.




Left to their own devces the Israelis and Palestinians will most likely never reach a solution.

Any end to the problem will have to be imposed on them by the rest of the world, if they(we) have the guts to do it.


----------



## bunyip (24 November 2014)

SBS ran a great story recently on Indonesia's 'Sex Mountain'. 
If ever there was an example of double standards and hypocrisy in religion, it can be found in this story of Muslims who make the pilgrimage to 'Sex Mountain' for ritual sex sessions in the hope that it will bring them good fortune and financial riches.

The blessing of Allah be upon them - HALLELUIAH! 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/sex-mountain


----------



## bunyip (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Left to their own devces the Israelis and Palestinians will most likely never reach a solution.
> 
> Any end to the problem will have to be imposed on them by the rest of the world, if they(we) have the guts to do it.




How far do we go in trying to solve the problems of the rest of the world? We have lots of problems right here in our own country that need solving. 

But I think you're right in saying the Israelis and Palestinians on their own are unlikely to solve the issue, and any solution would have to come from outside. 
Do you have any thoughts on what that solution might be?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Do you have any thoughts on what that solution might be?




A line in the sand as a barrier to future encroachments on the West Bank and Gaza strip enforced by UN troops, tanks and missile launchers if necessary. Probably some sort of "no man's land" where only the UN troops are allowed.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> A line in the sand as a barrier to future encroachments on the West Bank and Gaza strip enforced by UN troops, tanks and missile launchers if necessary. Probably some sort of "no man's land" where only the UN troops are allowed.




Which nations troops?

What would the UN do when Hamas continue firing rockets into Israel? would you say the UN can then fire into Palestine? 

I think they would just become a target for the extremists on both sides, It still wouldn't settle the dispute, the Arabs want the Jews gone.

and how long would this last for? are you suggesting a DMZ type thing such as in Korea? sounds expensive.


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Simply questions deserve simply answers, not bloody great long responses and in-depth analysis that most people don’t bother reading anyway.
> Thank you for finally giving me one.
> 
> I’ve heard both the Palestinians and the Israelis state their case in claiming ownership of the land occupied by Israel. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on the ownership issue.
> ...




What media have you been reading to say they're all pro-Palestinians?

With the recent terrorist act in the Synagogue, a headline on HuffingtonPost (a left-leaning, liberal media I think) reads: "MASSACRE IN JERUSALEM". I'm not making light of 5 deaths and 8 injured or that act... but massacre? I didn't see any title to that extend during "protective edge". 

I saw Newsweek or something like that have a timeline of recent events leading up to the current crisis and it starts with a Palestinian attempted assassination on that ultra right activist Click or something.

All the other points you've raised about Israel's "knock" to warn, or dropping of leaflets... there's plenty of that covered, in just about all media reporting. You should look deeper into it. And seriously, is it more humane to drop a small bomb first (one which might kill them if it hit near them), then a bigger few to level the building in five minutes?

Re Hamas forcing Gazans to stay as human shield, that has been exposed as lies. 

There are evidence of some Israeli soldiers actually, literally, tie a Palestinian on their Humvee as they drive into Gaza neighbourhood. There's a few instances of Israel taking over a building and keeping a few people inside and near windows as Israeli snipers go about their business - taking out bad guys across the other buildings.

BUt let say it's true that Hamas use human shields in those buildings, does it make Israel right to then kill the hostages anyway? Like a crazy gunman holding a bank with hostages and our Police says, stuff that, we're not going to be deterred by human shields, bring in the Hornets and level the building... that sounds wrong to me.





bunyip said:


> Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors who would gladly cut every Israeli throat if they could. For years the Arabs have stated their intention to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’.
> They only reason they haven’t been able to do it is that the Israelis have the ability to defend themselves.




All nations are surrounded by hostile, or potentially hostile neighbours. That's why you have your armed forces and will use them IF and WHEN you're attacked... In the mean time, you make peace, use diplomacy and trade etc. But if you have arms and use it to occupy and suppress your neighbour, what do you expect them to do? They'd want to rise up... then you blame them and their friends for not being "quiet".



bunyip said:


> One thing I know for sure is that if someone was trying to kill me and my family and destroy our home, it wouldn’t take me long to hit back and give them an even heavier dose of their own medicine. Israel has every right to do the same.




We all would do the same, even the Palestinians.

There are right now some 90 orders from Israel to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. A few of them the homes of the terrorists, the others probably suspects or whatever. 

Even Tony Soprano wouldn't do that. He would whack the rat, dump the bodies, but leave the family alone. 
Here, civilised Israel blow up or bulldoze homes belonging to terrorists parents/family.. .kick them to the street and living in tent, then soon bus them to refugee camps. Then, under its law, if the land is vacated for 2 years, it belong to the State and the state will settles Jewish Israelis there.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Which nations troops?




Rotation policy



> What would the UN do when Hamas continue firing rockets into Israel? would you say the UN can then fire into Palestine?




Arrest the Hamas leaders, they are responsible.



> I think they would just become a target for the extremists on both sides, It still wouldn't settle the dispute, the Arabs want the Jews gone.




There must be the will to supply overwhelming force to deter attacks.



> and how long would this last for? are you suggesting a DMZ type thing such as in Korea? sounds expensive.




As long as necessary. If you want a solution, someone has to pay. I'm not suggesting this would ever happen, the UN simply hasn't got the guts, but it's the only solution that I can see.


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> A line in the sand as a barrier to future encroachments on the West Bank and Gaza strip enforced by UN troops, tanks and missile launchers if necessary. Probably some sort of "no man's land" where only the UN troops are allowed.




I think just about all experts I've heard on the subject said that a two state solution is no longer possible.

Chomsky recently quoted some senior Israeli ministers as saying that Israel will take what it want - the best land, all water resources; will control all aspect of Palestinian life - its borders, its air space, its trades, its travels etc.; basically take what is deemed essential and the Palestinians can have "fry chickens"... They can call what they have a state if they want.

There are already 'No Man's Land' around Israel/Palestine.

In Gaza farmers cannot walk to the border let alone farm within some hundreds of metre or 1KM of its border with Israel - they will receive warning shots if they try.

Gazan fisherman cannot go further than 3KM (new agree now allow for 6KM) out to sea. The world's Exclusive Economic Zone is 200KM i think. So what fish can you catch within 6km?

In the West Bank, there are buffer zones all around Israeli settlements and military outposts. 
Those buffer zones cannot be worked on, cannot be farmed on, cannot be use at all. ANd under Israeli law, if they're vacant - which they are - for more than 2 years, the owner cannot ever reclaim it.

From Shever, an Israeli economist, he said what Israel and settlers do is they go to set up trailers inside Palestinian land, the thugs and gangs goes there and burn or kick out the Palestinians... then the police or army declare buffer zones around those trailers/settlement... and pretty soon new proper settlements are up and running.

I saw a clip of a Palestinian man saying his land was up there but he can't get to them; that he'd wish they'd draw up a border over what they want of his farm land so at least he could farm on what's not taken and survive. But with military outposts and buffer zone, people like him just can't go near and will eventually lost all those land.


----------



## bunyip (24 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> If Israel want peace, it can have it tomorrow.




Tell us how. And keep it short and concise if you want me to read it.


----------



## Tisme (24 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> I think just about all experts I've heard on the subject said that a two state solution is no longer possible.
> 
> .




Seems it might a genome problem set to dog the factions for a long time to come:


http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> 1, Rotation policy
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1, So you would have a large international force on rotation? I can't see how putting any western nations on the ground would help, so is it going to be made up of Bangladeshi and Malaysians?

So are they going to be firing counter rockets into Palestine? How would that be different to the Israel doing it?

2, yes, because killing Saddam Hussein stabilised Iraq so well.

3, Israel has been suppling overwhelming force, how is this international occupation going to be different.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1, So you would have a large international force on rotation? I can't see how putting any western nations on the ground would help, so is it going to be made up of Bangladeshi and Malaysians?
> 
> So are they going to be firing counter rockets into Palestine? How would that be different to the Israel doing it?
> 
> ...




So what's your solution, prayer ?


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> Tell us how. And keep it short and concise if you want me to read it.




Call the Palestinian to the table, move back to the UN-Internationally recognised borders of 1967, possibly make some land-swap where settlements have now made it too difficult and let the Palestinian people go.

These, from just about all the observers and experts I've heard, are not only internationally legal and legitimate requirements, it's very very reasonable and it is what the Palestinians, from Arafat to even Hamas, wanted. They don't like it, who would like to lose 80% of their homeland, but they will accept it because the world accept it and because the Palestinian cannot hope to get anything more.

If you're Israel and have the arms and friends Israel has, you seriously think a little guy like Palestine - one without tanks, without jets, without a navy, ones whose leadership literally lived off of your money... you think Palestine have any leverage to demand anything really?

But no matter how weak or poor a people is, you cannot ask them to agree to a peace where they cannot have an airport, cannot freely move, where they cannot have a defense force, where their land have no water resources, where their territories are bisected by foreigners roads, where they cannot reach their own border.

Would you or anyone really settle for that?

--------------

*LONGER VERSION:*

Israel was, and is, an Imperial project of biblical proportion. 

Part of the reason Truman agreed to its establishment was because he's an evangelical christian, he believes in the Bible and how Palestine was land promised to the Israelite by God; that Christ's second coming will only happen once the land is returned to the Jewish people etc. etc.

General George Marshall (who was then at the State Dept. i think) was against this, he correctly predicted that establishing Israel would cause a great deal of animosity among the Arabs against US interests, that the region will be in chaos. There's Turkey and Saudi Arabia etc. as American allies, you do not want to help the Jewish people and upset an entire region - it is not to US national interests etc.

That was ignored and so Israel was established.

It was not until the 1967 war when Israel took all the Arab states by surprise that the US start to notice that maybe Israel could be a useful military ally in the region... hence its increase military support.

Since then, most funding to Israel are from Military Aids at around $3 billions a year; hundreds of millions of tax-deductible charitable donations from (mainly US) evangelical Christians to help settlement development and expansion; the military and security/police industrial complex from both US and within Israel.

Military Aids from the US are so due to some cold-war thinking about Israel still being an asset. That might slowly be eroding as the US seek closer ties with Iran else the Chinese or Russian might get to them first, getting valuable fossil and geopolitically important assets back East. That and its pivot to Asia. So if the US do not get friendly with Iran, China and Russia will and they can very easily transfer nuclear technology for a piece of strategic and monetary interests.

That and Israel have very strong lobbyists in the US working towards it causes. So closer ties with Iran doesn't make Israel happy, and it might not make the new GOP Senate and Congress happy either... but if you read comments on news relating to Israel from the US, a lot of neutral Americans - ones who neither like or dislike Israel or Palestine... they all do not like their $3 billions a year aid to a rich country that is at war all the time. They might sway political opinions one day, especially when the older generation of Jewish people are less political influential and the younger general, ones more distanced from Israel as somehow representative of their Jewishness, one who would not be emotionally attached so would look at things more objectively... when they are more politically influential... American policies will change towards Israel.

The evangelicals with their hundreds of millions donations... they will keep on giving until all of Palestine belong to the Jews... so that their lord Christ will return, the world will end and all humanity (except for the good Christians a handful of Jews who turn to Christ in time) will die. So they'll keep on donating to help a greater goal of Armageddon. 

Israel cannot stop its expansion because doing that will not only mean the loss of this funding, but mean less land and a lot of headache and maybe assassination from ultra nationalists. Why would any good politician want to do something that courageous?

The third source is the military and police industrial complex.

Sher Hever (i think that's his name), estimate Israel spend around $10 billion a year on police and security forces on its settlements. That does not include the costs of war and national defence, just policing. Probably include costs of imprisoning terrorists and stone throwers too.

With each "Operation", the military tries out new weapons and new technology. These are then used by the manufacturers at its expos around the world. Demonstrating how effective the weapons are. The policing, the training, tactics, the surveillant technologies like drones and electronic/internet eaves dropping and metadata collection... these are also a major source of Israeli exports. They train Singaporean military; they train the Thai regime on how to control protests and set up barriers... and probably work together with US companies on metadata and electronic surveillance the world over.

These three forces has and will make it almost impossible for Israel to want any peace or any settlement. So the ongoing conflict is good for business and good for religious nuts... if a few Jewish die now and then, that's what the masters of war call an acceptable level of loss... especially when the gain is new land and new excuses for further annexation, stronger case for non-negotiation under "security" reasons.

The fourth and major force is the Israeli people themselves. In order to continue occupation and military presence, you have to indoctrinate your youth. You have to drum it into them that this is your land, the land of your ancestors thousands of years ago... that the Arabs will want to slit your throats, and now and then a few of them did do just that... So the youths are send on school excursions to Nazi concentration camps, to see how close their people were to extinction.

To be taught to see the world as your enemies, or at least the Arabs first... that cannot be healthy for the mind. To then be recruited into the army, spending every day treating the Arabs like animals - so that the Arab know who's boss... to get your youths to do that kind of thing cannot be good for your national psyche. To be taught that you're special because you're Jewish and it's in your blood, and others are not so special because they're not Jewish... that tend not to prepare you to see others are equal or have similar dreams and aspirations as you do.

That and living under constant threats of, and now and then a real, terrorist attack... 

These are some of the reasons why observers and scholars like Chomsky or Finkelstein have long concluded that Israel is on the road to self-destruction.


The Europeans, who never was really that much in love with the Jewish people I don't think, are getting sick of having to pick up the tab each time Israel goes to war and destroy Gaza, sick of seeing their money being use to help pay for new settlement developments. So are the Americans... that and the Palestinian refugees who fled to the Western world might soon, if not already, are starting to be in some position of political influence.

No nation is ever going to fund another nation's perpetual war... it's both morally repugnant as well as financially draining. 

What further benefits can Israel gain from the Palestinians that it hasn't already gained? It got all the land and resources it need; it already established itself... going further will just mean constant militarising the nation and the people... and how can your own nation advance when most of your resources and people are busy suppressing fire and resistance?

---

As an aside, it is quite stupid, really stupid... to go and spend money to entice new people to live in your land as citizens simply because their blood type is "pure" to your liking. To do that and right in your own home you have literally millions of people who grew up on the land, are already your citizens and desperate to be part of your country and want to help it and themselves grow... that you would make law and treat them as second class citizens doing menial work.

So on the one hand you expend money and forces to suppress some 20% of your own citizens (because they're not Pure), make it unbearable for them so they'd leave or commit terrorism and be deported enmass... then go and recruit new people to replace them.


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1, So you would have a large international force on rotation? I can't see how putting any western nations on the ground would help, so is it going to be made up of Bangladeshi and Malaysians?
> 
> So are they going to be firing counter rockets into Palestine? How would that be different to the Israel doing it?
> 
> ...




Aren't the UN forces, mainly Filipino i think, already stationed at the Golan Heights - between Syria?

Israel might win all its battles but it will lose this war. 

I think that most people in the world do believe that Israel is a democracy, a Western and civilised country etc... So the world, and especially the Jewish people growing up in the West, they're mostly liberal and idealistic. That and having been told Israel is one of the good guys will really get them to wonder why then are the Palestinians being treated like this by a friend like Israel.

I mean, Iraq or another African regimes... those are the bad guys and bad guys do bad things so people would just shrug and ignore it. Israel have painted itself as a moral and righteous knight... something about that that upset people more when they found out what's been done - especially the Jewish people abroad when they look into it closely.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Aren't the UN forces, mainly Filipino i think,




No, Dozens of countries currently have commitment to the Un, the Philippines currently only has 278 troops.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2014/oct14_1.pdf


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So what's your solution, prayer ?




I dont think there is a military solution other than what Israel is already doing. 

Nothing will really change until the religious divide is broken down, let's just hope the next generation in non religious.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Nothing will really change until the religious divide is broken down, let's just hope the next generation in[sic] non religious.




Oh come on, we both know how religions indoctrinate their young.

As I said, they will never solve this themselves. It's either world intervention or just let things carry on as they have been. Probably the latter is the preferred solution with most countries.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh come on, we both know how religions indoctrinate their young.
> 
> As I said, they will never solve this themselves. It's either world intervention or just let things carry on as they have been. Probably the latter is the preferred solution with most countries.




Yeah, they will indoctrinate their young, but hopefully in time society quits with the attitude that encouraging religion is good, and people stop showing respect for it.

I think as each generation has better access to education and technology, and information flows further and faster it will be harder to indoctrinate children, and more children will hold doubts, and thats got to be a good thing.

I really think atheism is really the only key to world peace, all these "inter faith" discussions don't do anything except reinforce the positions of the charlatans who are causing this nonsense in the first place, they give undue credibility and lend a platform for religious fanatics to speak for the rest of free society, when all they really care about is their own brand of rubbish, and they wish to squash free society and enforce their own theocracy.

In my opinion, the most important group of people are the ones that truly believe in having a peaceful, free society, that respects human rights and where open rational debates can take place without having to consult superstition, you don't find many of these among the religions, and the religions often openly oppose such things.

as far as outside intervention goes, I think its a bad idea, i really don't have an answer, except to just publicly oppose the violence, and try and talk to people and try to get them to see their religions are nonsense, and that we are all just people living together on a rock, in space and life's better when we work together.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> I really think atheism is really the only key to world peace, all these "inter faith" discussions don't do anything except reinforce the positions of the charlatans who are causing this nonsense in the first place, they give undue credibility and lend a platform for religious fanatics to speak for the rest of free society, when all they really care about is their own brand of rubbish, and they wish to squash free society and enforce their own theocracy.




Trouble is, even if you get rid of religion there is still tribalism. 

The Aborigines and American Indians don't have a well structured religion but they still didn't like other tribes encroaching on 'their' land. Fortunately the Aborigines didn't have the weapons to drive the white man out, or there could have been bloodbaths like in North America- cowboys and indians.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Nothing will really change until the religious divide is broken down, let's just hope the next generation in non religious.



I think you're banging your head against a wall there.


----------



## luutzu (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh come on, we both know how religions indoctrinate their young.
> 
> As I said, they will never solve this themselves. It's either world intervention or just let things carry on as they have been. Probably the latter is the preferred solution with most countries.




Yea, this is one of those forces that will just keep spinning in circles unless an external force intervenes.

Since a two state solution is long gone, the optimists hope that Israel will just keep on expanding until it can expand no further and will have to adopt the Palestinian refugees in Gaza/WB into a greater Israel, then a civil rights movement will start to end apartheid. 

Others, like yourself and Chomsky, believe things could just go on as they are and the world will just look the other way as they have.

I'm an optimist so hoping that the world will intervene, if for no other reason than it's simply too much to spend $5 billion every couple of years cleaning up the carnage. That and maybe a new generation of leadership growing up seeing another perspective on YouTube and alternative news sources.


----------



## Value Collector (25 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Trouble is, even if you get rid of religion there is still tribalism.
> 
> The Aborigines and American Indians don't have a well structured religion but they still didn't like other tribes encroaching on 'their' land. Fortunately the Aborigines didn't have the weapons to drive the white man out, or there could have been bloodbaths like in North America- cowboys and indians.




Tribalism can be dealt with easier once you take religion and racism out of the equation, the tribe could eventually grow until we just consider the whole human race our tribe, i mean we have grown from tribes of a few dozen, to villages, to cities, to whole nations, you can easily argue that our own self interest and quality of life relies on us working together and respecting each other, its hard to argue this though when someone has been taught this life is just a door mat for the next, and their quality of life in the next life relies on creating divisions in this one.

The Indians and aborigines had their own superstitions, land and resource wars can be negotiated, these days both sides will have better economies by trade rather than war.


----------



## bunyip (25 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Call the Palestinian to the table, move back to the UN-Internationally recognised borders of 1967, possibly make some land-swap where settlements have now made it too difficult and let the Palestinian people go.
> 
> These, from just about all the observers and experts I've heard, are not only internationally legal and legitimate requirements, it's very very reasonable and it is what the Palestinians, from Arafat to even Hamas, wanted. They don't like it, who would like to lose 80% of their homeland, but they will accept it because the world accept it and because the Palestinian cannot hope to get anything more.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply. I read the first part - I didn't read the longer version.


----------



## bunyip (25 November 2014)

The following is pretty long but well worth a read. It’s the perspective of an American who loves Australia and Australians, and urges us to hang on to what we’ve got. 
Although I can see many changes for the worse since my childhood, I agree with the American that we’ve got a great country and a great lifestyle. 
I implore each and every one of you to hang on as hard as you can to what we have in this great country Australia, and strongly resist religious fanatics who would change us into the sort of troubled countries they came from.

As the American said in his last line.... *Just value in Australia what you have here and don't give it away.*

David Mason is a Writer, a Professor, and a Poet Laureate of Colorado

There's a lot to admire about Australia , especially 
if you're a visiting American, says David Mason.

More often than you might expect, Australian friends 
patiently listening to me enthuse about their country 
have said,''We need outsiders like you to remind us 
what we have.''  So here it is - a small presumptuous 
list of what one foreigner admires in Oz.

1.. Health care.
I know the controversies, but basic national health 
care is a gift. In America , medical expenses are a 
leading cause of bankruptcy.  The drug companies 
dominate politics and advertising. Obama is being 
crucified for taking halting baby steps towards sanity. 
You can't turn on the telly without hours of drug 
advertisements - something I have never yet seen here.  
And your emphasis on prevention - making cigarettes 
less accessible, for one - is a model.

2.. Food.
Yes, we have great food in America too, especially 
in the big cities. But your bread is less sweet, your 
lamb is cheaper, and your supermarket vegetables 
and fruits are fresher than ours. Too often in my country 
America , an apple is a ball of pulp as big as your face. 
The dainty Pink Lady apples of Oz are the juiciest I've had.  
And don't get me started on coffee. In American small 
towns it tastes like water flavoured with burnt dirt, 
but the smallest shop in the smallest town in Oz can 
make a first-rate latte. I love your ubiquitous bakeries, 
and your hot-cross buns. Shall I go on?

3. Language.
How do you do it?
The rhyming slang and Aboriginal place names are 
like magic spells. Words that seem vaguely English 
yet also resemble an argot from another planet. 
I love the way institutional names get turned 
into diminutives - Vinnie's and Salvos - and 
absolutely nothing's sacred. Everything is an 
opportunity for word games and everyone has 
a nickname. Lingo makes the world go round. 
It's the spontaneous wit of the people that tickles 
me most. Late one night at a barbie my new mate 
Suds remarked: ''Nothing's the same since 24-7.''  
Amen to that.

4.. Free-to-air TV.
In Oz, you buy a TV, plug it in and watch some 
of the best programming I've ever seen - uncensored.
In America , you can't get diddly-squat without 
paying a cable or satellite company heavy fees.
In Oz a few channels make it hard to choose. 
In America , you've got 400 channels 
                                           and nothing to watch.

5. Small shops.
Outside the big cities in America corporations 
have nearly erased them. Identical malls with 
identical restaurants serving inferior food. 
Except for geography, it's hard to tell one American 
town from another. The ''take-away'' culture here 
in Australia is wonderful. The human encounters 
are real - people love to stir, and stories  get told. 
The curries here are to die for. And you don't 
have to tip!

6.. Free camping.
We used to have this too, and I guess it's still free 
when you backpack miles away from the roads. 
But I love the fact that in Oz everyone owns the 
shoreline and in many places you can pull up a 
camper van and stare at the sea for weeks. I love 
the ''primitive'' and independent camp-grounds, 
the life out-of-doors. The few idiots who leave 
their stubbies and rubbish behind in these 
pristine places ought to be transported in chains 
to the penal colonies.

7.. Religion.
In America , it's everywhere - especially where it's not 
supposed to be, like politics. I imagine you have your 
Pharisees too, making a big public show of devotion, 
but I have yet to meet one here.

8.. Roads.
Peak hour aside, I've found travel on your roads pure 
heaven. My country's ''Freeways'' are crowded, 
crumbling, insanely knotted with looping overpasses - it's 
like racing homicidal maniacs on fraying spaghetti! I've 
driven the Hume Highway without stress, and I love 
the Princes Highway when it's two lanes. Ninety minutes 
south of Bateman's Bay I was sorry to see one billboard 
for a McDonald's. It's blocking a lovely paddock view. 
Someone should remove the MacDonald's Billboard.

9.. Real multiculturalism.
I know there are tensions, just like anywhere else, 
but I love the distinctiveness of your communities 
and the way you publicly acknowledge the Aboriginal 
past. Recently, too, I spent quality time with the 
Melbourne Greeks, and was gratified both by their 
devotion to their own great language and culture and 
their openness to an Afghan lunch.

10. Fewer guns.
You had Port Arthur in 1996 and got real in response.  
America replicates such massacres several times a year 
and nothing changes.  Why? Our religion of individual 
rights makes the good of the community an impossible
dream. Instead of mateship we have ''It's mine and 
nobody else's''.  We talk a great game about freedom, 
but too often live in fear. There's more to say - your 
kaleidoscopic birds, your perfumed bush in springtime, 
your vast beaches. These are just a few of the blessings 
that make Australia a rarity. Of course, it's not paradise - 
nowhere is - but I love it here. No need to wave flags like 
the Americans, and add to the world's windiness.

 Just value in Australia what you have here 
                         and don't give it away.


----------



## Hodgie (25 November 2014)

bunyip said:


> The following is pretty long but well worth a read. It’s the perspective of an American who loves Australia and Australians, and urges us to hang on to what we’ve got.
> Although I can see many changes for the worse since my childhood, I agree with the American that we’ve got a great country and a great lifestyle.
> I implore each and every one of you to hang on as hard as you can to what we have in this great country Australia, and strongly resist religious fanatics who would change us into the sort of troubled countries they came from.
> 
> ...




I think that's a great summary of the things we should appreciate about our country.

Great post.

I guess not enough of the world agrees with this otherwise there would be more countries like ours.


----------



## luutzu (26 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Tribalism can be dealt with easier once you take religion and racism out of the equation, the tribe could eventually grow until we just consider the whole human race our tribe, i mean we have grown from tribes of a few dozen, to villages, to cities, to whole nations, you can easily argue that our own self interest and quality of life relies on us working together and respecting each other, its hard to argue this though when someone has been taught this life is just a door mat for the next, and their quality of life in the next life relies on creating divisions in this one.
> 
> The Indians and aborigines had their own superstitions, land and resource wars can be negotiated, these days both sides will have better economies by trade rather than war.




From memory, the Arabic word for "trade" means establishing friendship.

I think that in terms of domestic policies, we've come to recognise, and most counties have implemented, what the industrialists and Churchill concluded that it is better for the country as a whole if its people are free and well to do. Better for both the Gov't and the elite - that if the masses are educated, well fed, have decent employment and pay... they buy more, work better and smarter, more taxes etc.

That systems like Communism where the rich are cut off and the wealth is (supposedly) redistributed to the masses and all is equal in that way, that doesn't work; Also ineffective would be suppressing the people, making them poor and weak so you can gov't them easier like all kings and emperors tend to do the world over... that's not effective and may cause civil unrest that further weaken your state to the extend that other powers just walk in and take over.

In general successful countries tend to follow the approach of lifting up the masses to create wealth and social/national strength. On foreign policies though, it seem that we do not do this... we say we do, we favour free trade and free trade is good for everyone... but I think all states tend to favour keeping our neighbours poor and weak rather than do fair trades to both help them as well as ourselves.

I mean, the powerful would rather prop up dictators or try to bribe corrupt gov't of weaker states to exploit whatever resources at the lowest prices. If civil war or civil unrest, if most of the population are malnourished or mistreated, all states tend to be OK if not outright prefer that as long as their country get what it want.

This kind of foreign policies might make sense before, say, nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction and what not... but given this and the spiraling costs, economic alone and not counting the human cost suffered by the weak... it might no longer be as smart as we think it is.

Imagine if we're afraid of a rich and powerful China and so decided not to trade with it, or decided to sow civil unrest or hope it would just stay poor and be no challenge to us... western economies would be in a lot of trouble I would imagine. But by us trading with them, it lifted hundreds of millions of people in China out of poverty, made us (or our companies anyway) tonnes of money... Ok so China is getting powerful and starting to flex its muscle a fair bit there... OK, maybe a bad example or could be an exception there... but in general I think having rich neighbours are good for business - they could afford more of our goods, even a few more of our outdated weapons.


----------



## DB008 (27 November 2014)

WOW!!!



> *Operation Snow White*
> 
> Operation Snow White was the Church of Scientology's internal name for a major criminal conspiracy during the 1970s to purge unfavorable records about Scientology and its founder L. Ron Hubbard. This project included a series of infiltrations and thefts from 136 government agencies, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as private organizations critical of Scientology, carried out by Church members, in more than 30 countries.[1] It was the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history[2] with up to 5,000 covert agents.[3] This operation also exposed the Scientology plot 'Operation Freakout', because Operation Snow White was the case that initiated the US government investigation of the Church.[3]
> 
> ...




and...

*HBO hires 160 lawyers as it backs controversial documentary Going Clear*



> HBO, the American TV station behind hit shows like Game of Thrones and Sex and the City, is not taking any chances on its newest controversial venture.
> 
> The hit-making network has hired 160 lawyers to oversee a new documentary based on Going Clear, a book about Scientology and Hollywood.
> 
> ...


----------



## bunyip (12 December 2014)

It’s taken them long enough to open their eyes, but finally the Catholic church has acknowledged that their ridiculous rule of insisting on celibacy from priests is a contributing factor in their priests sexually abusing children.  It’s a good start, but I wonder how long it will take the silly old fuddy duddies in the Vatican to act on this finding by changing the rules so that Catholic priests are allowed to marry and have normal sex lives. My guess is that they won’t.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870152/Catholic-priests-vow-celibacy-child-abusers.html


----------



## Tisme (12 December 2014)

bunyip said:


> It’s taken them long enough to open their eyes, but finally the Catholic church has acknowledged that their ridiculous rule of insisting on celibacy from priests is a contributing factor in their priests sexually abusing children.  It’s a good start, but I wonder how long it will take the silly old fuddy duddies in the Vatican to act on this finding by changing the rules so that Catholic priests are allowed to marry and have normal sex lives. My guess is that they won’t.




Was a time a Catholic priest/bishop could keep a mistress and leave his staff outside the door of the village crumpet.


----------



## bunyip (12 December 2014)

bunyip said:


> It’s taken them long enough to open their eyes, but finally the Catholic church has acknowledged that their ridiculous rule of insisting on celibacy from priests is a contributing factor in their priests sexually abusing children.  It’s a good start, but I wonder how long it will take the silly old fuddy duddies in the Vatican to act on this finding by changing the rules so that Catholic priests are allowed to marry and have normal sex lives. My guess is that they won’t.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870152/Catholic-priests-vow-celibacy-child-abusers.html




Further to the above....

One of the blokes in our rugby team years ago was a good looking young bloke with a great personality and a winning way with the ladies. Women loved him and he loved women – I reckon he  bedded more pretty girls than the rest of us put together. So you could have knocked us down with a feather when he announced his intention of joining the Catholic priesthood!
And he did – last time I heard of him more than thirty years ago he was a Catholic priest.
Now seriously, how is someone like him with a voracious sexual appetite supposed to suddenly quit sex altogether and yet remain a healthy, well adjusted man? It’s absurd. No wonder priests build up so much sexual frustration that they resort to getting it any way they can, even by force from children.

I read a report once about a Catholic congregation that had a meeting to discuss what to do about their priest who was well known to have a long time mistress. In the end they decided to do nothing about it, because as one woman put it – _‘At least he’s normal...if he was sexually abusing our kids then we really *would* have something worth worrying about!’._


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2014)

bunyip said:


> It’s taken them long enough to open their eyes, but finally the Catholic church has acknowledged that their ridiculous rule of insisting on celibacy from priests is a contributing factor in their priests sexually abusing children.  It’s a good start, but I wonder how long it will take the silly old fuddy duddies in the Vatican to act on this finding by changing the rules so that Catholic priests are allowed to marry and have normal sex lives. My guess is that they won’t.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870152/Catholic-priests-vow-celibacy-child-abusers.html




The Catholic Church has often stated that sexual abuse by priests in no more frequent than in the general community. This report would be at odds with that statement. If no different to the general community, then celibacy would not be a factor. I wonder how they will explain this dichotomy.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

In the early hours of this morning, two innocent Australians died, when a siege initiated buy a religious fanatic hit a crunch point.

The media is trying to down play the role of religion in an effort to prevent backlash against the Muslim community, however the links are clear. This mans faith lead him to have a lot of crazy ideas, and lead him to take hostages.

If we want to live in a society that respects faith, and teaches children that these old morally bankrupt texts are the word of a god, we will have to live with a certain degree of religious extremism.


----------



## pavilion103 (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> In the early hours of this morning, two innocent Australians died, when a siege initiated buy a religious fanatic hit a crunch point.  The media is trying to down play the role of religion in an effort to prevent backlash against the Muslim community, however the links are clear. This mans faith lead him to have a lot of crazy ideas, and lead him to take hostages.  If we want to live in a society that respects faith, and teaches children that these old morally bankrupt texts are the word of a god, we will have to live with a certain degree of religious extremism.




A religion whose doctrine promotes killing anyone who disagrees with you is bound to result in this. You can't put all religions together but let's see if anyone buys into your straw man argument.

Same can be said for other regimes that go about slaughtering people. Many atheistic regimes that have resulted in more deaths than any.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> In the early hours of this morning, two innocent Australians died, when a siege initiated buy a religious fanatic hit a crunch point.
> 
> The media is trying to down play the role of religion in an effort to prevent backlash against the Muslim community, however the links are clear. This mans faith lead him to have a lot of crazy ideas, and lead him to take hostages.
> 
> If we want to live in a society that respects faith, and teaches children that these old morally bankrupt texts are the word of a god, we will have to live with a certain degree of religious extremism.




So, what do we do ? Denounce all religion, burn churches, mosques, Bibles and the Koran ?

That would be too overt imo.

Best response I think is to cut down on welfare esp, family payments. These are a big drawcard or people from poor  countries with lots of children who are likely to be a burden on our welfare system (and also for Catholics and we don't want more of them either . Make new immigrants wait for 5 years for these, and don't pay any after the second child.

Cut out family reunion immigration. Make visas from high risk countries very hard to get. Don't let anyone with a criminal record claim refugee status or obtain any other visa.

Deport people where possible if they are suspected of having links with terrorist organisations, or commit criminal offences here.

These methods would not overly impact on anyone already here, but may cut down on future risk.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> A religion whose doctrine promotes killing anyone who disagrees with you is bound to result in this.
> .




I agree. would you like me to provide you the verses from the bible.



> You can't put all religions together but let's see if anyone buys into your straw man argument




Considering there is a long history of extremism and violence from religions based on the holy book which you your self cherish and you yourself have some warped views, I fail to see the straw man.




> Many atheistic regimes that have resulted in more deaths than any.




I challenge you to name one person who has killed for atheism, or in the name of atheism.

And before you answer, please learn the difference between atheism and antitheism. The communists etc didn't kill for atheism, atheism has no tenants which instruct killing, they killed to increase the power of their communist party, not for atheism.

Atheism is simply the non belief in a god, that's it, any other belief that could lead you to kill, is something else.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So, what do we do ? Denounce all religion, burn churches, mosques, Bibles and the Koran ?




Just stop giving religion the unearned respect it gets at the moment, and don't promote faith as being good thing, value rational thought, and critical thinking over blind faith and subservience.

Don't look down on members of the community who are sceptics or atheists, and don't be afraid to be an open atheist, if its safe to come out of the closet, then do it, and don't look up to people who profess faith, consider it a weakness in their character rather than a strength.

And have open rational conversations with people on the fence, point out the flaws in religious teachings and wipe away the mystic to show it for what it really is, a load of old tribal stories full of nonsense.


----------



## Tink (16 December 2014)

VC, you are a militant atheist, an extremist, that IS a religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Just stop giving religion the unearned respect it gets at the moment, and don't promote faith as being good thing, value rational thought, and critical thinking over blind faith and subservience.
> 
> Don't look down on members of the community who are sceptics or atheists, and don't be afraid to be an open atheist, if its safe to come out of the closet, then do it, and don't look up to people who profess faith, consider it a weakness in their character rather than a strength.
> 
> And have open rational conversations with people on the fence, point out the flaws in religious teachings and wipe away the mystic to show it for what it really is, a load of old tribal stories full of nonsense.




Maybe we could start by pointing out the flaws of religious sanctification of food instead of pandering to religious certification pressure groups ?


----------



## pixel (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Just stop giving religion the unearned respect it gets at the moment, and don't promote faith as being good thing, value rational thought, and critical thinking over blind faith and subservience.
> 
> Don't look down on members of the community who are sceptics or atheists, and don't be afraid to be an open atheist, if its safe to come out of the closet, then do it, and don't look up to people who profess faith, *consider it a weakness in their character rather than a strength.*
> 
> And have open rational conversations with people on the fence, point out the flaws in religious teachings and wipe away the mystic to show it for what it really is, a load of old tribal stories full of nonsense.




I tend to agree with you in the main, VC
... but ...
I'd see extreme faith as a shortcoming of *upbringing/ education* rather than one of *character*.
Our separation of State and Religion is unfortunately only a legalistic concept, a Utopian fiction. After all, our Head of State is also the head of a religious creed. Historically, that has made it "right" to exempt institutions of one particular faith from taxes, extending the special privileges to similar faiths. Unfortunately, that same principle had then to be extended to every creed and sect that called itself a religion. Take away those special privileges from *every *group, cut ties with the one dysfunctional family half a world away, and become a republic in more but name. Tat may be our only chance to avoid the risk of being ruled by religious nutters of one persuasion and besieged by religious nutters of another.

I don't have an issue with people reading the Bible or the Koran or any other book of fiction. I've gone through most of them, including the Mahabharata, Mormon, or Hubbard's Science Fiction. Where I draw the line is when someone claims to be superior to everyone else because their particular delusion is the One and Only True Faith that all others have to accept ... or else! That kind of thinking is as bad as, if not worse than, any form of racism.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, you are a militant atheist, an extremist.




I am not an extremist, The term "militant atheist" is basically a tongue cheek way of describing an atheist who is a bit more confrontational, and won't feign respect for you nonsense as a lot of other atheists do.

It's is certainly nothing like a "militant Islamist" or "militant Christian", no violence is involved.



> that IS a religion




Nope, not at all. It's the absence of religion.

Bald is not a hair colour, Off is not a TV channel and not stop collecting is not a hobby.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe we could start by pointing out the flaws of religious sanctification of food instead of pandering to religious certification pressure groups ?




Feel free to point out as many flaws as you like.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

pixel said:


> I tend to agree with you in the main, VC
> ... but ...
> I'd see extreme faith as a shortcoming of *upbringing/ education* rather than one of *character*.
> .




I agree in part, as I have said I consider a lot of religious people to be victims of crime. They are only religious because they were taken advantage of and lied to by some one. But, the ability to think critically is part of your character, so their character is affected, even though they are not always 100% responsible for it.




> Our separation of State and Religion is unfortunately only a legalistic concept, a Utopian fiction. After all, our Head of State is also the head of a religious creed. Historically, that has made it "right" to exempt institutions of one particular faith from taxes, extending the special privileges to similar faiths. Unfortunately, that same principle had then to be extended to every creed and sect that called itself a religion. Take away those special privileges from *every *group, cut ties with the one dysfunctional family half a world away, and become a republic in more but name. Tat may be our only chance to avoid the risk of being ruled by religious nutters of one persuasion and besieged by religious nutters of another



.

Agreed.



> I don't have an issue with people reading the Bible or the Koran or any other book of fiction. I've gone through most of them, including the Mahabharata, Mormon, or Hubbard's Science Fiction. Where I draw the line is when someone claims to be superior to everyone else because their particular delusion is the One and Only True Faith that all others have to accept ... or else! That kind of thinking is as bad as, if not worse than, any form of racism




I have no problem with people reading the religious texts either, But if they try and portray them as revealed knowledge that can't be questioned, they should expect society to question that, not bow to them.

---------------------
This is child abuse, and this girl is a victim.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Feel free to point out as many flaws as you like.




You are the one stirring up the anti religious sentiment, so it's up to you to  point out the flaws.

I pointed out a lot of them in the Halal thread, they aren't copyright so feel free to use them.

You disagreed that they were flaws I seem to remember, have you changed your opinion?

Off you go with you anti religion oratory, I'm all ears.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You are the one stirring up the anti religious sentiment, so it's up to you to  point out the flaws.
> 
> I pointed out a lot of them in the Halal thread, they aren't copyright so feel free to use them.
> 
> ...




No, I haven't changed my opinion, Religious freedom and other civil liberties are still very important to me. I am not going to tell people what to eat and I am not going to tell private organisations who they can and can't market to, or who they can hire to help them market products.

Halal foods are a symptom, and it is a rather benign symptom, I would much rather focus on curing the disease rather than attacking people over a benign symptom such as the foods they choose to eat, even if we could wave a magic wand and cure all the Muslims of their faith, Halal foods would probably still be in demand for cultural reasons.

For example, a lot of Australians still put up christmas trees during the northern hemisphere's winter solistice, no one really believes that we need to bring in a tree in from outside to ensure the winter breaks and spring returns, however it is part of our culture now, we don't even do it in winter we do it in summer. I think halal foods would stick around.

I am not going to try and stop christmas trees or halal products.


----------



## Tisme (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, I haven't changed my opinion, Religious freedom and other civil liberties are still very important to me. I am not going to tell people what to eat and I am not going to tell private organisations who they can and can't market to, or who they can hire to help them market products.
> 
> .




My concern is a religion that puts brutality in the hands of its (male) followers. I think we tend to think of religion as benign Hindu, Buddhist or Christian, et al, and define peaceful in those terms. I do believe Islam defines and manifests peaceful in a different way, with less emphasis on community peace and more on inner conviction or righteousness. 

So when the mouthpieces and talking heads of the Muslim "community" talk fair, peace and belonging are they talking Australian accepted norms or middle eastern?


----------



## Tink (16 December 2014)

Yes, Christmas is a part of our culture, and our Christian calendar and heritage. 

Sadly, the PC mob keep trying to attack it.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

Tink said:


> Yes, Christmas is a part of our culture, and our Christian calendar and heritage.
> 
> .




I was talking about the tradition of decorating christmas trees, which predate Christianity, going back to the pagan Yule tide celebration. The celebration of christmas has little to do with Christianity these days, and originally had nothing to do with Jesus. In fact there is actually bible verses that warn against decorating trees, because that was a heathen tradition.

I love christmas, it has nothing to do with religion in my house, its about real things, like family, food, charity, gifts, alcohol, games. And I think thats how it is for most people these days.

But, as much as I love christmas, I am not going to try and force it on others.



> Sadly, the PC mob keep trying to attack it




Who is trying to attack christmas?

All I see or hear is people attacking people for not celebrating christmas enough, people get offended now if you say Happy holidays, some how they think saying happy holidays is an attack on christmas, So who exactly is taking PC to far?

I have heard people suggest you should avoid shops and businesses that don't say merry christmas to you when you enter, and who don't put up christmas decorations, thats not christmas under attack, thats the Christian mob on the offensive .
Listen to the lyrics in this song, and see who is doing the attacking, and being forceful.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ln01p1M2cH0[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (16 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I was talking about the tradition of decorating christmas trees, which predate Christianity, going back to the pagan Yule tide celebration. The celebration of christmas has little to do with Christianity these days, and originally had nothing to do with Jesus.
> 
> I love christmas, it has nothing to do with religion in my house, its about real things, like family, food, charity, gifts, alcohol, games. And I think thats how it is for most people these days.
> 
> ...




If it wasn't for Christians we wouldn't have holidays at Christmas and Easter, so they cant be all bad.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If it wasn't for Christians we wouldn't have holidays at Christmas and Easter, so they cant be all bad.




Actually the Christians just hijacked or merged into pre existing celebrations.

Also, cultures all over the world find reasons to eat, drink and have time off. So if christmas didn't exist, it would not be long before we would just make up another reason to celebrate, it's what we humans do.

None of the actual Christian parts are fun, if you think they are, you do only Christian traditions this year, and I will do all the fun stuff, but don't complain to me when your sitting in mass singing rubbish songs, I will be to busy having a champaign breakfast or playing backyard cricket while the chickens roast on the BBQ.

And don't forget the presents and prawns.


----------



## luutzu (16 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If it wasn't for Christians we wouldn't have holidays at Christmas and Easter, so they cant be all bad.




I didn't know Xmas was Christ's birthday until I watched Kubrick's "full metal jacket" where the instructor sang happy birthday Jesus.    So I put one and one together, haha.

Before that I thought it was just a new year holiday.

I'm an atheist and my wife is probably agnostic but we put the Xmas tree on each year. Make the kids happy.


----------



## luutzu (16 December 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, you are a militant atheist, an extremist, that IS a religion.




He is a bit fanatical, haha... but in a good way.

You got to be when you know you're right. 

Anyway, at least he's rational about it... otherwise... I think he's the guy with a particular set of skills, skills acquired over a very long career, skills that will make him a nightmare to bad people (from Taken).


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> I didn't know Xmas was Christ's birthday until I watched Kubrick's "full metal jacket"






luutzu said:


> I think he's the guy with a particular set of skills, skills acquired over a very long career, skills that will make him a nightmare to bad people (from Taken).




Did I just find a fellow movie buff


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If it wasn't for Christians we wouldn't have holidays at Christmas and Easter, so they cant be all bad.




Turns out we would have all the holidays and traditions.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Same can be said for other regimes that go about slaughtering people. Many atheistic regimes that have resulted in more deaths than any.




Both Tink and Pav ( and many others) often claim atheism is responsible for more deaths and harm than religion, often making claims that millions have been killed for atheism. I find it interesting though, that when asked to back up this claim, both tink and pav go silent.

Because, this is a claim regularly thrown around by theist's I am genuinely interested in a reply to my below challenge.




Value Collector said:


> I challenge you to name one person who has killed for atheism, or in the name of atheism.
> 
> And before you answer, please learn the difference between atheism and antitheism. The communists etc didn't kill for atheism, atheism has no tenants which instruct killing, they killed to increase the power of their communist party, not for atheism.
> 
> Atheism is simply the non belief in a god, that's it, any other belief that could lead you to kill, is something else.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> And before you answer, please learn the difference between atheism and antitheism. The communists etc didn't kill for atheism, atheism has no tenants which instruct killing, they killed to increase the power of their communist party, not for atheism.




The distinction you are trying to make between atheism and anti-theism doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if people kill "in the name" of atheism. The Chinese Communists, North Koreans and North Vietnamese are atheists and see religion as a threat to their power so they kill religious people and burn their churches and books.

The people are still dead because they were religious people.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The distinction you are trying to make between atheism and anti-theism doesn't matter.
> 
> It doesn't matter if people kill "in the name" of atheism. The Chinese Communists, North Koreans and North Vietnamese are atheists and see religion as a threat to their power so they kill religious people and burn their churches and books.
> 
> .




Off course it matters, because there is a big difference between a person who is atheist deciding to kill some one for some reason and atheism being the cause of the killing.

Eg, If you slept with my wife, and I got angry and killed you, atheism wasn't the cause, I didn't kill you because of my atheism, I killed you because I was angry that you slept with my wife.

There is no direct line from my atheism to violence, there is not dogma instructing it, any violence has to come from my own ideas.

However the tribal witch doctors, being burned alive in Africa recently by Christians has direct links with the bible verses saying, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". 

The communists killed to spread communism, 

Atheism is one answer to a single question, 

Do you believe in a god? 

If you answer no, your an atheist, any other opinion you have is something else.



> The people are still dead because they were religious people




They are dead because a morally bankrupt group of communists, saw them as a threat to their power, not because their attackers were atheist.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> They are dead because a morally bankrupt group of communists, saw them as a threat to their power, not because their attackers were atheist.




No, it's the same thing really. Religious people (IS) kill others because the ones they kill are not in their "gang", atheist Communists kill for the same reason. If you don't want to blame atheism for genocide, then you can't blame religion either.


----------



## FxTrader (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No, it's the same thing really. Religious people (IS) kill others because the ones they kill are not in their "gang", atheist Communists kill for the same reason. If you don't want to blame atheism for genocide, then you can't blame religion either.



A false premise has led you to a false conclusion.  A proclaimed atheist who kills for any reason is not motivated to do so by non-belief in imaginary God's, atheist scriptures commanding the death of believers, is offended by cartoons depicting atheist deities or simply because someone is not an atheist.  Hence, being an atheist neither compels nor incites other atheists to do anything collectively other than agree there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any God concept. Seriously, do you not understand this?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

FxTrader said:


> A false premise has led you to a false conclusion.  A proclaimed atheist who kills for any reason is not motivated to do so by non-belief in imaginary God's, atheist scriptures commanding the death of believers, is offended by cartoons depicting atheist deities or simply because someone is not an atheist.  Hence, being an atheist neither compels nor incites other atheists to do anything collectively other than agree there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any God concept. Seriously, do you not understand this?




I suppose you believe that a religious person who kills anyone is always solely motivated by religion ?

Were pedophiles in the Catholic church motivated by religion or just lust ?

What I am saying, which you have ignored, is that violence committed by Islamists is the same as that committed by atheist communists; it's motivated by hatred of people not in their "gang". This sort of violence does not require religion or lack of it, simply a dislike or hatred for people who are not like them in whatever way they choose to define.

Can you understand this ?


----------



## Tink (17 December 2014)

When Richard Dawkins said he was going to stop the Pope from entering England, they all jumped up and down, listening to their messiah.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No, it's the same thing really. Religious people (IS) kill others because the ones they kill are not in their "gang", atheist Communists kill for the same reason. If you don't want to blame atheism for genocide, then you can't blame religion either.




No, they kill them because their bible or Qu'ran instructs them to Kill witches, gays, adulterers, atheists etc. They want to get on the right side of their god, so they do it. 

I am not talking about territorial disputes etc, I am talking about the murders, directly relating to opinions based on scripture or religious laws.

There is a direct line from the beheadings of infidels, burning of witches etc to instructions in scripture.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

Tink said:


> When Richard Dawkins said he was going to stop the Pope from entering England, they all jumped up and down, listening to their messiah.




when did that happen, can you please provide a link to what Richard Dawkins said?


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you believe that a religious person who kills anyone is always solely motivated by religion ?




Neither FX trader, or I have ever said that.



> Were pedophiles in the Catholic church motivated by religion or just lust ?




It was probably a sick lust and need for sexual attention, caused by years of sexual repression due to the catholic church demonising and suppressing normal healthy sexual behaviour.

The catholic churches actions of covering up and hiding the pedophiles is also what a lot of people are against.




> What I am saying, which you have ignored, is that violence committed by Islamists is the same as that committed by atheist communists;




No it's not, but even if it were, it still wouldn't be caused by atheism, which was the original charge you are supposed to be defending.

Please remember, your supposed to be finding examples of atheists killing for atheism, which is what Pav, Tink and many other theists have tried to say atheism is guilty of.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Please remember, your supposed to be finding examples of atheists killing for atheism, which is what Pav, Tink and many other theists have tried to say atheism is guilty of.




Thanks, but I don't have to conform to your agenda. 

You just can't accept that atheists killed people because of their religion. You are as much an apologist for genocide as you accuse me of being.


----------



## FxTrader (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you believe that a religious person who kills anyone is always solely motivated by religion?  Were pedophiles in the Catholic church motivated by religion or just lust ?



Do you actually think before blurt out rhetorical questions that don't support your point?  Where have I implied that all religious people who kill do so solely for religious motives, it's the predominant motive and JUSTIFICATION for many and something you can't seem to grasp in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.



> What I am saying, which you have ignored, is that violence committed by Islamists is the same as that committed by atheist communists; it's motivated by hatred of people not in their "gang". This sort of violence does not require religion or lack of it, simply a dislike or hatred for people who are not like them in whatever way they choose to define.



I know exactly what you're saying and it's fallacious logic deployed as part of your desperate plea to portray religion as good because it's useful and atheism as just another religious tribe.  You clearly lack the mental clarity to discern the difference between atheism and communism and falsely conflate the two to suit your absurd argument that tribalism is the real root cause of the barbarism and savagery we see from groups like the Taliban.

Your irrational loathing of atheism and blatant pandering to religion just reinforces the impression that if not a person with religious inclinations you certainly argue like one and use the same rhetoric.  No surprise then that slaves to religious dogma like Pav and Tink jump at the chance to defend your line of reasoning here.


----------



## Ves (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Please remember, your supposed to be finding examples of atheists killing for atheism, which is what Pav, Tink and many other theists have tried to say atheism is guilty of.



Certain Bolshevik factions in early 20th century Russia definitely did....  there was a heavy sentiment against religion, especially the organised kind,  and many innocent clergy were systematically eradicated by Marxist-Leninist types. In fact,  I believe the term "militant atheism" originated, or at the very least was used heavily in descriptions of this era.

It's not hard to find other examples, as equally,  it's not hard to for you find examples of slaughter by religious types.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 December 2014)

Hitler who claimed to be Christian (what??) acted out of atheistic world view (no god). Survival of the fittest. Not all individuals have value. Kill those who don't, to make way for the fittest. Help our society evolve quicker.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks, but I don't have to conform to your agenda.
> 
> .




then don't try and answer my question if you don't want to answer it.



> You just can't accept that atheists killed people because of their religion. You are as much an apologist for genocide as you accuse me of being




Hang on, isn't your position that people don't kill for religion?  and they only kill for their gang or for other reasons?


Your not really making sense, your saying on one hand that Islamists don't kill because of religious doctrine, but then you accuse atheists who have no doctrine of killing for religion.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

Ves said:


> Certain Bolshevik factions in early 20th century Russia definitely did....  there was a heavy sentiment against religion, especially the organised kind,  and many innocent clergy were systematically eradicated by Marxist-Leninist types. In fact,  I believe the term "militant atheism" originated, or at the very least was used heavily in descriptions of this era.
> 
> It's not hard to find other examples, as equally,  it's not hard to for you find examples of slaughter by religious types.




What your describing there is Anti-Theism, not atheism. 

Their anti-theism would have been inspired by political motives not a simple unbelief in any gods.

Atheism is simply the position of disbelief in any gods, nothing else, any political agenda you want to add to that is something else. you can be atheist liberal, labor, green, capitalist, communist, or anything else, none of those other things are atheism though.

and you don't have to be atheist to be an antitheist, you can believe in a god like rumpole does, but still want to burn religion to the ground.

Coming to the conclusion that no gods exist, does not lead you to wanting to kill believers, something else has to promote that idea. However becoming convinced a certain god exists and a certain religion is true, can directly lead you to acting on the religious texts which instruct you to kill people.


----------



## Ves (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What your describing there is Anti-Theism, not atheism.



I guess they just called themselves the League of Militant Atheists for fun.

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

We've had this discussion before.  Word games and historical revisionism bore me.  They obviously interest you greatly though.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 December 2014)

My comments include those who
1. Believe there is no god
OR
2. Believe that there is a lack of evidence for a god


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Hitler who claimed to be Christian (what??) acted out of atheistic world view (no god) Survival of the fittest. Not all individuals have value. Kill those who don't, to make way for the fittest. Help our society evolve quicker..




none of those things you mentioned are atheism.

Atheism is just a belief that no gods exist, anything else you added such as " Survival of the fittest. Not all individuals have value. Kill those who don't, to make way for the fittest. Help our society evolve quicker" are ideas outside of pure atheism. 

what your describing is social Darwinism, a concept that would be rejected by pretty much every atheist I have ever met. I have never met a person who believes social Darwinism is the correct way to build a society.



> Hitler who claimed to be Christian (what??) acted out of atheistic world view (no god)




Even if he wasn't Christian, the traditional catholic mistrust of Jews certainly influenced him, and he used it to his advantage to get other Christians to do his bidding


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

Ves said:


> I guess they just called themselves the League of Militant Atheists for fun.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
> 
> We've had this discussion before.  Word games and historical revisionism bore me.  They obviously interest you greatly though.




you can call yourself what ever you want, and they may have infact been atheists, but their actions were not caused by it.

I mean if the local cricket club started killing people, you can't say it was caused by cricket. they may all be cricketers, but it takes more than that to start a killing spree. It may be the cricket club also has extreme racist views that lead to the murders, but to suggest cricket caused the racism is silly

how can not believing in a god, cause you to kill people? there has to be more to it, there is no rational line of thinking that can make a person who becomes unconvinced a god exists, decide that he know needs to kill people.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Your not really making sense, your saying on one hand that Islamists don't kill because of religious doctrine, but then you accuse atheists who have no doctrine of killing for religion.




I said communists killed religious people because the people they killed were religious, and they saw religion as a threat.

I've repeatedly said that religion is a motivation for SOME in IS, generally it is the footsoldiers who get killed that allow themselves to be manipulated by others who stay behind the lines.

 If it wasn't religion, the motivation would be some other perceived affront or persecution excuse that the masterminds could make up to inspire their footsoldiers. That's the way human nature works, no one likes getting the rough end of a stick. eg I doubt if many of the Palestinians in Gaza throw missiles at the Israelis because of religion, they are getting pushed off their land and want it to stop.



> Your irrational loathing of atheism and blatant pandering to religion




I have no loathing of atheism, just of bigoted atheists who see religion as their enemy and therefore try to destroy it even though the vast majority of religious people are good citizens who don't deserve the cr@p that people like you throw at them.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I said communists killed religious people because the people they killed were religious, and they saw religion as a threat.
> .




Thanks for establishing that, but I was asking you to provide examples of atheists that had killed because of or for their atheism, not communists killing religious people.



> I've repeatedly said that religion is a motivation for SOME in IS, generally it is the footsoldiers who get killed that allow themselves to be manipulated by others who stay behind the lines



.

Ok, now we are making progress, so now you admit that religion in some cases is motivation for killing, please provide an example where atheism has been the motivation.

And remember,  I don't want an example of an atheist that has killed for some other reason, I want an example of an atheist who's disbelief in god was the prime motivation for killing.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> My comments include those who
> 1. Believe there is no god
> OR
> 2. Believe that there is a lack of evidence for a god




Cool, now you know what an atheist is, provide me with an example where those two factors were the sole motivation behind someone killing another person.

I want an example where some one has decided to start killing just because they are not convinced a god exists, because thats what atheism is, a disbelief in gods.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> And remember, I don't want an example of an atheist that has killed for some other reason, I want an example of an atheist who's disbelief in god was the prime motivation for killing.




You are just so stubborn you can't see that your arguments are contradictory.

The Cultural revolution in China was not killing religious people for some other reason, it was BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THEY KILLED WERE RELIGIOUS.

Therefore, when you pare away all the bulldust, the Chinese communists  were killing religious people BECAUSE of atheism; ie they were destroying the logical enemy of atheism, religion.


----------



## trainspotter (17 December 2014)

Arguing on the internet about religion is crazy :


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You are just so stubborn you can't see that your arguments are contradictory.
> 
> The Cultural revolution in China was not killing religious people for some other reason, it was BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THEY KILLED WERE RELIGIOUS.
> 
> Therefore, when you pare away all the bulldust, the Chinese communists  were killing religious people BECAUSE of atheism; ie they were destroying the logical enemy of atheism, religion.




When you pare away all the bull dust, they were killing people who were a threat to the absolute power they wanted their regime to have.

I really don't get why you can't understand that Atheism is a single opinion on a single topic, it is nothing more than that. in fact the communists your describing were actually trying to install a national ideology of communism, which all though in not supernaturally based, its is still a form of religion and in some cases leader worship. Thats what they were fighting for.

Atheism is a very simple concept but people are very complex, we all have 1000's of opinions, just because one of your opinions is that no god exists, doesn't mean all your political actions are based on that one simple opinion.


 But religion is different, if your opinion is that a certain religion is real, the teachings of that religion will inspire actions, and a lot of the religious texts when read literally, call for violence.

You can be atheist and also a white supremeist, if you go and kill a black man because you don't want black people in your town, thats the racism causing that not the atheism.


----------



## Tisme (17 December 2014)

We need to be careful thinking atheists are opposed to religion and vice versa, because they have opposite views on a God's existence. Atheism doesn't stand for any belief system that prescribes a particular action so it can hardly be held responsible for promoting killing.

However history suggests there have been plenty missionaries killed who failed to indoctrinate those who would believe what they believed. 

The other chestnut that people like to throw about is that religion has been the root cause of most wars and consequent deaths. If the empire building types like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Ts Tung, Pol Pot, Alex the Great, The Mongols, the Tartars, Romans, etc are taken out of the equation I wonder how the scales would look.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> You can be atheist and also a white supremeist, if you go and kill a black man because you don't want black people in your town, thats the racism causing that not the atheism.




But you can't be *religious* and a white supremacist ?

If a religious white supremacist killed a black man, it would have to be his religion at fault would it ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

Tisme said:


> The other chestnut that people like to throw about is that religion has been the root cause of most wars and consequent deaths. If the empire building types like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Ts Tung, Pol Pot, Alex the Great, The Mongols, the Tartars, Romans, etc are taken out of the equation I wonder how the scales would look.




I wouldn't say most wars are religion based, conflicts start for all sorts of reasons, religion does however make conflicts drag on for generations, when in its absence the divide would have been bridged, and it adds the the us and them mentality which makes it easier to keep the killing going.

As I eluded to earlier, leader worship is a form of religion, communism can morph into a state based religious ideology, look at North Korea a dead man is still the head of state, nothing they do is based on atheism.

Even world war 2 had religious elements, Hitler could only turn the people against the Jews because of pre existing religious mistrust, and the emperor of japan was seen as a god in the Shintoism beliefs.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

> Even world war 2 had religious elements, Hitler could only turn the people against the Jews because of pre existing religious mistrust




I doubt that. Hitlers obsession was Aryan supremacy and Jews did not fit into the Aryan culture, so they were demonised as inferior.

What did religion have to do with it ?


----------



## Tisme (17 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I wouldn't say most wars are religion based, conflicts start for all sorts of reasons, religion does however make conflicts drag on for generations, when in its absence the divide would have been bridged, and it adds the the us and them mentality which makes it easier to keep the killing going.
> 
> As I eluded to earlier, leader worship is a form of religion, communism can morph into a state based religious ideology, look at North Korea a dead man is still the head of state, nothing they do is based on atheism.
> 
> Even world war 2 had religious elements, Hitler could only turn the people against the Jews because of pre existing religious mistrust, and the emperor of japan was seen as a god in the Shintoism beliefs.




I don't disagree with you. I have a fierce dislike of tribal infatuation over open mindness, criticism and common sense.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> But you can't be *religious* and a white supremacist ?
> 
> ?




Off course you can



> If a religious white supremacist killed a black man, it would have to be his religion at fault would it?




it depends on the reason you arrived at your racist views. If your racist views were a result of the teachings of your religion then yes its the fault of your religion, if not, then no, it's not your religions fault.


----------



## Tisme (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt that. Hitlers obsession was Aryan supremacy and Jews did not fit into the Aryan culture, so they were demonised as inferior.
> 
> What did religion have to do with it ?




I was brought up in a house that had old skool Australians resident and there was a degree of Jew discrimination that harked back to pre WW times. Of course Shakespeare held a mirror up to the prevailing mood on Jews way back in day with his pound of flesh.....

I tend to think Hitler used the universal European distaste for Jews to temper the resolve of his enemies.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt that. Hitlers obsession was Aryan supremacy and Jews did not fit into the Aryan culture, so they were demonised as inferior.
> 
> What did religion have to do with it ?




The Catholics had for a long time preached a mistrust of Jews, regardless of his own opinions, he used this in his favour, take a bit of time and look it up.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2014)

Tisme said:


> I was brought up in a house that had old skool Australians resident and there was a degree of Jew discrimination that harked back to pre WW times. Of course Shakespeare held a mirror up to the prevailing mood on Jews way back in day with his pound of flesh.....
> 
> I tend to think Hitler used the universal European distaste for Jews to temper the resolve of his enemies.




So what was this distaste for Jews based on ? Their religious beliefs or the general idea that they had deep pockets and short arms ?


----------



## Tisme (17 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So what was this distaste for Jews based on ? Their religious beliefs or the general idea that they had deep pockets and short arms ?




I think it was the propensity to profit out of misery and the ghetto mentality of sticking together in communities, looking after their own rather than assimilating....sound familiar? It's a middle eastern culture that isn't confined to the Jews; afterall they are blood relatives of the Arabs through Abraham.


----------



## Tink (18 December 2014)

Ves said:


> Certain Bolshevik factions in early 20th century Russia definitely did....  there was a heavy sentiment against religion, especially the organised kind,  and many innocent clergy were systematically eradicated by Marxist-Leninist types. In fact,  I believe the term "militant atheism" originated, or at the very least was used heavily in descriptions of this era.
> 
> It's not hard to find other examples, as equally,  it's not hard to for you find examples of slaughter by religious types.




Good on you, Ves, as you can see, it has fallen on deaf ears.

I admire your posts too, Rumpole, thanks.

As much as I disagree with VCs posts, it has been good seeing someone bringing in the other side, balancing the debate.

I do agree a lot with your posts.


----------



## Value Collector (18 December 2014)

Tink said:


> Good on you, Ves, as you can see, it has fallen on deaf ears.
> 
> I admire your posts too, Rumpole, thanks.
> 
> ...




Tink, I think you have the deaf ears, no one has yet been able to provide an example of someone who has killed in the name of or for atheism.

Since you were one of the people that made this claim, I think you need to provide an exampl.


----------



## FxTrader (18 December 2014)

Ves said:


> I guess they just called themselves the League of Militant Atheists for fun.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
> 
> We've had this discussion before.  Word games and historical revisionism bore me.  They obviously interest you greatly though.



What is truly boring is the monotonous circular reasoning deployed by the religious and their apologists to vilify those much despised non-believers, the atheist bogeymen threatening to dismantle religious myth, diminish religious political power, destroy "Christian" values etc.  The basic logical fallacy and simplistic reasoning can be summarized as follows...

1) Communists and Nazi fascists are atheists
2) Communists and Nazi fascists are evil because they have persecuted the religious
3) Atheists and atheism are therefore evil

For theists embracing this self-serving caricature of “militant atheism”, the only alternative thesis is to believe in imaginary God's who give us laws inscribed in magic books via their many prophets to be interpreted by earthly clergy so as to give us moral clarity and avoid hellfire in the afterlife.  Atheism is moral chaos but religion is useful for order and goodness in society (that it's mythology matters not).  Enquiring, questioning atheists be dammed, vilified and branded as Communists and haters, ad nausem.

Communism must supress religion because the perpetuation of its power is based on state worship and state control in competition with religion.  In this context, non-endorsed religion represents an overt challenge to total state control of thought, behaviour and opinion.  This is done as a consequence of communist ideology and not because they do not believe in alternative celestial dictators.


----------



## Ves (18 December 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Communism must supress religion because the perpetuation of its power is based on state worship and state control in competition with religion.  In this context, non-endorsed religion represents an overt challenge to total state control of thought, behaviour and opinion.  This is done as a consequence of communist ideology and not because they do not believe in alternative celestial dictators.



Now you are getting somewhere.

Invert the argument.   _Some_ religious institutions must supress non-religious types because the perpetuation of their [sic] power is based on.....

...  it opens up a whole world of possibilities when you look beyond the God vs no-God debate (tunnel vision) and add on more dynamics (in accordance with reality and not theory) such as control,  greed, power etc.

This thread,  and pretty much every other one on the thousands upon thousands of internet forums,  is filled with people who fail to see past the religion vs non-religion debate, and realise it is part of a bigger picture.   

The questions "How many people have died in the name of religion...."  or "How many people have been killed by Atheists" is too narrow,  with answers that are easily manipulated by _both_ sides,  with numerous logical fallacies.

You cannot _prove_ that someone killed another person or persons for a sole reason,  because life isn't black and white like that.  It's stupid to try to do so and equally disingenuous to ask it in the first place.

I may or may not have deliberately lured ValueCollector into making a few errors of his own. Others picked them up, despite making the same errors in their own arguments.

Historians (at least good ones), for instance, don't approach the Crusades as _just_ a religious war,  but a conflict fought on economic, social and political grounds. A multitude of causes and effects.

But hey,  if you want to keep playing the "us" vs "them" game,  enjoy it,  but it's really not much more than entertainment and idle banter.


----------



## Tink (18 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Tink, I think you have the deaf ears, no one has yet been able to provide an example of someone who has killed in the name of or for atheism.
> 
> Since you were one of the people that made this claim, I think you need to provide an exampl.




It can't be any more clearer than what Ves pointed out.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 December 2014)

Ves said:
			
		

> But hey, if you want to keep playing the "us" vs "them" game, enjoy it, but it's really not much more than entertainment and idle banter.




Oh no, its much more than that, it's a battle for hearts, minds and souls in the great hereafter, or not as the case may be.


----------



## Value Collector (18 December 2014)

Ves said:


> The questions "How many people have died in the name of religion...."  or "How many people have been killed by Atheists"
> .




the wording of those questions is wrong, and that is what's causing the confusion here.

the first part is right where you asked " how many people have died in the name of religion"

But the second part should be " how many people have died in the name of atheism" not "how many people have been killed by atheists"

Offcourse Atheists have killed people, all sorts of people have killed for all sorts of reasons. The fact that a person who happens to be an atheist kills some one, doesn't at all mean that his or her atheism was the root cause.

In the same manner I am not attributing every murderer who happens to believe in a god to religion. 

eg. the IRA were catholic, but their religion was not the root cause of their actions, so I am not attributing that to religion (I do give religion blame for causing the conflict to drag on for so long, but it wasn't the root cause)

Much like the religion wasn't the root cause of the IRA killings, Atheism wasn't the cause for the communist ones.

So when I say religion is the cause of a lot of killings, saying "but, atheists have killed too" is an invalid reply.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2014)

Mother murders boy to get him into heaven before he can sin.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/mom-kills-son-believing-boy-would-be-better-off-in-heaven/



> A Kansas woman has been charged with first-degree murder after she beat and stabbed her 10-year-old son to death believing the boy would be better off in heaven, free from future suffering.
> 
> Lindsey Blansett was charged with first-degree murder on Tuesday, Dec. 16, after allegedly killing her 10-year-old son, Caleb. Court documents state that on Sunday, December 14, Blansett unlawfully, intentionally and with premeditation killed her son.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ves (19 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> the wording of those questions is wrong, and that is what's causing the confusion here.
> 
> the first part is right where you asked " how many people have died in the name of religion"
> 
> But the second part should be " how many people have died in the name of atheism" not "how many people have been killed by atheists"



I still think the questions themselves are a bit silly.... and mostly pointless.

But if you wish to pursue that line of thinking  (ignoring all other factors),  then why does "atheist" or "atheism" have to appear in the second question at all?   Alternatives could be "godless",  "non-believers",  "those who are not religious"  etc.   Are any of these really meaningful comparisons?  Why hasn't anyone else questioned this?

Sadly,   the way questions are framed,  and the answers these lead to,  have become very important in our society (see the media especially).   This often leads to questionable conclusions.


----------



## Hodgie (19 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Mother murders boy to get him into heaven before he can sin.
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/mom-kills-son-believing-boy-would-be-better-off-in-heaven/




It's a little odd that the Father had no idea that his wife and mother of his son was a religious psychopath that would kill her own child. Surely there would be signs.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2014)

Ves said:


> I still think the questions themselves are a bit silly.... and mostly pointless.
> 
> But if you wish to pursue that line of thinking  (ignoring all other factors),  then why does "atheist" or "atheism" have to appear in the second question at all?   Alternatives could be "godless",  "non-believers",  "those who are not religious"  etc.   Are any of these really meaningful comparisons?  Why hasn't anyone else questioned this?
> 
> Sadly,   the way questions are framed,  and the answers these lead to,  have become very important in our society (see the media especially).   This often leads to questionable conclusions.




atheism has to appear in the sentence because The people I was responding to were accusing atheism of killing more people than religion.

Normally this accusation comes from theists when they are admitting that religion has lead to a lot of killings, but they try and make religion sound less bad by then saying "But atheism has killed a lot more"

My beef with the statement that "atheism has killed more" is that as I have pointed out, atheism is simply one answer to one question. atheism is simply the position of not being convinced a god exists.

There is no direct line from simply not believing in a god to then committing violent crimes, it would take another set of beliefs for you to become convinced that you need to kill people, however religion is not a simple belief that a god exists, it is a multilayer set of beliefs based on texts which have instructions to kill people.

I mean I would be willing to admit that simply believing a god exists is not enough to kill people either, except in cases where people are convinced their private thoughts are a god talking to them, but religion is not simply believing a god exists, its a whole bunch of doctrine and faith beliefs. It's the doctrine and faith in religion that leads to the nasty stuff, atheism has neither of those.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2014)

Hodgie said:


> It's a little odd that the Father had no idea that his wife and mother of his son was a religious psychopath that would kill her own child. Surely there would be signs.




He was probably raised with the idea that religion is a good thing, and faith was a virtue.

Most people look up to people who are church goers as being good people.

It's ironic that the dad said "even during such a trying time, he says his faith is what’s getting him through"

It's like your son dies from a drink driver, and then you say alcohol is getting you through the rough patch.


----------



## Ves (19 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It's the doctrine and faith in religion that leads to the nasty stuff, *atheism has neither of those*.



No it doesn't,   but surely you cannot find me someone who is _just_ an atheist.... so in theory it sounds good,  but in reality it's probably a moot point.  It's the whole pigeon holing / stereotyping and the focusing on minutiae, while ignoring the whole situation in these discussions that makes me shake my head ("Well they are X,  so they may do Y....").  It's the whole can't see the forest for the trees thing...


----------



## bellenuit (19 December 2014)

Ves said:


> No it doesn't,   but surely you cannot find me someone who is _just_ an atheist.... so in theory it sounds good,  but in reality it's probably a moot point.  It's the whole pigeon holing / stereotyping and the focusing on minutiae, while ignoring the whole situation in these discussions that makes me shake my head ("Well they are X,  so they may do Y....").  It's the whole can't see the forest for the trees thing...




In the same context, you cannot find some who _just_ grows a moustache. They have a world view beyond the simple act of growing a moustache. Yet people with moustaches have been responsible for the slaughter of millions. Hitler and Stalin being just two. 

I agree with VC, being and atheist (or having a moustache) are not pertinent in these cases as they are not the motivation of the tyrant. 

Your argument would hold some water if ALL atheists also shared some common other core beliefs. But that is not the case. Some are communist, some fascists, some upholders of democracy. The same goes for scientific, secular and other beliefs. Their opinions on such subjects are as diverse as any other group. As VC says, there is no dogma or doctrine attached to atheism, other than non-belief in a God.

But in the case of religious extremists, they are carrying out in many cases an edict of their doctrine. They may have diverse opinions in some areas, but not in their dogma. That is followed to the word and there can be a direct correlation between that doctrine and their actions.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2014)

Ves said:


> No it doesn't,   but surely you cannot find me someone who is _just_ an atheist.... so in theory it sounds good,  but in reality it's probably a moot point.  ...




Probably not, every atheist would have a load of different opinions. If some one calls them selves an atheist, all you know about them is one piece of information, which is that the don't believe a god exists.

they could be an 

atheist communist
atheist humanist
atheist white supremacy activist
atheist Nazi
atheist libertarian
atheist charity worker
atheist anything

The atheist part alone can not lead to killing, for an atheist to kill, they have to have another unrelated belief eg white supremacy, communist etc.

however someone who is Islamic, can be lead to kill solely by their faith in their religious doctrine, they don't actually need any other belief.

So when I talk about blaming religion I am talking about the situation where it is the religion was the leading factor that has lead to the crime.

If some one was a Christian , eg a member of the IRA, who kills for political reasons, I am not going to blame the Christian faith, because that would be an unfair misrepresentation, but when the theists try and blame atheism for killings done by an atheist communist they are making the same unfair misrepresentation.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Most people look up to people who are church goers as being good people.




Most of them are.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of them are.




yes, but only because people in general are good people. 

Most church goers are good people despite of their religion, not because of it.

I have no doubt that Pav for example is a good guy deep down, Unfortunately he has some bigoted opinions that cause him to lose his shine, and that opinions stem from his religious faith, and unfortunately not even rational, reasoned debate can sway his opinion, because he knows 100% that his god can't be wrong, which to me is sad.

What I don't like is the extra, unearned respect some people give to church goers, because they have a general feeling that church makes people better, which is not the case.

My Dad for example when describing his new neighbour a while back said "he seems like he must be a good guy, he goes to church" that's without even knowing which church he attends, or what his beliefs are. that's the unearned respect I am talking about.

not to mention you can get away with all sorts of crazy if you just tell people you are religious.


----------



## bunyip (19 December 2014)

Hodgie said:


> It's a little odd that the Father had no idea that his wife and mother of his son was a religious psychopath that would kill her own child. Surely there would be signs.



Yes, you'd think so. But the father himself sounds like a bit of a crackpot too, and like most crackpots perhaps he lacked the capacity for clear thinking.


----------



## Hodgie (19 December 2014)

bunyip said:


> Yes, you'd think so. But the father himself sounds like a bit of a crackpot too, and like most crackpots perhaps he lacked the capacity for clear thinking.




Yes that's true, and unfortunate.

I just thought there would have been a big leap between someone that goes to church and follows the word of god to someone able to commit such an atrocity. Are there no prior indications? 

I would have thought there would have at least been a conversation between father and wife about their son and where he is headed in life and how they need to raise the boy to live righteously. No discussion around "hey honey, lets kill our son so that he has save passage into heaven and is unable to commit any sins in his life."

Surely if your wife held the above extreme belief, being married to her and raising a child for the previous 10 years there would be some indication such as prior disciplinary actions or discussions around what to do with their child. 

Also, what of the wife now, if her beliefs are so strong to commit such an act would she now believe that she is doomed to eternal damnation as she has now murdered who child, that's got to be a significant sin.

Or can she just see a priest and confess her sins which will wipe her slate clean and allow her a free pass into the kingdom of heaven? 

Just completely wasted her and her son's one and only life...... I cannot even begin to understand the mind of these people.


----------



## trainspotter (19 December 2014)

Now this is crazy:-



> *The "snake handling" pastor of a small Pentecostal church in Kentucky died after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a weekend church service.*
> 
> Jamie Coots, the pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name in Middlesboro, Ky., was handling a rattlesnake during a service when he was bitten on his right hand Saturday night. But when the ambulance arrived at 8:30 p.m., the EMS team found that Coots had gone home, according to a statement from the Middlesboro Police Department.
> 
> ...




http://abcnews.go.com/US/snake-handling-pentecostal-pastor-dies-snake-bite/story?id=22551754


----------



## Julia (19 December 2014)

bellenuit said:


> In the same context, you cannot find some who _just_ grows a moustache. They have a world view beyond the simple act of growing a moustache. Yet people with moustaches have been responsible for the slaughter of millions. Hitler and Stalin being just two.
> 
> I agree with VC, being and atheist (or having a moustache) are not pertinent in these cases as they are not the motivation of the tyrant.
> 
> ...



+1:  very clear summary.



Value Collector said:


> What I don't like is the extra, unearned respect some people give to church goers, because they have a general feeling that church makes people better, which is not the case.
> 
> My Dad for example when describing his new neighbour a while back said "he seems like he must be a good guy, he goes to church" that's without even knowing which church he attends, or what his beliefs are. that's the unearned respect I am talking about.
> 
> not to mention you can get away with all sorts of crazy if you just tell people you are religious.



You're right.  It's not something I've previously really focused on despite observations that many church goers are actually less charitable and demonstrate less kindness toward others than do people with no loyalty to any religion.



Hodgie said:


> Just completely wasted her and her son's one and only life...... I cannot even begin to understand the mind of these people.



Neither could any rational person, Hodgie.

( I thought it was bad enough when I read in the paper recently that some parents are demanding a general anaesthetic for their children just for a filling, because they don't want the kid to have any negative experiences in life!)


----------



## Macquack (19 December 2014)

Religion should be a extra-curricular activity, like following football, cricket, tennis, golf, darts or what ever you fancy.

Religion should have no place in the formal education system.

Religion should have no place in government.

Feel free to follow any religion you like, as long as you don't bother me.


----------



## Calliope (19 December 2014)

Macquack said:


> Religion should be a extra-curricular activity, like following football, cricket, tennis, golf, darts or what ever you fancy.
> 
> Religion should have no place in the formal education system.
> 
> ...




There are some good things about religion Mac, e.g. Xmas and Easter holidays. They give we atheists an  excuse to get pi$$ed out of our brains, just like the Christians.  I visited my local Dan Murphys today and was lucky to get a parking space.  Xmas in Australia is not about snow and reindeer. It's all about booze. We are the boozy country.

Merry Christmas all.


----------



## Macquack (19 December 2014)

Calliope said:


> There are some good things about religion Mac, e.g. Xmas and Easter holidays. They give we atheists an  excuse to get pi$$ed out of our brains, just like the Christians.  I visited my local Dan Murphys today and was lucky to get a parking space.  Xmas in Australia is not about snow and reindeer. It's all about booze. We are the boozy country.
> 
> Merry Christmas all.




I am warming to you Calliope, you have good intentions but your delivery is a bit harsh (like someone with a South African accent).

Must be that time of the year again, I am starting to like the enemy.


----------



## bunyip (19 December 2014)

Hodgie said:


> Also, what of the wife now, if her beliefs are so strong to commit such an act would she now believe that she is doomed to eternal damnation as she has now murdered who child, that's got to be a significant sin.
> 
> Or can she just see a priest and confess her sins which will wipe her slate clean and allow her a free pass into the kingdom of heaven?




She can if she's a Catholic!


----------



## Calliope (19 December 2014)

Macquack said:


> I am warming to you Calliope, you have good intentions but your delivery is a bit harsh (like someone with a South African accent).
> 
> Must be that time of the year again, I am starting to like the enemy.




I'll drink to that Mac. SkÃ¥l


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2014)

Seems like that woman had her ideology screwed up. Her son was a sinner as soon as he was born and it was up to her to save him. 

I don't think she read her Bible much.


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2014)

Macquack said:


> I am warming to you Calliope, you have good intentions but your delivery is a bit harsh (like someone with a South African accent).
> 
> Must be that time of the year again, I am starting to like the enemy.




There are no enemies here, only frenemies.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 January 2015)

It's amazing that Christians and Muslims to work against atheism, just a shame they can't agree on mor eimportant issues.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-of-god-is-under-threat-globally-9913662.html



> ...Najib Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who has called “humanism and secularism as well as liberalism” a “deviant” threat to Islam and the state. In a speech to the Quran Recital Assembly Razak said: “We will not tolerate any demands or right to apostasy by Muslims.”
> 
> Saudi Arabia is criticised for a new law equating “atheism” with “terrorism”. The very first article of the kingdom’s new terror regulations banned: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion”.






> In November, in a development which the report found particularly worrying, Christian churches in Egypt say they are joining forces with Al-Azhar, a prominent centre of Sunni Muslim learning, to fight the spread of atheism in the country.
> 
> In Saudi Arabia, where a growing number of young people have privately declared themselves atheist, the consequences can be severe. Raef Badawi, in his early 30s, was accused of being atheist because he called for freedom to discuss other versions of Islam besides Wahhabism on the website “Free Saudi Liberals.” Badawi was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes in July 2013.




lest it seems this is islamaphobic



> Even Scotland came under criticism for the religiously privileged position afforded to three “religious representatives” who are required by law to be appointed to all 32 local authority education committees.
> 
> These positions require at least one Roman Catholic and one Church of Scotland representative, but non-religious people are excluded. The report also highlighted the disparity of sex and relationships education, and religious education between Roman Catholic faith schools and others in Scotland.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> It's amazing that Christians and Muslims to work against atheism, just a shame they can't agree on mor eimportant issues.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/how-the-right-to-deny-the-existence-of-god-is-under-threat-globally-9913662.html  lest it seems this is islamaphobic




Could not think of a more important issue than if God exists or not. It determines the basis of entire reality.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2015)

pavilion103 said:


> Could not think of a more important issue than if God exists or not. It determines the basis of entire reality.




It might be more important to live the life of a good and moral person (just because it's a good thing to do) than to enforce harsh and unjust laws against blasphemers.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 January 2015)

pavilion103 said:


> Could not think of a more important issue than if God exists or not. It determines the basis of entire reality.




Can I ask how you get around the whole God is pro slavery issue?

How is the below moral

_When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property_.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

I really want to hear how beating someone close to death, not so they die today but survives for a day or two, what moral code can hold this up as a just way for a society to operate?  I don't need an externally sourced morality to know I don't want to be a slave, therefore other wont want to be a slave.  If you didn't know if you'd be a master or slave, would you want to live in a society with slavery?

So if God foudn it was easy enough to command thou shalt not kill, how hard would it have been to command thou shalt not own another human?

Then we have

_If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever._  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.  What kind of family values are these?  yet this is the infalible word of God condoning slavery.

Now before you try the standard Christian apologetic argument of old vs new testaments, here's what the new scriptures have to say:

_Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  _(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

*Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.*  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I'd suggest you check out the below video and let us know how your morality compares to God's as written down in the infallible book of his



Oh, and have you been able to explain why the earliest version of the bible doesn't refer to the resurrection of Jesus?

The Vatican concedes that Mark was the first Gospel written (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol. vi, p. 657), and that it later became the prototype of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark, we see dramatic variations from its modern-day counterpart with an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith … the resurrection appearances of the Gospel Jesus Christ and his subsequent ascension into heaven.

It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine’s Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering *14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles*.

With the Sinai Bible, Christian history is traced back as far as it can conceivably go, but it was still written, at best, more than 350 years after the time the Vatican says Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine. The ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ agrees to this extraordinary late composition of the world’s oldest Bible:

’_The earliest of the extant manuscripts [relating to Christianity], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD_’.   (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, 1909, ‘Gospels’)


----------



## bunyip (3 January 2015)

Syd – We’d don’t need a morality meter to tell us how moral or immoral we are – we’ve got our own morality meter right here on the forum in the form of our friend Pav. We’re all truly selfish and wicked according to him.

But hang on a minute – what if you’re a person of honesty and integrity who works tirelessly for your community, what if you’re someone like Mother Theresa or Dr Fred Hollows who devoted their lives to helping others, what if you’re a volunteer firefighter or surf lifesaver or you’re in the volunteer coastguard or the SES, or any of the other volunteer services that require you to put your life on the line time and again to save the lives of others? And you’re a person of impeccable character and integrity as well? Doesn’t that count for something?
Nope – doesn’t matter...Pav tells us we’re all selfish and wicked, so we must be!



pavilion103 said:


> If we put mine or yours or anyone's thoughts up on a projector for all to see we would see how truly selfish and wicked we all are at the core.


----------



## bunyip (3 January 2015)

pavilion103 said:


> Could not think of a more important issue than if God exists or not. It determines the basis of entire reality.




I see no importance at all in whether God exists or not. If he/she does exist and is responsible for creating the human race and the world we live in, great. If he/she/it doesn’t exist and we owe our existence to something else, then that’s OK too. 

What’s not OK is when people invent lies to support their belief in God, or when they commit atrocities because they believe that’s what their god wants them to do, or when people like you denounce every person as sinful and wicked because you’ve been brainwashed into believing that God has high standards that nobody can live up to.

Far more important than the brainwashed bull**** you believe in, friend Pav, is that we live our lives as decent people of honesty and integrity. I suggest you keep that in mind as you live your life in 2015 and beyond.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> I see no importance at all in whether God exists or not. If he/she does exist and is responsible for creating the human race and the world we live in, great. If he/she/it doesn’t exist and we owe our existence to something else, then that’s OK too.
> 
> What’s not OK is when people invent lies to support their belief in God, or when they commit atrocities because they believe that’s what their god wants them to do, or when people like you denounce every person as sinful and wicked because you’ve been brainwashed into believing that God has high standards that nobody can live up to.
> 
> Far more important than the brainwashed bull**** you believe in, friend Pav, is that we live our lives as decent people of honesty and integrity. I suggest you keep that in mind as you live your life in 2015 and beyond.




Considering each sect has their own interpretation of what God is and what he wants, it makes it very difficult to determine which, if any, could be true.

Then there's the issue of how mere mortals in the natural world could in any way assess a supernatural event, and even if we could, that wouldn't actually prove it was by God.

I'd love the Christian appologists to provide me with some verifiable proof that God exists.  I don't see why Saul is the only one who gets a direct intervention by God.  Surely a supremely intelligent being would go OH, If I present myself to people they believe.  This faith thing doesn't really work too well, especially since God supposedly gave us free will (except in the case of Pharoh where he hardened his heart, so it's free will till he decides we don't deserve it?) you'd think it's a logical conclusion that presenting verifiable evidence trumps pretty much any other way of getting people to believe.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2015)

sums up 99% of the cause of wars over the last few millennia


----------



## FxTrader (5 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Considering each sect has their own interpretation of what God is and what he wants, it makes it very difficult to determine which, if any, could be true.



All God concepts are essentially man made constructs created to explain existence and intended to provide meaning, purpose, and a sense of order to the cosmos to a cult of believers.  Since there has never been any verifiable, conclusive and irrefutable evidence that any God concept is true or correct then all must be classified as fiction by rational, reasonable persons who are not inclined to suspend their intellect by indulging in faith-based supernatural, metaphysical explanations for existence. 



> Then there's the issue of how mere mortals in the natural world could in any way assess a supernatural event, and even if we could, that wouldn't actually prove it was by God.



In the context of the religious believer, any event that can't be immediately or adequately explained by the existing body of human knowledge or experience is by default supernatural and attributable to their particular God.



> I'd love the Christian appologists to provide me with some verifiable proof that God exists.



You will be waiting in vain since there is none, the religious want to put the onus back on you to prove there is no God and since you can't any mythology is potentially valid and must be a "respected" belief that you have no right to challenge.  As for proof in the form of evidence, it never ceases to amaze me as to what the religious believer will accept as hard "evidence" for believing the fantastic claims scribed in their magic books. Separating human emotion from religious belief is difficult as they are closely intertwined and where strong emotional attachment is involved rational thought is often a casualty.


----------



## Value Collector (5 January 2015)

pavilion103 said:


> Could not think of a more important issue than if God exists or not. It determines the basis of entire reality.




Yes, But before we rush off and join the nearest church or the religion that makes us feel good or even just the religion of our parents or geographic region, wouldn't it be important to try and prove that a god exists first?

The religious folk have the cart before the horse, they all argue that their version of god is the one true reality, yet none of them can prove that a god exists at all, or even that it is possible for a god to exist.

They claim to know the mind of god and what he/she wants of us, but fail to prove this god exists at all.


----------



## bunyip (5 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, But before we rush off and join the nearest church or the religion that makes us feel good or even just the religion of our parents or geographic region, wouldn't it be important to try and prove that a god exists first?
> 
> The religious folk have the cart before the horse, they all argue that their version of god is the one true reality, yet none of them can prove that a god exists at all, or even that it is possible for a god to exist.
> 
> They claim to know the mind of god and what he/she wants of us, but fail to prove this god exists at all.




Pretty much the same story with Heaven. There’s not a shred of evidence that some place called Heaven actually exists, yet they all know they’re going there, and many of them believe they’ll be sitting at the right hand of God their father to help him run his kingdom.
They’ll all live in peace and harmony despite some rather undesirable neighbors such as pedophile priests and bikie thugs and mafia gangster types who booked their passage to heaven by confessing their sins before they died. And let’s not forget all the Muslim terrorists who will be there because they did what Allah commanded.
And overcrowding and the tensions that usually accompany it won’t be an issue apparently, despite the billions and billions of people who have settled permanently in Heaven over the centuries.
Religious differences and tribal tensions won’t be a problem either in this big happy family. Forget about the fact that in the previous life back on Earth, the Jehovah's Witnesses hate the Catholics and the Jews hate the Christians, and the Muslims regard everyone as an infidel unless they're Muslim. None of that will be an issue in Heaven where everyone magically gets on well with everyone else, and life is all roses and honey.

Fair dinkum – not even the fanciful stories from kid’s fairytale books can match the fantastic stories about Heaven.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2015)

I thoroughly recommend ironchariots.org

It's a real treasure trove of the sad arguments provided by theists on their dissembling ways to proving their version of God exists.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Apologetics


----------



## Tisme (5 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What I don't like is the extra, unearned respect some people give to church goers, because they have a general feeling that church makes people better, which is not the case.
> 
> .




Certainly if that person was Jew, Muslim or Catholic, but when it comes to religious lite, like Anglicans and Uniting Church there is s certain amount of belief they are being coached weekly in good manners and harmony with candy canes, fairy floss, Smurphs, unicorns, etc and you can't get more wholesome than that!


----------



## bunyip (5 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Certainly if that person was Jew, Muslim or Catholic, but when it comes to religious lite, like Anglicans and Uniting Church there is s certain amount of belief they are being coached weekly in good manners and harmony with candy canes, fairy floss, Smurphs, unicorns, etc and you can't get more wholesome than that!




Well I grew up in a Methodist family, and then later the Methodists merged with the Presbyterian and Congregational religions to form the Uniting Church of which I became a member. 
And yes, I was coached in good manners and harmony and other desirable behavioral and character traits such as honesty and integrity, but there was never any candy canes or fairy floss of smurphs or unicorns involved.

Unfortunately my religion also fed me a lot of extraordinary claims and beliefs that it was completely unable to substantiate.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Well I grew up in a Methodist family, and then later the Methodists merged with the Presbyterian and Congregational religions to form the Uniting Church of which I became a member.
> And yes, I was coached in good manners and harmony and other desirable behavioral and character traits such as honesty and integrity, but there was never any candy canes or fairy floss of smurphs or unicorns involved.
> 
> Unfortunately my religion also fed me a lot of extraordinary claims and beliefs that it was completely unable to substantiate.




Pretty close to my experience.

Although I didn't mesh with the philosophy, I can't argue with the general decency and citizenship of the people involved in the Uniting church. I presume the Anglicans and Baptists are similar, they are the "middle of the road" Christians, unlike the Hillsongs or Catholics.


----------



## Tisme (5 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Well I grew up in a Methodist family.................but there was never any candy canes or fairy floss of smurphs or unicorns involved.
> 
> .




You were jipped !!!


----------



## bunyip (5 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Pretty close to my experience.
> 
> Although I didn't mesh with the philosophy, I can't argue with the general decency and citizenship of the people involved in the Uniting church. I presume the Anglicans and Baptists are similar, they are the "middle of the road" Christians, unlike the Hillsongs or Catholics.





Same here – I found church goers to be basically pretty good and decent people, an odd bad apple among them, but not many.

But as someone pointed out, most people in sports clubs or other community organizations are decent people too, irrespective of whether they practice a religion.

What are the ‘Hillsongs’?...that’s a new one on me.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> What are the ‘Hillsongs’?...that’s a new one on me.




Pentecostalists, talking in tongues, that sort of thing. Not particularly useful.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Well I grew up in a Methodist family, and then later the Methodists merged with the Presbyterian and Congregational religions to form the Uniting Church of which I became a member.
> And yes, I was coached in good manners and harmony and other desirable behavioral and character traits such as honesty and integrity, but there was never any candy canes or fairy floss of smurphs or unicorns involved.
> 
> Unfortunately my religion also fed me a lot of extraordinary claims and beliefs that it was completely unable to substantiate.




I grew up in the uniting church too.

I think that's partly why it took me so long to really open my eyes and start questioning this faith concept.  Belieft for a reason is fine.  Belief due to ffaith.  Not so much.

Even in uni, when I was marching for the anti-vilification laws, one of the Uniting Church synod was there to say that the church supported our cause, so this gave me a very benign view of religion.

These days I am under no illusion that much of the religous hierarchy would prefer the simpler times of when literacy was the domain of the ruling elite and clergy.  Far easier to keep the masses under control.

When the religous right looks back in history to the dark ages when the Church had nigh on absolute power, do they ever think about how little we achieved?  A near thousand years where science was suppressed.  You don't hear the religious viewng it as not the way to live, and I fear a lot of the extreme religous right are similar to the muslim extremists where they'd like the church and state to be pretty much the same thing again.


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I thoroughly recommend ironchariots.org
> 
> It's a real treasure trove of the sad arguments provided by theists on their dissembling ways to proving their version of God exists.
> 
> http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Apologetics




Yes, I believe that was put together by Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser, both are great free thinkers, I love their work.


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Certainly if that person was Jew, Muslim or Catholic, but when it comes to religious lite, like Anglicans and Uniting Church there is s certain amount of belief they are being coached weekly in good manners and harmony with candy canes, fairy floss, Smurphs, unicorns, etc and you can't get more wholesome than that!




I can't see the word "wholesome" as being applicable to any of the cults.


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I can't argue with the general decency and citizenship of the people involved in the Uniting church. I presume the Anglicans and Baptists are similar, they are the "middle of the road" Christians, unlike the Hillsongs or Catholics.




I believe the vast majority of people, regardless of creed, are good decent people, common decency is not something we should give credit to religion for.

To the point that religious folk maintain some form of common decency, they maintain it despite their religion, not because of it.

Even the Catholics and the hill songs would have a lot of good people as members, just like the local bowls club, bridge club or swimming club.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2015)

funny that he kids don't mention religion as the reason to not slap the girl.

[video=youtube_share;b2OcKQ_mbiQ]http://youtu.be/b2OcKQ_mbiQ[/video]


----------



## pixel (8 January 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/07/shooting-paris-satirical-magazine-charlie-hebdo

Charlie Hebdo attack: 12 dead at Paris offices of satirical magazine – live updates

It seems Christians are a lot more forgiving.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...SLdDo8AWd74CYCg&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1044&bih=894


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

pixel said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/07/shooting-paris-satirical-magazine-charlie-hebdo
> 
> Charlie Hebdo attack: 12 dead at Paris offices of satirical magazine – live updates
> 
> ...




I wouldn't say they are more forgiving, never forget how they acted when they truly had the power to do what they wanted. Christians have just been been stripped of their authority by secular society over the last couple of centuries, so the majority no longer feel entitled to attack unbelievers publicly, however when you talk to the Christian fundies, you do get a feeling that they long for the days when they could push secular society into the corner and dominate again.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> funny that he kids don't mention religion as the reason to not slap the girl.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;b2OcKQ_mbiQ]http://youtu.be/b2OcKQ_mbiQ[/video]




At the 2.40 mark one kid does mention Jesus as being the reason, It does make me wonder whether if we showed that kid some other bible versus, we could convince him to do some horrible things to her.

The other kids would not be so easily swayed by religious texts I think.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2015)

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-gay-programming-assaulting-your-home-132277/



> Here's how Hollywood is promoting homosexuality right now:
> 
> 
> Super hyped "Empire" series starts with Oscar nominee Terrence Howard having a homosexual son - and he's a hunk.
> ...


----------



## pixel (11 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-gay-programming-assaulting-your-home-132277/




Great news!
One small, but effective step to curb population growth.


----------



## burglar (11 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-gay-programming-assaulting-your-home-132277/




Are You Aware of the Avalanche of Gay Programming Assaulting Your Home?

Yes, I am aware, ... do I care? NO!

Why do I not care, ... because:

I like Ellen. 
I like my hairdresser.
I like my friend who is overtly camp.

I have an OFF button on my TV.
I can change my hairdresser.
I can avoid my camp friend.


Are You Aware of the Avalanche of Advertising Assaulting Your Home?


----------



## pixel (11 January 2015)

burglar said:


> Are You Aware of the Avalanche of Gay Programming Assaulting Your Home?
> 
> Yes, I am aware, ... do I care? NO!
> 
> ...




LOL, burglar!
Love it! 

That aside: Hasn't the Pope himself recently acknowledged that Gays and Lesbians are humans too? They're even rumoured to have souls! What'll be the next revelation? :1zhelp:


----------



## Tink (11 January 2015)

Let your past make you BETTER, not BITTER.


----------



## bunyip (11 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Hasn't the Pope himself recently acknowledged that Gays and Lesbians are humans too? They're even rumoured to have souls! What'll be the next revelation? :1zhelp:




I know a few homosexual people, and yes they're human beings, in fact far better human beings than the many pedophile Catholic priests and the low down vermin higher up the ladder in the RCC who protect them.


----------



## Tisme (11 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> I know a few homosexual people, and yes they're human beings, in fact far better human beings than the many pedophile Catholic priests and the low down vermin higher up the ladder in the RCC who protect them.




I don't know any pedophile catholic priests, but let's say they rank 0.1 and heteros are a 10, where would you put homosexual people?


----------



## bunyip (11 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I don't know any pedophile catholic priests, but let's say they rank 0.1 and heteros are a 10, where would you put homosexual people?




I’m not interested in rating anyone on a score of 1 to 10 – if they’re decent people of good character then they have my respect regardless of their sexuality.


----------



## bunyip (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I don't know any pedophile catholic priests, but let's say they rank 0.1 and heteros are a 10, where would you put homosexual people?






bunyip said:


> I’m not interested in rating anyone on a score of 1 to 10 – if they’re decent people of good character then they have my respect regardless of their sexuality.




Further to the above – I’d say that anyone who rates people 10 out of 10 because they’re heterosexual is extremely naÃ¯ve. Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin were heterosexual, so was Al Capone.


----------



## StockTrader010 (12 January 2015)

http://www.news.com.au/world/charli...nd-across-france/story-fndir2ev-1227181745473

I really wonder how long it will take before its business as usual again :shake:


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> I’m not interested in rating anyone on a score of 1 to 10 – if they’re decent people of good character then they have my respect regardless of their sexuality.




I was trying to draw you attention to your post, indeed implicitly grouping and decency rating one of greater standing, in your eyes, to another. 

What of the homosexual priests who aren't overtly kiddy fiddlers; the priests who aren't kiddy fiddlers nor homosexuals, the hetrosexuals who are kiddy fiddlers (oxymoron), etc. etc.  The permutations are vast and the abhorrence subjective amongst observing individuals; e.g. a Roman Catholic might not look on a paedophile priest with the same disgust as say you and I; in parts of the blind eyed Arab states and South East Asia male children are prey for otherwise pillars and purveyors of the faith.

I have known homosexuals who are not good character, not pleasant and would require adults around, when in proximity of children.


----------



## bunyip (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I was trying to draw you attention to your post, indeed implicitly grouping and decency rating one of greater standing, in your eyes, to another.
> 
> What of the homosexual priests who aren't overtly kiddy fiddlers; the priests who aren't kiddy fiddlers nor homosexuals, the hetrosexuals who are kiddy fiddlers (oxymoron), etc. etc.  The permutations are vast and the abhorrence subjective amongst observing individuals; e.g. a Roman Catholic might not look on a paedophile priest with the same disgust as say you and I; in parts of the blind eyed Arab states and South East Asia male children are prey for otherwise pillars and purveyors of the faith.
> 
> I have known homosexuals who are not good character, not pleasant and would require adults around, when in proximity of children.




Pedophile priests prey on little kids who can't defend themselves. None of the homosexuals I personally know do that. And they're decent people as well. They therefore have my respect, whereas pedophiles do not, regardless of whether they're priests or otherwise.
Not all homosexuals are decent people, nor are all heteros. 
So I say again, I respect decent people of good character - their sexuality is neither here nor there to me.
For the record, my wife and I have four kids and we've been married for more than thirty years. Neither of us has ever had any tendency towards homosexuality. 
There was a time when I looked down my nose at homosexuals, but not any more. These days I realize that their sexuality is something they didn't choose, just as I didn't choose to be heterosexual - it just happened that way.
Religions will have more credibility when they start to think the same way, and stop condemning homosexuals for being what they didn't choose to be.
If a person is of decent character, then who cares whether he or she is more interested in blokes or sheilas.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> If a person is of decent character, then who cares whether he or she is more interested in blokes or sheilas.




Hey I'm not riding the discrimination pony, just getting tired at "those" people being defended into untouchable tribes.

My views are well known to people like Rumpole and they are my views alone.

Last week I was at a wedding that included two friends in their fifties who are coupled. The DJ was playing disco, a sure sign I should bust some moves and like bees to honey for "those" types.  They just stayed put so after an hour of making John Travolta look like Kel Night I asked them why they weren't dancing and the stubborn reply was predicable, so I said I would dance with them if that was all they were worried about ... in the end my daughter dragged one up on the dance floor and the self imposed exile ended without even a whimper, apology or defence.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Hey I'm not riding the discrimination pony, just getting tired at "those" people being defended into untouchable tribes.
> 
> My views are well known to people like Rumpole and they are my views alone.
> 
> Last week I was at a wedding that included two friends in their fifties who are coupled. The DJ was playing disco, a sure sign I should bust some moves and like bees to honey for "those" types.  They just stayed put so after an hour of making John Travolta look like Kel Night I asked them why they weren't dancing and the stubborn reply was predicable, so I said I would dance with them if that was all they were worried about ... in the end my daughter dragged one up on the dance floor and the self imposed exile ended without even a whimper, apology or defence.




I think what most of us want is to be able to get on with our lives without having other people's sexuality, religion or politics stuffed down our throats. OK, we can debate those things here, and that's our choice, but to hell with religious and political doorknockers and gay groups prancing down public streets in gold lame. Do what you want to do in private, I don't want to know about people's private lives.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> My views are well known to people like Rumpole and they are my views alone




Well it takes one to know one

The following mangled sentence looks like gibberish to me.:screwy: Perhaps your soul mate rumpy could interpret.



> The DJ was playing disco, a sure sign I should bust some moves and like bees to honey for "those" types.


----------



## bunyip (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Hey I'm not riding the discrimination pony, just getting tired at "those" people being defended into untouchable tribes.
> 
> My views are well known to people like Rumpole and they are my views alone.
> 
> Last week I was at a wedding that included two friends in their fifties who are coupled. The DJ was playing disco, a sure sign I should bust some moves and like bees to honey for "those" types.  They just stayed put so after an hour of making John Travolta look like Kel Night I asked them why they weren't dancing and the stubborn reply was predicable, so I said I would dance with them if that was all they were worried about ... in the end my daughter dragged one up on the dance floor and the self imposed exile ended without even a whimper, apology or defence.




Sounds a bit like you're stoned!


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

Snowmen condemned in Saudi Arabia amid concern they 'promote lustiness and eroticism'




> A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, describing them as anti-Islamic.
> 
> When asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."
> 
> ...




Oh dear, snowmen put on ice in Saudi Arabia. Sounds as cold there as the heart of a Muslim cleric.


----------



## bunyip (13 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Snowmen condemned in Saudi Arabia amid concern they 'promote lustiness and eroticism'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sick, joyless nut cases!


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2015)

How any member of the Catholic church can be mute over this kind of bat sh!te crazy stuff is beyond me

http://www.newemangelization.com/un...-catholic-man-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/

You know, 2000 odd years of male domination at the Church undown within a few decades of feminism



> Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men;






> The goodness and importance of men became very obscured, and for all practical purposes, were not emphasized at all.




GASP.  Woman are just _everywhere _in the Church



> The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.




Oh to go back tot he good old days when woman, like children, were to be seen and not heard.



> The introduction of girl servers also led many boys to abandon altar service. Young boys don’t want to do things with girls. It’s just natural. The girls were also very good at altar service. So many boys drifted away over time. *I want to emphasize that the practice of having exclusively boys as altar servers has nothing to do with inequality of women in the Church.*




Those pesky feminists are to be blame for the woes of priest molesting children



> We can also see that our seminaries are beginning to attract many strong young men who desire to serve God as priests. The new crop of young men are manly and confident about their identity. This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.




Throw in a request for woman to start covering up a bit more and he starts to sounds a lot like....


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

> The girls were also very good at altar service. So many boys drifted away over time.




I don't think I need to say anything, those words speak for themselves.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How any member of the Catholic church can be mute over this kind of bat sh!te crazy stuff is beyond me
> 
> http://www.newemangelization.com/un...-catholic-man-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/
> 
> ...




The thing is that the Taliban, Boko Haram and other Islamic sects feel compelled to keep girls illiterate and obedient to stop the influence of women, the decline in fertility rates and freedom of expression.

This guy is probably more in tune with the unveiling future of religious states than we are.


----------



## bunyip (13 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How any member of the Catholic church can be mute over this kind of bat sh!te crazy stuff is beyond me
> 
> http://www.newemangelization.com/un...-catholic-man-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/




These old fuddy duddies pulling the strings are the reason that the Catholic Church is so backward.
It’s clear that blokes like this are absolutely determined to hang on to power by ensuring that the RCC remains a boys club that excludes women from positions of authority. 
Catholics themselves are at least partly responsible for this sorry state of affairs due to their practice of crediting priests with powers they don’t have, fawning on them and putting them up on a pedestal.
For example, look at the words with which the interviewer opened the interview....‘_Your Eminence, we are delighted and blessed to be here with you’. _
It’s this kind of fawning, grovelling language that makes priests feel important and convinces them that they deserve all the hero worship and adulation, and are worthy of the high office they hold.
The reality is that Catholic priests are just ordinary people who are not chosen by God, have no divine powers and are no more worthy of hero worship than anyone else. Until the average run of the mill Catholic realizes this and lays off with the hero worship routine, men will continue to hold the positions of power in the Catholic church at the expense of women, and the church will continue to be pretty much as backward as it’s always been.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> The reality is that Catholic priests are just ordinary people who are not chosen by God, have no divine powers and are no more worthy of hero worship than anyone else.




Don't forget that the Pope is God's go to man on earth, so if he says it's so then it must be so


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

Christian Violence.

Christian Paster Punches a child in the chest.


----------



## bunyip (14 January 2015)

Here is one man's views on the so-called 'religion of peace'. 
You can decide for yourselves whether there's any truth in what he's saying.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYu_bHu6sUc?feature=player_embedded


----------



## Boggo (14 January 2015)

Peace


----------



## lindsayf (14 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How any member of the Catholic church can be mute over this kind of bat sh!te crazy stuff is beyond me
> 
> http://www.newemangelization.com/un...-catholic-man-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/
> 
> ...




yes really mind numbing that this kind of logic doesnt result in mass exodus from Catholicism.  All the past clergy pedophiles will now be able to take solace knowing it was not their wrong doing - it was those damn feminists that caused them to do it and the church hierarchy understand and are supportive of them.  And the current fiddlers will also be able to console themselves likewise.  It is a type of naive and un intelligent blame shifting that occurs commonly with those with no personal insight, even less emotional maturity and a depraved and distorted moral code to boot.


----------



## bunyip (15 January 2015)

Some of the rituals in the Catholic religion are quite bizarre.
My missus grew up as a Catholic in Ireland and she’s full of tales about crazy stuff they used to do in the name of their religion and because their priest more or less told them that’s what was expected of them. And priests being the important men they are, chosen by God and blessed with divine powers, you didn’t question what they told you to do.
One of the rituals they repeated at the same time each year was to walk up a mountain that had a man made monument on top of it as a tribute to God. Some of the people used to take off their shoes before starting the climb, so their feet were cut and bleeding by the time they reached the top. The more cut and bleeding you were, the more your soul was purged of the evil things you’d done. 
Once at the top, the next step in the ritual was to walk around the monument several times *on your knees* while you asked God to cleanse your soul, and at the same time you could ask God for any blessings or favors that you thought you were worthy of.
Once again, the more you bled the more you were purged of sin, and the greater your chance of gaining favor with God and therefore being welcomed into his heavenly realm in the next life.

Ring kissing was another ritual......the Bishop was a man of God who possessed divine powers, so you never missed a chance to kiss the Bishop’s ring as a way of getting his blessing, and therefore enhancing your chances of making it into heaven after your time on Earth was done. The old Bishop would stand there feeling mighty important with his ring hand stuck out, and the people would file past one by one to lay a kiss on his ring, do a bit of a bow to show their respect, make the sign of the cross on their breast, and then head for the village pub!

It was always the village priest who would be pressuring his flock into joining in these rituals, and making it clear that they’d gain God’s favor and blessing if they did, and his disapproval if they didn’t. And God’s disapproval wasn’t something any sane Catholic would want.

As my wife grew up she increasingly questioned whether there was any point to all this nonsense, and by young adulthood she was so disillusioned with Catholicism that she was seriously thinking of giving it away. She consulted a number of priests to discuss her feelings, and every one of them said it was Satan’s influence that was making her question her religion, she was blessed to be born a Catholic, and the only way to defeat Satan and ensure her place in Heaven was to question nothing, but to believe everything her Catholic religion taught her. 
My wife tuned her back on Catholicism shortly after that, and has never returned to it.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2015)

Numbers 21:8

"And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”
"

Its amazing how few Christians actually try that trick


----------



## bunyip (15 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Numbers 21:8
> 
> "And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”
> "
> ...




And yet there's still the odd dingbat who welcomes snake bite and believes that his god will save him.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/snake-handling-pentecostal-pastor-dies-snake-bite/story?id=22551754


----------



## lindsayf (15 January 2015)

wow that is a perfect example of crazy.
About 150 churches in the states currently use venomous snakes in religious rituals and there have been several deaths ( surprise surprise).


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

lindsayf said:


> wow that is a perfect example of crazy.
> About 150 churches in the states currently use venomous snakes in religious rituals and there have been several deaths ( surprise surprise).




I like the idea. Under Darwin's principles it just another way of weeding out the idiots. Go snakes


----------



## sydboy007 (15 January 2015)

how the pastor has the gall to call himself a Christian is beyond me

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...funeral-service-because-woman?source=infinite



> LAKEWOOD ”” Hundreds of Vanessa Collier's friends and family gathered Saturday at New Hope Ministries, sitting before an open casket that held the woman they loved, when suddenly the minister overseeing her funeral stopped the service.
> 
> The memorial could not continue, Pastor Ray Chavez said, as long as pictures of Collier with the love of her life, the spouse she shared two children with, were to be displayed.
> 
> Chavez said there could be no images of Collier with her wife, Christina. There could be no indication that Collier was gay.




It takes a special kind of meanness to do this to grieving people.


----------



## lindsayf (15 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> It takes a special kind of meanness to do this to grieving people.




yes, a kind of bovine meanness underpinned by a sociopathic and grandiose outlook that is fed by a silly hierarchy that cherry picks from a dangerous ambiguous stone age book.


----------



## bunyip (15 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> how the pastor has the gall to call himself a Christian is beyond me
> 
> http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...funeral-service-because-woman?source=infinite
> 
> ...




Somebody should have KO'd that pastor and then the service could have continued without him.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> how the pastor has the gall to call himself a Christian is beyond me
> 
> http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...funeral-service-because-woman?source=infinite
> 
> ...




Wouldn't you think the relatives would have checked up with the pastor on his attitude first ? 

It's not unknown that churches don't like gays, and you don't need a Minister to perform a service. I don't recall any Ministers at Gough Whitlam's service and he wasn't gay.

So why gays want to have anything to do with churches anyway is beyond my understanding.


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So why gays want to have anything to do with churches anyway is beyond my understanding.




It's gradually changing, at least among the congregation and some front line priests. This would not have happened 20 years ago in "Catholic" Ireland.

*Dublin priest says he is gay during Mass – receives standing ovation*

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/po...y-during-Mass--receives-standing-ovation.html


----------



## Tink (15 January 2015)

Marriage is what they don't agree with, in the Church.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> It's gradually changing, at least among the congregation and some front line priests. This would not have happened 20 years ago in "Catholic" Ireland.
> 
> *Dublin priest says he is gay during Mass – receives standing ovation*




Yes. The Times are a-Changing


*Vatican Buys Europe’s Biggest Gay Bathhouse*



> The Catholic Church recently bought a $30 million share of real estate in Rome — including the largest gay sauna in Europe.
> Have they no shame?! (Wait, don’t answer that.)
> 
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-europes-biggest-gay-bathhouse/#ixzz3OshONu2a


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Marriage is what they don't agree with, in the Church.




Yes, but this front line priest's sermon was in support of gay marriage. They also don't agree with gays having gay sex. They will (reluctantly) accept that you can be gay, but don't allow gays to enjoy their sexuality.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> They also don't agree with gays having gay sex. They will (reluctantly) accept that you can be gay, but don't allow gays to enjoy their sexuality.




Ah, but once they savour the multiple delights of gay bath-houses, I am sure that they will adapt and enjoy gay sexuality, and paedophilia will become passÃ©.


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Ah, but once they savour the multiple delights of gay bath-houses, I am sure that they will adapt and enjoy gay sexuality, and paedophilia will become passÃ©.




I am sure that gay clergy have been savouring the delights of gay bath houses for years, but your statement would imply that the paedophile priests are actually latent gays which I think is an unfair slur on the gay community. I assume it was not your intention to convey that meaning.


----------



## Calliope (16 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I am sure that gay clergy have been savouring the delights of gay bath houses for years, but your statement would imply that the paedophile priests are actually latent gays which I think is an unfair slur on the gay community. I assume it was not your intention to convey that meaning.




You assume correctly. I implied nothing of the sort, and how and why you would make that inference is an indication of your mind-set.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2015)

> but your statement would imply that the paedophile priests are actually latent gays which I think is an unfair slur on the gay community.




What evidence do you have to rule out that possibility ?

Pedophiles can be both gay and heterosexual. I see no reason to exculpate one or the other from the goings on in the Catholic church or elsewhere.


----------



## Tink (16 January 2015)

Bellenuit, I understand what you are saying, and of course you will have priests etc speak out, but as you know, the core values of the Church is family (mother, father, children), standing up for all life, and the common good in society.
A healthy society where families stay together to raise their children.

Marriage is a vow, not a document.
I cannot see the Church changing.
If that is what the Church teaches, then the homosexuals need to respect and understand what they stand for, when it comes to Marriage.

As for homosexuals being priests, who knows. 
One thing all these people have in common, they are all human.

Homosexuality, paedophilia, incest, polygamy, are all sexual orientations which the Church banned many years ago for a healthy and civil society.

If a human is a 'slave to sex', then they are listening to their tribal urges, we move down to being no different to animals, but as I have said, it happens in society, and they accept all sorts in and out of the Church.

They know what revolves in the community, and that's not saying, right, wrong or indifferent.

A slur on the gay community, sorry, I won't write a PC note as the ABC did, down the bottom to apologise for anyone that has done wrong in society, that includes priests or homosexuals or anyone else, but one thing I will say, I know a lot of priests and nuns that have done a lot in society for their community, working tirelessly in some dangerous situations, and they don't deserve all being put in the same basket because of a few.

Sadly, we don't seem to run on consistency.


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What evidence do you have to rule out that possibility ?
> 
> Pedophiles can be both gay and heterosexual. I see no reason to exculpate one or the other from the goings on in the Catholic church or elsewhere.




Bingo! 

Headworms are not the exclusive domain of social disgraces, they are the route cause.


And to the post regarding the pastor who quite the gay service ..... anyone who knows anything about the USA knows that he would have been the victim of tom foolery, because most of 'em are strictly to the bible when it comes to homosexuality (be friendly, but no divine rights/rites).


----------



## bunyip (16 January 2015)

Tink said:


> I know a lot of priests and nuns that have done a lot in society for their community, working tirelessly in some dangerous situations, and they don't deserve all being put in the same basket because of a few.




Fair comments, Tink.  There are indeed many decent priests and nuns who dedicate their lives to helping other people. It’s a pity that the actions of a few bad apples tarnish the image of the majority.
I always feel it’s a shame that decent priests and nuns can’t come home to a wife/husband and children at the end of each day’s work of helping people, and have the support/love/companionship that a well balanced family life offers.

Maybe I’ve asked you this before, if I have then I don’t recall your answer...would you be in favor of allowing Catholic priests and nuns to marry and have children?


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2015)

Tink said:


> the core values of the Church is family (mother, father, children), standing up for all life,




$1,000 could not only save the life of a starving child in a third world country, but also possibly create an opportunity for that child to get an education and eventually become self sufficient. I don't have the data to support that figure, but it is in the ball park of figures touted by Oxfam and Save The Children when they are looking for donations. Now I know there are many third world countries where monetary support is currently not possible because of wars etc,. but there are many where it could be made. I will accept that the Church stands up for all life when it starts spending its vast wealth, currently held in art collections, buildings etc., on saving the lives of these children. You will hear the arguments that they don't own the wealth, but are just holding it for the benefit of mankind etc. (preserving art), but I don't recall Jesus ever saying that is what he expected of his followers. Quite the opposite, if you listen to the Sermon On The Mount. Millions of starving kids could be saved by the Vatican if it so wished, but they prefer to not spend their own wealth, but ask its congregations to do the good deeds for them, for which they then take credit.  



> Marriage is a vow, not a document.
> I cannot see the Church changing.
> If that is what the Church teaches, then the homosexuals need to respect and understand what they stand for, when it comes to Marriage.




Nobody is asking the church to change at all. It is the civil aspect of marriage that is being opened up to homosexuals. The Church can decide who the "Sacrament"of marriage can be given too.  



> Homosexuality, paedophilia, incest, polygamy, are all sexual orientations which the Church banned many years ago for a healthy and civil society.




The ban on paedophilia and incest are primarily to protect children and in the latter case also potential offspring. Polygamy is banned to protect the wives. Homosexuality between consenting adults is not a danger to anyone and has been happening for as long as humans have been around. 

As an aside, I saw an interesting quote the other day. "Homosexuality is known to occur in at least 140 species of animal. Homophobia occurs in just one. Which of the two is really *unnatural*"



> If a human is a 'slave to sex', then they are listening to their tribal urges, we move down to being no different to animals




We are not talking about being a slave to sex. Sexual feelings between homosexuals are the same as between heterosexuals and they have as much right to enjoy their sexuality with those they love as heterosexuals have. We are all primarily "sexual" beings and that is what sustains our species. 



> A slur on the gay community, sorry, I won't write a PC note as the ABC did,




That wasn't directed at you at all. 



> I know a lot of priests and nuns that have done a lot in society for their community, working tirelessly in some dangerous situations




I too. In fact I have 4 aunts who are nuns (now deceased) and they dedicated their whole lives to others. One at the age of 17 was sent to Thailand (and at that time had to wear the same heavy habits as they did back in Ireland) and dedicated her whole life to teaching blind children. She spent about 70 years there, returned home just twice and was buried outside Bangkok. Another was in China and was expelled when the Maoists took over. She and 3 others were told to cross into Hong Kong over some bridge from the mainland and up until they reached the border post on the other side, they were expecting to get a bullet in the back.



> and they don't deserve all being put in the same basket because of a few.




I never have put them all in the same basket.


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What evidence do you have to rule out that possibility ?
> 
> Pedophiles can be both gay and heterosexual. I see no reason to exculpate one or the other from the goings on in the Catholic church or elsewhere.




Of course there is no fixed boundary that says you can only be one or the other. Just as there is no boundary between any sexual orientation (even between homosexuals and heterosexuals - it is a continuos scale as is evidenced by much research). My comment was that the statement suggested that all paedophiles are latent homosexuals and would be practising homosexuality had they the opportunity.


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> My comment was that the statement suggested that all paedophiles are latent homosexuals and would be practising homosexuality had they the opportunity.




Just to get that straight (pun) are you saying that a male (adult) penetrating another male (child) is not a homosexual act?


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Just to get that straight (pun) are you saying that a male (adult) penetrating another male (child) is not a homosexual act?




Although the act is homosexual in nature, it does not imply that the paedophile is homosexual. It's far more complex than that. Homosexuality is an orientation, paedophelia is a disorder. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners. It is the age that is important to them, not the sex of the child. These two sources will explain it better than I can.

_The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
_
.....

_The important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women._

....

_Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)._

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

_One of the world's foremost experts on the subject of pedophilia is Fred Berlin. Here's a summation of his view:

According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children. ~ Time

The simplest understanding of this, and a very correct understanding is to see that sexual abuse isn't about sexual orientation or sexual attraction. Unattractive people are often victims of sexual abuse and sexual violence. Sexual violence and abuse is about power, domination, and control. It's not about sexual attraction._

....

_The US Catholic Bishops commissioned a study on priestly child sex abuse from John Jay College. John Jay researcher Margaret Smith reported back to the Bishops on early findings from their study. From the USA Today:

We do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now ... *It's important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior. Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity*.

From the same article:

In the book Mental Disorders of the New Millennium (2006), author and psychology professor Thomas Plante writes:

*Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed*. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasonsÃ‚  that include easier access to boys ... pregnancy fears with female victims ... homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes_

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/18/903178/-Gays-are-pedophiles-No-Here-s-the-proof#


----------



## Ruby (18 January 2015)

Tink said:


> ............... but as you know, the core values of the Church is family (mother, father, children) .................




Tink, I don't know how many times  I have read in your posts "the catholic church is all about family...."

The Catholic church is all about power and control - nothing else.  All through history the church has sought to control its adherents through guilt and fear, and in doing so has gained immense power and wealth - and that is how it plans to stay.  

Untold misery has been visited on families because people had to obey the dictates of their priests or suffer dreadful retribution.   Just look at recent times at how families have had to suffer from too many pregnancies, too many children they couldn't afford, women old and worn out before their time from constant childbearing - all because birth control was banned.   This did not promote family happiness or well being.  And I am not talking about catholic Ireland - I talking about families I knew or know about in the 1960's in Brisbane.  Church control in this department was alive and flourishing.  Women who were known by their priests to be on birth control were made to feel terrible guilt and refused communion - refused the so-called loving family of the church.

All through the paedophilia saga the church has cared little for the families which have been destroyed - but has done everything to cover its own backside and maintain its power. 

In fact I would go so far as to say that the church has interfered in family life to the detriment of families - not for their well-being.   If the church cares about families why are priest and nuns not allowed to marry and enjoy the fulfilment family life can offer?

That is not to say there are not priests and nuns in the church who care about families, but the church hierarchy, the Vatican, the people in power care not a fig.


----------



## Tink (19 January 2015)

Bellenuit, thanks for sharing about your aunts.

We have had this gay marriage debate already, and its not just the religious that have their views.

Just a quick note, in that list, two are now legal, incest and homosexuality.

With pr0n and sexuality on the rise as you say, we now have child pornography, which is rife.

I will leave it at that.


----------



## bunyip (19 January 2015)

Ruby said:


> Tink, I don't know how many times  I have read in your posts "the catholic church is all about family...."
> 
> The Catholic church is all about power and control - nothing else.  All through history the church has sought to control its adherents through guilt and fear, and in doing so has gained immense power and wealth - and that is how it plans to stay.
> 
> ...



Ruby – I commend you on an absolutely top notch post. 
As a young woman my wife worked as a midwife in Glasgow, Scotland – a strongly Catholic and low socio-economic city at the time. Time and again in the maternity unit she nursed women who’d had countless children, had serious medical problems and were advised to either take contraceptives or undergo sterilization, because having another baby would put the life of both mother and baby at serious risk. The family's priest however would be adamant that she must not follow the doctor’s advice, but instead should let nature take its course because that was God’s will.
Quite apart from the health issues, many of these families were living in poverty and were simply unable to properly look after their large broods of children.
This blatant hypocrisy and complete disdain for the wellbeing of families by the Catholic church was one of the many reasons my wife abandoned Catholicism not long after that.

This is in my opinion one of the reasons why priests should be allowed to marry and have children –  the responsibilities and experiences of marriage and parenthood would make them better balanced men with a true appreciation of all that’s involved in being a spouse and parent. I believe they’d have very different ideas and attitudes as a result.

I’m looking forward to Tink’s response to your post. It’s going to be interesting to see if she’s honest enough to acknowledge the truths you’ve outlined, or whether she’ll refute them and back her opinions with solid argument. Then again, maybe she’ll choose the easy way out by saying nothing, as she’s done in response to my question on whether she thinks Catholic priests and nuns should be allowed to marry.


----------



## Ruby (19 January 2015)

Bunyip - Tink won't reply.  She never responds to a challenge.  She will just keep coming back with the same old stuff "the church is all about family...." and happily keep wearing her blinkers.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 January 2015)

Tink said:


> If a human is a 'slave to sex', then they are listening to their tribal urges, we move down to being no different to animals, but as I have said, it happens in society, and they accept all sorts in and out of the Church.




I would think uncontrolled births are far more a sign of being no different to animals.

Popping out as many offspring as one can, with no thought as to how they are to be feed and looked after, no thought as to how the environment will cope to support the even expanding population, that's more in tune with a rabbit or rat than an evolved species able to use some rational thought as to the consequences of such a life choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the Catholic church see sex primarily for procreation.  Sex for enjoyment, while a secondary considering in terms of maintaining a loving marriage, cannot occur if there's some form of contraception because love is by it's very nature life giving.  It wasn't until the 18th century that the church moved away from sex was solely for procreation, but it is still viewed as being the primary reason.

That view to me is the more animalistic.  Sex to overpopulate an already overpopulated world is what rodents and rabbits would do.  They'd keep on popping out the offspring till environmental collapse wipes them out.

To me, rising above that animal instinct and recognising that limiting the number of offspring is not only good for the parents, but for the current and future generations, well that's what you seem to be calling against, at least if you follow your religious dogma.


----------



## Calliope (20 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> To me, rising above that animal instinct and recognising that limiting the number of offspring is not only good for the parents, but for the current and future generations, well that's what you seem to be calling against, at least if you follow your religious dogma.




Syd, I am surprised that you consider that you have the right to lecture Tink on "rising above the animal instinct" and "limiting the number of off-spring''. This is pure hypocricy. It's so easy for you as a gay to exercise *your *animal instincts and yet reduce *your* off-spring to nil.


----------



## Bintang (20 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Syd, I am surprised that you consider that you have the right to lecture Tink on "rising above the animal instinct" and "limiting the number of off-spring''. This is pure hypocricy. It's so easy for you as a gay to exercise *your *animal instincts and yet reduce *your* off-spring to nil.




Well actually I think that's a good thing. We were heading for overpopulation even before muslim fertility rates started making it worse. So anything or anyone that helps mitigate that is welcome.


----------



## bunyip (20 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Syd, I am surprised that you consider that you have the right to lecture Tink on "rising above the animal instinct" and "limiting the number of off-spring''. This is pure hypocricy. It's so easy for you as a gay to exercise *your *animal instincts and yet reduce *your* off-spring to nil.




Syd makes a good point though, doesn’t he Calliope? The ‘no birth control’ policy of the Catholic church does encourage Catholics to breed like rabbits, without consideration for the consequences, how they’ll look after their offspring etc.
The ability to think things through in advance of actions that many have potentially negative consequences, and the ability to plan to avoid those negative consequences, is just one of the many things that separates humans from the other animals.
Seems to me that Syd is right in suggesting that if we practice ‘open slather’ breeding without thought for the consequences, then in this regard at least we're not showing any more intelligence than rats or rabbits.

Whether Syd has the right to ‘lecture’ Tink is a separate issue. He does however have the right to express an opinion in response to what Tink or anyone else has said. Some people would say that from time to time Tink herself has resorted to ‘lecturing’ people on morals.


----------



## Tink (20 January 2015)

Sorry I didn't reply yesterday, bunyip, but I was on a tablet which I find pretty frustrating without a proper keyboard.

I don't really have an opinion if they should be married or not, as they do have a calling from God to work for the benefit of the community.

I agree that we are all entitled to our opinions, and thankfully we have freedom of speech in this country, though I still think Abbott should change 18C.

I suppose it is how you look at it, syd, sacrifice and boundaries, do people know those words today?

If you talk to families with many children that grew up in the 60's or whatever, I am sure they can tell you they had happy homes with their siblings. 
There may not have been much in monetary terms, but they were happy.
A lot was homebaked, and they appreciated a lot more.

I was in here answering a question to bellenuit, that the homosexuals shouldn't expect the Church to change their teachings, regarding Marriage, that was all.

I wasn't expecting a long drawn out conversation on the Catholic Church, you can believe whatever you like.

I don't push my ideals on people as the left are doing now with their indoctrination.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2015)

Tink said:
			
		

> I don't push my ideals on people as the left are doing now with their indoctrination.




Could you expand on that ?

Who are the Left and what are their "indoctrination" techniques ?

Strange how religious people usually favour the Right. Peace and love towards all people is fine, except when they happen to be refugees or gays.


----------



## Calliope (20 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Syd makes a good point though, doesn’t he Calliope? The ‘no birth control’ policy of the Catholic church does encourage Catholics to breed like rabbits, without consideration for the consequences, how they’ll look after their offspring etc.




He may be making a good point by your standards but his credibility rating on this topic is zero.  The fertility rate of Catholic women in Australia is 1.3...far below the replacement rate of 2.1...so your and Syd's "rabbit' slur is wide of the mark. As for your talk of consequences, making aspersions about how they look after their children... that is just spiteful.

I consider that Catholics in Australia are much better citizens than Muslims in every way, and yet this thread seems to be mainly devoted to rubbishing Caholics and targetting Tink because she fights back against the wolf pack mentality.

Perhaps you could explain to me why you are not concerned about Muslim breeding habits.Their fertility rate is well above the replacement rate, and they are not doing a good job  at "looking after their offspring" either, unless you consider raising them to hate us and become jihadists, is "looking after".


----------



## Tink (20 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Could you expand on that ?
> 
> Who are the Left and what are their "indoctrination" techniques ?
> 
> Strange how religious people usually favour the Right. Peace and love towards all people is fine, except when they happen to be refugees or gays.




Is that all?
Maybe you should look deeper in what they are preaching, especially the Greens.

I have given many examples of how they are indoctrinating - from the ABC, to PC, to public schools with lack of male teachers.


----------



## explod (20 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Is that all?
> Maybe you should look deeper in what they are preaching, especially the Greens.
> 
> .




Would be interested (just a few main points) of what the Greens are preaching that is bad?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2015)

Tink said:
			
		

> I have given many examples of how they are indoctrinating - from the ABC, to PC, to public schools with lack of male teachers.




And you don't consider the requirement that school chaplains be religious (a measure introduced by the Right) to be indoctrination ?


----------



## Tink (20 January 2015)

Well put it this way, explod, I would never vote the Greens.

Rumpole, yes, I said I agreed with it.
In saying that, we have never attended the public system, but have heard from others that they are disappointed in the progress through the years.


----------



## Calliope (20 January 2015)

explod said:


> Would be interested (just a few main points) of what the Greens are preaching that is bad?




I suggest you will find your answers on the Greens thread. However I think this picture on their policy pages  encaptulates their attitude to the vast majority of Australian women who are not Muslim.





WOMEN

*The Greens have a long proud history of standing up for Australian women*

http://greens.org.au/policy


----------



## bellenuit (20 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> The fertility rate of Catholic women in Australia is 1.3...far below the replacement rate of 2.1...so your and Syd's "rabbit' slur is wide of the mark.




The 1.3 replacement rate is not because Catholics follow in principle and in practice the teachings of the Catholic Church, but because the vast majority have been ignoring them for the past 30 years or more.


----------



## explod (20 January 2015)

None of the responses answer the question WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION ON THIS THREAD. 

Telling me to go to another thread indicates misunderstanding and an innability to deal with the issue openly.  And just casting things aside by using terms such as lefties and greens is rather ignorant in my humble view. 
An answer needs to be qualified with WHY? 

As an active member of the Greens,  involved in helping to formulate policy,  I am here to clear up misunderstandings.


----------



## Calliope (20 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> The 1.3 replacement rate is not because Catholics follow in principle and in practice the teachings of the Catholic Church, but because the vast majority have been ignoring them for the past 30 years or more.




Exactly!



> birth rates in southern Europe have fallen rapidly since about 1980, he said. 'We are now in the bizarre position where Catholic Spain and Catholic Italy are vying for position as the lowest birth rate country.'
> 
> Even Catholic Ireland has experienced a remarkable fall in birth rates in recent years.




 It is well known that the higher the education levels...the lower the birth rate



> Fertility rates have dropped in many parts of the world in recent decades, but something particularly remarkable happened to the once-prolific family across Latin America. From sprawling Mexico to tiny Ecuador to economically buoyant Chile, fertility rates plummeted, even though abortion is illegal, the Catholic Church opposes birth control and government-run family planning is rare.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ts-in-brazil/2011/12/23/gIQAsOXWPP_story.html


----------



## pixel (20 January 2015)

explod said:


> Would be interested (just a few main points) of what the Greens are preaching that is bad?




Keep following your conscience / heart / convictions, explod.
That's far more commendable than sitting on the outer and hurling abuse at everyone who disagrees.

As to "right" and "left" labels, it all depends on one's perception or the way one is "wired". Take an ordinary toolbox from Bunnings: If you pick up a right-threaded wing nut, everything with a left twist is wrong. Vice versa the same. 

As long as we're not talking bi-polar, the simplest solution seems to be a nail. That's straight-forward, nothing twisted, can't be screwed, and you can always hammer the point home.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2015)

pixel said:


> As long as we're not talking bi-polar, the simplest solution seems to be a nail. That's straight-forward, nothing twisted, can't be screwed, and you can always hammer the point home.




Sometimes they get bent though


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2015)

Maybe things are changing in the Catholic church

Pope Francis says Catholics do not need to breed 'like rabbits'; defends Church's contraception stance



> Pope Francis has said that good Catholics do not have to breed "like rabbits", defending the Church's stance on artificial contraception and appealing to the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics to practise responsible parenting.
> 
> Speaking to journalists on his flight back from his trip to the Philippines, the Pope said that he once asked a mother of seven children who was pregnant with her eighth if she wanted to "leave behind seven young orphans".
> 
> ...


----------



## bunyip (21 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Sorry I didn't reply yesterday, bunyip, but I was on a tablet which I find pretty frustrating without a proper keyboard.
> 
> I don't really have an opinion if they should be married or not, as they do have a calling from God to work for the benefit of the community.




Tink - thanks for your reply. 
If their calling in life is to work for the benefit of the community, and they or the church believe that marriage and parenthood would be be a detriment to that calling, then in my opinion they're on the wrong track completely.


----------



## bunyip (21 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Syd makes a good point though, doesn’t he Calliope? The ‘no birth control’ policy of the Catholic church does encourage Catholics to breed like rabbits, without consideration for the consequences, how they’ll look after their offspring etc.






Calliope said:


> He may be making a good point by your standards but his credibility rating on this topic is zero.  The fertility rate of Catholic women in Australia is 1.3...far below the replacement rate of 2.1...so your and Syd's "rabbit' slur is wide of the mark. As for your talk of consequences, making aspersions about how they look after their children... that is just spiteful.




I made no comment on Syd’s overall credibility rating on this topic – I simply acknowledged the truth of what he’s saying about how the Vatican’s centuries-old policy of letting nature take its course in relation to human reproduction, can and does cause some Catholics to breed uncontrolled like rabbits, leading to a poverty-stricken upbringing for the children. Now, you can call that a spiteful slur if you want to, and you can attempt to justify your view by quoting figures on the fertility rates of Australian Catholic women. But you might have a different opinion if you’d worked side by side with my wife in the maternity wards of Glasgow, Scotland, and saw the often tragic results of uncontrolled reproduction among poor Scottish Catholic families. And you might have a different opinion if you’d lived in countries like the Philippines or dozens of other poor countries around the world where low income Catholics have large families because their church tells them they’re sinners if they take measures to limit the number of children they produce. 
These days the problem is not so big in countries like Australia where Catholics are sufficiently enlightened to ignore the dictates of their church in this matter. But only a tiny minority of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics live in Australia – hundreds of millions of them are spread across very poor Latin American countries where poverty is rife. The Catholic church should hang its head in shame over its callous disregard for the results of its ‘no birth control’ policy in these countries. 



Calliope said:


> I consider that Catholics in Australia are much better citizens than Muslims in every way



I agree with you 100%



Calliope said:


> Perhaps you could explain to me why you are not concerned about Muslim breeding habits.Their fertility rate is well above the replacement rate, and they are not doing a good job  at "looking after their offspring" either, unless you consider raising them to hate us and become jihadists, is "looking after".




Perhaps *you* could explain to _*me*_ how you could be so bloody silly as to think I have no concerns about the breeding habits of Muslims. I assure you that I have grave concerns about every aspect of Islam and Muslims, and I thought you of all people would have known that from my numerous posts on the subject.


----------



## Calliope (21 January 2015)

*Rmost of the bilemoste: Religion IS crazy!*



bunyip said:


> Perhaps *you* could explain to _*me*_ how you could be so bloody silly as to think I have no concerns about the breeding habits of Muslims. I assure you that I have grave concerns about every aspect of Islam and Muslims, and I thought you of all people would have known that from my numerous posts on the subject




Criticism of the Islamic religion has been very muted on this thread, so apparently the experts on religion do not consider it "crazy". Catholics are copping most of the bile. There are plenty of Muslim paedophiles in Australia but they are allowed to get away with it because of  “cultural differences”.


----------



## bunyip (21 January 2015)

*Re: Rmost of the bilemoste: Religion IS crazy!*



Calliope said:


> Criticism of the Islamic religion has been very muted on this thread, so apparently the experts on religion do not consider it "crazy". Catholics are copping most of the bile. There are plenty of Muslim paedophiles in Australia but they are allowed to get away with it because of  “cultural differences”.




Here you go then, Calliope.......this should clear up your confusion about my views on Islam.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/justice-jeanine/index.html#/v/3982602485001


----------



## bunyip (22 January 2015)

*Re: Rmost of the bilemoste: Religion IS crazy!*



Calliope said:


> Criticism of the Islamic religion has been very muted on this thread, so apparently the experts on religion do not consider it "crazy". Catholics are copping most of the bile.




What Catholics are copping on this thread, Calliope, is acknowledgement from fair-minded people like myself of the  good things their religion does. What they’re also copping is the blunt and sometimes unpalatable truths about the shortcomings and failures of the Catholic religion.....truths which, I notice, neither they _*nor you *_have been able to refute with any solid argument to the contrary.


----------



## Tink (22 January 2015)

I have given many reasons, bunyip.

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

Our Christian heritage is important for today and for our children, that is my opinion.

I am entitled to stand up for what I believe in.


----------



## bunyip (22 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Our Christian heritage is important for today and for our children, that is my opinion.
> 
> I am entitled to stand up for what I believe in.




Yes, of course you are.
In fact I even agree with some of your views, and I've never hesitated to say so when that's been the case.


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2015)

Tink said:


> I know a lot of priests and nuns that have done a lot in society for their community, working tirelessly in some dangerous situations, and they don't deserve all being put in the same basket because of a few.
> 
> Sadly, we don't seem to run on consistency.




I totally agree there would be a lot of priests that have done good work (good people do good things regardless), and that they are not all paedophiles. My beef is not against the individual priests as much as it is with the catholic church as an institution, which for years has hidden, and covered up the repeat offending paedophiles they knew about, moving them from church to church and even internationally every time the committed a sexual assault.

Members of the catholic church have done some good work, But that doesn't make the catholic church as an institution a force for good, Because it's doctrine and actions at an institutional level has been very damaging, and none of the good works relied on the churches supernatural nonsense.


----------



## Tink (22 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Yes, of course you are.
> In fact I even agree with some of your views, and I've never hesitated to say so when that's been the case.




Thanks, bunyip,
I do understand what you are saying also.

What I was getting at with that as well, was all the literature etc that has been removed from the schools. 

http://ipa.org.au/people/stephanie-forrest

Anyway, enough from me in here.


----------



## bunyip (22 January 2015)

Tink

Perhaps you’ve given us your view on this before – if so then once again I don’t recall what it was........do you agree with the ‘*no birth control’* policy of the Catholic church?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Members of the catholic church have done some good work, But that doesn't make the catholic church as an institution a force for good, Because it's doctrine and actions at an institutional level has been very damaging, and none of the good works relied on the churches supernatural nonsense.




What you say about the Catholic church is true up to a point, they have done good and bad. Have they done more 
bad than good ? We could argue about that. I think it's probably about equal.

But the Catholics are only one sect in the Christian church. What do you make of the Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists etc which have also been part of our society for a long time ? They also ran schools, orphanages and charities without most of the opprobrium that the Catholics have drawn on themselves via child abuse and other scandals.

Singling the Catholics out for their misdeeds is ok up to a point, but let's not tar everyone with the same brush.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What you say about the Catholic church is true up to a point, they have done good and bad. Have they done more
> bad than good ? We could argue about that. I think it's probably about equal.
> 
> .




I think most of the stuff you label as good work of the catholic church, is actually mainly coming from the people at the lower levels, not the institution itself. It would be very hard to define how much good has come from church doctrine and teachings, and whether it would offset the devastating impacts of the bad stuff.

I find most of what the catholic church has done to be self serving.

But when it comes to weighing up good vs bad, consider the Catholic's work in Africa, I mean yes they have fed some starving people and helped some communities there which is good, But they completely undo the good work by then helping spread Aids by preaching against condoms, preaching against homosexuality, spreading mythology as truth which has lead to people being burned alive etc.

It's very hard to weigh up how much good a school did, when the focus of the school was spreading their mythology and lead to an increase in Aids or lead to hatred of gays etc.



> What do you make of the Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists etc which have also been part of our society for a long time ? They also ran schools, orphanages and charities without most of the opprobrium that the Catholics have drawn on themselves via child abuse and other scandals.




They are all spread unfounded mythology as truth, which has nasty side effects, and none of them have done anything good thing which there aren't secular organisations doing too.

The average person is good, and will do good without the mythology, 





> Singling the Catholics out for their misdeeds is ok up to a point, but let's not tar everyone with the same brush




I single them out because they are the largest organisation, But I am not saying all catholics I am saying the catholic organisation.

eg. I can BHP is Bad, that doesn't mean I condemn every BHP employee or contractor.


I have never said all catholics are bad,


----------



## bunyip (23 January 2015)

I don’t doubt that the Catholic church runs substantial aid programs in third world countries like the Philippines and Latin America where poverty is rife. But a significant cause of this poverty is that they breed like fly's because hundreds of millions of them are Catholics who follow the _‘no contraception’_ dictates of their church.
So on the one hand the Catholic church is creating immense problems for people in poor countries by encouraging them to over-breed, and then on the other hand it tries to alleviate the suffering by implementing aid programs to the people for whom it created the problems.

I think the fist priority of the Catholic church should be to get rid of its ridiculous ban on birth control. 
Its second priority should be to educate people on the benefits of contraception so they can limit both the size of their families and the degree of poverty caused by having too many children.
And their third priority should be to direct some of the immense wealth of the church towards making free contraceptives available to Catholics in third world countries.

And please – don’t anyone be silly enough to accuse me of blaming the Catholic church for _*all *_the suffering and problems in third world countries. That’s _*not*_ what I’m doing – I’m simply outlining one of the problems and its cause, and suggesting a solution that I think would work.
The Philippines government appears to agree with me....despite the Philippines being the biggest Catholic country in south east Asia, the government is moving towards establishing wide spread use of contraceptives throughout the Philippines in an effort to address the problems of poverty caused by uncontrolled breeding.
Clearly this move is in direct opposition to the policy of the Catholic church, but good on the Philippines government for taking a responsible approach when the church will not.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> I don’t doubt that the Catholic church runs substantial aid programs in third world countries like the Philippines and Latin America where poverty is rife. But a significant cause of this poverty is that they breed like fly's because hundreds of millions of them are Catholics who follow the _‘no contraception’_ dictates of their church.
> So on the one hand the Catholic church is creating immense problems for people in poor countries by encouraging them to over-breed, and then on the other hand it tries to alleviate the suffering by implementing aid programs to the people for whom it created the problems.
> 
> .





This is one of the many topics hit on in this debate, Hitchens and fry destroy the catholic church apologists, and sway the audience vote at end in their favour.

 By the end of the debate the audience voted a against the proposition that the catholic church is good, in a land slide victory for fry and Hitchens.

fast forward to the 1hr 57min mark to see the vote, it is embarrassingly funny


----------



## bunyip (23 January 2015)

I posted this video link over on the ‘Asylum seeker’ thread, but I’m posting it again here so that as many people as possible will see it.
It shows how the cancerous dictatorship of Islam is destroying France by destroying the freedoms of its people.

We simply cannot afford to lay out the welcome mat to immigrants who practice these extremist religions.
In particular I want Calliope to take note that I’ve posted this here, because just a couple of days ago he seemed to think I saw no problems with Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY


----------



## bunyip (25 January 2015)

I live on acreage just outside a small village near a major regional city. My morning walk takes me past the Catholic church in my village. A couple of weeks back I came across the Catholic priest who was watering his garden, so I walked over to the fence to say ‘G’day’ and have a yarn.
We introduced ourselves and he turned out to be a really friendly and talkative bloke who I took an instant liking to. He told me he’s ‘retired’ now, but the church has been unable to find a replacement for him so they’ve offered to let him stay on and live in the church house beside the church, on the agreement that he continues with just basic duties such as holding Sunday morning services.
He said the church was finding it increasingly difficult to find enough priests to replace those retiring, because very few young Catholic men these days are joining the priesthood. I asked him why he thought this was – he mentioned a number of reasons, among them was that the average man, Catholic or otherwise, finds little appeal in a life devoid of sexual relationships, marriage and children and family life.
I asked him if he thought the Vatican needed to address this problem by changing its rules regarding celibacy and marriage for priests. His answer was ‘_Yes, but I don’t see it happening any time soon’._

I was finding the conversation very interesting and I had a number of other questions I wanted to ask him, but he told me he had to go and get ready for the Mass that was due to start in half an hour.
I’m hoping to bump into him again soon so that we can resume our conversation – I found him an interesting and likeable bloke, very forthright and down to earth. I felt quite sorry for him – a man of that age without the fulfillment of marriage and family life. No doubt he’d say his life has provided fulfillment in other ways, and it probably has, but to miss out on marriage and family life because of the silly and outdated dictates of his church is, in my opinion, a crying shame.
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=25280#.VMQUEi7rV3U


----------



## pixel (25 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> [...]
> he turned out to be a really friendly and talkative bloke who I took an instant liking to.
> [...]




No surprise there, bunyip,

The priest is a human being like Millions of others. Walking down the street, joining a Bowling Club, playing a game of Chess in your local park, ... almost every person you meet and strike a conversation with will turn out to be a likeable human being, whether they're Christian Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Arab, Chinese, black, green or brindle. 

But talk about the Institution and anything associated with their Holy Cow, you will find almost every time that you flicked a switch: Dogma will replace reason because from early childhood their brains have been hard-wired to accept only on single Truth: The superiority of their god, race, social caste, ... and the need to protect the Inner Circle of rulers and office bearers at any personal cost.
In early social development, from Stone Age to tribal and feudal stages, those dogmas aided the survival and prosperity of the tribe. The strongest macho man, the one with the biggest herd and dung heap, would protect his property, including all the women he used to sire more macho men. In the battle against competing tribes, ambitious rivals or neighbours with an eye on his dung heap, any member of the tribe with less muscle and brain power was dispensible, as long as the ruler and his PR agents survived.

Now replace "Tribe" by "Multi-National" or "Bank" or "Nation", replace "Dung Heap" by "Market Share" or "Economic Dominance", and try the result for size today.

Sound familiar?


----------



## bunyip (26 January 2015)

pixel said:


> No surprise there, bunyip,
> 
> The priest is a human being like Millions of others. Walking down the street, joining a Bowling Club, playing a game of Chess in your local park, ... almost every person you meet and strike a conversation with will turn out to be a likeable human being, whether they're Christian Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Arab, Chinese, black, green or brindle.
> 
> ...



Yes Pixel – that sounds very familiar.
What I don’t understand though is when people get old enough to think for themselves, they just don’t bother doing so at least in regard to religion – they just keep believing the same old stuff they were brought up with.
It’s easy enough to understand why they believe it when they’re kids – small children will believe most things adults tell them.
But once people leave childhood behind and become adults themselves, then it’s reasonable to expect them to think like adults rather than just go on believing in fairytales and other nonsense they were taught as kids.


----------



## pixel (26 January 2015)

bunyip said:


> Yes Pixel – that sounds very familiar.
> What I don’t understand though is when people get old enough to think for themselves, they just don’t bother doing so at least in regard to religion – they just keep believing the same old stuff they were brought up with.
> It’s easy enough to understand why they believe it when they’re kids – small children will believe most things adults tell them.
> But once people leave childhood behind and become adults themselves, then it’s reasonable to expect them to think like adults rather than just go on believing in fairytales and other nonsense they were taught as kids.




One would hope so, bunyip;
but I'm afraid the Psychology works differently. That's one thing the Catholic church got right when it emphasized Luke 18:16 and Matthew 19:14. What you implant into kids' minds, especially metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that isn't easily subjected to Logic, will stay with them for a lifetime. It's ingrained in the lowest levels of subconsciousness and becomes the foundation for all subsequent ethical concepts.

The more the person has to struggle to make a living and survive, the less time he or she can spend on self-education and _"think for themselves"_. Ever wondered why even in Western societies it's predominantly women, and among those, mostly the elderly, who return to their church for comfort? 
(A) even in Western countries, girls' level of education has been well below the level of boys.
(B) given the gender gap in pay and working conditions, women are also disproportionately overrepresented in the "battler" sociology.
Where men have the three R's, women are still fettered by the three K's. *)
A fact that hasn't remained hidden from the Islamists either, who insist on early childhood "Qur'an Schooling" and kill any further education stone-dead.

*) the 3 Ks are "Kids, Kitchen, Kirk" from German "Kinder, Kueche, Kirche"


----------



## bunyip (26 January 2015)

pixel said:


> One would hope so, bunyip;
> but I'm afraid the Psychology works differently. That's one thing the Catholic church got right when it emphasized Luke 18:16 and Matthew 19:14. What you implant into kids' minds, especially metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that isn't easily subjected to Logic, will stay with them for a lifetime. It's ingrained in the lowest levels of subconsciousness and becomes the foundation for all subsequent ethical concepts.




Ah yes - I'm well aware of the indoctrination processes of religion, and I'd say that the Catholic church does it better than most.
Two of my kids attended a private Catholic school for a couple of years – we weren’t Catholics but we wanted a private school education for our children, and the Catholic school was the only private school in town. It was unbelievable how that school drummed Catholicism into those little kids from grade 1 onwards, including a weekly session over which the priest presided at the Catholic church next door to the school. Those little kids were much too young to even understand most of the Catholic stuff they were being taught, but I guess it was all part of the ‘get ‘em while they’re young’ indoctrination process.
My wife tells me that when she was being raised a Catholic in Ireland, from an early age the children were steered into various religious rites and ceremonies which they were simply too young to understand.
Another interesting snippet of information from her is the method of recruiting young men and women to train as nuns and priests. From childhood the children were told that God chooses certain ‘special’ people to join the priesthood or convent so they can dedicate their lives to working for God and the church. 
The kids were told to listen for God.....if he was ‘talking’ to them it could mean they were one his chosen ones for the special work of the convent or priesthood. The pressure on the kids really cranked up in secondary school. My wife attended a private Catholic girls boarding school from the age of 13, and almost from day one the nuns would regularly take each girl aside individually and ask her if she’d had the call from God yet.
My wife told them that any  time she thought she heard God calling her, she turned her radio up loud to drown him out!
The nuns were mortified and told her ‘_Oh no, don’t do that – you wouldn’t want to miss God’s call, would you’?_ 
Naturally when kids are indoctrinated from early childhood with the belief that God is talking to them through their thoughts and prayers, they come to believe it, much the same as primitive people believed their gods were talking to them through the wind or thunder or whatever.
The long and short of it was that the nuns so successfully implanted in the girls minds that God was talking to them and calling them to convent life, that some of them actually believed it and joined up.
My wife’s brother copped the same treatment from the priests when he attended a private boys school.....they were forever trying to steer the boys towards the priesthood by implanting the idea in their minds that they were one of the chosen ones who God was calling. 
It was inevitable that some of them ended up believing it and becoming priests.


----------



## sydboy007 (31 January 2015)

he must have stopped taking his meds 

[video=youtube_share;B32gXu78Cb8]http://youtu.be/B32gXu78Cb8[/video]

Pastor James David Manning announced plans this week to march against “sodomite cannibals” in Manhattan (a.k.a. “Sodomite City”) because ”” wait for it ”” the gays are planning to turn into “flesh-sucking” homo-zombies and chew off the faces of innocent women and children and eat their poop by 2016!

“God Almighty has given me the revelation that soon, after the court announces that they are to be protected by the Constitution to be sodomites, they’re gonna also start cannibalism,” the concerned pastor said in a recent propaganda video. “Every sodomite, every lesbo, every homo, every fag, every transvestite, every LBGT person ”” by the year 2016 ”” will have participated in some sort of cannibalism!”

Why will this happen? you ask.

Because gay people are possessed by demons, of course.

Manning breaks it down for us, saying: “They are demon-possessed! And they will do it with a smile on their faces! In fact, they will be scourging through and rummaging through the hospital waste looking for human waste. A number of people are going to go missing and only teir bones will show up!”


----------



## moXJO (31 January 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> he must have stopped taking his meds




Lol for a long time.



> The New York pastor who made headlines last year for claiming that Starbucks flavored its coffee drinks with "sodomites' semen" now admits he's "absolutely" been tempted by the "gay lifestyle."




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/starbucks-james-david-manning-_n_6579966.html


----------



## DB008 (31 January 2015)

Oh well, Stephen Fry is going to hell, or is he...???

He does make some good points...




> Stephen Fry on God | The Meaning Of Life | RTÃ‰ One


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2015)

DB008 said:


> Oh well, Stephen Fry is going to hell, or is he...???
> 
> He does make some good points...




Yes, he makes some *very* good points. Most of all he does an excellent job of debunking the myth about how good and merciful and just God is (assuming that he/it exists).  He makes it very clear that if you _*really*_ think about what this god is said to have created, rather than   just blindly believing all the Christian claptrap, then the only honest and reasonable conclusion you can reach is that this god must be more than a little screwed up in the head to have created so many horrible things in the world. A good example is the insect whose life cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and turning them blind.
Despite my Christian upbringing, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that you have to be selectively blind or downright stupid or both, to be a Christian. Why? Because selective blindness and outright stupidity are the only ways that anyone can judge something or someone by focusing solely on their positives, while completely ignoring their negatives. And that is exactly what Christianity does in its assessment of God – praise the positives and ignore the negatives. It’s a lopsided, highly inaccurate, very naÃ¯ve and foolish way of judging anyone or anything.

At the start of the interview in the part where Steven Fry says he’d ask God _‘What’s that about – how dare you’?...._.
Can anyone tell me what he says about children – I’ve listened to it over and over but I just can’t catch what he’s saying.


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2015)

bunyip said:


> At the start of the interview in the part where Steven Fry says he’d ask God _‘What’s that about – how dare you’?...._.
> Can anyone tell me what he says about children – I’ve listened to it over and over but I just can’t catch what he’s saying.




According to the subtitles, which look machine generated, before that he says: "But that is the Odyssey I think. Bone cancer....."

Just click CC on the YouTube video and it should give you closed captions.


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> According to the subtitles, which look machine generated, before that he says: "But that is the Odyssey I think. Bone cancer....."
> 
> Just click CC on the YouTube video and it should give you closed captions.




Thanks bellenuit - yeh I'm pretty sure he says 'bone cancer'.

I liked his last sentence too - it's pretty much the way I felt , and still do all these decades later, once I dismissed all this God business as a con that has absolutely no supporting evidence.


----------



## bunyip (9 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Members of the catholic church have done some good work, But that doesn't make the catholic church as an institution a force for good, Because it's doctrine and actions at an institutional level has been very damaging, and none of the good works relied on the churches supernatural nonsense.




Here are Steven Fry's views on the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1xvdZMC10


----------



## Bintang (15 February 2015)

*Happy Valentine’s Day Everyone.  Hope you are all well vaccinated.*


_Egyptian Cleric Hazem Shuman Warns Muslim Youth of the Upcoming Valentine's Day:
* It's More Dangerous than AIDS, Ebola, and Cholera*_:


----------



## burglar (15 February 2015)

DB008 said:


> Oh well, Stephen Fry is going to hell ...




Fry in Hell?!! :


----------



## Bintang (18 February 2015)

*The earth does not spin on its axis but is fixed while the sun revolves around the earth. *

In case you don’t think this statement is correct listen to the Saudi preacher in the following video.  He demonstrates that the above is true based on logical reasoning and evidence provided in the Holy Koran.

The Minister for Education should immediately order the re-writing of the science text books used in our schools.  Otherwise we could be causing offence to pupils of the Islamic faith by trying to make them believe that the earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun.


----------



## Value Collector (18 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> *The earth does not spin on its axis but is fixed while the sun revolves around the earth. *
> 
> In case you don’t think this statement is correct listen to the Saudi preacher in the following video.  He demonstrates that the above is true based on logical reasoning and evidence provided in the Holy Koran.
> 
> The Minister for Education should immediately order the re-writing of the science text books used in our schools.  Otherwise we could be causing offence to pupils of the Islamic faith by trying to make them believe that the earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun.





There is a very simple test he could do right here on earth to show that the earth rotates.


----------



## Bintang (18 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> There is a very simple test he could do right here on earth to show that the earth rotates.




Naaa… that’s just one of those Western theories whereas everything in the Quran is the word of Allah and is true.





http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150131/ml--iraq-libraries_in_danger-62581f4dca.html_
BAGHDAD (AP) ”” When Islamic State group militants invaded the Central Library of Mosul earlier this month, they were on a mission to destroy a familiar enemy: other people's ideas.
Residents say the extremists smashed the locks that had protected the biggest repository of learning in the northern Iraq town, and loaded around 2,000 books ”” including children's stories, poetry, philosophy and tomes on sports, health, culture and science ”” into six pickup trucks. 

They left only Islamic texts. The rest?

"These books promote infidelity and call for disobeying Allah. So they will be burned,"

They are following in the illustrious footsteps of the caliph Umar, who is supposed to have said when ordering the ancient, fabled library of Alexandria to be burned: “If the books agree with the Qur’an, they are superfluous. If they disagree with it, they are heretical.”_

What a wonderful state of enlightenment we have to look forward to once the whole world has been subjugated to Sharia Law.

Is religion crazy or what …..?


----------



## DB008 (23 February 2015)

So, God is a female....




> *Catholic Priest Dies for 48 Minutes, Comes Back to Life and Claims God Is Female*
> 
> A Catholic priest from Massachusetts was officially dead for more than 48 minutes before medics were able to miraculously re-start his heart. During that time, Father John Micheal O’neal claims he went to heaven and met God, which he describes as a warm and comforting motherly figure.






> “Her presence was both overwhelming and comforting” states the Catholic priest. “She had a soft and soothing voice and her presence was as reassuring as a mother’s embrace. The fact that God is a Holy Mother instead of a Holy Father doesn’t disturb me, she is everything I hoped she would be and even more!”




http://netloid.com/news/catholic-priest-dies-for-48-minutes-comes-back-to-life-and-claims-god-is-female


----------



## DB008 (26 February 2015)

*Followers of Indian guru Ram Rahim break silence about mass castration*​



> His hold over followers was so powerful he convinced up to 400 followers to have their testicles removed because by doing so they would be able to speak directly to God.





http://www.news.com.au/world/followers-of-indian-guru-ram-rahim-break-silence-about-mass-castration/story-fndir2ev-1227240038028​


----------



## Bintang (26 February 2015)

DB008 said:


> Followers of Indian guru Ram Rahim break silence about mass castration
> 
> _"His hold over followers was so powerful he convinced up to 400 followers to have their testicles removed because by doing so they would be able to speak directly to God"_




At least this kind of craziness is ‘self-correcting’ by removing their ability to reproduce and thereby multiply their madness.

But a religion which combines craziness with unrestrained fertility is something to worry about.


----------



## Bintang (26 February 2015)

*Pope allows homeless man to be buried in Vatican

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry about this story:*

“_Pope Francis has taken his *embrace of homeless people* a step further by allowing a man who had slept rough in St Peter's Square to be buried inside the Vatican”

Willy Herteleer, who is thought to have been Belgian, had been well known for years around St Peter's Square, sleeping rough and begging from passers-by.

…..  the Pope, who has made concern for the poor and disenfranchised a keynote of his papacy, consented to him being buried in the Teutonic Cemetery, in the shadow of St Peter's Basilica._

*Maybe if the poor beggar had been embraced by some good samaritan type care from the Vatican while he was still alive they might not have needed to bury him just yet.*


----------



## bunyip (28 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> *Pope allows homeless man to be buried in Vatican
> 
> I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry about this story:*
> 
> ...



The pope should take his concern for the poor to a new level by working to get rid of the ludicrous policy his church has on contraception. This outdated policy causes immense suffering and poverty among hundreds of millions of Catholics in third world countries by encouraging uncontrolled breeding.
The RCC could turn this situation around by directing some of its vast financial resources towards education programs promoting contraception as beneficial and responsible behavior, not a sin, and by freely providing cheap contraceptives such as condoms.
They could take it a step further by setting up free sterilization clinics in poor countries, staffed by volunteer health professionals performing vasectomies and tubal ligations, similar to the organizations set up by men like Fred Hollows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hollows and Mark Loane http://www.theaustralian.com.au/lif...azine/mark-loane/story-e6frg8h6-1111114101544

The poverty situation could be greatly alleviated in poor predominately Catholic countries if Catholic men and women were encouraged to undergo sterilization after having say two or three children.


----------



## DB008 (22 March 2015)

*10-year-old unable to recite Quran made to do 170 pushups, lands in hospital*​



> BAREILLY: In an incident that has shocked people in the city, a 10-year-old boy was made to do 170 push ups by a maulvi in a local madarsa because the child was unable to recite a chapter of the Quran.
> 
> Not satisfied with the punishment he had meted out, the maulvi also reportedly thrashed the boy with a stick and sat on his chest, angrily pulling at his hair. The distressed boy, unable to take this inhuman treatment any more, fainted and had to be rushed to hospital in a critical condition.




http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/10-year-old-unable-to-recite-Quran-made-to-do-170-pushups-lands-in-hospital/articleshow/46647257.cms​


----------



## DB008 (23 March 2015)

*Ex-Muslim author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls for reform of Islam*​


> THERE was a time when author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali believed it all.
> 
> She believed that, according to Islam, the infidel should die, that the Koran is infallible, that those who violated sharia law ”” thieves, gays, adulterers ”” deserved to be stoned to death or beheaded, as they were each Friday in a public gathering place she and her brother called “Chop-Chop Square.”
> 
> ...







> *A ‘Useless’ Label*
> 
> In Heretic, Ali says there are three kinds of Muslims. There are the violent, the reformers, and what she believes is the largest group ”” those who want to practice as they see fit and live peaceably but do not challenge the Koran, the Muslim world’s treatment of women and the LGBT community, or terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam.
> 
> Yet she refuses to label this group as moderate. She believes they have done nothing to deserve it. “I’ve never believed in the word,” Ali says. “It’s totally useless. I think we’re in a time now where we demand answers from Muslims and say, ‘Whose side are you on?’ ”




http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/ex-muslim-author-and-activist-ayaan-hirsi-ali-calls-for-reform-of-islam/story-fnh81jut-1227273860667?from=public_rss​


----------



## bunyip (30 March 2015)

A different take on Waltzing Matilda 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiOTso4RzUU&sns=em


----------



## trainspotter (1 April 2015)

> “I stabbed him because he humiliated my prophet,” said Jikrullah, a 20-year-old student at Hathajari Madrassah in the south-eastern district of Chittagong.




http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/b...-hacked-to-death/story-fnh81fz8-1227287059428

Yep .. religion is crazy alright


----------



## DB008 (5 April 2015)

This cult should be banned in Australia. However, just just set-up shop in Chatswood, Sydney ($35m)...



> *The Church of Scientology buys land in West Chatswood for $37 million to build new Australasian headquarters​*
> THE Church of Scientology has quietly snapped up a large tract of land on Sydney’s leafy North Shore where it hopes to build a new base for the religion in the southern hemisphere and usher in a new “golden age”.
> 
> The land in West Chatswood, which cost the church $37 million, will be the site of a sprawling new facility called the Ideal Advanced Organisation and Continental Base for Australia and the Asiatic region.
> ...






Also, BBC Doco on Scientology. Wow. What a bunch of idiots. Their God is called Zenu....LOLOLOLOLOL.


----------



## luutzu (5 April 2015)

Feng Shui is also pretty crazy.

Try designing a Feng Shui approved house... you'll go crazy if you're not rich enough, and in the end, probably go broke if you're somewhat rich enough... and will end up with the weirdest, most impractical house any sane person could own.

I saw this massive house that's quite alright except for the paintjob. On the outside they got red, green and purple (all on the one side, each facing certain direction - to be in harmony with the owners' colours I think) and the rest of the house is some "normal" colour; Inside there's yellow, pink, white... and that's just in one room.

But it makes believer feels safe and prosperous, so I guess that's not so crazy.


----------



## bellenuit (9 April 2015)

*An Afghan nightmare: Forced to marry your rapist*

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/07/asia/afghanistan-gulnaz-rape-marriage/index.html


----------



## DB008 (28 April 2015)

*Scientology in Germany​*


> The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion. *It views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution*. This stance has been criticized, most notably by the U.S. government, which recognizes Scientology as a religion and has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany​


----------



## explod (28 April 2015)

DB008 said:


> *Scientology in Germany​*
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany​




This was the case in Victoria till about 1990 we had a Scientolgy Act.   I used to supervise the official file on it and some of the ways they bled vulnerable people of assets were very bad indeed.   But the governments,  particularly the US are doing that by devaluing assets in my view anyway.


----------



## DB008 (26 May 2015)

Check out this idiot!

*Masturbating men ‘will find their hands pregnant in the afterlife,’ says Muslim televangelist​*



> After claiming that a man would meet his masturbating hand “pregnant in the afterlife” and “asking for its rights,” a Muslim televangelist has set Turkish social media aflame.
> 
> Self-styled televangelist MÃ¼cahid Cihad Han dived into some delicate matters on May 24 when he answered his viewers’ questions on private television station 2000 TV, Turkish media has reported. Han initially looked puzzled when a viewer said he “kept masturbating, although he was married, and even during the Umrah,” a pilgrimage to Mecca performed by Muslims which can be undertaken at any time of the year, in contrast to the Hajj.
> 
> ...





http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/masturbating-men-will-find-their-hands-pregnant-in-the-afterlife-says-muslim-televangelist.aspx?pageID=238&nID=82936&NewsCatID=393​


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2015)

Religion is no different to any other group with a common need, a belief is formed it requires heads to espouse the belief, then corruption, greed and self ordained oracles  grow.

If there is one group, who have taken from the poor, and given to god knows who.

Religion has to take the cake,


----------



## MickStephens (27 May 2015)

kennas said:


> There's some strange things that religion makes people do.
> 
> Like praying, for example.
> 
> ...




I have not read through the whole thread yet, just want to comment on the original post. 

Religion is all in our heads, human beings are what that's messed up. Religion does not do good or bad, people do good or bad under the influence of other people. 

Just my opinion. For lack of a better word, I am an atheist, but not because I don't believe there is a God, but because the evidence thus far isn't convincing.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2015)

MickStephens said:


> Religion is all in our heads, human beings are what that's messed up. Religion does not do good or bad, people do good or bad under the influence of other people.
> 
> .




People that have been indoctrinated to believe that a certain religious text is the word of god, can be lead by this belief to carry out very bad actions based on that text. In this situation the cause of the bad thing is the original religious text.





> Just my opinion. For lack of a better word, I am an atheist, but not because I don't believe there is a God, but because the evidence thus far isn't convincing




An atheist is a person who doesn't currently believe in any gods. So if you don't believe in a god, then atheist is the best term to describe your position.

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you are claiming to Know 100% that no gods exist, It just means you don't believe in any.

the most common position among atheists is the position of being a "Agnostic Atheist", which I think you might be.

An Agnostic Atheist is one that doesn't currently believe in any gods, But doesn't claim to know that no god exists.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 May 2015)

I just have so many questions after reading:



> MÃ¼cahid Cihad Han is a popular Muslim televangelist from Turkey. He recently warned followers that men who masturbate will be greeted by their “pregnant hand in the afterlife.
> 
> “One hadith states that those who have sexual intercourse with their hands will find their hands pregnant in the afterlife,” he cautioned.


----------



## Tisme (28 May 2015)

Value Collector said:


> People that have been indoctrinated to believe that a certain religious text is the word of god, can be lead by this belief to carry out very bad actions based on that text. In this situation the cause of the bad thing is the original religious text.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm just wondering at the need to package people's behaviours into neatly packaged word based sect. 

I can just see the conversation down the pub: "Do you believe in God?"......"Not necessarily I am actually an 'agnostic atheist' " ............ " Oh right, I think I just saw someone I have to catch up with over there in the far side of the room!"


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm just wondering at the need to package people's behaviours into neatly packaged word based sect.
> 
> I can just see the conversation down the pub: "Do you believe in God?"......"Not necessarily I am actually an 'agnostic atheist' " ............ " Oh right, I think I just saw someone I have to catch up with over there in the far side of the room!"




I was clarifying the definition of a word.

First he said he was an atheist, but then he said "*but not because I don't believe there is a God*", I was pointing out, that not believing in a god is the only thing that makes you an atheist.

If some one says do you believe in a god and you answer "No", then you're an atheist, simple as that, there is no other word that better describes your position.

So at your hypothetical pub, If some said to me "Do you believe in a god" I would say "No, I am an atheist", That's the most clear answer to their question.

 The term Agnostic would only be added to clarify my position if they wanted to extend the conversation by saying something like "So can you prove no god exists", I would say "No, I don't claim to Know that no gods exists, I am an agnostic atheist, which means I am happy to say I don't know if any gods exist, but I currently don't believe any do, and I will change my mind if presented with evidence for a god"

So by describing myself as an agnostic atheist, it makes my point clear that I don't believe any of the religious non sense, while also making it clear that I am not making a positive claim that no god exists and the burden of proof is on the party that believes to prove their claim, it's not up to me to debunk all the 1000's of gods.

People often think agnostic and atheist are exclusive terms, they are not, Agnostic describes your position on what you claim to know, Atheist describes your position on what you believe.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I just have so many questions after reading:




OMG, I hope I am not greeted by my girlfriends pregnant Face, lol.


----------



## DB008 (29 May 2015)

I guess people are questioning religion. Show me evidence of God. Just because my mum/dad/priest said it, it must be true.



> In four large, nationally representative surveys (N = 11.2 million), American adolescents and emerging adults in the 2010s (Millennials) were significantly less religious than previous generations (Boomers, Generation X) at the same age. The data are from the Monitoring the Future studies of 12th graders (1976–2013), 8th and 10th graders (1991–2013), and the American Freshman survey of entering college students (1966–2014). Although the majority of adolescents and emerging adults are still religiously involved, twice as many 12th graders and college students, and 20%–40% more 8th and 10th graders, never attend religious services. Twice as many 12th graders and entering college students in the 2010s (vs. the 1960s–70s) give their religious affiliation as “none,” as do 40%–50% more 8th and 10th graders. Recent birth cohorts report less approval of religious organizations, are less likely to say that religion is important in their lives, report being less spiritual, and spend less time praying or meditating. Thus, declines in religious orientation reach beyond affiliation to religious participation and religiosity, suggesting a movement toward secularism among a growing minority. The declines are larger among girls, Whites, lower-SES individuals, and in the Northeastern U.S., very small among Blacks, and non-existent among political conservatives. Religious affiliation is lower in years with more income inequality, higher median family income, higher materialism, more positive self-views, and lower social support. Overall, these results suggest that the lower religious orientation of Millennials is due to time period or generation, and not to age.




http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121454


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 May 2015)

Should any on ASF wish to make a motza out of Religion and Gullibility, I will shortly be launching the "Church of Gumnut" 

This will be a tax advantaged vehicle for believers in transcendence, god and spirituality 

It will con vulnerable people with medium to high disposable income.

Please PM me, if you wish to become 

Cardinal $500,000
Bishop   $100,000
Pastor    $ 50,000 
Muppet   $10,000

Praise be. 

gg


----------



## pixel (30 May 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm just wondering at the need to package people's behaviours into neatly packaged word based sect.
> 
> I can just see the conversation down the pub: "Do you believe in God?"......"Not necessarily I am actually an 'agnostic atheist' " ............ " Oh right, I think I just saw someone I have to catch up with over there in the far side of the room!"




If someone wants to have that kind of discussion with me in a Pub, I'm quite happy for them to find "someone over there" and leave me to enjoy my beer - and maybe a pub conversation about Footy or the global economy. And if he can't find "someone over there", I'm quite likely to point him in the direction where "I think someone tries to catch your attention over there" - which could be less hurtful to his feelings than telling him straight where to take his superstition.


----------



## DB008 (2 June 2015)

Wow....


*Jewish sect's ban on women drivers is 'completely unacceptable in modern Britain', says Nicky Morgan​*


> Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has labelled a Jewish community’s decision to ban women driving “completely unacceptable”.
> 
> Leaders of the north-west London Belz sect, part of an ultra-orthodox branch of Haredi Judaism, reportedly sent a letter telling parents their children would be prevented from attending school should their mothers’ drive.
> 
> ...





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nicky-morgan-claims-ultraorthodox-jewish-communitys-decision-to-ban-female-drivers-is-completely-unacceptable-10286577.html


----------



## sydboy007 (5 June 2015)

the whole idea of prosperity religon - faith in God will make you rich - has always disgusted me.

But I think Crflo Dollar Ministries have brought the televangelist crowd to a new time low

https://youtu.be/UIobdRNLNek

After much public outcry, the campaign was eventually halted, though that didn’t stop the church from making all kinds of excuses. They explained that the church needed the Gulfstream G650 so it could carry a dozen people plus 100,000 pounds of food. Clearly they didn’t do any research on the plane, because the Gulfstream G650 has virtually no cargo capacity.

Now it's the devil doesn't want Crflo Dollar to get that swanky new G650.  The bolded sentences at the end of the statement sum it up nicely.

I never thought I'd asky myself the question, but what would Jesus do in this situation.  Would he being flying aroud the world in one of the most luxurious private jets, or would he be travelling around in 10 abreast coach on the 777 rubbing shoulders with the unwashed masses?

$65M USD buys a whole lot of commercial flights, along with aid for those they're supposedly helping.

https://youtu.be/HcT7cKr3hCw

In a bit of a PR blitz CDM released the below statement



> > Dr. Creflo A Dollar is the founder, senior pastor and CEO of this organization. While he is the spiritual leader and the public face of CDM around the world, he is also the CEO of a global, multinational ministry corporation and, as such, reports to this Board like any other CEO. All significant projects, policy changes and financial expenditures, regardless of the circumstances, are presented to the Board and approved prior to implementation. A proper system of checks and balances is in place to insure the ministry’s dealings are beyond reproach. When Dr. Dollar steps forward to announce a ministry initiative, please make no mistake that it is actually an action of this Board.
> >
> > Our community is centered on biblical principles directly from the Word of God. There is no area of the organization that does not base its foundational principles and operational guidelines on what the Bible has to say to us about God’s love and His grace. We understand that others may interpret biblical truths differently – the freedom to worship as one chooses is a fundamental hallmark of a free society – but wish to assert our God-given right to practice what we believe. This is our faith, the very basis for what we believe, and it is not necessary that we justify it.
> >
> > ...


----------



## trainspotter (19 June 2015)

I am ashamed in the name of religion ... "aurat" INDEED !



> GYMNAST Farah Ann Abdul Hadi blitzed the Southeast Asian Games last week, bringing home six medals, including two gold, for Malaysia.
> 
> Not that the country’s religious hardliners noticed the impressive tally ”” they were too busy looking at the 21-year-old’s vagina.
> 
> Federal MP Jamil Khir Baharom announced a review of “Islamic compliance for clothing used for sports and other fields” following complaints the shape of Abdul Hadi’s “aurat” (genitalia) could be seen through her standard-issue purple leotard.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/li...graph&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial


----------



## DB008 (25 June 2015)

Religion is Crazy.....

*Judge rules on Jehovah's blood transfusion​*


> A Brisbane hospital can perform a blood transfusion on a young Jehovah's Witness boy despite his parents objecting on religious grounds, a Queensland judge has ruled.
> 
> The seven-year-old was referred to the Brisbane facility from a regional hospital in 2008 over a case of jaundice, before his significant liver disease was uncovered.
> 
> ...




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/judge-rules-on-jehovahs-blood-transfusion-20150625-ghxsfp.html


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2015)

DB008 said:


> Religion is Crazy.....
> 
> *Judge rules on Jehovah's blood transfusion​*
> 
> ...




It’s good to see common sense prevail at last by this court ruling taking away the rights of this Jehovah Witness couple to commit what is in effect ‘legal murder’ of their child.
For far too long Jehovah Witnesses have effectively been allowed to sentence their children to death by refusing to allow them life-saving blood transfusions. If you or I refused life-saving medical treatment for our children, we’d be charged with a criminal offence. And rightly so.
I get heartily sick of the nuisance calls from JW’s who arrive uninvited at my place and start spouting their pious rhetoric about how we should be living good Christian lives that treat others with consideration and respect. Not that I disagree with them, but it’s hypocritical of them when their version of treating others with respect includes letting their own children die in an emergency medical crisis rather than allowing them life-saving medical treatment.
It’s yet another example of how religion can so warp the human mind that people become incapable of making rational decisions in some cases.


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2015)

The Jehova's Witnesses church is almost as bad the Catholic church when it comes to protecting sexual predators and showing disdain for the victims. Disgusting.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/jehovahs-witnesses-child-sexual-abuse-royal-commission/6649340


----------



## DB008 (21 August 2015)

*WOW​*



​

*IRS Getting Pressured To Crack Down On Televangelists Following John Oliver’s Segment*


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/08/20/irs-televangelists-john-oliver/



> WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The IRS is getting pressured to begin cracking down on televangelists following a John Oliver segment on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight.”
> 
> Oliver blasted televangelists this past Sunday for what he called “seed faith,” where they tell donors they will reap the rewards by giving money to them.
> 
> ...


----------



## bellenuit (23 August 2015)

*Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says ‘animal rights come before religion’*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...imal-rights-come-before-religion-9135580.html


----------



## sydboy007 (18 September 2015)

Was watching a video by matti Dialhunty as part of the patreon project.

What was interesting is he went over the Tower of babel story.  I'm sure like many on this forum you had your indoctrination as to what moral of the story was.

Unsurprisingly, that moral is totally wrong



> 11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar* and settled there.
> 
> 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
> 
> ...



*

How would a moral God come to the conclusion that a people working together was a bad thing.  Why is nothing being beyond their achievement a bad thing?  There is nothing in the bible that says the people's motives were bad.  So they wanted to build a high tower.  I think everyone would agree there was no way the people could build a tower to the heavens.  If anything, it sounds like a fearful God, fearing his creation may one day surpass him.

So a God who is moral, set about breaking up a people of one voice and in the end setting up the causes of many of the wars we've endured over the millennia.*


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How would a moral God come to the conclusion that a people working together was a bad thing.  Why is nothing being beyond their achievement a bad thing?  There is nothing in the bible that says the people's motives were bad.  So they wanted to build a high tower.  I think everyone would agree there was no way the people could build a tower to the heavens.  If anything, it sounds like a fearful God, fearing his creation may one day surpass him.
> 
> So a God who is moral, set about breaking up a people of one voice and in the end setting up the causes of many of the wars we've endured over the millennia.




People haven't realised that the Bible is full of allegories relating to the political situation at the time.

The Biblical God is an all powerful being and it suited people to believe that this being was "on their side" in conflicts. It was a way of improving morale for the Jews and later the Christians. The people who were attacked by the Christians didn't have a God of their own, so Mohammed had to invent one to give his own people belief that they had a powerful entity on their side.

The Bible and Koran are works of politics as much as they are of religion. Unfortunately they have outlived the politics of the time and have spread their influence (good and bad) into today.

There may be a God and It may be all powerful. I doubt if It's on the side of one tribe or another.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The people who were attacked by the Christians didn't have a God of their own, so Mohammed had to invent one to give his own people belief that they had a powerful entity on their side.
> 
> .




The Bible and the Koran both talk about the same God, the Old Testament, New Testament and the Koran are just part 1, 2 and 3 in a series of fan fiction.

That's why Jesus, Adam and Eve, and other bible characters appear in the Koran, and it's also why the Muslims and Jews both avoid pork, the Christians just ignore the bible verses banning pork, but the pork phobia started in the bible, the Muslims just carried it on, while the Christians skip that page.

The Jews believe part 1 is the only true account and part 2 and 3 are frauds, the Christians believe part 1 is old covenant and their part 2 is the word of God, and the Muslims believe part 2 and 3 were originally true, but have been corrupted and their part 3 is the only true account.

The fan fiction doesn't stop there, a convicted conman in the USA wrote the book of Morman as and extension of part 2, creating the mormans, and there are various other works different fan clubs follow.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2015)

Muslim leader waves away the death of 700 people



> He said, although it was sad and should not happen, the Hajj pilgrims were prepared for the possibility of a stampede.
> 
> "On the one hand, it is very sad to hear that some 700 people have lost their lives, but on the other hand, any Muslim who goes to Mecca is prepared for the ultimate," Mr Patel said.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-25/pilgrims-spent-life-savings-to-attend-hajj-leader-says/6804186

Yeah, everything's OK, sorry kids that you lost your parents, but that's the price you pay for belonging to our religion.

Fruitcake.

Life means nothing to them.


----------



## noco (25 September 2015)

How dare they impose this on Australian manufacturers.


I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ.
 DICK SMITH'S MESSAGE TO ISLAM

There should be more leading Australians like Dick, he gets to the bottom of important issues and anything 
that amounts to selling out Australia is very important. Please pass this on and on and on. 





A WARNING  FROM DICK SMITH:
You may be aware that " Dick Smith " chain franchise stores are being pressured by the Islamic Council of 
Australia to gain 'Halal Certification' otherwise they will be proscribed and banned from Muslim custom. 

This is their response:

A MESSAGE FROM DICK SMITH.
"We at Dick Smith's have received a number of letters  from people asking if we will be putting the Muslim 
Halal logo on our food.

To acquire Halal certification, payment is required to the endorsing body (the  Islamic Council) and involves a 
number of site inspections of both our growers and processors in order to ensure that our practices comply 
with the conditions of Halal certification.
It is important to note that this does not reflect the quality of the food being processed or sold – it only 
means that the products are approved as being  prepared in accordance with the traditions of the Muslim 
faith.
We are aware of an increasing number of large companies both in Australia and overseas, such as Kraft and 
Cadbury, who have obtained accreditation to use the Halal logo. We don’t believe they have done this because
of any religious  commitment but rather for purely commercial reasons. Perhaps these large  organisations 
can afford to do this.
While we have a choice however, we would prefer to avoid unnecessarily increasing  the cost of our products 
in order to pay for Halal accreditation when this money would be better spent continuing to support important 
charitable causes where assistance is greatly needed.
We point out that we have never been asked to put a Christian symbol (or any other religious symbol) on our 
food requiring that we send money to a Christian organisation for the right to do so.
Others would add that money paid to ANY Muslim 'organisation' (and you had better believe it: these people 
ARE 'organised') can easily find its way into the hands of Islamic extremist-fanatics and murderers,
irrespective of assurances to the contrary.
What other assurances do we accept from Muslims?
Oh, that's right, 'Islam is a religion of PEACE'!
How less Australian can companies get, than to place money into the hands of those who seek to exploit us?"
This is an example of how the leaders of Muslims in Aus/NZ are bullying large commercial organisations 
(especially in the food industry) into paying what is no more than blatant extortion money. The amazing part 
is that these weak-kneed organisations (Cadbury/ Schweppes/ Nestles/ Kraft etc.) actually pay the large 
sums demanded by these self-appointed religious bureaucrats. Of course, the manufacturers promptly pass this levy 
on to  unwitting consumers as cost increases. Next time you buy a block of  Cadbury's chocolate, 
look for the Halal Certification seal on the wrapper. So, regardless of your own religious faith, you end up
subsidizing Islam.
The Council also controls the Muslim voter bloc which, as yet, does not have sufficient critical mass to 
make a difference - but give them time.
Several state jurisdictions are under pressure to adopt or permit Sharia Law in Marriage, Family and Property 
matters and some, under the delusion that they are being progressively liberal, are permitting this. This has 
already happened in some local authorities in the  U.K.
Google the U.K. Education Department's current investigation into the conduct of Muslim-run schools in the 
Birmingham area of  England .

How many more warnings do people need? 

Check the produce on the shelf and don't buy anything Muslim extorted.  

THANK YOU FOR READING THIS RIGHT THROUGH TO THE END.......!


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2015)

noco said:


> How dare they impose this on Australian manufacturers.
> 
> 
> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ.
> ...




I would have thought Dick Smith would know how this game is play?
If he want to sell to Muslims, stick a Halal logo on it. Just like he stick the Australian Flag on his Aussie Mite... 

If sticking both flag and Halal won't sell properly, then separate the shipment, or pick which market makes more money.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> I would have thought Dick Smith would know how this game is play?
> If he want to sell to Muslims, stick a Halal logo on it. Just like he stick the Australian Flag on his Aussie Mite...
> 
> If sticking both flag and Halal won't sell properly, then separate the shipment, or pick which market makes more money.




If he's selling biscuits or similar, all he had to do is stick a message on it saying "there is no pork or alcohol in this product" . The idea that you have to pay some loonies to confirm that, when they probably don't even test anyway is ridiculous.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 September 2015)

noco said:


> How dare they impose this on Australian manufacturers.
> 
> 
> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ.
> ...




http://www.dicksmithfoods.com.au/media/news/halal-certification-our-food



> Update 18 December 2014 - HOAX EMAIL
> 
> *Please be aware that there is a hoax email being distributed on social media networks. It has been circulating for some time now and although most people are aware that it is hoax.* There are others who believe it to be true and keep sharing it. Our view on Halal certification is as stated above only. Please help us put a stop to this hoax by advising anyone who shares it that it is not Dick Smith's view on the subject. Thank you


----------



## sydboy007 (25 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> I would have thought Dick Smith would know how this game is play?
> If he want to sell to Muslims, stick a Halal logo on it. Just like he stick the Australian Flag on his Aussie Mite...
> 
> If sticking both flag and Halal won't sell properly, then separate the shipment, or pick which market makes more money.




I'm an atheist but somehow I think I am more supportive of religious freedom than those who claim a faith in some sky god.

I would definitely not agree with any religion trying to force a company to provide them funds in any way, but at the same time if these people willingly choose to have dictated what foods they are able to purchase, well that's their religious and personal freedom.

Religious freedom and tolerance seems to be degenerating into freedom and tolerance for a person's own religion and intolerance and restrictions for all others.  You can see this increasingly in the USA.  You can see the likes of bernardi and his ilk would love to move Australia to some form of theocracy, though they'd prob try to call it something else just so it doesn't seem too much like the setup they have in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I would definitely not agree with any religion trying to force a company to provide them funds in any way, but at the same time if these people willingly choose to have dictated what foods they are able to purchase, well that's their religious and personal freedom.




Hmm, it's a matter of how willing they really are.

Threats of being branded an apostate which still carries a death sentence in Islam if you try and give up your religion doesn't sound particularly voluntary to me.

Freedom OF religion should also include freedom FROM religion.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Hmm, it's a matter of how willing they really are.
> 
> Threats of being branded an apostate which still carries a death sentence in Islam if you try and give up your religion doesn't sound particularly voluntary to me.
> 
> Freedom OF religion should also include freedom FROM religion.




True, but we were talking about the issue of halal certification within Australia.

Why does no one have an issue with kosher certification?

http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/FAQ_-_About_The_KA.html



> The KA charges for Domestic Kosher certification, between $500 and $2200. For export certification, between $2200 and $6600. The final fee will depend upon the difficulty of supervision and is determined at the time of the issuance of certification.




http://www.thepointmagazine.com.au/...food-industry-bites-back-at-anti-halal-groups



> Halal certification has opened up foreign markets, allowed the company to increase its volume of production, provided 65 locals with employment and stabilised the product price, Byrne said.
> The prices of certification are low and much the same as gaining gluten-free or vegan certification, he said. The $1,400 certification that guaranteed the product was free from alcohol (found in vanilla essence) and gelatine, which is an animal by-product, as well as being hygenic was “money well-spent”, he said.






> Mohamed El-Mouelhy, of Halal Certification Authority Australia, said the $10 billion halal export market (a third of Australian food exports) in Australia is booming. Bega Cheese has gone from employing 100 locals to over 500 locals after their certification. The dairy farmers' cooperative-owned factory is now exporting food around the world, he said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-14/fact-check-does-halal-certification-fund-terrorism/6383238

The whole beat up over halal certification is just religious intolerance.

Maybe freedom of religion and freedom from religion means proselyting should be banned.  You're free to hold you're beliefs, just not free to go out forcing them on others.

Then we could start looking at the tax free status of religions.


----------



## Macquack (25 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Why does no one have an issue with kosher certification?




Because the jews are very influential.

If you say "boo" against the  jews, they have a "special word" to brand you with - "anti-semite".

I have just said enough to be labelled as such. What a crock of SH*T.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm an atheist but somehow I think I am more supportive of religious freedom than those who claim a faith in some sky god.
> 
> I would definitely not agree with any religion trying to force a company to provide them funds in any way, but at the same time if these people willingly choose to have dictated what foods they are able to purchase, well that's their religious and personal freedom.
> 
> Religious freedom and tolerance seems to be degenerating into freedom and tolerance for a person's own religion and intolerance and restrictions for all others.  You can see this increasingly in the USA.  You can see the likes of bernardi and his ilk would love to move Australia to some form of theocracy, though they'd prob try to call it something else just so it doesn't seem too much like the setup they have in Saudi Arabia.




Yea, strange how some religious people aren't that tolerant of other people's religion or practice but demand theirs be tolerated and forced on others. Maybe not so strange.

I know a fair number of really religious people and they seem quite tolerant and open minded about others' faith... maybe it's up to the person and religious teaching is just an excuse intolerant people can point to to justify their prejudice.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> Because the jews are very influential.
> 
> If you say "boo" against the  jews, they have a "special word" to brand you with - "anti-semite".
> 
> I have just said enough to be labelled as such. What a crock of SH*T.




And I bet Kosher certifiers would charge more than Halal too... Jewish people are very good at making money, hahaha... OK, sorry, was channeling Cartman from South Park there. Serious, while I don't know any Jewish people, a lot of people I admire are Jewish - Steven Spielberg, Noam Chomsky, Ben Graham, Phillip Fisher, Jon Stewart is sometime funny... ah nuts, i think I just prove your point 

Alright, to be fair, the Chinese are also very good at making money. They all do it opening restaurants, and with the Yum Cha they not only chip you with $5 for a few chicken feet, they also chip your bill at the register because there's no bloody price on your purchase and the dude does the totals in his head!


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If he's selling biscuits or similar, all he had to do is stick a message on it saying "there is no pork or alcohol in this product" . The idea that you have to pay some loonies to confirm that, when they probably don't even test anyway is ridiculous.




Yes, because a company would never lie, Look at the current VW scandal. turns out they have been lying about their cars emissions for years, customers thought they were buying eco friendly, turns out the emissions of certain chemicals are 40 times legal limits.

Also, Halal is a lot more than just alcohol and pork.


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2015)

noco said:


> How dare they impose this on Australian manufacturers.
> 
> 
> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ.
> ...




Dude, it literally took me 30 seconds to confirm that dick smith message is hoax.

It is so annoying when rubbish like this and even worse stuff is spread around face book without anyone taking 1 minute to verify is.

As I was reading certain parts of it I was thinking there is no way dick smith would say that, this has got to be a hoax, 30seconds later I confirmed it was a hoax, try and be more sceptical don't believe every thing you read, especially when it sounds like its coming from a person trying to stir trouble that doesn't know what they are talking about.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, because a company would never lie, Look at the current VW scandal. turns out they have been lying about their cars emissions for years, customers thought they were buying eco friendly, turns out the emissions of certain chemicals are 40 times legal limits.




People have an opportunity to test his claims. A Muslim organisation can have his biscuits scientifically analysed to see if they conform to what he says and if not they could take him to court for false advertising.

Just as VW was found out, so could anyone else. 



> Also, Halal is a lot more than just alcohol and pork.




You mean it has to be blessed by an Imam or something ?

I'm surprised that you would be condoning such medieval religious malarkey.

So does this mean there is a Muslim at every abattoir blessing each cow that get slaughtered ?

Don't be silly.

If I was a company and wanted to sell into a market and certification was required then I would do it and pass the charge on to the consumer, but that doesn't mean I can't point out how stupid and extortionate the whole process of religious certification is, whether it's Jewish, Muslim or any other religion.

It's a scam pure and simple.


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> People have an opportunity to test his claims. A Muslim organisation can have his biscuits scientifically analysed to see if they conform to what he says and if not they could take him to court for false advertising.
> 
> .




I don't know how you would test for all the different halal factors.

and surely if you were a Muslim you trust a company that's opened its door to your inspectors.

Not only that, its a two way street, the companies want to sell their products to Muslims, but are not experts on Halal, So they benefit in a few ways, during certification the company is taught the fine details of what is required to help them comply, the certification spots any areas of concern they company would miss by them selves, and then they get the logo, which makes their products more appealing to Muslims.



> Just as VW was found out, so could anyone else.




If you honestly believed your eternal life way at risk, you probably wouldn't want to take the risk on self certified product.  





> You mean it has to be blessed by an Imam or something ?




no I mean there are other animals besides pig, and its not just pork but any swine products, eg a biscuit could contain a some other product that is derived from pigs.



> I'm surprised that you would be condoning such medieval religious malarkey.




As I have always said, as long as no one is being harmed, I support peoples rights to practice religion.





> If I was a company and wanted to sell into a market and certification was required then I would do it and pass the charge on to the consumer,




your talking about a fee that can be $2200, that's tiny compared to the marketing expense of selling into many other markets.

on 1,000,000 units, how much would have to increase the price to regain your $2,200, if it helps you sell 1% more units it pays for itself, KFC doesn't increase prices to fund the $1,000,000's they have spent sponsoring the cricket and other marketing, why a manufacturer have to increase prices to pay $2,200.

$2,200 would barely get your company name on the local under 18's netball shirts, have you ever worked in marketing?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

> As I have always said, as long as no one is being harmed, I support peoples rights to practice religion.




So do I , but from comments you made on other threads about other religions I had formed the impression that you had made it your life's ambition to talk people out of superstitions towards more scientific, rational and enquiring lines of thought.

I must say I'm disappointed that you can ditch all that rhetoric very quickly when you see that there is a buck to be made out of religion.



And I also got the impression that you thought that people are being harmed simply by being driven by religion rather than evidence or logic. Correct or not ?


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So do I , but from comments you made on other threads about other religions I had formed the impression that you had made it your life's ambition to talk people out of superstitions
> I must say I'm disappointed that you can ditch all that rhetoric very quickly when you see that there is a buck to be made out of religion.




I certainly do try and talk people out of superstitions, towards more scientific, rational and enquiring lines of thought.

But as I said, I respect religious freedom, and I know we will never win any hearts or minds by trying to end religion by force or trying to infringe on peoples rights to practice their religion or spreading misinformation.

All the face book pages dedicated to attacking Halal foods, hijab wearing or Muslim refugees etc are not helping, its causing polarization, its whipping up irrational fear among Australians and pushing them into extremist positions and it making the Muslims feel threated, and making them retreat back to their enclaves and making them even further hard lined.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> All the face book pages dedicated to attacking Halal foods, hijab wearing or Muslim refugees etc are not helping, its causing polarization, its whipping up irrational fear among Australians and pushing them into extremist positions and it making the Muslims feel threated, and making them retreat back to their enclaves and making them even further hard lined.




I agree with that, but there seems to be little attempts at a more rational approach, liking simply telling people that the fundamental beliefs of their religion are invalid. In the nicest possible way of course.


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> simply telling people that the fundamental beliefs of their religion are invalid. In the nicest possible way of course.




I tell people that all the time, lol.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> All the face book pages dedicated to attacking Halal foods, hijab wearing or Muslim refugees etc are not helping, its causing polarization, its whipping up irrational fear among Australians and pushing them into extremist positions and it making the Muslims feel threated, and making them retreat back to their enclaves and making them even further hard lined.




Ah, I see where you are coming from, you are saying that because Muslims are a minority we shouldn't criticise them even when they are wrong in the same way as you would criticise say Catholics ?

I once posed the question, which I don't think you have answered, if Halal was a Catholic belief and not a Muslim one, would you criticise them for imposing their beliefs on others ?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

> your talking about a fee that can be $2200, that's tiny compared to the marketing expense of selling into many other markets.





Sure, and once the company gets dependent on the Halal market the fee will go up and up and up.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree with that, but there seems to be little attempts at a more rational approach, liking simply telling people that the fundamental beliefs of their religion are invalid. In the nicest possible way of course.




The only people you'll help doing that are those who are already questioning.

I thoroughly recommend watching some of Matt's videos on youtube he has provided via the Atheist Debates Patreon Project.  

His interviews with Robert m Price and Dr Jerry Coyne were very interesting.

matt ask Coyne how he goes about helping the religious understand the theory of evolution and his response was along the lines of he waits for them to come to him.  When someone is questioning and looking for answers, they are far more open to hear what you are saying.

For someone who's deeply religious, coming to understand that their religion is akin to being conned you've been poisoned and this select group has the only cure, well that's not a one conversation revelation.

If someone tried to push their religious beliefs onto me, I'll push back, but I see no value in say going up to some JWs witnessing on the street and trying to force them to understand just how silly their beliefs are.  When I hear someone religious say something that is clearly factually wrong, and where I feel I can explain in easily understood terms why they are wrong, I will do it.

Just as you probably find your hackles are raised when someone tries to convert you, they have a similar emotional response.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah, I see where you are coming from, you are saying that because Muslims are a minority we shouldn't criticise them even when they are wrong in the same way as you would criticise say Catholics ?
> 
> I once posed the question, which I don't think you have answered, if Halal was a Catholic belief and not a Muslim one, would you criticise them for imposing their beliefs on others ?




Do people have the right to choose what food they eat?

Do companies have the right to market their product as they see fit?

That's not to say you or myself or VC would agree on the decisions, but I will support the right of people and companies to make their choices as long as no one is being harmed, and the information provided is true.

How is it much different for someone choosing to eat kosher / halal food, because to them, in simplistic terms, it's the right thing to do, and someone deciding they wont bank with HSBC because they've been caught too many times money laundering for violent drug cartels, or boycotting VW because of the current scandal?

You could argue that religion is and off itself is harmful, purely because it encourages people to have an unrealistic view of the world, but unless you are proposing to ban religious freedom, we're stuck with it till enough people have opened their eyes and stop indoctrinating the next generation.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The only people you'll help doing that are those who are already questioning.
> 
> I thoroughly recommend watching some of Matt's videos on youtube he has provided via the Atheist Debates Patreon Project.
> 
> ...




Yes, I think you are right there.

Once people have the cr.p scared out of them by the belief that they will rot in hell if they eat pork, reason doesn't enter into the equation.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Do people have the right to choose what food they eat?
> 
> Do companies have the right to market their product as they see fit?




Yes and yes. I said before that if I was a company and I wanted access to foreign markets then I would go for the certification.

The problems I have are:

a. Are the companies going to make a "no Halal" product for the local market ? I don't want to contribute to a religion that thinks that sexism, arranged marriages, child brides, honour killings and female genital mutilation are OK practises in the modern age.

b. While the certification fees are low at the moment, we will see what happens when companies get dependent on the Halal market. Perhaps the certification authorities will then start screwing them for more fees. Then the prices start going up and the general consumers suffer.

c. The whole thing is a scam anyway enforced by a large number of ignorant people that have been sold a pile of poo.


----------



## luutzu (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah, I see where you are coming from, you are saying that because Muslims are a minority we shouldn't criticise them even when they are wrong in the same way as you would criticise say Catholics ?
> 
> I once posed the question, which I don't think you have answered, if Halal was a Catholic belief and not a Muslim one, would you criticise them for imposing their beliefs on others ?




1.3 or so Billion people is no minority. But I get your point that in Australia they're a minority, though still don't think it's fair on VC given his... his messianic mission against religion... wouldn't surprise me if he start his own non-religious religion one day. haha


----------



## luutzu (26 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I think you are right there.
> 
> Once people have the cr.p scared out of them by the belief that they will rot in hell if they eat pork, reason doesn't enter into the equation.




I think psychologically, if you're brought up to associate pork or alcohol or non-Halal food as wrong and unclean, I think you will feel physically ill if you eat them. So while it seems funny or just something superficial to us atheist or non Muslim/Jew... there is that real connection between the mind and the body.

I saw this Muslim lady at a chemist one time where she was really really serious about whether the mouth wash contains alcohol or not. She read the entire fine prints, weren't sure and go ask the chemist and they check it up. If there's a Halal logo on it life would be easier for them.

And if you are to buy a house, don't pick ones with numbers that add up to 4. So no 4, or 22, or 31... and none to 10 either. Asians, especially Chinese, will not buy it. 4 means death and 10 means bankruptcy... My folks found a house years back with number 40... it fits their direction, land was good, price was cheap but no one bought it and they didn't either until a monk my dad know asks how his house hunting was and he said he found the perfect one except for the number... lucky for us the monk said 40 is fine, as long as it's not 4.


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2015)

P







SirRumpole said:


> Ah, I see where you are coming from, you are saying that because Muslims are a minority we shouldn't criticise them even when they are wrong in the same way as you would criticise say Catholics ?
> 
> I once posed the question, which I don't think you have answered, if Halal was a Catholic belief and not a Muslim one, would you criticise them for imposing their beliefs on others ?




What I am saying is I want people to allow Muslims all the same religious freedoms we would allow the Catholics, eg, you wouldn't start a hate group on face book asking to ban nuns from wearing veils, so don't try and ban burkas, no one has cared about kosher foods for the last 50years, so don't care about halal, no one protests churches being built, so don't protest a mosque.

No I wouldn't care if halal was Catholic, what Catholics eat is the least of my worries, the only time I will point out what A catholic eats is when they are trying to portray themselves as the pillars of society I will remind them that on Sunday's their blood cult pretends to eat human flesh, while their preist pretends to drink blood, and all this happens under a statue of their dead leader, buts that's just me stating the facts, and pointing out their silliness, when they are trying to gain respect because of their faith.


----------



## pixel (27 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> 1.3 or so Billion people is no minority. But I get your point that in Australia they're a minority, though still don't think it's fair on VC given his... his messianic mission against religion... wouldn't surprise me if he start his own non-religious religion one day. haha




True, the 1.3 Billion are no minority, but the few 100 Thousand that made their way into Australia are.
Luckily for most of us, Australian society has adopted a fairly tolerant attitude in regard to people's beliefs; but that tolerance is based on mutual tolerance, with personal opinions and beliefs kept exactly that: personal and private. When a minority starts exposing their personal idiosyncrasies and pretends their beliefs to be superior to others, that's when they hit a sore spot with those of their neighbours who don't share that view.

I, too, much prefer a neighbour who doesn't take offense when offered a ham sandwich or a beer.

PS: VC, I don't think the comparison between a nun's veil and the burqa applies. A welder needs to wear a mask; a motorbike rider a helmet; a nun's habit is the dress of her profession. When entering civil society outside the confines of their job, they all conform to accepted dress standards. If they don't, they risk criticism by another minority whose members object to being confronted by what they consider inappropriate segregation.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2015)

pixel said:


> PS: VC, I don't think the comparison between a nun's veil and the burqa applies. A welder needs to wear a mask; a motorbike rider a helmet; a nun's habit is the dress of her profession. When entering civil society outside the confines of their job, they all conform to accepted dress standards. If they don't, they risk criticism by another minority whose members object to being confronted by what they consider inappropriate segregation.




So is it to much to ask that women be allowed to wear any clothing they like, whether that be a nuns veil or a hijab or summer dress?

I mean that's not even really religious rights, that's just basic personal freedom. 

but look as much as I dislike religion and superstition, we need to allow people the freedom to practice them as they wish as long as they are doing no harm to others.

If the religious do one this well, it's playing the victim card, if you give them any reason to feel oppressed, we are actually helping their cause, look at tink, she genuinely feels extending rights to gays, somehow is an attack on hear, heaven forbid we actually tried to ban some thing.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

pixel said:


> True, the 1.3 Billion are no minority, but the few 100 Thousand that made their way into Australia are.
> Luckily for most of us, Australian society has adopted a fairly tolerant attitude in regard to people's beliefs; but that tolerance is based on mutual tolerance, with personal opinions and beliefs kept exactly that: personal and private. When a minority starts exposing their personal idiosyncrasies and pretends their beliefs to be superior to others, that's when they hit a sore spot with those of their neighbours who don't share that view.
> 
> I, too, much prefer a neighbour who doesn't take offense when offered a ham sandwich or a beer.
> ...




I'm sure there's always a few, in any group we care to mention, that'll take their beliefs and religion very very seriously and will not tolerate anyone or anything that goes against such beliefs.

The Muslims I know and live around.. .they don't take offend to me or their neighbours not practising their religion or follow their customs and tradition. I mean, right on Haldon St, maybe the main street of Arab Muslims in Sydney [?], there's a bottle shop, a block behind there's an RSL club - serving beer and a pokie or two; there's a about 3 churches, a couple Catholic schools etc. etc. None of these non-Muslim, non-Islamic stuff are vandalised or protested against.

And neither I or any one I know are forced to wear or dress as they do... most actually dress like most of us, only now and then on prayer days or Ramadan that there's more traditional kind of dress code.

And just like that lady at the chemist checking out if what she plans to buy contain alcohol... she didn't go all crazy and complaint why the chemist not stock Halal stuff only etc... she just know what she want and will only buy what she want... If that bottle contain alcohol, she put it back.

Being tolerant is not just about us tolerating their beliefs and customs when it suits us. They could wear and choose whatever food or drink they like, as long as you and I and others aren't banned or harm by it... that's what freedom is - we got our freedom to do what we want, they got theirs to do as they want... as long as one does not oppress the other, it's all cool by me.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

> but look as much as I dislike religion and superstition, we need to allow people the freedom to practice them as they wish as long as they are doing no harm to others.




Yes fine, but when it comes to people demanding that businesses or public areas like airports provide prayer rooms and that bosses give people time off to pray three times a day or that canteens or shops must provide Halal food, that is where religion starts to intrude on others.

 If a small number of people want to demand that the rest of us cater to their practises then I think we need to draw a line at that.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So is it to much to ask that women be allowed to wear any clothing they like, whether that be a nuns veil or a hijab or summer dress?
> 
> I mean that's not even really religious rights, that's just basic personal freedom.




As long as the clothing does not conceal identity that could be used to commit a crime.


----------



## Tink (27 September 2015)

Burka, niqab, and anything else that does not show their face, should be banned, as I have said many times for safety reasons. 

We have never had that in Australia.

Nuns have never covered their faces, and not only nuns wore headscarves, over their hair.
Many women have worn them, even just coming out of hairdressing salons, through the years.

Headscarves don't bother me, but covering faces does.

Christians are being beheaded overseas, VC, so I don't appreciate you putting them in the same category.

As I keep reminding you, Christianity, is the foundations of this country.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes fine, but when it comes to people demanding that businesses or public areas like airports provide prayer rooms and that bosses give people time off to pray three times a day or that canteens or shops must provide Halal food, that is where religion starts to intrude on others.
> 
> If a small number of people want to demand that the rest of us cater to their practises then I think we need to draw a line at that.




Here is the way I look at, we are a free country, with religious freedom.

airports can provide prayer rooms if they want, and a canteen can serve halal food if it wants, If customers are demanding something, it's generally good business to provide it, that's not a religious intrusion, it just a business responding to demand.

No one demands that food processors are halal, it's just an option they have if they want to supply a certain part of the market.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as the clothing does not conceal identity that could be used to commit a crime.




Do we have a lot of crimes happening by people whereing burkas?



Tink said:


> Burka, niqab, and anything else that does not show their face, should be banned, as I have said many times for safety reasons.
> 
> We have never had that in Australia.
> 
> ...




Whats the safety concern with the burka tink?

The majority of people being killed by the likes of Isis are Muslim tink, yes some Christians have been killed also, in some cases it's Christians doing the killing, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of headdress, in Australia.

I know you keep saying this is a Christian country, but that is just your delusion talking. You won't find anything in the constitution mentioning Jesus, the bible or Christianity.


----------



## Tink (27 September 2015)

Just to remind you......

While the Australian legal-political tradition cannot lay claim to the historical depth of America and the United Kingdom, it too was built on solid foundations””starting with the first British fleet departing for Australia in 1787, when Captain Arthur Phillip was instructed to take such steps as were necessary for the celebration of public worship.

At the time of British settlement in Australia, Christianity formed an integral part of the theory of English law and civil government. In his seminal work, A History of English Law, Sir William Holdsworth expressed the traditional view of the close relationship between Christianity and the common law:

Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England, and therefore is to be protected by it; now whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity tends manifestly to dissolution of civil government.

While the penal colony of New South Wales was established in 1788, English law was not recognised until the passage of the Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp.). This Act determined that all laws and statutes in force in England at that time were to be, as far as it was possible, applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land.
When the English common law was transplanted to Australia, the supreme courts of the colonies were empowered to decide which English laws were applicable to Australia. 

It was at that moment that Christianity was included in the law of the land.

The place of Christianity in the common law was not only acknowledged, but unconditionally adopted by the Supreme Court of NSW in the case of Ex Parte Thackeray (1874). The reception of these principles was perhaps best encapsulated in that case by Justice Hargrave, who famously commented that:

We, the colonists of New South Wales, “bring out with us” … this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by [Sir Edward] Coke and [Sir William] Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law….

It has been said that a people without historical memory can be easily deceived by false and destructive philosophies. Although undeniably diminished and rarely acknowledged, the Christian religion has an enduring role in the Australian legal-political system. 

In these days of political correctness and cultural relativism, it is always good to be reminded of our Christian heritage, which still permeates most of the present laws and socio-political institutions of this democratic nation. 

To state this obvious fact is not to be ‘intolerant’ but to simply stress an undeniable truth.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2015)

i know people in our history have been Christian, but so what?

Before you go on another rant, find me the words bible, Jesus, Christian etc in our founding documents. I will give you a hint, they are there.

Also all the concepts that make Australia great are secular, you ignore the crappy bits of your doctrine and focus on the good bits, but none of the good bits rely on your religion.

Name one good thing religion does that can't be done in other ways?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Here is the way I look at, we are a free country, with religious freedom.
> 
> airports can provide prayer rooms if they want, and a canteen can serve halal food if it wants, If customers are demanding something, it's generally good business to provide it, that's not a religious intrusion, it just a business responding to demand.
> 
> No one demands that food processors are halal, it's just an option they have if they want to supply a certain part of the market.




Mostly I agree , but if businesses choose not to cater for a few employees who want special rights to pursue their religion, then that is the businesses right.

Experiences of other countries show that when the Muslim population gets large enough they start agitating that people start conforming to their desires like introducing Sharia law. We have already had a few incursions in that regard, and it's something that should be completely rejected by a secular society.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

> Whats the safety concern with the burka ?




People could use them as a cover to commit crimes.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Mostly I agree , but if businesses choose not to cater for a few employees who want special rights to pursue their religion, then that is the businesses right.
> 
> Experiences of other countries show that when the Muslim population gets large enough they start agitating that people start conforming to their desires like introducing Sharia law. We have already had a few incursions in that regard, and it's something that should be completely rejected by a secular society.




That's like permitting businesses and buildings to not have to put a ramp for those in wheelchairs. Not saying religion is like a disability... but businesses and developers can argue theres only ever one or two wheelchair bound, and on some premises, no one with a disability will ever go there etc.

Even the US Navy permit their Muslim recruits their prayer time.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> People could use them as a cover to commit crimes.




How were all other crimes in Australia ever committed before the Burqa comes along? Ski masks? Clown masks?
Come on man.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Just to remind you......
> 
> While the Australian legal-political tradition cannot lay claim to the historical depth of America and the United Kingdom, it too was built on solid foundations””starting with the first British fleet departing for Australia in 1787, when Captain Arthur Phillip was instructed to take such steps as were necessary for the celebration of public worship.
> 
> ...




The good old days of Colonial Australia. 

Don't think women were permitted to work in any field, or attend uni, or vote... but then the poor males weren't allowed to either... ah the good old days.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> How were all other crimes in Australia ever committed before the Burqa comes along? Ski masks? Clown masks?
> Come on man.




Ban them all in public places, doesn't bother me.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> That's like permitting businesses and buildings to not have to put a ramp for those in wheelchairs. Not saying religion is like a disability... but businesses and developers can argue theres only ever one or two wheelchair bound, and on some premises, no one with a disability will ever go there etc.
> 
> Even the US Navy permit their Muslim recruits their prayer time.




Being disabled is not a choice, being religious is.

People can practise their religion in their own time and with their own resources, not anyone elses.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Being disabled is not a choice, being religious is.
> 
> People can practise their religion in their own time and with their own resources, not anyone elses.




How do you know they don't make arrangement with the employer to come in earlier or leave later to make up for times spent during the day in prayer?

So why does employers or taxpayers have to pay for maternity leave? 
Why do employers or developers have to put in ramps when it's their choice to have no disabled people there anyway?

We can't pick and choose what's ok to discriminate against because it doesn't affect us or it fits our beliefs and religion. If our law or our value system permit that, they're not much of a system to be proud of... and systems that could do that may one day turn against our interests, no? Maybe one of our kids decided to convert to Islam; maybe one of them is born gay, maybe when the Muslims take over Australia they might use our same standard and force us to eat fish on all days and Christmas is bunk.

Anyway, we're getting carried away with all these propaganda stuff.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> How do you know they don't make arrangement with the employer to come in earlier or leave later to make up for times spent during the day in prayer?




Mutual agreements are fine, I'm not telling employers how they should run their business, I'm just saying that if they don't want to accommodate religious practises in business time or with business resources then they have a right not to.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Being disabled is not a choice, being religious is.




Not really.  You didn't choose 99% of your current beliefs.  You just picked them up from society, parents, peers.

If a baby is born into a radical Muslim family, he has no idea he is being hypnotized.  When the baby becomes an adult, the chances of understanding that he is living someone else's beliefs, are slim.  If he does find out, the chances of him trying to change his beliefs are even slimmer.

If a baby is born into a prosperous, modern, Western family, he has no idea he is being hypnotized.  We have a slightly better chance at changing out beliefs because there's less fear involved, usually.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Not really.  You didn't choose 99% of your current beliefs.  You just picked them up from society, parents, peers.
> 
> If a baby is born into a radical Muslim family, he has no idea he is being hypnotized.  When the baby becomes an adult, the chances of understanding that he is living someone else's beliefs, are slim.  If he does find out, the chances of him trying to change his beliefs are even slimmer.
> 
> If a baby is born into a prosperous, modern, Western family, he has no idea he is being hypnotized.  We have a slightly better chance at changing out beliefs because there's less fear involved, usually.




Maybe but there is no onus on secular society to foster religious beliefs.


----------



## pixel (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe but there is no onus on secular society to foster religious beliefs.




I absolutely agree. But why then is our "secular society" so stupid to extend tax-free status to every superstitious outfit that calls itself "religious"? And why do we still vote for parliamentarians that disengage their brains when political reason clashes with their beliefs? You'd think, if we really were a secular society, Parliaments needn't bother with prayers or swearings-in on the bible.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 September 2015)

On a related note...

Media (social and mainstream) are very powerful in shaping our beliefs and expectations.

Something I've noticed when I watch the evening news is that they will present opinion as fact.  Most viewers don't even notice because of the way it's done.

eg.  Us Melbournians love ....
In Australia, we are well known for ...
Australians have always been...

Wait a second!  Says who??  News is supposed to be factually based but half of it nowadays is editorializing and opinion-making.  They tell us what to like and dislike, what to be outraged about and whom to adore.  It's total crap.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Wait a second!  Says who??  News is supposed to be factually based but half of it nowadays is editorializing and opinion-making.  They tell us what to like and dislike, what to be outraged about and whom to adore.  It's total crap.




Indeed so and even the most junior reporters on the ABC have their Twitter addresses flashed at us as if we are interested in their opinions.

ABC Breakfast is becoming a pop show with half the time taken up by music interviews and the other half by sport.

Waste of time.


----------



## sptrawler (27 September 2015)

Gringotts Bank said:


> On a related note...
> 
> Media (social and mainstream) are very powerful in shaping our beliefs and expectations.
> 
> ...




Absolutely correct, the media is a platform, for commentators opinions  and beliefs.

It has actually become a National crisis.IMO


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely correct, the media is a platform, for commentators opinions  and beliefs.
> 
> It has actually become a National crisis.IMO




It's news Fox style.

Opinions are cheap to get and could sell the same amount of air time... cut the chances of being sued too. So why would anyone want to investigate, question, upset the rich and powerful, and probably bored the heck out of the audiences. So either opinions, entertainment news... and for serious journalism stuff you quote what's given out to you at official briefings. 

Kinda like investment analysts and business reporters basically copy and pasting what's handed out in presentations from the company.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Mutual agreements are fine, I'm not telling employers how they should run their business, I'm just saying that if they don't want to accommodate religious practises in business time or with business resources then they have a right not to.




That's up to what the law and the lawyers said though.

I think business in general would accommodate their employees religion and culture, not simply because the law said so but it might make good business sense. People generally like to work with and for people who respect their religion and might even put in the extra effort to show appreciation. 

So there's that two way street and if business doesn't find it suitable, there's a few creative ways they can get any employee to leave without breaking the law. Look at WalMart... you think of joining a union? How about I shift you to the late hours, then back to other hours, then randomly assign you this role then that, at this store or that... make your life plans around that... Most will quit after a while and won't get any retrenchment benefits either since it's them that quit.

See, you think religious people are devious? We're talking about capitalists here.


----------



## sptrawler (27 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> It's news Fox style.
> 
> Opinions are cheap to get and could sell the same amount of air time... cut the chances of being sued too. So why would anyone want to investigate, question, upset the rich and powerful, and probably bored the heck out of the audiences. So either opinions, entertainment news... and for serious journalism stuff you quote what's given out to you at official briefings.
> 
> Kinda like investment analysts and business reporters basically copy and pasting what's handed out in presentations from the company.




It is right, kids today want instant hit, what they want to hear news.

The last thing they want to hear, is reality.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> See, you think religious people are devious? We're talking about capitalists here.




I'm sure that's all true as I'm sure there are people who use religion as an excuse for backsliding and then claim minority persecution when they are called out.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> It is right, kids today want instant hit, what they want to hear news.
> 
> The last thing they want to hear, is reality.




A lot of the audience want thrills and spills in politics(literally) and don't like boring policy discussions and that rubs off onto journalists who forever accentuate possible divisions in political parties (of which there will always be some), and when it comes to detailed policy analysis a lot of the young journos couldn't be bothered.

People like Laurie Oakes are dinosaurs unfortunately and I hate to think of the garbage we will be served with once he and his ilk depart the scene.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> It is right, kids today want instant hit, what they want to hear news.
> 
> The last thing they want to hear, is reality.




But to be fair, reality can be depressing though 

Saw this clip where CNN or one of those was interviewing some big politician or secretary in the US... and as they were answering policy issues the anchor interrupt the big man for breaking news from Florida... Turns out the breaking news was Justin Bieber broke a nail or something.

Got to give it to Murdoch... he knows how the news and media industry works alright.

Reminds me of a story Chomsky told of this publication back in the 60s. It's basically a deep investigative insightful news magazine written and published by a husband and wife team. They barely make any money and usually lose on each issue... no business want to advertise with them and just to make it look like they're legit they print ads from Pan-Am or those big corporations, all for free. Then got sued by Pan-Am for it too.

Ah kids, who needs entertainment when you could hear real stories like that.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure that's all true as I'm sure there are people who use religion as an excuse for backsliding and then claim minority persecution when they are called out.




I don't know, hard for me to imagine a religious person would fake going to prayer to get out of work. there are other easier and less noticeable ways to take it easy, and not offend Allah too.

But yea, you get what you pay for. You can fire lots of people, cut human resources to the bone, pay them unlivable wages where they either have to work a second job or have no time or money to relax or spend time with the family... it might look good on paper for a while but eventually quality will slip, motivation won't be seen and eventually an accident or defect or corruption will turn up and costs you much more to clean up.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of businesses don't do well because they see their employee as an expense, as some outsider. I mean, look at the attack on unions and wages.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Mostly I agree , but if businesses choose not to cater for a few employees who want special rights to pursue their religion, then that is the businesses right.




I agree, unless the business already makes allowances for other similar things, in which case the singling out and banning of one practice may be a form of descrimination, eg if you allow your staff a 30min break to eat lunch, read the paper etc, you can't really stop them praying, or if you routinely allow smokers a 10min break to smoke, a pray break may be considered the same.



SirRumpole said:


> People could use them as a cover to commit crimes.




is this a problem that we are seeing, how many crimes are being committed using a burka as a disguise?


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ..
> is this a problem that we are seeing, how many crimes are being committed using a burka as a disguise?




I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to pull a gun out from a burka; hard to make a run afterwards too; hard to see too I reckon. 

And why would you wear anything Islamic in Australia to commit a crime? The moment you walk into any place there'll be a few heads thinking of some bad scenarios and what to do about it.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I agree, unless the business already makes allowances for other similar things, in which case the singling out and banning of one practice may be a form of descrimination, eg if you allow your staff a 30min break to eat lunch, read the paper etc, you can't really stop them praying, or if you routinely allow smokers a 10min break to smoke, a pray break may be considered the same.




Sure people can pray during their lunch hour or coffee breaks, but if they want extra prayer times as well employers would be within their rights to say tough luck.



> is this a problem that we are seeing, how many crimes are being committed using a burka as a disguise?




Not many at the moment but if burkas became more common then it could become a problem.

I know what you are going to say of course, the slippery slope argument, but slippery slope arguments are not necessarily fallacies. Other countries are banning the burka/hajib for security reasons. 

It's not part of our culture to converse with people who we cannot recognise. Muslims can't expect to conceal themselves and then complain about not being accepted into our society.

Good article from an Islamic point of view about face covering. Islam does not require people to wear them so if we decide to ban them there should be no particular problem.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/05/2974143.htm


----------



## sydboy007 (28 September 2015)

the morality of the bible


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure people can pray during their lunch hour or coffee breaks, but if they want extra prayer times as well employers would be within their rights to say tough luck.




Yes, I would say tough luck too, unless the employee gives other groups wiggle room to do other things eg smoking.

but most workplaces give staff a 10min break every 2hours, I can't see a problem with it.



> Not many at the moment but if burkas became more common then it could become a problem.




Well that's when we can look at banning it, until its a problem we are just taking a freedom away when we can't demonstrate a gain.



> I know what you are going to say of course, the slippery slope argument, but slippery slope arguments are not necessarily fallacies. Other countries are banning the burka/hajib for security reasons.




All sorts of rights have been stripped in the name of security, I don't want to lose more rights especially if there is no real problem yet.



> Other countries are banning the burka/hajib for security reasons




Another logical fallacy, "Bandwagon" the argument from popularity,  You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.




> It's not part of our culture to converse with people who we cannot recognise. Muslims can't expect to conceal themselves and then complain about not being accepted into our society.




We have many cultures, its not just you and I's culture that matters.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not part of our culture to converse with people who we cannot recognise. Muslims can't expect to conceal themselves and then complain about not being accepted into our society.




Watch this video, You will see why a conservative Muslim woman who's culture makes here uncomfortable conversing with unfamiliar males, or being hit on by strangers might feel more comfortable wearing traditional dress sometimes.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> We have many cultures, its not just you and I's culture that matters.




The question is who should adapt to whom ?

We don't have to be intolerant but neither do we have to be welcolming to behaviour that makes us uncomfortable, and most people in this country are uncomfortable about not being able to see people's faces.



> Another logical fallacy, "Bandwagon" the argument from popularity, You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.




It's also a fallacy to argue that if something is popular then it must be invalid. 

Actions can be both popular and valid, and may indeed be popular BECAUSE they are valid.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The question is who should adapt to whom ?
> 
> We don't have to be intolerant but neither do we have to be welcolming to behaviour that makes us uncomfortable, and most people in this country are uncomfortable about not being able to see people's faces.




no one is saying you have to be best friends with a person in a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.



> It's also a fallacy to argue that if something is popular then it must be invalid.
> 
> Actions can be both popular and valid, and may indeed be popular BECAUSE they are valid




I didn't say that the popularity of an argument makes it invalid, just that is doesn't increase it validity.

A lot of people point out that a certain idea is popular in an attempt to add weight to their argument, this is where the fallacy is at play.

eg, saying other countries in Europe have done it, is an attempt to say "Other countries have done it, therefore it must be be ok, or therefore My opinion has more weight.

By doing this you are avoiding adding an actual demonstration that your idea is valid, and instead adding an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy, doing that will get you to the wrong logical out come.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> no one is saying you have to be best friends with a person in a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.




Sure, if you want to maintain a culturally based apartheid then encourage them to keep their silly superstitions, if you want to really welcome them into the fold then maybe it might help to try and make them realise how silly those superstitions are.


----------



## bellenuit (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> .... a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.




VC, although I agree with you on many things, this is one area that I don't.

The burka and the slightly less abhorrent niqab are not simply a choice of clothing but are a symbol of Islamic oppression of women. An assumption you are making is that the woman are wearing them voluntarily, whereas there is evidence that many are forced to do so by their husbands, other family members or peers. I have read numerous articles written by Muslim women who want a ban on those garments simple because it would allow them the excuse not to wear them. We are just assisting their oppression by allowing such oppressive customs to continue.

That they are clearly oppressive garments is obvious with those wearing them extremely limited in their choice of occupation or career. I think (from memory) some schools have already won the right to prevent teachers from wearing those garments as they impede a very important function of the teacher/pupil relationship, namely the conveying of information and emotion through facial expression. They also rule out the ability of the wearer to obtain employment in positions that are customer facing as again the ability of the wearer to communicate with the customer is severely limited if facial expressions are concealed. One only needs a rudimentary schooling in salesmanship to realise the importance of non-verbal communication in sales situations.

I agree with your arguments on the evolution of morality, with what we today regard as moral being the result of reason and education and not the gift of some imaginary deity. It should equally be as obvious from our understanding of the origins of those types of clothing that they came about not as a fashion statement that the women themselves wanted, but though the unwanted imposition of extreme Islamic interpretations by misogynistic Islamic leaders. Due to indoctrination over several generations (as their widespread use is quite recent), many Muslim women now even feel uncomfortable not wearing those garments.

It is our moral duty to provide a society where Muslim women can express themselves as freely as any other women and banning clothing that symbolises and continues their oppression is important. Yes, there may be some who really want to continue wearing those garments and may feel we are prohibiting their freedom, but it is for the greater good (much like banning the use if the Confederate Flag in public buildings in the US southern states). We are in a sense providing an environment that allow them to be unindoctrinated (if that's a word).

Kabul 1970s and today.


----------



## Macquack (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Watch this video, You will see why a conservative Muslim woman who's culture makes here uncomfortable conversing with unfamiliar males, or being hit on by strangers might feel more comfortable wearing traditional dress sometimes.





What is the point of that video? It is a beat up.

Dressing up or down does not justify any religion.


----------



## sptrawler (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> no one is saying you have to be best friends with a person in a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What about showing a video of ' 10 hours wearing a bikini, in a muslim country'.

You would be videoing in a prison, or a stoning would be taking place.lol You are funny.

What everyone gets out of shape about is, they can wear clothing that doesn't fit into our culture and country.

Yet they lay criminal charges, if you don't conform to their dress code, while in their country.

Who are the fools, us obviously, we are so busy trying to make our country replicate theirs.

We may find that we will be jumping on boats, to get away from their lifestyle, in the end.


----------



## Macquack (28 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> We may find that we will be jumping on boats, to get away from their lifestyle, in the end.




Real estate is so unbelievably expensive in Sydney, I was thinking of jumping on the other boat - "*realestate.com.syria*". 

What with all the refugee exodus there must be some real bargains to be had.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> What about showing a video of ' 10 hours wearing a bikini, in a muslim country'.
> 
> You would be videoing in a prison, or a stoning would be taking place.lol You are funny.
> 
> ...




Why should what overseas sea countries do affect the freedoms we enjoy here?

I support women's rights to choose to where what ever they feel comfortable in, all I am saying is that I can see why girls from a conservative culture like some brands of Muslims would feel comfortable wearing a hijab/burka, who does it harm?


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> VC, although I agree with you on many things, this is one area that I don't.
> 
> The burka and the slightly less abhorrent niqab are not simply a choice of clothing but are a symbol of Islamic oppression of women. An assumption you are making is that the woman are wearing them voluntarily, whereas there is evidence that many are forced to do so by their husbands, other family members or peers. I have read numerous articles written by Muslim women who want a ban on those garments simple because it would allow them the excuse not to wear them. We are just assisting their oppression by allowing such oppressive customs to continue.
> 
> ...



i

I don't think banning clothing is the answer, a lot of Muslim women don't see the clothes as oppression, they would see us banning it as oppressive, this is a big broad country, with all sorts of freedom, if they don't want to where the hijab, they don't have to.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> What is the point of that video? It is a beat up.
> 
> Dressing up or down does not justify any religion.




I am not justifying their religion, just pointing out that wearing the hijab means the girls get bothered less, cat calling and sexual comments may not bother an Aussie girl as much, but to a conservative Muslim who is uncomfortable interacting with strange males, it can make for a more comfortable walk through the city.


----------



## sptrawler (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why should what overseas sea countries do affect the freedoms we enjoy here?
> 
> I support women's rights to choose to where what ever they feel comfortable in, all I am saying is that I can see why girls from a conservative culture like some brands of Muslims would feel comfortable wearing a hijab/burka, who does it harm?




I ride a motorcycle, I am called upon to remove it all the time, as it is seen as a risk having my face obscured.

It boils back to the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".

They leave a muslim country, because of persicution, they move through several muslim countries, to enter our country.

Why can't they adopt our culture or at least modify their own? It is a difficult situation, that isn't going to be resolved easily.


----------



## bellenuit (28 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> i
> 
> if they don't want to where the hijab, they don't have to.




But that is simply not true as I have stated based on many articles I have read. They have to live within their strict Islamic society (within the broader Australian society) and not conforming to what the males of that society want is very difficult and dangerous for  them. Look at the death threats made against the most vocal Muslim and ex-Muslim women who have spoken out against Islamic oppression, women who are in a sense partly protected by their notoriety and also by the freedom to escape their environment due to the financial independence coming with that notoriety and imagine what it is like for the poorly educated and financially dependent women stuck in their cultural ghettos to try and exhibit the same independence of dress. They need us to help them escape their chains not show tolerance for what is going on.

Look at the two different pictures of the Afghan women above. Due you think for a moment that they are happy with the current situation? Women in Islamic societies have gone backwards in the last 50 years due to the rise of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. They are the victims. Just because they and the males have been transplanted to Australia doesn't mean that they are now free to do as they please.


----------



## sptrawler (28 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> But that is simply not true as I have stated based on many articles I have read. They have to live within their strict Islamic society (within the broader Australian society) and not conforming to what the males of that society want is very difficult and dangerous for  them. Look at the death threats made against the most vocal Muslim and ex-Muslim women who have spoken out against Islamic oppression, women who are in a sense partly protected by their notoriety and also by the freedom to escape their environment due to the financial independence coming with that notoriety and imagine what it is like for the poorly educated and financially dependent women stuck in their cultural ghettos to try and exhibit the same independence of dress. They need us to help them escape their chains not show tolerance for what is going on.
> 
> Look at the two different pictures of the Afghan women above. Due you think for a moment that they are happy with the current situation? Women in Islamic societies have gone backwards in the last 50 years due to the rise of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. They are the victims. Just because they and the males have been transplanted to Australia doesn't mean that they are now free to do as they please.




Well we don't ask people to change their behaviour, unless they are bikies, they can't wear club logos .lol 

It will take a few public anti social incidents, before we will demand the same, of other members of society.lol


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I ride a motorcycle, I am called upon to remove it all the time, as it is seen as a risk having my face obscured.
> 
> It boils back to the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
> 
> ...




You that's because there have bee not lot of instances where people have committed violent crimes  wearing helmets, is that happening with burkas?

Who are you talking about? A lot of Muslims are born here


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> But that is simply not true as I have stated based on many articles I have read. They have to live within their strict Islamic society (within the broader Australian society) and not conforming to what the males of that society want is very difficult and dangerous for  them. Look at the death threats made against the most vocal Muslim and ex-Muslim women who have spoken out against Islamic oppression, women who are in a sense partly protected by their notoriety and also by the freedom to escape their environment due to the financial independence coming with that notoriety and imagine what it is like for the poorly educated and financially dependent women stuck in their cultural ghettos to try and exhibit the same independence of dress. They need us to help them escape their chains not show tolerance for what is going on.
> 
> Look at the two different pictures of the Afghan women above. Due you think for a moment that they are happy with the current situation? Women in Islamic societies have gone backwards in the last 50 years due to the rise of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. They are the victims. Just because they and the males have been transplanted to Australia doesn't mean that they are now free to do as they please.




If a woman is trapped in an abusive situation, banning the burka is not going to change that, she needs to leave that situation, We have a lot of support in Australia for women who need to leave abusive relationships.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> Real estate is so unbelievably expensive in Sydney, I was thinking of jumping on the other boat - "*realestate.com.syria*".
> 
> What with all the refugee exodus there must be some real bargains to be had.




Knock down rebuild? Half the job's already done.


----------



## bellenuit (29 September 2015)

*BRITISH MUSLIMS LAUNCH HISTORIC CAMPAIGN TO BAN THE BURKA IN THE UK*

https://www.change.org/p/british-so...-historic-campaign-to-ban-the-burka-in-the-uk

_The ludicrous custom of female public anonymity is an imported Saudi-Afghan fad that has a suspicious provenance. This trendy cultural contraption has no authentic Islamic foundation. Facial-masking first originated for aristocratic and sexist reasons in ancient Persia and Byzantium long before the advent of Islam and is currently gaining traction as a result of Saudi petrodollars and Wahhabi sectarianism._


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> But that is simply not true as I have stated based on many articles I have read. They have to live within their strict Islamic society (within the broader Australian society) and not conforming to what the males of that society want is very difficult and dangerous for  them. Look at the death threats made against the most vocal Muslim and ex-Muslim women who have spoken out against Islamic oppression, women who are in a sense partly protected by their notoriety and also by the freedom to escape their environment due to the financial independence coming with that notoriety and imagine what it is like for the poorly educated and financially dependent women stuck in their cultural ghettos to try and exhibit the same independence of dress. They need us to help them escape their chains not show tolerance for what is going on.
> 
> Look at the two different pictures of the Afghan women above. Due you think for a moment that they are happy with the current situation? Women in Islamic societies have gone backwards in the last 50 years due to the rise of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. They are the victims. Just because they and the males have been transplanted to Australia doesn't mean that they are now free to do as they please.




You have to give people time. No one could, or should, change their cultural and religious practices right away... Humans do most things by habits... so a male chauvinist or a religious person who's been brought up to believe they're this and their woman and children is that won't see anything wrong with being regressive (or not as progressive as we'd like).

So yes, it is oppressive to have a practice where women can and can't do this and that... but I think that as long as the oppressed women aren't complaining or being forced against her will, who are we to ban people's tradition to "break their chain for them"? 

Normal people, men included, and Muslim men and husband also included, will adapt and slowly see the tradition and beliefs held up for them and their family or not. Some tradition they find useful and meaningful, others they will question and slowly abandon.

Of course you'll have Muslim husband and fathers who's just way too abusive, and they will use religion and culture as pretext etc.... But to group all Muslims as regressive and abusive is just wrong on both the understanding of facts and reality. Too much assumptions about Muslims and Islam.

----

In terms of Islamic states and societies sliding backwards in the last 50 years... both economically and in regards to civil and gender rights... that's all obviously true. But your implication as to what causes it is all wrong.

You seem to suggests that there's something about the Arabs, or about Muslims or Islam that's just regressive and abusive and all things bad. That is just totally wrong.

Why were those Afghan women in the 50s so free? Or those in Egypt or Iran so free back in the 50s compare to now where they're forced to wear the Burqa and all that?

WW2 ended in 1945... many Middle East colonies of Britain and France etc. revolted against imperial powers... same as those in the Americas, Africa, SouthEast Asia, IndoChina...  The new gov't were more or less more progressive, more than the imperial powers that used to control them that's for sure... So they institute women's rights, democratic values, higher education etc. etc.

Some countries managed to regain their independence, some gained it only after decades of war (VN, say), some were more or less done with less blood, and some are just too strategically important for the new Imperial power to let it happen - namely, those Middle Eastern countries.

The ME just have way too much oil, and countries like Egypt and its Suez Canal too important for trade and security, for any of these countries to do as the people wish. So when the PM of Iran want more royalties for his country's oil, more independence... he got replaced and the Shah was put into power. Then came the current lot of theocratic revolution against the Shah in the 1970s and their less than progressive policies.

The same colonial policies were put in place all over the ME.. giving what the Masters of War call an Arab fascade of rulers and tyrants and dictators - all Arab, all Islamic, all brutal. Guess who wield the big stick and pull all the strings? Ahem... 

---

So let say there's WW3 and the superpowers all slug it out and the nukes don't work so we all managed to not all die... then let say China or India, because they got too many people or something... they managed to "win" and China thought Australia is a nice place to own.

What do you think the new Imperial Chinese will do? All Australia to still be democratic? A federation? They'd probably divide Australia with India, draw up new borders, and pick a few White Aussies with big ambition and no tolerance to run the dam place the way God intended. 

Anyway... people are people... we all have the same cry at birth.. some of us are luckier than others and grew up in time of peace and prosperity; others will see nothing but bloody and fire (I think I just stole that line from Mad Max)...


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> What about showing a video of ' 10 hours wearing a bikini, in a muslim country'.
> 
> You would be videoing in a prison, or a stoning would be taking place.lol You are funny.
> 
> ...




You sure you are a Liberal/Conservative? You seem to be championing the socialist freedom (e.g. Labor and Greens planks) aspect of our society e.g. dress codes, freedom of expression, more carrot less stick, ..... 

......the Campbell Newmans of this country stack the judiciary, make punitive laws, restrict protest, restrict freedom of association, restrict freedom of people's right to good press, do everything in secret, gag their party members , etc ..... that's the magnet for the people fleeing the M.E, they want to feel at home without someone trying to execute them.

Can you imagine how confused they would be when they arrive to find a Labor Party in power and they are made to fill out tons of forms and made to do nothing in exchange for money and welfare? It must be horrendous to and industrious, work ethic culture like Arab Islam.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You that's because there have bee not lot of instances where people have committed violent crimes  wearing helmets, is that happening with burkas?
> 
> Who are you talking about? A lot of Muslims are born here




( translation, I'll blame the touchscreen keyboard )

yes, that's because there have been a lot of instances where people have committed violent crimes wearing helmets, is that happening with burkas?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ( translation, I'll blame the touchscreen keyboard )
> 
> yes, that's because there have been a lot of instances where people have committed violent crimes wearing helmets, is that happening with burkas?




Not yet, but maybe later if the Muslim population increases and they decide to show some muscle.

Better to nip these things in the bud now before there are more of them to argue with.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 September 2015)

basically shows you can't reason with a person who wants to told onto their religious views


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not yet, but maybe later if the Muslim population increases and they decide to show some muscle.
> 
> Better to nip these things in the bud now before there are more of them to argue with.




You do know the VLAD laws in QLD are majorly in part a result of the vicious Arab breeds infiltrating the bikie gangs?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You do know the VLAD laws in QLD are majorly in part a result of the vicious Arab breeds infiltrating the bikie gangs?




I didn't know that. 

Are the laws working ?


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I didn't know that.
> 
> Are the laws working ?




Yeah, the problem with them was it cast too wide a net.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...uropean-recruits/story-fnihsrf2-1226733840346


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not yet, but maybe later if the Muslim population increases and they decide to show some muscle.
> 
> Better to nip these things in the bud now before there are more of them to argue with.




I don't even think there is a bud to nip, I mean have there been any robberies done by people wearing burkas.

I am also not cool with the government going around and destroying personal freedoms any more than they already do in the name of security.


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't even think there is a bud to nip, I mean have there been any robberies done by people wearing burkas.
> 
> .




Yes. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=burka+robbers&tbm=nws


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=burka+robbers&tbm=nws




Any Australian Examples? if so how many? because we would need a trend happening locally before we can say a bud is forming.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yes. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=burka+robbers&tbm=nws




Oh ey, there's also robberies by people just wearing normal clothes. What should we do?

Nib the bud might need to go further than clothing. Maybe people are bored, need quick cash, can't get no job in this economy etc. etc.

Can't imagine a criminal would sit around planning their crimes then... wait a minute, the burqa is banned, how the heck are we going to pull this off now? Back to the drawing board... heck, back to find legal employment or financial services and investment banking, haha


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Oh ey, there's also robberies by people just wearing normal clothes. What should we do?
> 
> Nib the bud might need to go further than clothing. Maybe people are bored, need quick cash, can't get no job in this economy etc. etc.
> 
> Can't imagine a criminal would sit around planning their crimes then... wait a minute, the burqa is banned, how the heck are we going to pull this off now? Back to the drawing board... heck, back to find legal employment or financial services and investment banking, haha




The point is if you have an accepted item of clothing that conceals identity then there is more chance of people using this clothing for criminal activity, and they don't need to be Muslims.

If people were walking down the street in a balaclava or motorcycle helmet then you would get suspicious because these are not normal places to wear this headgear but if burkas got accepted as normal then the likelihood is that people would use them as cover for crimes because they wouldn't raise suspicions.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is if you have an accepted item of clothing that conceals identity then there is more chance of people using this clothing for criminal activity, and they don't need to be Muslims.
> 
> If people were walking down the street in a balaclava or motorcycle helmet then you would get suspicious because these are not normal places to wear this headgear but if burkas got accepted as normal then the likelihood is that people would use them as cover for crimes because they wouldn't raise suspicions.




Has noco subscribed you to his newsletters? Or are you just bored?

I thought it's obvious that anyone you meet or anyone walking anywhere on the street could potentially carry concealed weapons or could commit a crime at any time. I mean, that's why Big Brother is spending hundreds of millions a year watching over us right?

But there's this thing in our legal system about presumed innocent and individual rights and religious freedom and anti-discrimination. Yea I know, they're all to protect the noisy minority and Muslims but sometime those rights protect the disabled or the gays who happen to be White and Christian too.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Has noco subscribed you to his newsletters? Or are you just bored?
> 
> I thought it's obvious that anyone you meet or anyone walking anywhere on the street could potentially carry concealed weapons or could commit a crime at any time. I mean, that's why Big Brother is spending hundreds of millions a year watching over us right?
> 
> But there's this thing in our legal system about presumed innocent and individual rights and religious freedom and anti-discrimination. Yea I know, they're all to protect the noisy minority and Muslims but sometime those rights protect the disabled or the gays who happen to be White and Christian too.




If I'm bored then I guess you must be too.

Sure anyone can commit a crime and a lot get caught because people recognise them or they get caught on CCTV.

It doesn't take a lot of brains to think that if people can legally cover their faces then it's more likely that that "freedom" will be abused to commit crimes.

Let's take a VC view of the "morality" of the situation.

What are the advantages of wearing a burka ? Sod all, just to make a sexist Muslim man able to repress his woman.

What are the advantages of not wearing a burka ? 1. People are more likely to converse with you and treat you equally if they can recognise you, and 2. people are less likely to commit crimes. 3. no one in the Islamic leadership says wearing a burka is required by Islam, so it's not a religious freedom.

Benefit to society by people not wearing burkas ? Safety and inclusion.

Benefit forgone by the ex wearer ? Very little.

Society gets a benefit by banning these things, and so does the (ex)wearer.

It should be done.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is if you have an accepted item of clothing that conceals identity then there is more chance of people using this clothing for criminal activity, and they don't need to be Muslims.
> 
> If people were walking down the street in a balaclava or motorcycle helmet then you would get suspicious because these are not normal places to wear this headgear but if burkas got accepted as normal then the likelihood is that people would use them as cover for crimes because they wouldn't raise suspicions.




Do you have some statistics on how many crimes are committed with various forms of clothing that hide a person's identity?  I'd be interested in knowing how many have been done using a burqa, or is your whole argument that a person MIGHT use a burqa to commit a crime and it's the potential that needs to be legislated against? 

Then you'd need to showing that denying people their right to wear a burqa is in the public interest ie that the number of crimes is high enough to warrant deny a basic right to dress as one chooses.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you have some statistics on how many crimes are committed with various forms of clothing that hide a person's identity?  I'd be interested in knowing how many have been done using a burqa, or is your whole argument that a person MIGHT use a burqa to commit a crime and it's the potential that needs to be legislated against?
> 
> Then you'd need to showing that denying people their right to wear a burqa is in the public interest ie that the number of crimes is high enough to warrant deny a basic right to dress as one chooses.




Burkas are not being singled out, as I keep saying this should apply to ANY identity concealing garment.


----------



## MrBurns (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Burkas are not being singled out, as I keep saying this should apply to ANY identity concealing garment.




They have to be banned, I was in the supermarket once and a woman (I think) very tall, totally in black slithered down the aisle, I say slithered because she was covered head to toe, you couldn't even see her shoes.
Any children would have been traumatised....and some adults.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If I'm bored then I guess you must be too.
> 
> Sure anyone can commit a crime and a lot get caught because people recognise them or they get caught on CCTV.
> 
> ...




Of course I'm bored, that's how i recognised when others seem to be  
Didn't mean it as an offense.

Anyway, how does it benefit you or anyone else if people wear this or that? And even if it benefits you and I, what right do we have to demand it? It benefits a lot of people to be paid $100k+ a year, ain't gonna happen.

As to the wearer... seems obvious that if it benefits her too she'd not wear it either. I take yours and Bellenuit point about male oppression and religious fanaticism forcing women to wear this or that... unfortunate as that is, if it's not physical abuse or psychological abuse etc. are we going to ban what some of us don't like?

If those women feel oppressed, feel threatened if they don't wear it... they can always call the authority and I am definitely certain the authority and the community will step in to intervene. Until then, how about we assume they're brought up that way, that's their way of life and the father or husband does not mean any harm by it... just feel that in dressing like that they're faithful to their Allah.

You could make a better case about male chauvinism and oppression of women with bikinis and hot pants or promiscuity in young girls and women. Know how many teenage girls who aren't slim like a surfboard suffer from depression or anxiety and self-loathing with images of drugged out models? Or how many marriages and family were broken up by people who have this thing about free choices in other adults and if they want to sleep around sure why not (yes, I have known such people).

Yes, not all sect in Islam demand the Burqa, so it's a very minor minor minority. Maybe they'll adapt and go easy on the Wahabi or whatever version of Islam once exposed to other views.

And how would banning the Burqa reduces crime?
Even outlawing crime itself doesn't reduces crime. People who want to commit crimes will do it, wearing the Burqa or wearing a suit and tie.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

MrBurns said:


> They have to be banned, I was in the supermarket once and a woman (I think) very tall, totally in black slithered down the aisle, I say slithered because she was covered head to toe, you couldn't even see her shoes.
> Any children would have been traumatised....and some adults.




Yes, I was taken aback the first time I saw the full burqa... but "slither"?

Traumatise the kids? Maybe it's an early lesson in multiculturalism... yes kid, there are different people with different culture... the world is a very big place.


----------



## sptrawler (29 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yes, I was taken aback the first time I saw the full burqa... but "slither"?
> 
> Traumatise the kids? Maybe it's an early lesson in multiculturalism... yes kid, there are different people with different culture... the world is a very big place.




Actually, I'm beginning to agree with you, lets just get over it and let everyone in.

Why be paranoid? Why not just accept everyone, we have a very big country with a small population.

We should be more welcoming of other cultures.

Let's bring in heaps of Indians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, Somalians, Syrians, Iranians, just open the border, let's  get the population moving.

That will move the economy.lol

Actually I think us old farts, that believe there is something worth protecting, are dinosours.lol


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Actually, I'm beginning to agree with you, lets just get over it and let everyone in.
> 
> Why be paranoid? Why not just accept everyone, we have a very big country with a small population.
> 
> ...




I didn't say "more" welcoming. I seriously believe Australia is, in general, very welcoming and generous. Just hope we keep it that way.

If we want lower prices, better infrastructures, and be a serious contender for world domination (instead of playing deputy), we're not going to do that with 24million people. 

A nation is not poor because of over-population, it's poor because it is corrupt and its leadership tax the masses but give it all to the top, and the top invest it in a few mansions and private jets and tax shelters.

Look at France or England in the Middle Ages to WW1. Have less population than this century yes? Beside the Scots and the Irish, no other ethnic groups to blame yes?

The masses were really poor, ill-educated, and even resort to eating grass. 

Just saw the headline... Morrison is seriously considering raising the GST to offset the income tax cuts... so that it somehow raises no new net tax, just fairer redistribution. Putting pressure on poor families, cutting demands in spending... that's the way to increase economic activities... and those on more than 80K will have more income in their pocket... with that they'll invest where? Anywhere in the world right?

The country's being stolen and we're blaming the people whose dream is to come over and make a better life for themselves and their family by working hard to rise up in life.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 September 2015)

Ephesians 4:18 - They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

Psalm 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Religion always reverses everything


----------



## sptrawler (29 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> I didn't say "more" welcoming. I seriously believe Australia is, in general, very welcoming and generous. Just hope we keep it that way.
> 
> If we want lower prices, better infrastructures, and be a serious contender for world domination (instead of playing deputy), we're not going to do that with 24million people.
> 
> ...




Well let's look just to the north of us Indonesia, 250 million people, invite them here, they would love to come here.
Then we will have a bigger population and be a serious contender in world politics.

I think that is a great idea, all we need do is have an open border with Indonesia, like the EU. 
That would work, they could come here, or we could go there.

This is great, open ideas that benefit the poor nations, now we are getting somewhere.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Well let's look just to the north of us Indonesia, 250 million people, invite them here, they would love to come here.
> Then we will have a bigger population and be a serious contender in world politics.
> 
> I think that is a great idea, all we need do is have an open border with Indonesia, like the EU.
> ...




Isn't that what the Liberals are proposing with the ChAFTA?


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Isn't that what the Liberals are proposing with the ChAFTA?




Well I wouldn't know, Switzerland has had a free trade agreement with China for two years, but you can talk up the storm.

Maybe you can suggest, what we do to find money, to build anything.

IPO's? I don't think so.

Tap into the superannuation nest egg? I don't think so, you want to tax that.

So where do we find the money to develop our country?

You obviously live in a cocoon. Not meant in a derogatory sense, but really where do you think Australia is going to get the funds to support its lifestyle?

We haven't the savings base, to develop the massive areas, for minerals and or agriculture.

We don't have the tax base, to support the welfare system and the infrastructure development.

Where do you think the money will come from, to escalate our GDP output, infrastucture and welfare system ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is if you have an accepted item of clothing that conceals identity then there is more chance of people using this clothing for criminal activity, .




You mean like sunglasses and a hat, I think a lot more robberies are done wearing those, but they are part of "our" culture, so I guess you wouldn't ban them



SirRumpole said:


> If I'm bored then I guess you must be too.
> 
> Sure anyone can commit a crime and a lot get caught because people recognise them or they get caught on CCTV.
> 
> ...




Your views on what I think is moral are always a bit scewed.

In regards to the morality of the burka, the factors that are relevant are the principle of personal freedom, eg you shouldn't take someone's right to wear it unless it is causing real harm.

A person wearing a burka might see the fact that people are less likely to converse with you as an advantage, eg the girl in the video getting hassled by random men. So you logic is a bit off on that item you have listed as an advantage.

A person isn't more likely to commit a crime wearing a burka.

Safety of society by banning needs to be demonstrated, would you be ok banning, hats and sunglasses?


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Actually, I'm beginning to agree with you, lets just get over it and let everyone in.
> 
> Why be paranoid? Why not just accept everyone, we have a very big country with a small population.
> 
> ...




And there it is, it's not the actual item of clothing that bothers you, it's the breed of people you associate it with.


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And there it is, it's not the actual item of clothing that bothers you, it's the breed of people you associate it with.




So you think everyone should be welcome?

Or are you just trying to make me out as a racist?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> In regards to the morality of the burka, the factors that are relevant are the principle of personal freedom, eg you shouldn't take someone's right to wear it unless it is causing real harm.




So what is the real harm of someone walking down the street naked ?

Why is that banned ?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am also not cool with the government going around and destroying personal freedoms any more than they already do in the name of security.




I haven't seen you complain about the metadata legislation which intrudes on the personal freedoms of all of us, so why are you so keen to defend a small minority who want to hold on to bizarre superstitions and promote distrust in the community ?


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Oh ey, there's also robberies by people just wearing normal clothes. What should we do?
> 
> Nib the bud might need to go further than clothing. Maybe people are bored, need quick cash, can't get no job in this economy etc. etc.
> 
> Can't imagine a criminal would sit around planning their crimes then... wait a minute, the burqa is banned, how the heck are we going to pull this off now? Back to the drawing board... heck, back to find legal employment or financial services and investment banking, haha




Hey the question asked and I candidly provided the answer. Everyone is a potential criminal in the eyes of the other, but criminals do use camouflage to conceal their identity and now we are bigots and xenophobes if we stare at someone wearing a sack head to toe it would have to be a must have fashion for armed robberies and the like..... someone with hoody and a gun bulging out of the side pockets ain't gonna cut it in the obscuration stakes these days.

I'm sure there are criminal acts going on here with people donned in the burqa. Didn't some woman back a few years in Adelaide conceal her identity to gain a drivers licence for her muslim friend/relly?

The courts probably mandate that burka crimes be sealed from public scrutiny to avoid hate retaliation, for the good of the community of course. Remember the Carnita Matthews  case in Sydney?


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Actually, I'm beginning to agree with you, lets just get over it and let everyone in.
> 
> Why be paranoid? Why not just accept everyone, we have a very big country with a small population.
> 
> ...




I think we need to change the media too. We need to show our tolerance and embrace the diversity by insisting serials, movies, daytime TV panels, QANDA, etc are representative of our roots ..... take Sunrise for instance perhaps a full blood aborigine in floral dress as host, a 3rd gen Italian lineage socialite as her sidekick, along with her lesbian Jewish wife,  an Indian migrant weathergirl, news from Hollywood a transgender African American, technology guru an Iranian woman with trench coat, glasses and nihab, and the entertainment talking head an aging New Zealander with a razor haircut doubling as the token male.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2015)

Re Carita Matthews

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ju...-behind-the-veil/story-e6freuy9-1226078801032


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> so why are you so keen to defend a small minority who want to hold on to bizarre superstitions and promote distrust in the community ?




Society is made up of lots of minorities, we are all a minority in some way, and I don't think just because you are in a minority your freedoms should be open for seizure.

I am an atheist, atheists could be considered a minority group, I don't want my freedoms infringed just because some larger group thinks my personal freedom is worth less because we are a minority, so I am not going to infringe on other minority groups, its pretty simple, you know the old rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I would also defend the right of Catholics and Jews to wear their clothing, their cults superstitions are no less bizarre.

Not to mention as I said before, I don't want to cause polarisation of the our society.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Not to mention as I said before, I don't want to cause polarisation of the our society.




Society is already polarised by religion.

Get rid of that instead of pandering to it, and perhaps we call all start working together.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> So you think everyone should be welcome?




I think we should have an immigration policy, I have no idea on what the correct number should be, but it should be open for people of all backgrounds to apply.




> Or are you just trying to make me out as a racist?




Maybe you are maybe you aren't, I noticed your sarcastic remark mentioned Indians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, Somalians, Syrians, Iranians, by making the sarcastic comment aren't you trying to point out that you actually don't think its a good Idea to get immigrants from those countries?

Maybe its just a coincidence that all the countries you listed have mainly brown populations, maybe you accidently left out all the mainly white countries.

I guess it sort of gives the impression that you are ok with white immigration, but you find the Indians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, Somalians, Syrians, Iranians a bit off putting.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Society is already polarised by religion.
> 
> Get rid of that instead of pandering to it, and perhaps we call all start working together.




not anywhere near as polarised as it could be, there is a large portion of the religious population that is gradually becoming secular, if you start making them feel they are under attack they retreat back into their mob.

You can see it happening even with Christians in the USA, who are not actually even being attacked, they whip themselves up into a frenzy, You can choose to win the Battle or win the War, Battles are won by force, but long term the only way to win a war is to win hearts and minds.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You can see it happening even with Christians in the USA.




What's happening?  I have religious nut friends in the USA ..I would hate them to be treated as a minority given they are the true believers.... that God lives in Oklahoma..ish. Good honest people who have no time whatsoever for confessed non Christians; you can't get anymore salt of the earth than that VC. BTW what is the punishment for making out you are a Christian in deep south USA?


----------



## luutzu (30 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Hey the question asked and I candidly provided the answer. Everyone is a potential criminal in the eyes of the other, but criminals do use camouflage to conceal their identity and now we are bigots and xenophobes if we stare at someone wearing a sack head to toe it would have to be a must have fashion for armed robberies and the like..... someone with hoody and a gun bulging out of the side pockets ain't gonna cut it in the obscuration stakes these days.
> 
> I'm sure there are criminal acts going on here with people donned in the burqa. Didn't some woman back a few years in Adelaide conceal her identity to gain a drivers licence for her muslim friend/relly?
> 
> The courts probably mandate that burka crimes be sealed from public scrutiny to avoid hate retaliation, for the good of the community of course. Remember the Carnita Matthews  case in Sydney?




Of course you can't help being so candid when such a question is ask    Win some and lose a couple VC?

Another question: Does the burqa commit crimes or is it the people that commit crimes? We know from the yanks that gun don't kill people, it's people that kill people and so everyone ought to carry one or two to not be kill by people... just maybe by their kids looking for change in mummy's purse.

Googled Carnita Matthews... btw, isn't that an Anglo name? What is she doing driving when I thought women in burqa aren't allowed to do those modern day stuff.

Anyway, crazies and criminals come in all dress code. A few years ago some dude was killed in a fight over a parking spot in Bankstown. Killed when the driver he peed off got out and smack her high heel against his head. And don't mess with Asians either, they're usually unarmed but could be extremely dangerous (tag line from a Brandon Lee movie)


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2015)

luutzu said:


> ... And don't mess with Asians either, they're usually unarmed but could be extremely dangerous (tag line from a Brandon Lee movie)




You giving me a warning?


----------



## luutzu (1 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> You giving me a warning?




No, not violent. Was playing the stereotype joke. Not as many steps as yours but still gotta jump a few to get my sense of humour...


----------



## DB008 (23 October 2015)

Probably just got greedy seeing all those tax free dollars coming in...


*Singapore Mega-Church Head Guilty of Embezzling $35 Million*​



> The founder of a popular Singapore church was found guilty Wednesday of misappropriating more than $35.5 million in donations to support his wife's singing career in Asia before helping her break into the U.S. market for evangelization purposes.
> 
> Kong Hee, the founder and senior pastor of City Harvest Church, was found guilty with five other church leaders of stealing 24 million Singapore dollars ($17 million) designated for building and investment-related purposes through sham bond investments.
> 
> The State Court also found that they used another 26 million dollars ($18.5 million) to hide the first embezzlement from auditors. It is a rare case of corruption of such magnitude in the city-state, which has an image of being highly law-abiding and largely graft-free.






http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/singapore-mega-church-head-guilty-embezzling-35-million-34617155​


----------



## DB008 (24 October 2015)

Check out these idiots - Jehovah's Witnesses...


*Highly-secretive “Talmudic” Correspondence Guidelines document leaked by Watchtower insider*​


> The last few weeks will have been deeply frustrating for the Governing Body, as multiple leaks have exposed a growing resentment of their attitudes and policies among an increasing number of bethel workers.
> 
> And now a fresh leak from a Watchtower insider has blown the lid wide open on how the organization deals with issues affecting the rank and file.
> 
> ...





http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/highly-secretive-talmudic-correspondence-guidelines-document-leaked-by-watchtower-insider​


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2015)

Christians ~17 meg 
Non Christian  ~1.12 gig

Proof ==============>\/
                                           \/
                                           \/
                                           \/
                                           \/
http://tinyurl.com/6fyjfe <===


----------



## SirRumpole (26 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Christians ~17 meg
> Non Christian  ~1.12 gig
> 
> Proof ==============>\/
> ...




Sounds like a job for ABC Factcheck


----------



## DB008 (27 October 2015)

*Dutch court revokes Scientology’s tax-exempt status​*



> A court in the Hague revoked Scientology’s status as a “public welfare institution” this week – and the tax exemption that goes with it.
> 
> Janine Pieters, reporting in the NL Times, said the court has ruled that sales of Scientology’s courses and therapy sessions are aimed at profit-making and that it does not therefore belong on the tax authorities charity list.
> 
> ...




http://bluebelldigital.co.uk/eastgrinsteadonline/2015/10/23/dutch-court-revokes-scientologys-tax-exempt-status/​


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 October 2015)

DB008 said:


> *Dutch court revokes Scientology’s tax-exempt status​*
> 
> 
> 
> http://bluebelldigital.co.uk/eastgrinsteadonline/2015/10/23/dutch-court-revokes-scientologys-tax-exempt-status/​




Very good move.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2015)

An excellent discussion with a Muslim and an atheist who co-authored a book about tackling radical Islam

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-28/sam-harris,-maajid-nawaz-discuss-the-future-of-islam/6892166


----------



## DB008 (29 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> An excellent discussion with a Muslim and an atheist who co-authored a book about tackling radical Islam
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-28/sam-harris,-maajid-nawaz-discuss-the-future-of-islam/6892166




What a great discussion. Sam Harris is spot on!


----------



## luutzu (29 October 2015)

DB008 said:


> What a great discussion. Sam Harris is spot on!




No it wasn't. It wasn't "profound" either.

Harris is an idiot. An articulate one that claims to be an intellectual and a Liberal but really he's just one of the useful idiots one uses to spread one's propaganda. When he comes up against a real Intellectual like Chomsky, which he did a few months ago through emails, he got his **** handed to him.

We all have our biases, we may only know certain issues to a certain extend - that's why we don't claim to be experts, we merely expresses our opinions.

Harris on the other hand claims, or don't deny when introduced as, an expert on Islam and democracy and world affairs. Then spout the kind of half-baked, ill-informed, selective, biased non-sense a fifth grader would be embarrassed to speak out loud.

Example. He claim that Christianity was backward and did all the nasty stuff and religious crazy things, but it has grown up, it had seen the light and come to accept science and democracy and all the good stuff modern secular democracies have. While Islam is still backwards, still evil and there is no difference between Muhammad and ISIS.

Really? 

Christianity tolerate Gays? Permit contraception? Abortion? Accept science? Bush Jr. and his Evangelical and Christian base rejected Stem Cell research. Imagine how many years it push back research into cures and how many lives it could saved.

---

His debate with Chomsky goes something like this: Yea we the US take over countries, bomb terrorists and innocents get kill sometimes... but we do it for Good, we do it to save the world and bring democracy to people; ISIS and those who stand in the way of us are evil.

If you intellectualise something, you have got to be objective. If you could say stuff like that, you're either ill-informed, thinking emotionally and if not you're bought and paid for and your opinions cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2015)

> Example. He claim that Christianity was backward and did all the nasty stuff and religious crazy things, but it has grown up, it had seen the light and come to accept science and democracy and all the good stuff modern secular democracies have. While Islam is still backwards, still evil and there is no difference between Muhammad and ISIS.




I think that opinion is pretty spot on. Everything is relative and Christianity is now more advanced and modern than Islam, while of course still not being totally open minded.

Islam does have a problem because there is no central leadership unlike the Catholics and Anglicans, so various factions feel free to run there own race with their own interpretations of the Koran. Which is why you have Jamir Islamir, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al Quaeda, ISIS and all the other looney breakaway groups that think their version of Islam is "purer" than anyone elses.

All those two guys were saying imo is that moderate Muslims have to stand up to the violent groups and reinterpret the Koran in peaceful terms. I think that is a fairly reasonable thing to say and they don't  deserve to be  called  idiots for saying so.


----------



## luutzu (29 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think that opinion is pretty spot on. Everything is relative and Christianity is now more advanced and modern than Islam, while of course still not being totally open minded.
> 
> Islam does have a problem because there is no central leadership unlike the Catholics and Anglicans, so various factions feel free to run there own race with their own interpretations of the Koran. Which is why you have Jamir Islamir, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al Quaeda, ISIS and all the other looney breakaway groups that think their version of Islam is "purer" than anyone elses.
> 
> All those two guys were saying imo is that moderate Muslims have to stand up to the violent groups and reinterpret the Koran in peaceful terms. I think that is a fairly reasonable thing to say and they don't  deserve to be  called  idiots for saying so.




No, it's wide off the mark.

Christianity is not more advanced, it's the same crazy stuff it's always been - just like all other religions are.

Western societies are more advanced, more scientific and rational and all that.. .but it's not due to Christianity, it's due to a few smart people relegating religion and the Church to to background, out of the way - separation of Church from State.

The groups you're naming are not Islamic or Muslim, they're terrorist organisations man. That's like saying the IRA is a branch of the Catholic Church or Pauline Hanson is what Australia is about; or the Communist Parties of VN or China are Socialists.

----

Harris is an idiot and a racist masquerading as an honest intellectual.

Of course we all should solve issues peacefully, of course we should not follow some book and subjugate women or hate gays or those different from us... But Harris' argument fall flat when he think it's Islam that's the problem (and so Muslims are the problem and all of them ought to abandon it and become atheists); show his prejudice when Muslim terrorists are bad when they kill people but "Christian" power dropping bombs are fine because it's done to bring peace and democracy.

How did the Christian kingdoms became so noble and enlightened?

By becoming secular. Didn't get there because the Church thought to abandon God and follow Darwin.

How would Islamic kingdoms and its people become "more" enlightened and "more" noble? Producing less terrorists? Maybe try letting them becoming secular, democratic republics that they were on! Maybe stop invading their country and see if terrorist numbers would slow down.

Harris' answer to the above is to get Muslims to be less Islamic, or abandon Islam.


Just to repeat... I don't care much for Islam or any religion... just when a person want to appear like they're an honest broker, man of the world... you have got to be more intelligent and more honest than Harris.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

> Harris' answer to the above is to get Muslims to be less Islamic, or abandon Islam.




No , his answer if for Muslims to be less violent and criticise those among them that are violent.

I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

luutzu said:


> No, it's wide off the mark.
> 
> Christianity is not more advanced, it's the same crazy stuff it's always been - just like all other religions are.
> 
> ...




The inconvenient truth is that you wouldn't be communicating via your PC if it wasn't for christians like Faraday, Volta, Ampere, Babbage, ....... there's even a statue out front of an Orthodox Church for Nicola Tesla


Charles Darwin studied to be a clergyman and believed in separation of church and science. Newton was a religious fanatic for the Church.


Protestant Christianity is the innovation key to much of the discovery and research that spawned the industrial revolutions and scientific innovation. Islam is a caged religion that invariably results in massacres when the beast is let out of the cage.


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No , his answer if for Muslims to be less violent and criticise those among them that are violent.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with that.




We all ought to be non-violent. Harris' view is Muslims ought to be non-violent but it's fine for us to be because we're the good guys.

I haven't listen into his view on the Israel/Palestine conflict but if he's consistent I bet you he find nothing wrong with Judaism (which is fair enough) but plenty wrong with the Islam in the Palestinians.

Should we take a person seriously if they look at Israel's colonisation of Palestine and continued occupation since... if we look at that and say Judaism is messed up, look at what a few million Jews did there.

There's more than a handful of Jews who literally go through the Bible and every place that's mentioned in it they consider the land God promised them - and some of those loonies actually run the place. Should we point to them and say maybe the Jews ought to cut back on their religion? Maybe go Atheist or become Christians?

Harris look at terrorists, look at the results that war and oppression produces and sees only Islam and Muslims that's the problem. 

Like I said, for you and I to say stuff like that is somewhat acceptable because we're no expert and don't claim to be; we're just mortals and got our day job. For an "intellectual" and "expert", Harris sure sound like a paid prostitute who knows where the money is.


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> The inconvenient truth is that you wouldn't be communicating via your PC if it wasn't for christians like Faraday, Volta, Ampere, Babbage, ....... there's even a statue out front of an Orthodox Church for Nicola Tesla
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin studied to be a clergyman and believed in separation of church and science. Newton was a religious fanatic for the Church.
> ...




How will your Christian computer work without Arabic numerals? No 1s, and no 0s. 

How will Christian scientists and scholars record their findings, have Guttenberg printed it if it weren't for Arab merchants passing on the technique to make paper they got from the Chinese? Papyrus or clay tablet? Maybe on silk?

How would Europe sail and discover the world without the triangular sail technology from the Arabs? etc. etc.

----
btw, didn't Christian-based law against homosexuals in the UK kill the father of modern computing? Alan Turing led a team that cracked the Enigma, saves countless millions - some of them Christians too, and whose writings and research led to the computer... Yet, Christian law forced chemical castration on him, making it impossible for him to think or live life as God might have intended and the war hero and all time genius committed suicide - all simply because he was gay and the enlightened Christian Church won't have it.

That was in the 1950s, not the dark ages. And just to be sure things haven't changed much since, David Cameron was recently asked if Turin should be pardoned or the UK should apologised... god fearing Cameron said no, Turin broke the law.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> The inconvenient truth is that you wouldn't be communicating via your PC if it wasn't for christians like Faraday, Volta, Ampere, Babbage, ....... there's even a statue out front of an Orthodox Church for Nicola Tesla
> 
> 
> .




Yes, but they made their discoveries through the scientific method, not religious faith or biblical teachings or revelation from a god. they made their discoveries because they were scientists, not because they were Christian.


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

luutzu said:


> How will your Christian computer work without Arabic numerals? No 1s, and no 0s.




Quite well, computers don't use numerals at all, they use on/off states. Trust me on this because you are entering my territory. You can look up Boolean algebra to get an understanding. There are other programming mathematics too like hex, octal, etc

And why would you mistake pre Islamic Mediterranean people with religion and suggest our numerals are Arabic, when they are actually roughly based on pre christian Indian ? Hint the system starts with "Bra" and ends with "hmi" ... see computer science does have some merit afterall. 



luutzu said:


> How will Christian scientists and scholars record their findings, have Guttenberg printed it if it weren't for Arab merchants passing on the technique to make paper they got from the Chinese? Papyrus or clay tablet? Maybe on silk?




That's like saying Edison invented the lightbulb, when infact he actually bought the idea off someone else. The Koreans had a press before Gutenburg, and the Chinese a few bob each way before, but Gutenburg managed to mechanise/automate the process, something that the Koreans, Arabs and Chinese failed to do, even after generations of having the jump on the idea = engineering and development 




luutzu said:


> How would Europe sail and discover the world without the triangular sail technology from the Arabs? etc. etc.




First up remember where East meets West.

Do you really think that Europe was so isolated it would not know what sails someone is using in the Mediterranean and needs some wanderer in a turban to front up to a bloke in Europe and say "hey I have a trianglular piece of cloth that will do away with your phoenician sheets?" Anyway Chris the Italian's boat was a Portuguese invention called the Caravel and it is they who developed the idea not some desert wander's.  You think Portugal was Islamic maybe? 

----


luutzu said:


> btw, didn't Christian-based law against homosexuals in the UK kill the father of modern computing? Alan Turing led a team that cracked the Enigma, saves countless millions - some of them Christians too, and whose writings and research led to the computer... Yet, Christian law forced chemical castration on him, making it impossible for him to think or live life as God might have intended and the war hero and all time genius committed suicide - all simply because he was gay and the enlightened Christian Church won't have it.
> 
> That was in the 1950s, not the dark ages. And just to be sure things haven't changed much since, David Cameron was recently asked if Turin should be pardoned or the UK should apologised... god fearing Cameron said no, Turin broke the law.




Alan Turing was no doubt bright, but he didn't invent the computer. Once again do you really think the German's didn't have a handle on computing too ....look at the Enigma machine, look at their V2 rockets, their war machine in general and how they put them into practice before Alan could say snap.


You're going to have to come up with something more concrete than that luutzu. It's like saying I thought up an idea in my sleep and did nothing with it, but because Rumpole realised into reality after seeing a need  I should get the cudos.


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but they made their discoveries through the scientific method, not religious faith or biblical teachings or revelation from a god. they made their discoveries because they were scientists, not because they were Christian.




I can't say that is true or not VC, but I would like to think the separation of spiritual belief and science/engineering occurred. For all we know they might have been stoned on drugs and rec'd their ideas from God.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

> That was in the 1950s, not the dark ages. And just to be sure things haven't changed much since, David Cameron was recently asked if Turin should be pardoned or the UK should apologised... god fearing Cameron said no, Turin broke the law.




A very bad thing happened to Turing, but the fact is that we don't today have people killing other people on the streets in the name of Christianity. 

The ISIS people and their followers are murdering, raping and destroying civilisation in the name of Islam and no matter how you try to deflect those actions off onto Judaism or Christianity its the Islamic culture that says they have the right to do what they are doing, therefore Islam has to change its culture.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> A very bad thing happened to Turing, but the fact is that we don't today have people killing other people on the streets in the name of Christianity.
> 
> .




You need to add "In Australia" to the end of that sentence, or change it to "We don't have as many people killing in the name of christianity"

Because as we have discussed there certainly is Christians doing bad things around the world.

In fact just a couple of weeks ago two Christian parents along with some members of their church beat their son to death at their church service for his sins, the beat him over several hours and they beat him so bad that authorities first thought he had been shot,  It happened in their church not "In the streets", but I think you should still be counting this stuff that is happening all the time.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Because as we have discussed there certainly is Christians doing bad things around the world.




Sure, but unless you can point out in the new Testament where it says such things are permissable then you can't really lay the fault on Christianity.

Anyway I happen to think that the 3 faiths Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all flawed but the fact is that the majority of the savagery these days is being carried out by Muslims.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but unless you can point out in the new Testament where it says such things are permissable then you can't really lay the fault on Christianity.




I don't know why you would limit yourself to part 2 of the bible story, plenty of Christian sects still refer to part 1 to justify their horrible actions. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. matthew 5:17 


But anyway, I will stick with the New testament, 

No doubt they were in spired by new testament bible verses such as these.

Is 5 bible verses enough?


 Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."


 Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."


 Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."


Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."


Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know why you would limit yourself to part 2 of the bible story, plenty of Christian sects still refer to part 1 to justify their horrible actions. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. matthew 5:17
> 
> 
> But anyway, I will stick with the New testament,
> ...




Doesn't say anything about killing the child does it ?

Anyway are you trying to excuse the global barbarity of ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Quaeda Jamar Islamir etal by these isolated cases ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Doesn't say anything about killing the child does it ?




No, but when you beat a child with a rod, sometimes they die, So I guess its to be expected.



> Anyway are you trying to excuse the global barbarity of ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Quaeda Jamar Islamir etal by these isolated cases ?




I am not excusing anyone, you are trying to excuse Christianity.

I can't see why you excuse Christianity of kony and the lords army, but not islam of boko haram.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No, but when you beat a child with a rod, sometimes they die, So I guess its to be expected.




So you are trying to excuse the global barbarity of ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Quaeda Jamar Islamir etal by these isolated cases ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are trying to excuse the global barbarity of ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Quaeda Jamar Islamir etal by these isolated cases ?




I am not excusing anyone, you are trying to excuse Christianity.

 I can't see why you excuse Christianity of kony and the lords army, but not islam of boko haram.


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Quite well, computers don't use numerals at all, they use on/off states. Trust me on this because you are entering my territory. You can look up Boolean algebra to get an understanding. There are other programming mathematics too like hex, octal, etc




Don't know, just saw the Matrix and its 0 and 1... that's how digital and computing translate all the codes and nulls right? I never took a course in Computing.




> And why would you mistake pre Islamic Mediterranean people with religion and suggest our numerals are Arabic, when they are actually roughly based on pre christian Indian ? Hint the system starts with "Bra" and ends with "hmi" ... see computer science does have some merit afterall.




The Indian (not the ones Columbus got lost and "discover") invented the 0 - their philosophy has the concept of nothingness... mix it with the pre-Islamic Arabs/ME mathematicians and it's much smarter than the Roman numerals, whose only use seem to be in sequels to movies    See, documentaries does have its merits.

Oh! How will your Christian computer understand the off state without first understanding the concept of nothingness? God have always existed and it took the Indian to see and define zero. No zero will mean it will always be on for you guys.






> That's like saying Edison invented the lightbulb, when infact he actually bought the idea off someone else. The Koreans had a press before Gutenburg, and the Chinese a few bob each way before, but Gutenburg managed to mechanise/automate the process, something that the Koreans, Arabs and Chinese failed to do, even after generations of having the jump on the idea = engineering and development




The Chinese didn't just invent the paper for Guttenberg to print on. They have also invented printing presses and from a doco i saw had also massed produced all kind of books. So beside secret martial arts manuscripts and calligraphy, have also done the printing - and put it to more useful stuff than the Bible about some fairies and magical castles in the sky... ne ne... 




> First up remember where East meets West.
> 
> Do you really think that Europe was so isolated it would not know what sails someone is using in the Mediterranean and needs some wanderer in a turban to front up to a bloke in Europe and say "hey I have a trianglular piece of cloth that will do away with your phoenician sheets?" Anyway Chris the Italian's boat was a Portuguese invention called the Caravel and it is they who developed the idea not some desert wander's.  You think Portugal was Islamic maybe?
> 
> ----



The Portuguese and Spaniards were part of the Islamic empire way back then right? Was conquered until the 13th century when the Mongolian kind messed things up for the Muslims a bit.




> Alan Turing was no doubt bright, but he didn't invent the computer. Once again do you really think the German's didn't have a handle on computing too ....look at the Enigma machine, look at their V2 rockets, their war machine in general and how they put them into practice before Alan could say snap.




Alan Mathison Turing, OBE, FRS (/ˈtjʊərɪŋ/; 23 June 1912 – 7 June 1954) was a British pioneering computer scientist, mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst and theoretical biologist. He was highly influential in the development of computer science, providing a formalisation of the concepts of algorithm and computation with the Turing machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Yea, the German made good use of IBM's slot card computing against certain groups of undesirables and war planning and logistics too I bet.

But without Turing's code breaking machine, it would have taken thousands or millions of years to crack the Enigma though right?

Anyway, point was... the advanced and noble Christian values Harris was on about led to the suicide of one of its heroes at the age of 41. Maybe giving a guy like Turing a couple of decade during peace time in the age of electronics and transitors... might have resulted in something useful than an early and painful death... not just to Turing but to thousands of other British citizens. 

1 to me, no zero to Harris 




> You're going to have to come up with something more concrete than that luutzu. It's like saying I thought up an idea in my sleep and did nothing with it, but because Rumpole realised into reality after seeing a need  I should get the cudos.




Bad analogy.

The Chinese invented paper, got the ink, got the block printing, printed books with it too... Guttenberg did the same but only a few centuries later and got all the kudos as though he invented printing and mass production of books.

The Arab sailors invented the triangular sails... with it European ships could travel faster and navigate better. Their astronomy and all those books they translated made it possible to get out of the Dark Ages. 

Those are more than an idea they had in their sleeps I'd say.

----

What are we on about again?

That long dead people of your shades are better than long dead people of my shade? 

Anyway, Harris is a stooge to his country's propaganda. That's all fine and all understandable... we all believe in the nobility and superiority of our own. But to call such people Liberal or an Intellectual offend reality and those who truly are a pain in the behind of everyone because they're always objective and rational and will not apologise for crimes and cruelty.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not excusing anyone, you are trying to excuse Christianity.





I'm not I'm saying Islam is a far worse global problem , do you agree or not ?

 I point you to where I said the 3 religions are flawed but the majority of the savagery is being done by Muslims. Do you agree or not ?


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> A very bad thing happened to Turing, but the fact is that we don't today have people killing other people on the streets in the name of Christianity.
> 
> The ISIS people and their followers are murdering, raping and destroying civilisation in the name of Islam and no matter how you try to deflect those actions off onto Judaism or Christianity its the Islamic culture that says they have the right to do what they are doing, therefore Islam has to change its culture.




I don't think you need God to tell you to fight back when foreign invaders take over your country. 

We can argue whether what the US and the Coalition of the Willing are doing in the ME is liberating or invading, to the people that live there, definitely sure there's little doubt among most of them. 

And it's very hard to win the debate about Islam and violence in the ME when they have always been Muslim before our liberation and there's little terrorism then but once our boots are on the ground kicking doors and blowing up civil infrastructure and utilities, terrorism and violence and carnage shot way way up.

So was Islam responsible for the relative peace (or at least stability) before Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and also responsible for the rise of ISIS and terrorists or is it only responsible for the bad stuff but the good stuff was due to Saddam.

---

When NATO or Russia or US or China drop a bomb or lock up people or torture and kill them... do we say it's Christianity that causes them to do it, or Atheism that causes it, or depends on whose alliance we're on one country's killing is acceptable while another is not?


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not I'm saying Islam is a far worse global problem , do you agree or not ?
> 
> I point you to where I said the 3 religions are flawed but the majority of the savagery is being done by Muslims. Do you agree or not ?




Yes, but only because our society has become more developed and less superstitious, give under developed and superstitious societies a bible instead of a Qu'ran and they are just as quick to do messed up things, Did you see the videos I uploaded of Christians in Africa burning their local witch doctors etc.

My beef is not that you point out Islams bad points, But that you excuse Christianity, when if you put it in the similar situations, the same results happen.

You tend to use every example you see of a Muslim doing something bad as evidence against Islam, but all the Christian Inspired things you write off as Isolated incidents, terrorists or somethings else.

In general the more educated a society gets, the less religious it becomes and the less bad stuff happens, it just so happens that Islam is biggest in under developed nations and nations that cling to superstition over real facts.


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not I'm saying Islam is a far worse global problem , do you agree or not ?
> 
> I point you to where I said the 3 religions are flawed but the majority of the savagery is being done by Muslims. Do you agree or not ?




How did you reach that conclusion?

Are the US and Western allies considered Christians or not?

Are terrorist groups in Muslim countries considered the ebodiment of Islam or are they merely warlords and psychopath or freedom fighters or bad terrorists or our kind of terrorists.

If you blow up a pharmaceutical factory in a poor country and because of that no medicines can be provided to the population and a few hundred thousand die... did you just kill those few hundred thousands or you merely blew up the factory?

If you start a war on false pretense, do it for grand strategy and God and glory and money... and that lead to a whole lot of death and destruction a decade or two after. Were you responsible for all those death and destruction or should you just apologise for the one "false" or bad intel?

The Nuremberg trial define war crimes and hang a lot of Nazis for crime against humanity. Should we also apply the same definition and the same rules to ourselves as to the terrorists? 



If we buy the bs about superior this and inferior that; good 'r us and evil 'r them... it will lead to a whole lot of death and destruction we're somewhat understand and comfortable with. While that's fine when we are the top dog, it does have its blowbacks and in the end, it's plebs like us and our children, plebs like them and their children that pay the price - if not with blood then with treasure and lost opportunities.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

> Are the US and Western allies considered Christians or not?




Not necessarily. They are the representatives of a secular society. Some may be Christians, some Muslims, some atheists, the point is they do not REPRESENT Christianity and what they do is not done in the name of Christianity.

The Muslims want caliphates that are ruled by Islamic law without freedom of representation, freedom of speech etc. 

Which sort of country would you prefer to live in ?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> My beef is not that you point out Islams bad points, But that you excuse Christianity, when if you put it in the similar situations, the same results happen.




I don't particularly care about Christianity or any other religion I would prefer they all went away. But if its a choice between getting visited by some Jehovas Witnesses every month who give me something to read and then go away or taking the risk of being shot by some Muslim fanatic while I'm walking down the street then I know which of those I would prefer.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't particularly care about Christianity or any other religion I would prefer they all went away. But if its a choice between getting visited by some Jehovas Witnesses every month who give me something to read and then go away or taking the risk of being shot by some Muslim fanatic while I'm walking down the street then I know which of those I would prefer.




Yeah, but no doubt you would prefer getting visited by a moderate Muslim than be shot by a Christian fanatic, you are making the mistake of always comparing moderate Christians with fanatic Muslims.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, but no doubt you would prefer getting visited by a moderate Muslim than be shot by a Christian fanatic, you are making the mistake of always comparing moderate Christians with fanatic Muslims.




That's the way it is in this country today, the Christians are basically docile but with Muslims you never know what you'll get. How long since a Christian in this country murdered someone at random in the name of Christianity ?

My preference is based on evidence, yours is obviously based on fantasy.


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not necessarily. They are the representatives of a secular society. Some may be Christians, some Muslims, some atheists, the point is they do not REPRESENT Christianity and what they do is not done in the name of Christianity.
> 
> The Muslims want caliphates that are ruled by Islamic law without freedom of representation, freedom of speech etc.
> 
> Which sort of country would you prefer to live in ?




If wanting to establish an empire is such a bad thing, what do you call the US and its 800+ military bases all over the place? Or the Russians with their dozen or so. Do as we say not as we do?

We're not too happy with China building a few bases, and have every reason to be concern... but that's the pot calling the kettle black kind of stuff.

Have said it before... I heard from Scahill that the ISIS we hear about are just a small part of their coalition. Those are the crazy religious lunatics... the other coalition are also crazy lunatics but without the religion - just saw opportunities in a broken country and being human and psychotic or patriotic or whatever they decided to start an army and get some.

I'm not a pacifist and of course prefer to live in a secular, open and democratic society that Australia is... But we shouldn't buy into this fighting evil and getting them over there before they get us here. That is just rubbish and our involvement in foreign adventures increase insecurity and put our people and our interests at greater risk than if we devote those resources to infrastructure and training etc.

We're taking this narrative about clashes of civilisation too seriously. It's just propaganda... and in taking it seriously, innocent people overseas get blown up now and then, innocent people at home who share the same religion and "civilisation" as the evil ones get swear at, hit and thrown to the ground now and then.

-----

The ME has a lot a lot of oil and gas; it's situated between East and West; it controls the Suez canal where trade and goods either go there or go around Africa to reach Europe.

So those with the biggest muscle will want to control it. If they don't others will. It's just clashes of empires, not civilisation. Everything else we hear - democracy, nation-building, evil Muslims - are all propaganda.

So we got to ask ourselves... does our standard of living depends on our arms being there? Controling the tap and who goes what and when... Can our national interests and the interests of our people be advanced without the military?

The US have spent maybe $3 Trillion in the ME since Afghanistan. 

Those $3T (and our dead) have to be paid for by the riches and leverage we get from controlling it. That and it's paid for by a few million dead Arabs in past 15 years.

Is it worth it? Are we richer for it financially? Are we safer as a country and a people? Nope.

So might need to rethink foreign policy then?

What if we were to spend $1Trillion on ourselves, the other $1Trillion we use as carrots to the Arabs to trade with them, the other $1 Trillion we put away for a rainy China rising day... 

But nope... they're evil, we're the good guys trying to save them from their evil ways and have t do a lot of killing to eventually make it happen.

----

The South China Sea is as important, if not more, to its national interests than the ME is to Western interests.

With China now getting richer and its military becoming more sophisticated, and with another 200 million or so new Chinese in another couple decades... you bet your life China will dominate the SCS and the East China Sea. To gain both the energy, fisheries resources as well as to control access and influence by other major powers in and around its backyard.

Will the US and Australia allow it? Nope. So expect proxy wars that might escalate... and if the ME keeps on the path it's one, we might have to cede one or the other but cannot have both - so it either have to go to Russia or Asia go back to China like it has for thousands of years before European imperialism. 

Anyway, religion is crazy but in many instances it has very little to do with the violence and destruction we see in wars.

When two power face off each other for some interests, if religion or race could be use to explain and romanticise our heroic deeds against the barbarians, then sure why not. But in cases of civil wars, or war against similar looking people... It's over other noble causes like freeing the slaves or freeing the people from tyranny etc. etc.


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

luutzu said:


> Don't know, just saw the Matrix and its 0 and 1... that's how digital and computing translate all the codes and nulls right? I never took a course in Computing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure you haven't validated my arguments there luutzu .... thanks for that  Always the gentleman

BTW the Chinese only managed ceramic blocks around AD1000, they never managed the Gutenburg level of sophistication.

I don't believe the Chinese invented all the things they say they did. Remember my house hosted Chinese teenagers who were raised under the Maoist mantra ... they deny totally the great marches, the intellectual purges, etc and have been indoctrinated into believing the nonsense about inventing everything ...and I mean everything  I am astounded at the effectiveness brain washing one side of the pacific to the other.


----------



## luutzu (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm not sure you haven't validated my arguments there luutzu .... thanks for that  Always the gentleman
> 
> BTW the Chinese only managed ceramic blocks around AD1000, they never managed the Gutenburg level of sophistication.
> 
> I don't believe the Chinese invented all the things they say they did. Remember my house hosted Chinese teenagers who were raised under the Maoist mantra ... they deny totally the great marches, the intellectual purges, etc and have been indoctrinated into believing the nonsense about inventing everything ...and I mean everything  I am astounded at the effectiveness brain washing one side of the pacific to the other.




Here we go, two videos showing some 15 unique Chinese inventions.

They didn't invent everything - just many of the things that changed the world 

Toilet paper. Paper money. Cheques. Fork and chopsticks. Spaghetti. Rudder for ships.

See how people I'm not related to are better than people you're not related to?


----------



## Value Collector (31 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's the way it is in this country today, the Christians are basically docile but with Muslims you never know what you'll get. How long since a Christian in this country murdered someone at random in the name of Christianity ?
> 
> My preference is based on evidence, yours is obviously based on fantasy.




Hence why my original comment was that you should put the words " in Australia " in front of the statement you made about Christians.

We have a lot less religious violence in Australia simply because we are a lot less religious, even most of the Christians are very loose weave Christians, so it's not that Christianity itself is the cause of the lack of violence, it's the secularisation of our population.


----------



## Tink (31 October 2015)

Your anti-Christian views are ridiculous, VC, especially since our country was built on our Christian heritage.

Maybe you prefer to live in this atheist regime, where Christianity had no influence.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=30357&page=5&p=888200&viewfull=1#post888200


----------



## SirRumpole (31 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> so it's not that Christianity itself is the cause of the lack of violence, it's the secularisation of our population.




Yes, and the reason that the population is not secularised in Islamic countries is Islam itself, with it's intolerance to apostates and other cultures, intolerance to any form of criticism of Islam,  non separation of Church and State and it's imposition of its own theocracy via Sharia law.

Islam itself and Islamic theocracy is the problem in these countries, it rules by violence, threats, intimidation and retribution , can't you recognise that ?


----------



## Value Collector (31 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and the reason that the population is not secularised in Islamic countries is Islam itself, with it's intolerance to apostates and other cultures, intolerance to any form of criticism of Islam,  non separation of Church and State and it's imposition of its own theocracy via Sharia law.
> 
> Islam itself and Islamic theocracy is the problem in these countries, it rules by violence, threats, intimidation and retribution , can't you recognise that ?




All of the things that you mention above were part of the Christian theocracy that dominated Europe for many years also, the best way to maintain our secular progress is to reject all forms of theocracy, and continue to promote rationality over superstition, and humanism over religion. And we need to keep education secular, non secular schools should receive zero state funding. 

I agree with you that Islam is problem, but we need to remember the problem is religion, all types of religion, trying to pick sides is like picking brands of cigarettes.


----------



## Value Collector (31 October 2015)

Tink said:


> Your anti-Christian views are ridiculous, VC, especially since our country was built on our Christian heritage.
> 
> Maybe you prefer to live in this atheist regime, where Christianity had no influence.
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=30357&page=5&p=888200&viewfull=1#post888200




I am anti all forms of superstition tink, not just Christian mythology.

and once again, atheism is not communism, as much as you would like to hang the crimes of communism on atheism, you can't, atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, nothing more than that, any thing else is something else.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> All of the things that you mention above were part of the Christian theocracy that dominated Europe for many years also, the best way to maintain our secular progress is to reject all forms of theocracy, and continue to promote rationality over superstition, and humanism over religion. And we need to keep education secular, non secular schools should receive zero state funding.
> 
> I agree with you that Islam is problem, but we need to remember the problem is religion, all types of religion, trying to pick sides is like picking brands of cigarettes.




I think one of the reasons that the West have mainly secular societies is that Christianity has gradually become more tolerant of criticism whereas Islam has stayed in the Middle Ages and still rules with an iron fist. 

I'd agree with cutting State funding to religious schools but the unfortunate thing is that religious people vote and no politician is going to take them on, so I can see religious schools continuing to receive state funding for the foreseeable future.


----------



## luutzu (31 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think one of the reasons that the West have mainly secular societies is that Christianity has gradually become more tolerant of criticism whereas Islam has stayed in the Middle Ages and still rules with an iron fist.
> 
> I'd agree with cutting State funding to religious schools but the unfortunate thing is that religious people vote and no politician is going to take them on, so I can see religious schools continuing to receive state funding for the foreseeable future.




Religion do not become tolerant - it just got pushed aside and get busy building churches and leave affair of state to real bad azzes.

To say Christianity is more tolerant is like saying the English monarch were more benevolent and more democratic so they decided to give up power to the Prime Minister and his Lords and of course they give it to the lower house so they can represent the people.

It's nice to think that such kindness and good will exist, especially when it's "our" religion or "our" King and Queen... .but noooo...

Power was wrested from the British monarch and if they don't behave themselves they'll get their head chopped off by the Lords too. One of them did actually do that right? Same with Imperial Japan's Emperor and royalty after WW2... the US decided to let them keep their heads, giving the people what they want and make it appear like it's business as usual - having no power vacumn for new lords to rise up and "avenge" the Emperor etc.


Point is, religion is just like everything else... if it prove useful to statesman and warlords, it will be use and promoted and they all attend Church or Mosques or Synagogues or Temples - or all of them if that's necessary in an election. But after the curtain are drawn, it's back to social engineering and grand strategy and the usual butchery.

We the people just go to Church, pray for our loved ones and confess our sins... then back to work and start paying taxes... And if we're in a democracy, hopefully spend some time reading and thinking and voting [?] or rally to keep the bastards honest.

If we happen to live in other places less bound by such niceties, it's heads down and emptying pockets that keep the bastards happy and leave us alone for a while.


----------



## Value Collector (31 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think one of the reasons that the West have mainly secular societies is that Christianity has gradually become more tolerant of criticism.




Yes, I think this is because there has been an ever growing number of people that don't take it seriously, so they have lost support, so they simply don't have the power to do the things they once could and are forced to bow to secular laws.

Also science has lifted the curtain and revealed the a lot of the real workings of the universe, stuff we used to give god credit for, eg natural disasters, good seasons/bad seasons, disease, disability etc are all scary, when we have a bad drought now, we blame the weather we don't blame the heathens and go on a religious inquisition, and we don't blame witches for children born with disabilities etc. science had forced a lot of Christians to take the bible metaphorically where as they used to take it literally. 

When you don't have the scientific answers you are at the mercy of superstition, often the horrible things people have done in the name of gods is not because they are bad people, they have done it from fear of gods retribution or to get on side with gods because they fear them, science took a lot of the fear away.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, I think this is because there has been an ever growing number of people that don't take it seriously, so they have lost support, so they simply don't have the power to do the things they once could and are forced to bow to secular laws.
> 
> Also science has lifted the curtain and revealed the a lot of the real workings of the universe, stuff we used to give god credit for, eg natural disasters, good seasons/bad seasons, disease, disability etc are all scary, when we have a bad drought now, we blame the weather we don't blame the heathens and go on a religious inquisition, and we don't blame witches for children born with disabilities etc. science had forced a lot of Christians to take the bible metaphorically where as they used to take it literally.
> 
> When you don't have the scientific answers you are at the mercy of superstition, often the horrible things people have done in the name of gods is not because they are bad people, they have done it from fear of gods retribution or to get on side with gods because they fear them, science took a lot of the fear away.




Yes good points, so the key to reducing the power of Islam is to educate Muslims in science.

So how we do this in religious theocracies where those in power will resist any challenge to their authority ?


----------



## Value Collector (31 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So how we do this in religious theocracies where those in power will resist any challenge to their authority ?




I think it will happen naturally over time, things like the internet will help a lot, it took Christianity hundreds of years, I think Islam will not take as long because of the speed that information travels at these days, but it still will take a couple of generations to get to our level.


----------



## luutzu (31 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think it will happen naturally over time, things like the internet will help a lot, it took Christianity hundreds of years, I think Islam will not take as long because of the speed that information travels at these days, but it still will take a couple of generations to get to our level.




If you send in the cavalry, will only take a generation.

Was only two generation ago that the White Australian policy was repealed, and within less than a generation I think most White Australian would thought what was that all about? Nowadays, I'd imagine very few Australian seriously think one race is superior to another - well we all have our biases but in general I think we all frown upon racial discrimination.

For Muslims in the Middle East... there's just way too much power and politics at play that the only thing people could have faith in is to believe and hope that there is a God and that God will reward the good and the pious. I mean, Muslims living in Australia or the US or any other secular society do not commit terrorism or violence more than any other group - so it's not Islam that's the problem, it's the environment and the politics and wars that create extremism and terrorists.


----------



## Tink (1 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am anti all forms of superstition tink, not just Christian mythology.
> 
> and once again, atheism is not communism, as much as you would like to hang the crimes of communism on atheism, you can't, atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, nothing more than that, any thing else is something else.




Atheism and communism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_communism


----------



## Value Collector (1 November 2015)

Tink said:


> Atheism and communism
> 
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_communism




Hahahaha, Really Tink, you are going to link a glorified blog written by Christian fundamentalists that tries and masqarade itself as an encyclopaedia, nice try.

linking that page really shows a lot about your inability to seek out unbiased information.




> Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative, creationist, and Christian fundamentalist point of view.The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher




Tink atheism isn't communism, it's just a lack of belief in gods.

Atheists can and probably are absolutely any form of political party that exists, nothing about atheism ties you to a plotical point of view, any political view you have has to come from something else.

If some one tells you they are atheist, you can't assume anything else about them, all it tells you is that they don't believe in gods.


----------



## Value Collector (1 November 2015)

Here is the Wikipedia article talking about "conservapedia" which is the nonsense Wikipedia copy cat page written by religious nuts that tink linked.

It's not really an encyclopaedia so much as its a blog full of propaganda.


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia




If Tink is going to these sort of sites for her information she has no hope, no wonder she thinks atheists are bad, lol.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

luutzu said:


> Don't know, just saw the Matrix and its 0 and 1... that's how digital and computing translate all the codes and nulls right? I never took a course in Computing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Back on deck ... where were we....ah yes you were maintaining that Europe and the industrial/technology  revolution never happened .......


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Tink said:


> Atheism and communism
> 
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_communism




I'd go along with that Tink for two reasons:

1. it's plausable
2. if you ever watched Rocky an Bullwinkle you would be familiar with Captain Peter Peachfuzz, nicknamed "Wrong Way"; based on this I would tend to believe the opposite of what VC says  ....has anyone seen my wooden spoon laying about?


----------



## Tink (2 November 2015)

Thanks, Tisme. 

I wasn't going to reply in this thread, but just to confirm -- I wasn't having a go at atheists, I know you get good and bad in all people.

VC, and his twisting of words, that I dislike atheists, is not true.

You don't like the shoe on the other foot, VC, that your religion is crazy.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Tisme.
> 
> I wasn't going to reply in this thread, but just to confirm -- I wasn't having a go at atheists, I know you get good and bad in all people.
> 
> ...




VC argues with anything traditional, religiously.


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

Tink said:


> You don't like the shoe on the other foot, VC, that your religion is crazy.




No I don't like you constantly portraying atheism and communism as the same thing, and trying to say atheism is responsible for the crimes of the communists, which it is not.

Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, this "Unconvinced" position has no tenants, doctrine etc it doesn't lead you to commit crimes or do anything good or bad, any good or bad you do has to be inspired by another opinion you hold.

So the fact that some of the communists were atheists is irrelevant, because it was their political agenda that lead them to commit crimes against humanity, not their disbelief in gods, However ISIS and the like a different, their killing is a direct result of being convinced a god exists and their scriptures are his commands.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No I don't like you constantly portraying atheism and communism as the same thing, and trying to say atheism is responsible for the crimes of the communists, which it is not.
> 
> Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, this "Unconvinced" position has no tenants, doctrine etc it doesn't lead you to commit crimes or do anything good or bad, any good or bad you do has to be inspired by another opinion you hold.
> 
> So the fact that some of the communists were atheists is irrelevant, because it was their political agenda that lead them to commit crimes against humanity, not their disbelief in gods, However ISIS and the like a different, their killing is a direct result of being convinced a god exists and their scriptures are his commands.




The communists under Mao actively suppressed religion and the Chinese communists still do, namely the Falang Gong and Buddhism in Tibet, Richard Dawkins wants to destroy religion in all its forms.

It doesn't really matter that there is no atheist Bible that says to destroy religion, militant atheism is anti religion and can be as intolerant as you say religion is.


----------



## luutzu (2 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The communists under Mao actively suppressed religion and the Chinese communists still do, namely the Falang Gong and Buddhism in Tibet, Richard Dawkins wants to destroy religion in all its forms.
> 
> It doesn't really matter that there is no atheist Bible that says to destroy religion, militant atheism is anti religion and can be as intolerant as you say religion is.




What Mao and the Communist did weren't in the name of Atheism. It's in of name of Communist and the people's Emperor Mao.

They were against Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, atheist, engineer, metalurgists, farming, birds... they're nuts.

VC is not a militant Atheist... he religiously bashes religions but he support your right to practice and believe its nonsense. A militant would lock you up, burn your church and give you his small red book to memorise


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2015)

luutzu said:


> What Mao and the Communist did weren't in the name of Atheism. It's in of name of Communist and the people's Emperor Mao.
> 
> They were against Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, atheist, engineer, metalurgists, farming, birds... they're nuts.
> 
> VC is not a militant Atheist... he religiously bashes religions but he support your right to practice and believe its nonsense. A militant would lock you up, burn your church and give you his small red book to memorise




I never called VC a militant atheist, I just said that they existed and can be as intolerant as religion is.


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The communists under Mao actively suppressed religion and the Chinese communists still do, namely the Falang Gong and Buddhism in Tibet,.




Yes, because they see it as a threat to their political party, not because they are atheists.



> Richard Dawkins wants to destroy religion in all its forms.




Yes, because he believes it is damaging to society, and a dangerous thing, again not because his atheism.



> It doesn't really matter that there is no atheist Bible that says to destroy religion, militant atheism is anti religion and can be as intolerant as you say religion is




The word you are looking for there is anti-theism, not atheism. And again it takes a lot more than a simple disbelief to become anti-theist.

look at yourself, you believe in a deist type god, a rather simple belief which by itself can not really inspire violence, it takes other doctrines and scriptures and beliefs to do that, simple atheism is even more benign, its just being unconvinced that a god exists.

An atheist may become militant if he comes to believe that religion is harmful and needs to be stopped, again this is not atheism itself, this is a separate belief based on other experiances, not just the disbelief in gods.


----------



## luutzu (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> [/SIZE]
> 
> 
> Back on deck ... where were we....ah yes you were maintaining that Europe and the industrial/technology  revolution never happened .......




can't remember 

oh yea... Christianity build Western civilisation and made it great and tolerant while others, mainly Islam, screwed up its own civilisation and churn out terrorists or refugees... something like that.

Point was, we can't use a civilisation's high or low point to make our case of one being superior or inferior to another. We all have our moment in the sun killing the others whose sun was waning and we switched off their light,  crack more than a few skulls, took their stuff, control the printing press and get "intellectuals" like Harris to make us feel all proud and superior.

If Rome could be reduced to selling coffee and tickets to its ruins; If the children of the Great Khans could be land locked and find it hard to deal with Rio Tinto; If the British Empire could lose practically all its possession and become a good Lieutenant to its former colony; If Greece could go bankrupt and sell its islands for olives to a few bankers... feeling superior for what our forefathers had done is nice, if we don't keep up but rest on our superiority the Chinese or the Indians or the Arabs could just pull the rug from under - because they have done it, could do it.


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I never called VC a militant atheist, I just said that they existed and can be as intolerant as religion is.




Again I think you are describing an antitheist.

*Atheist*- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (nothing more than that)

*Anti-theist* - person who is in active opposition to theism.  A person who holds the view that organized religion when considered throughout the centuries has been a destructive force in society.


There is actually a big step and a lot of other beliefs to form before you can go from atheism to anti-theism. they are actually two separate things, and shouldn't be confused.


----------



## luutzu (2 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I never called VC a militant atheist, I just said that they existed and can be as intolerant as religion is.




Oh yea... maybe it was just me then


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

luutzu said:


> Point was, we can't use a civilisation's high or low point to make our case of one being superior or inferior to another. We all have our moment in the sun killing the others
> 
> .




Yeah but why did the low life have to pick now to vandalise civilisation? Did they think of my discomfort .... obviously not. the selfish bug9ers.

It would be brave person not to agree we (western democracies) really do enjoy the fruits of the past and there might have been 10k years leading up to the 17th century, but the exponential acceleration since England embraced/developed/invented large scale mechanisation, factories and commerce has been amazing .....when I think of those pointy heads who said we had stalled in the 1970's


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2015)

> ook at yourself, you believe in a deist type god, a rather simple belief which by itself can not really inspire violence, it takes other doctrines and scriptures and beliefs to do that, simple atheism is even more benign, its just being unconvinced that a god exists.
> 
> An atheist may become militant if he comes to believe that religion is harmful and needs to be stopped, again this is not atheism itself, this is a separate belief based on other experiances, not just the disbelief in gods.




What we are both talking about surely is *extremism*. It's pretty obvious to me that extremism implies intolerance and its also apparent to me that either a religious person or an anti religious person is capable of it in fairly equal measure.


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What we are both talking about surely is *extremism*. .




Yes, but it takes something create extreme views, fear of a god based on scriptures you have read or had interpreted by preachers for you can lead to extremism, craving political power can lead to extremism as can many things, But a simple disbelief in god can't.



> It's pretty obvious to me that extremism implies intolerance and its also apparent to me that either a religious person or an anti religious person is capable of it in fairly equal measure




Offcourse, but all I am saying its not the atheism that causes it, you don't even have to be atheist to be antitheist, you can be a deist such as yourself and still want to get rid of organised religion. 


for example, pretty much all my life I have been an atheist, but it wasn't until later in life that took on some anti religion opinions, it wasn't because of my atheism, it was because I saw the divisions religion makes in society and how it pulled us into the longest war in our history, looking deeper I saw negative effects of religion everywhere, these negative effects are why I am against religion.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What we are both talking about surely is *extremism*. It's pretty obvious to me that extremism implies intolerance and its also apparent to me that either a religious person or an anti religious person is capable of it in fairly equal measure.




Dawkins and his blind faith followers are reminiscent of school children when they discover they have a fundamental argumentative  streak ... they like the sound of their own voice and want everyone to know it. He's that loud girl with tight pigtails who tries to organise the playground into a tessellated canvas of child activities. 

Dawkins can't grasp the concept that the world is what it is because of what it is and he does not possess a third eye nor crystal ball to back his assumpton that we will all be better off without skyfairies.

Gets his mooche on telly though, which I suspect is his main aim in life; for fame and wealth


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2015)

Surely this is proof God exists:

http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx


----------



## luutzu (2 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but why did the low life have to pick now to vandalise civilisation? Did they think of my discomfort .... obviously not. the selfish bug9ers.
> 
> It would be brave person not to agree we (western democracies) really do enjoy the fruits of the past and there might have been 10k years leading up to the 17th century, but the exponential acceleration since England embraced/developed/invented large scale mechanisation, factories and commerce has been amazing .....when I think of those pointy heads who said we had stalled in the 1970's




Yea me too. Just about to launch my life's work and there are signs of world war 3 starting. Some people only think of themselves.

Yea Western Civilisation is pretty good and getting better - just got a logistic and distribution problem.


----------



## luutzu (5 November 2015)

Interesting interview on the Neo-Con and the religion of modern economic theories.

Killed more people and ruin more lives than probably all other heavenly religion combined.


----------



## DB008 (24 November 2015)

*Moscow Court Bans Church of Scientology​*



> A court in Moscow has banned the local branch of the Church of Scientology, a RIA Novosti correspondent reported from the courtroom Monday.
> 
> MOSCOW (Sputnik) – During the inspection the Russian Ministry of Justice found out that the word 'scientology' had been registered as a trade mark owned by the US Religious Technology Center.
> 
> ...




http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151123/1030602483/scientology-church-ban.html​


----------



## DB008 (24 November 2015)

*Autism: Potentially lethal bleach 'cure' feared to have spread to Britain​*


> Exclusive: Combination of sodium chlorite and hydrochloric acid is being touted as a cure by US-based Genesis II Church.
> 
> Police have been urged to investigate the first suspected UK case of a parent giving their child industrial strength bleach as a “cure” for autism.
> 
> ...




http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/autism-potentially-lethal-bleach-cure-feared-to-have-spread-to-britain-a6744291.html​


----------



## Knobby22 (25 November 2015)

Is this the future?  Non religious organisations with belief systems, now we have this one (Genesis II Church) along with the scientologists. Does this organisation beling in the Religion is Crazy thread or do we need to start a non-religious is crazy and put in this organisation?

_We are unique because we were formed to serve mankind. We are *non-religious *in nature because we serve mankind, as opposed to worshiping a deity. Many people believe that the word, “Church” can only be associated with Christians. This is the secular definition the world has given it since the first century. However, in reality the word “church” came from the Greek word, “ekklesia”, which means, “a called out assembly” or “an assembly called out for a specific purpose.”_


http://genesis2church.is/our-beliefs


----------



## Tisme (25 November 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Is this the future?  Non religious organisations with belief systems, now we have this one (Genesis II Church) along with the scientologists. Does this organisation beling in the Religion is Crazy thread or do we need to start a non-religious is crazy and put in this organisation?
> 
> _We are unique because we were formed to serve mankind. We are *non-religious *in nature because we serve mankind, as opposed to worshiping a deity. Many people believe that the word, “Church” can only be associated with Christians. This is the secular definition the world has given it since the first century. However, in reality the word “church” came from the Greek word, “ekklesia”, which means, “a called out assembly” or “an assembly called out for a specific purpose.”_
> 
> ...




Church = Ekklesia, it's so obvious when you think about it.


I'm guessing they are drawing a long straw with "ecclesiastical = church". Solomon might have something to say about that word


----------



## dutchie (29 November 2015)

Saudi Arabia sentences maid to death by stoning for adultery - but the man she slept with will escape with 100 lashes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-adultery-man-slept-escape-100-lashes.html


And this country is judging our human rights record.

What a joke. The UN is a joke.


----------



## dutchie (29 November 2015)

dutchie said:


> Saudi Arabia sentences maid to death by stoning for adultery - but the man she slept with will escape with 100 lashes
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-adultery-man-slept-escape-100-lashes.html




Gillian Triggs thinks we should worry about Saudi Arabia being able to criticise us on human rights.

What a joke. Gillian Triggs is a joke.


----------



## DB008 (29 November 2015)

dutchie said:


> Saudi Arabia sentences maid to death by stoning for adultery - but the man she slept with will escape with 100 lashes
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-adultery-man-slept-escape-100-lashes.html
> 
> ...




Saudi Arabia is a joke of a country. Their version of Islam (wahhabism) is extreme. They are insecure.



> *Ashraf Fayadh: Saudi Arabia to 'sue' Twitter user describing Palestinian poet's death sentence as 'Isis-like'​*
> Saudi Arabia will sue any Twitter user who compares the Kingdom’s recent decision to execute a poet to punishments handed down by Isis.
> 
> Ashraf Fayadh, a 35-year-old Palestinian poet, was sentenced to death for apostasy – renouncing one’s faith – by a court in Abha on 17 November, according to documents seen by Human Rights Watch.
> ...




What a bunch of idiots. Can't wait for battery technology to get off the ground, oil price to drop like a lead anchor (or stay low), so we can leave these barbaric nutters back where they belong - 1000 B.C.


​


----------



## luutzu (29 November 2015)

DB008 said:


> Saudi Arabia is a joke of a country. Their version of Islam (wahhabism) is extreme. They are insecure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was agreeing with you there until the "...can't wait for battery..." so we can get away from them bit.   Well, I do agree with that too but yea, it's funny.

Kinda like a guy going to a ***** house, getting on with his business but swearing at the prostitute while he's doing it. Dam *****, screwing every man that comes by; dirty filthy thing... oh yea... dam it, can't wait until I get married... scratch that, marriage mean no sex anyway... can't wait until I hit the jackpot then won't have to come here anymore.


----------



## DB008 (29 November 2015)

luutzu said:


> marriage mean no sex anyway




Not necessarily.....


----------



## luutzu (29 November 2015)

DB008 said:


> Not necessarily.....




Yea I know. Was just echoing general public perception others experience or perceive to be the case


----------



## DB008 (29 November 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yea I know. Was just echoing general public perception others experience or perceive to be the case




Well, in my real world experience, there has been no difference in sex life before/after marriage. Others may disagree....


----------



## luutzu (29 November 2015)

DB008 said:


> Well, in my real world experience, there has been no difference in sex life before/after marriage. Others may disagree....




So you were abstinent before marriage then? That or have yet to have kids and are trying very hard to have one. That or you could make a lot of money selling your secrets, to other people of course.


----------



## DB008 (1 December 2015)

Islamic P.C. Brigade out in force.

Check out these idiots.....




> *Newspaper draws piggy bank to show ISIS funding, Muslim groups attack it as pig is “unislamic”​*
> Mumbai. Offices of the Marathi newspaper Lokmat witnessed angry protests on Sunday by outraged Muslims who claimed that the newspaper had insulted their faith by publishing a blasphemous picture.
> 
> Copies of the newspaper were burnt at various cities in Maharashtra and the protesting men demanded arrest of the editor and the artist who drew the illustration. A couple of offices are reported to have been attacked too, as the editor extended an immediate apology.
> ...





http://www.opindia.com/2015/11/newspaper-draws-piggy-bank-to-show-isis-funding-muslim-groups-attack-it-as-pig-is-unislamic/​


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

I think there is confusion on where the line between peoples rights to practice their religion and other peoples rights to be free of religion.

Every one in Australia has the right to have and practice a religion, but everyone also has the right to be free of religion.

So people can go to church send their children to Sunday school, pray , read their texts etc etc. this is their right.

they can not however, in their position as a school teacher lead their class in prayor, as this is an infringement on the students rights to be free of religion.

Religious students can carryout whatever private observance they need to, but the other students should not be forced to do this.

there is plenty of time for the religious students to get religious teachings at home, at church etc

So it is not a contradiction for a liberal on one hand to resist Christian teachings in schools, while also defending an Islamic groups right to build a mosque or where a hijab.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So people can go to church send their children to Sunday school, pray , read their texts etc etc. this is their right.
> ...
> they can not however, in their position as a school teacher lead their class in prayor, as this is an infringement on the students rights to be free of religion.
> 
> .




So what do you say about parents who send their children to religious schools knowing that their children will be subject to religious teachings ?

If freedom from religion should be a right, shouldn't that apply to children as well ?

Do we ban all religious schools (personally I would not object to this), but I doubt if that would get past the Constitution in regards to freedom of religion.


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So what do you say about parents who send their children to religious schools knowing that their children will be subject to religious teachings ?
> 
> If freedom from religion should be a right, shouldn't that apply to children as well ?
> 
> Do we ban all religious schools (personally I would not object to this), but I doubt if that would get past the Constitution in regards to freedom of religion.




I think religious schools should not receive government funding, that would reduce them in number.

But as for allowing children to be taught a religion, I think we have to allow it, atleast to the point where actual harm is caused to the child or the child decides they don't want it,  and the school needs to maintain all the standards expected of a public school.

But I would like society to shun the teaching of religion to children, I think the only reason the religions care so much about getting into schools is that they know they have to get the superstitions instilled in the child before the age of reason.


----------



## Tisme (9 December 2015)

For Tink:

turn on your woofer

http://gloria.tv/?media=479543&language=3SsSaAhCEfb

For the rest of you ratbags:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe8qRj12OhY


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> For the rest of you ratbags:
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe8qRj12OhY




Lol, the funny thing is, that Islamic prayor sounds no different to me than this one.

Both represent silly middle eastern mythologies.


----------



## basilio (10 December 2015)

Pope Francis calls out fundamentalists.


> *Pope Francis calls fundamentalism disease of all religions*
> December 2, 20153:40pm
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.news.com.au/world/africa...s/news-story/aca26bfba689973e42ad9e280bd4c832


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Hopefully a sign of reform in Islamic states

Saudi Arabia elects at least 17 women to local councils in historic poll

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...men-to-local-councils-first-time-ever/7024862


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

> Now back to Christmas and the Carols, that you are trying to ban, that have been going on for centuries.




I don't mind Children singing Christmas carols, I think a state school should pick secular versions though to avoid the pushing of one religion.

eg, ruldoph the red nosed reindeer, jingle bells etc, not the overtly religious ones.

But you are free to send your kids to a faith school if you want religious instruction.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

> This is a core problem with the preposition. If you were a Christian you would consider Jesus not only walked the walk, but also lives on in both his believers and non believers..... you are snookered anyway you try to wiggle out of it VC....you have been "pwned"!




 All you are saying here is that if I was willing to accept a religion based on bad evidence, then I would have some beliefs that are crazy.

How exactly does that "snooker me" 

I have given you the information I would need to be snookered.

1, evidence of Jesus from during his life (that would snooker me on the mans existence)

2, evidence the bible claims are true ( that would snooker me on the legend)

So far there is neither.



> And because you and every other heathen out there (including those that worship false prophets, icons, etc) tilt at windmills it just reinforces the great love Jesus must have in not putting his vengeful God uniform on and smiting the bejesus out of you and your Godless brethren. He allows you to be do what you do and say, because you amuse him and serve to illustrate to the believers the persona of a person who goose steps down the path to eventual perdition.... you are 4ucked VC.




lol, so far you can't show Jesus wasn't a false prophet.

and if there was a god that cared whether I believe or not, he would know exactly the evidence I need to believe, so the fact that I am an atheist, shows that the god either doesn't care, or doesn't exist.



> You know that the Mormons own the Ancestry geneology site and they are ultimately looking for the messianic gene that will not so much prove the existence of Jesus, but that the high priestess Mary Madge did have an emmaculate conception of her own, a seemingly unique family trait of the first born Carpenter family men. I would suspect they must have the original samples to be able to carry out the comparo



.  

Looking forward to seeing their evidence, I don't like their chances.

Plenty of organisations have spent millions trying to prove their cult is true, all have failed.

Just remember this is the crazy stuff the Mormons actually believe


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

> How exactly does that "snooker me"




Everyone is snookered in the religion debate.

Believers will believe and not believers will not, everyone is preaching to their own "converted" audience.

Big changes in opinion over short periods of time are unrealistic, it's more likely to be constant wearing away of a stone as more people realise that religion enslaves their intellect.

Promises of good treatment in an afterlife for killing innocents is evidence that religious insanity still exists, when these sort of attacks disappear there may be some evidence that the religious grip is loosening.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Believers will believe and not believers will not, .




Belief is irrelevant, when what is being debated are facts. 

Everyone  should be able to answer the question "Why do you believe that?"  with a good answer, faith is not a good answer, and neither is because lots of others people that or because its an old idea.


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


>





I knew it! Black people are neutral


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Everyone  should be able to answer the question "Why do you believe that?"  with a good answer, faith is not a good answer, and neither is because lots of others people that or because its an old idea.




It's not a good answer for you or me, but that doesn't matter, the people who have "faith" don't care what you or I think.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a good answer for you or me, but that doesn't matter, the people who have "faith" don't care what you or I think.




And that's fine for them, I support their right to live in ignorance, But we shouldn't allow them to force their ignorance on our government or schools, and when they say stupid things we should point out where they are making logical fallacies rather than give them respect and say their ideas are equal to scientific facts, or give them a higher place in society than they disserve.


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And that's fine for them, I support their right to live in ignorance, But we shouldn't allow them to force their ignorance on our government or schools, and when they say stupid things we should point out where they are making logical fallacies rather than give them respect and say their ideas are equal to scientific facts, or give them a higher place in society than they disserve.




They allow you your say, but of course their (Christian) politeness is pure patronisation without condescension.... you are their biatch because you haven't walked the path, seen the light and taken Jesus into your bosom.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> .... you are their biatch because *you haven't walked the path, seen the light and taken Jesus into your bosom*.




Hahahaha, neither have they, they have just convinced themselves into thinking they have.

You could say that for any religion switch the word "Jesus" in you sentence for "Muhammad" and see how silly your sentence sounds, because that's what it sounds like to me.

You can really switch it for any of the superstitions, lucky Rabbits foot, lucky underpants or "The secret" etc

I would prefer to live life in reality, I don't need an imaginary friend, I support your right to have one though, But if you want to talk about him in public just remember most of us think you are crazy.


----------



## DB008 (14 December 2015)

This is how it should be done. Boot the Bible (and even Koran), out of politics....


*Mayor Swears In, But Not On the Bible​*



> FRANKLIN, N.C. -- Bob Scott has taken plenty of oaths in his decades of public service. He served in the Army as a public affairs officer, and flew many years with the Civil Air Patrol before spending ten years on the Franklin Board of Alderman. And all those times, he was sworn in the same way.
> 
> "Oh I always used a Bible, it was just sort of the customary thing," said Scott.
> But before he took the oath of office for his second term as mayor of the town of Franklin this week, he'd been thinking of holding a different 'book' in his hand.
> ...





http://www.wlos.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Mayor-Swears-In-But-Not-On-the-Bible-241429.shtml​


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2015)

DB008 said:


> This is how it should be done. Boot the Bible (and even Koran), out of politics....
> 
> 
> *Mayor Swears In, But Not On the Bible​*
> ...




Australia has a secular constitution, as does the USA, but it hasn't stopped the catholics taking over the Liberal and Labor Parties here in a generation and I doubt it will stop the American Anglicans (evangelists) from appealing to the public for election either. You only have to look at the power brokers in the USA politics to know there are a lot of Jews in support roles.

Religion will also win out until the next war comes along


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> Australia has a secular constitution, as does the USA




You wouldn't think it about the USA, for God and country and all that stuff.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You wouldn't think it about the USA, for God and country and all that stuff.




And the weird thing is that our constitution draws on the American one. Obviously we have an inherent immunity to fairy dust.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> And the weird thing is that our constitution draws on the American one. Obviously we have an inherent immunity to fairy dust.




Not unexpected perhaps. Calvanist puritans on the Mayflower vs godless criminals on the First Fleet.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You wouldn't think it about the USA, for God and country and all that stuff.




That's why secular organisation have been successfully suing state government and getting them to remove religious monuments such as the ten commandments that were placed in front of many court houses in the 50's when the USA went all religion crazy, in the face of the godless communists.





And when States refuse to remove the religious monuments, then in the name of freedom of religion, the groups are trying to force the government to allow them to install a satanic monument, seems like a fun game.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

Is it just me or does the Satanists Tenets seem a lot more reasonable than the tenets of Christianity.


Tenets 







> There are seven fundamental tenets.
> •One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
> •The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
> •One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's why secular organisation have been successfully suing state government and getting them to remove religious monuments such as the ten commandments that were placed in front of many court houses in the 50's when the USA went all religion crazy, in the face of the godless communists.
> 
> View attachment 65304
> 
> ...




That's getting a bit silly imo. It's like IS destroying all the Islamic monuments that don't suit their ideology, ie trying to erase history.

Like it or not religion is part of the history of the US and other countries, it's ridiculous to pretend it didn't happen. Would you want to tear down St Paul's cathedral or the Pyramids ?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Is it just me or does the Satanists Tenets seem a lot more reasonable than the tenets of Christianity.
> 
> 
> Tenets




What is your source for that ?


Is that the complete list or are there things about loyalty to Satan like there is loyalty to God in the Bible and Koran ?

There are lots of "tenets" in the Bible, Koran, Buddhism that you could live by and live a good life without the religious baggage that goes with it.

In which case there needs to be no reference to supernatural Deities and it wouldn't really matter which ones you followed as long as they did not infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What is your source for that ?
> 
> 
> .




From the Satantic temple website.

http://thesatanictemple.com/about-us/tenets




> Is that the complete list or are there things about loyalty to Satan like there is loyalty to God in the Bible and Koran ?




That's the complete list, 7 fundamental tenets





> There are lots of "tenets" in the Bible, Koran, Buddhism that you could live by and live a good life without the religious baggage that goes with it.




Yeah, but those good things are secular concepts, so why worry about the Religion in the first place.

If you want peanuts, buy a packet of peanuts, don't buy a tonne of elephant poo just to pick out some nuts.
---------

By the way the "Santanic temple" is actually a satire religion, its a group of atheists using it as a platform to defend religious freedom in the USA, and try and prevent Christian Conservatives making the government more religious.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> By the way the "Santanic temple" is actually a satire religion, its a group of atheists using it as a platform to defend religious freedom in the USA, and try and prevent Christian Conservatives making the government more religious.




There are actually people around that take that sort of thing seriously,human sacrifice etc. 

If you want atheism fine, why bring Satan into it ? It seems that atheists can't get their message across without a god of their own.

As you said, "if you want peanuts, buy peanuts..."


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There are actually people around that take that sort of thing seriously,human sacrifice etc.
> 
> "




Really, do you have a link to that.



> If you want atheism fine, why bring Satan into it ? It seems that atheists can't get their message across without a god of their own.




Keep in mind this isn't "Atheists" its a relatively small group, and they are doing it to show how crazy it is to allow government to get involved in religion.

They have already successfully prevented religious monuments being built of government land, due to the fact that if the government knew they would have to allow a satanic monument also, its a bit of shock and awe tactic





> As you said, "if you want peanuts, buy peanuts




I do, I am not a member of the satanic temple. but if people want to throw elephant poo, sometimes you have to threaten to throw it back that's their point.

if you want to put up a Christian monument on the lawn of the city hall, they want to put a satanic one.

If you want to hand out Christian bibles, they want to hand out their satanic literature.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

> As you said, "if you want peanuts, buy peanuts




Satire is a valid form of protest sometimes. It can show the ridiculous side of another group, and if nothing else it can be funny.

for example the Pastafarians, Worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster that need to where a colander on their head for their licence photos.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Pastafarians ? 

Yes they look like a bunch of meatballs. 

Saucy though.

They should use their noodles more.

I could wrap them around my fork.

How's that for satire ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Pastafarians ?
> 
> Yes they look like a bunch of meatballs.
> 
> ...






 “In the Name of the Pasta, and of the Sauce, and of the Holy Meatballs, may his noodlely appendage touch you,.... Ramen ”

On a serious note though, if the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't exist, where do the bread sticks come from,.......Check Mate Christians.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 December 2015)

...


----------



## bellenuit (28 December 2015)

*IS mutilate and kill mum in broad daylight for breastfeeding in public*

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wor...c/news-story/d334f03cd1684da0f8e1d10a453009c6

What I find frightening is that we are constantly being told that if we in the West criticise Islam and its tenets, whether justifiably or not, we are assisting ISIS in their recruitment of Muslims within our society. It will result in many young Muslims deciding to join the faction.

What kind of mentality must these young people already have that just hearing discussion of religious argument could tip them so easily into joining a faction that could do such atrocities. And there did they get such a mentality from?


----------



## Tisme (29 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *. And there did they get such a mentality from?*



*

Rote learners, no analytical skillset..... dumb and dumbers of the human race.*


----------



## SirRumpole (29 December 2015)

> And there did they get such a mentality from?




From their parents unfortunately. Maybe not directly but being a Muslim is the first step to being a radical.


----------



## luutzu (29 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *IS mutilate and kill mum in broad daylight for breastfeeding in public*
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wor...c/news-story/d334f03cd1684da0f8e1d10a453009c6
> 
> ...




Unless you have an intellectual discussion on Islam or religion, it's best not to criticise other people's religion. No one like to be criticised, and making fun of their faith and mocking their god is really asking for it.

Even VC wouldn't, I guess, could be wrong... but even he wouldn't criticise and poke holes into Christianity and other religion in front of their followers - it's just not polite, and no body asks you what yo think of their religion

---
So why does criticising and loathing ISIS is the same as criticising Islam? That's like saying the KKK is what Christianity is all about; or point to racists White Southerners in the US back then lynching a black person and bring the entire town and family for a picnic and a viewing, that that's what Christians and Western civilisation is.

I've heard that ISIS is not one united group we're made to believe. They're a bunch of groups with differing interests, and the crazy religious among them - the ones that get all the attention, they're actually a minority. 

The other allies to ISIS, or is ISIS depends on who you ask I guess... they're secular, former Saddam Hussein military officers who were left in the cold and want to redraw the map and set up a state of their own - beats starving to death I supposed.

Russia and Assad are also fighting ISIS; the alliance of the willing are also fighting ISIS; ISIS is probably also fighting ISIS... So last man standing is not ISIS.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> Even VC wouldn't, I guess, could be wrong... but even he wouldn't criticise and poke holes into Christianity and other religion in front of their followers - it's just not polite, and no body asks you what yo think of their religion




Haaaaahhhhhh !!!


----------



## luutzu (30 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Haaaaahhhhhh !!!




oi. Taken out of context. 

I did say "unless" he or others are having an intellectual discussion or debate. And laughing at them inside his head doesn't count 

My mother in law had this Feng Shui Master (who runs a Charcoal Chicken and Fish'n'Chip shop up in Queensland) .. .the master came over to feng shui the entire place and I ask a few questions about this art.

The guy later told her, with me there, that I know a lot about Feng Shui (which I do because my parents were.. .hmmm... nuts about it when I was drawing their house up, which also drove me nuts)... anyway, the guy said that  if he wasn't skilled I would have seen through him and wouldn't respect him at all. 

I have to run out of the room to laugh out loud. 

Ah, what a wasted $250. Maybe was worth it since the parents sleep better and I had a good laugh.

See, there are social etiquette.


----------



## bellenuit (3 January 2016)

And a new generation is prepared to fight for Allah.......

*Passerby Scolds Sheik for Teaching Martyrdom to Children at Al-Aqsa Mosque Summer Camp*

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5020.htm


----------



## DB008 (4 January 2016)

*Religious delusions are destroying us: “Nothing more than
man-made contrivances of domination and submission”​*



> The year just past was, for rationalists, an unremitting annus horribilis. It leaves us with little reason to think 2016 will be much better.
> 
> But first, a digression.
> 
> ...





More on link below....

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/03/religious_delusions_are_destroying_us_nothing_more_than_man_made_contrivances_of_domination_and_submission/​


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2016)

*Pakistani boy cuts off own hand after blasphemy mistake: police*

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistani-boy-cuts-off-own-hand-blasphemy-mistake-142348551.html


----------



## DB008 (16 January 2016)

*Bill aiming to ban child marriages shot down​*



> ISLAMABAD:
> Another move to ban child marriages in Pakistan has fallen at the first hurdle. The bill to prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) declared it un-Islamic.
> 
> The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony rejected the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 after the CII dubbed it ‘anti-Islamic’ and ‘blasphemous’.
> ...





http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/settled-matter-bill-aiming-to-ban-child-marriages-shot-down/​


----------



## Biosemiosis org (23 January 2016)

> Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.




Perhaps the Satanists can get the Materialists onboard with this particular tenet. Don't hold your breath. 

Materialists makes the worst Materialists.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Perhaps the Satanists can get the Materialists onboard with this particular tenet. Don't hold your breath.
> 
> Materialists makes the worst Materialists.




I don't really get what you are trying to say, what does that statement mean?


----------



## Biosemiosis org (23 January 2016)

As a group, materialist have a rather clear (and well-documented) history of ignoring material evidence that is un-supportive of their ideology. The notion that materialists were inflicted at the Enlightenment with an inability avoid physical evidence is rather silly, wouldn't you say? It's far more sales pitch than it is reality. And its only made worse by the fact that materialists now envision themselves as the masters of evidence and reason. Generally, they prefer to replay battles won (imagined or otherwise) than deal with what's in front of them. 

Let me guess, _you're a materialist? _


----------



## Tisme (24 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't really get what you are trying to say, what does that statement mean?




I'm guessing you've been sprung already by a newb


----------



## DB008 (24 January 2016)

Imagine living in a Islamic nut-case country like Saudi Arabia....in all honestly, l'd probably top myself within a day or two..

No alcohol
No pork products
Religious police and force to pray (up to 5 times a day) to a make-believe, man made, fictional story/character
Women treated like 2nd class citizens and covered head-to-toe
Gay/lesbian/transgender is illegal and punishable
Then to top it off, you live in a giant hot sweltering sandpit

So, playing a game of chess might be the only fun you have in life. Not anymore. Check out this idiot!


*Chess forbidden in Islam, rules Saudi mufti, but issue not black and white​*


> Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti has ruled that chess is forbidden in Islam, saying it encourages gambling and is a waste of time.
> 
> Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh was answering a question on a television show in which he issues fatwas in response to viewers’ queries on everyday religious matters.
> 
> ...




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/chess-forbidden-in-islam-rules-saudi-arabia-grand-mufti​


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> As a group, materialist have a rather clear (and well-documented) history of ignoring material evidence that is un-supportive of their ideology. The notion that materialists were inflicted at the Enlightenment with an inability avoid physical evidence is rather silly, wouldn't you say? It's far more sales pitch than it is reality. And its only made worse by the fact that materialists now envision themselves as the masters of evidence and reason. Generally, they prefer to replay battles won (imagined or otherwise) than deal with what's in front of them.
> 
> Let me guess, _you're a materialist? _




Well it's not a word I have ever used to describe myself, but why don't you provide your definition of what you think it means and I will tell you whether I fit that catorgory.

Because when you use a term like "ideology" along with a word like materialist, I think you might be trying to include alot more baggage in with the term, and trying to use the term to describe more things than I think it does.

So I might say yes, I am pretty much a materialist, but I might not fit your loaded definition, because you have added baggage to it.

For example it's like when people say "atheist ideology", well atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, nothing more, there is no ideology, it's an answer to one question, nothing else, everything else is something else.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing you've been sprung already by a newb




How so?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> So I might say yes, I am pretty much a materialist, but I might not fit your loaded definition, because you have added baggage to it.




Can someone who keeps going on about morals also be a materialist (my definition: someone to whom the acquisition of material objects is paramount) ?

Surely the more you consume, the less you leave for others, and the more damage you do to the environment in extracting the materials that you covet.

So, does my definition of materialist apply to you, or do you have another one ?


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2016)

DB008 said:


> Chess forbidden in Islam, rules Saudi mufti, but issue not black and white




I wonder if this in any way pertains to the current tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I believe chess originated in Persia, so SA might be using this as a way to denigrate anything that comes from Iran.


----------



## Tink (24 January 2016)

I thought you said you wanted to know the truth, VC.

Do you care what is true? ........ (as you keep saying to me).

As biosemiosis said,

_1. Science cannot answer the questions of ultimate reality

The creation of space and time at the origin of the universe is an event forever hidden in the deep unobservable past. We are likely to never know, with any objective certainty, what the source of this event was. The same is true of the origin of life, the rise of consciousness, and the basis of free will. While it is entirely normal that we would want conclusive answers to these great questions, what we are actually left with is simply existence as we find it. From that, we can pursue discoveries with passion, and hope to have the wisdom to understand what the universe is telling us.

Consequently, the constant implication (by many popularizers of science) that science has answered these questions (or is on the verge of answering these questions) is unethical and cavalier with regard to the evidence. The impetus for this cavalier conduct is highly questionable, particularly given the fact that the output of this conduct isn’t an advancement on a cure for cancer or cleaner air over our cities – which are the actual hopes and dreams of the public who pays for science – but is most often social, political, and even legal in nature.

As it turns out, the greatest consequence of these questions is how we as groups and individuals choose to treat each other. This fact only underscores the necessity that we understand the limits of our knowledge, and call upon ourselves to respect rationality and intellectual freedom among all people. _

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=27938&page=70&p=895741&viewfull=1#post895741


----------



## Biosemiosis org (24 January 2016)

Hello VC,

My comment was intentionally provocative, thank you for not taking offense. 

The general definition of a materialist is a person who believes that matter (and energy) is all there is -- all things are reducible to the properties of matter (gravity, velocity, electromagnetic charge, etc) i.e. there is no purpose in life, no foundation for morality or ethics, no meaning in existence, and no such thing as free will.

The basis of my comment is that there is (substantial) objective physical evidence that this concept is almost certainly false, and this evidence is routinely ignored by materialists. This is quite a contradictory position for a group who typically believe that the analysis of material evidence is our only reliable method of knowledge.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Can someone who keeps going on about morals also be a materialist (my definition: someone to whom the acquisition of material objects is paramount) ?
> 
> Surely the more you consume, the less you leave for others, and the more damage you do to the environment in extracting the materials that you covet.
> 
> So, does my definition of materialist apply to you, or do you have another one ?




No, not the same usage of the word at all.

See, that's why definitions are important, that's a completely different use of the word to what I was using and to what I thought the original poster used, I was using Marterialist in the following way.



> Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on




There is a Wikipedia page on it if you want to look it up. It's got nothing to do with hoarding "material things" or Hyper consuming such as the way you were using the term.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> The general definition of a materialist is a person who believes that matter (and energy) is all there is -- all things are reducible to the properties of matter (gravity, velocity, electromagnetic charge, etc)
> 
> i.e. there is no purpose in life, no foundation for morality or ethics, no meaning in existence, and no such thing as free will.
> 
> The basis of my comment is that there is (substantial) objective physical evidence that this concept is almost certainly false, and this evidence is routinely ignored by materialists. This is quite a contradictory position for a group who typically believe that the analysis of material evidence is our only reliable method of knowledge.




Ok, so I am pretty much a materialist as I said, because yes I believe everything that exists is physical in nature, though I am not trying to say we have discovered everything.

But the second paragraph is where you are trying to load all the other baggage into your definition, a materialist doesn't have to believe there is no meaning to life and it doesn't mean there is no foundation for morality.

I think you are just trying to find reasons to invoke supernatural things, when you don't really have any solid reason too do that.

I mean can you name something that exists which isn't physical, or an emerging property of something that is physical?

What's this evidence that materialists ignore.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

Tink said:


> I thought you said you wanted to know the truth, VC.
> 
> Do you care what is true? ........ (as you keep saying to me).
> 
> ...



_

Yes, I care what is true, and I find it funny you have so much trouble answering that straight forward question.

Not only do I care what is true, but I think the scientific method is the best way for finding out what is true.

I don't accept the premise that science can not answer the questions of reality, I think science is the best way to answer questions about reality.

But do you care if your beliefs are true, or would you prefer to believe something false that made you feel good?_


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Ok, so I am pretty much a materialist as I said, because yes I believe everything that exists is physical in nature, though I am not trying to say we have discovered everything.




What is the physical nature of morality ?


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What is the physical nature of morality ?




When you do good you feel happy; when you do bad you feel pain. 
It reverses for the immoral/amoral person where they either feel nothing doing bad deeds; or even get a high out of it.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What is the physical nature of morality ?




Morality is associated with the well being of physical creatures.

What is and isn't moral, is determined by the outcomes of actions in the physical world, it's all physical and far as I can see.

Can you name an action or something that is immoral or moral that is not based on physical/ reality based outcome?

I honestly can't think of anything that's got to do with morality that's not physical, ( in the scientific use of the word physical)


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing you've been sprung already by a newb




This is VC we're talking about. Not too sure if it was sprung on him or he sprung on it - what with the recent rest from a long research tour and all


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I honestly can't think of anything that's got to do with morality that's not physical, ( in the scientific use of the word physical)




Sacrificing ones life to save another may not be justified in physical terms, it's a life for a life, the gain equals the loss so you can't say that there is a physical benefit, yet some people think it's a worthwhile thing to do.

 There is something else except physicality going on.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sacrificing ones life to save another may not be justified in physical terms, it's a life for a life, the gain equals the loss so you can't say that there is a physical benefit, yet some people think it's a worthwhile thing to do.
> 
> There is something else except physicality going on.




Everything about that is physical, it's not about whether something can be "justified in physical terms", it's about whether anything is happening that's not physical, the people dying are physical, the thing killing them is physical, the thought process itself is an emerging property of a physical brain.

It's all physical/ material

---------------------------

On the topic of sacrificing ones life to save another, there are plenty of valid evolutionary reasons why an organism might sacrifice itself for others, evolution selects which gene pools survive and which don't, a gene pool where organisms might leap to defend their relatives will survive at better rates than a gene pool that doesn't look after each other.

Eg, an individual that dies protecting his siblings, offspring, cousins or nieces and nephews, might not get to breed, but it has still helped ensure the passing on of its genes, because those relatives are carrying it's genes. Not to mention that it doesn't always end in death, some times the defence is successful without the protector dying, so it makes Complete sense that in some situations humans are capable of selflessness, because as Dawkins wrote in his book, the individual can be act selflessly because it's the genes that are selfish.


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Hello VC,
> 
> My comment was intentionally provocative, thank you for not taking offense.
> 
> ...




If certain muscles does not move, certain synapses does not fire, would morality and thought and meaning and free will still exists? Tie your legs up and see if you could free will yourself to walk.

If free will, morality, goodness, evil thought and other dark perversions were programmed into us - why are some people good and others bad? God want to keep us on our toes? Defects?

You want objective evidence, proof etc... you say science can't prove it but religion can because? Because God just made everything.

But let say there is a Creator... which one? The European God or the Muslim's Allah? Or the Rainbow snake or the Dragon King or the Buddha etc. etc. 

Right off the bat, Creationism already biased towards that one and only God. Science does not do such thing. Science does not say that the world either work just as Newton or Darwin or Copernicus said it does else it does not work at all. I doubt very much Creationists even entertain the idea that a Dragon King or the Jade Emperor rule over the world and deep in the ocean Neptune rule the waves while Zeus might actually run Mt Olympus and may even know the God that created the world in six days, bring Adam to life and tell some descendant of Adam about it all.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (24 January 2016)

Hello VC, 



> Ok, so I am pretty much a materialist as I said, because yes I believe everything that exists is physical in nature, though I am not trying to say we have discovered everything.




I agree, we have certainly not discovered everything.



> But the second paragraph is where you are trying to load all the other baggage into your definition, a materialist doesn't have to believe there is no meaning to life and it doesn't mean there is no foundation for morality.




By “no foundation” it is typically meant no ultimate foundation. For instance, under materialism, if one people say it is okay to keep chattel slaves and rape women, then another people have nothing to appeal to in order to say it is wrong to do so. This is a well-worn argument. Non-materialists repeatedly make this case, while materialist repeatedly deny it, but they have nothing but their personal preferences to appeal to -- which is the very point that the non-materialist are making. It is the classic argument between an “ought” and an “is”. Physical matter is about what _is_, and not raping women is about what _ought_ to be. You cannot get an _ought_ from an_ is_. And you’ll notice this is not an argument about whether or not theism or atheism is true; it is about the logical consequences of either belief. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but a famous atheist author once wrote in complete candor that of all the things he disliked, he hated most the reality that the only thing that separated him from rape and slaughter was his personal dislike of the practice.

But this is not an argument we need to continue; it will always remain the same. Theists must acknowledge that the argument does not demonstrate the truth of theism, no matter how obvious it is to them that rape and slaughter are objectively wrong, and the atheist must acknowledge that the logical outcome of his belief is that rape and slaughter are _not_ objectively wrong, no matter how much he wants to believe that they are. If rape and slaughter are subjective, then that’s the end of it. There will always be someone who is prepared to rape and slaughter, and the materialist has no objective means to say otherwise.



> I think you are just trying to find reasons to invoke supernatural things, when you don't really have any solid reason too do that.




You are welcome to that belief.



> I mean can you name something that exists which isn't physical, or an emerging property of something that is physical?




This is not difficult; the number three. Go outside and bring in a three.

Of course, you will merely say that man invented mathematics with his brain, but that is merely assuming your conclusion. Interesting isn’t it; the physical universe is *describable* through math, whether or not mankind ever existed.

Also it must be noted, you are effectively asking me to provide you physical evidence of something not physical. I am not exactly certain how you would expect anyone to satisfy that question. This should call into mind the reasonableness of such a request.



> What's this evidence that materialists ignore.




There are many such instances. You can find my thoughts on my website: *Biosemiosis.org* 

I am happy to answer any questions you might have.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Everything about that is physical, it's not about whether something can be "justified in physical terms", it's about whether anything is happening that's not physical, the people dying are physical, the thing killing them is physical, the thought process itself is an emerging property of a physical brain.
> 
> It's all physical/ material
> 
> ...




Individuals have been known to sacrifice themselves for complete strangers, how does that fit in to your theory ?


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Hello VC,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I enjoyed that. Like watching a bad comedy.

So an atheist cannot objectively argued that rape and murder is wrong? Did you really say that?

How about you cannot kill people because if you do, they will never ever come back and there is no Heaven or any better place for them to go to. That alone kind of stop people from killing anyone; and they cannot use "better place" or God told me to do it as an excuse to kill their children or loved ones in a murder/suicide.

A religious person could be convinced, and history have shown many have been persuaded, to kill and rape and plunder because even it seems wrong, it's doing God's work. 

Anyway, got a Sherlock episode to watch.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (24 January 2016)

> So an atheist cannot objectively argued that rape and murder is wrong? Did you really say that?




Yes I said that. I really did.

If you know better, then your Nobel Prize awaits, along with fame and fortune beyond anything ever known. 

Or, you are just now finding this out.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> I agree, we have certainly not discovered everything.
> 
> 
> 
> .




So why make statements like "science could never", I mean that's a bit like a person in 1869 saying science can't put a man on the moon, well the fact is science can and did 100years later, and the answer to putting men on the moon was more science, not a dismissal of science because at the given time they hadn't made the necessary discoveries.





> For instance, under materialism, if one people say it is okay to keep chattel slaves and rape women, then another people have nothing to appeal to in order to say it is wrong to do so. This is a well-worn argument. Non-materialists repeatedly make this case, while materialist repeatedly deny it, but they have nothing but their personal preferences to appeal to --




Nope, morality is not based on opinion, its based on the well being of physical creatures (I have been through this in depth with other members here)

It can easily be shown that slavery and rape is not in the best interests of the wellbeing of the victims, and breaches some of the moral principles which have been discovered through sound logic and reasoning, and observing the physical outcomes.

We don't need to invoke the concept of a god or anything supernatural to show that those things are immoral, they can be shown to be immoral by looking at the outcomes of those actions.




> I cannot remember off the top of my head, but a famous atheist author once wrote in complete candor that of all the things he disliked, he hated most the reality that the only thing that separated him from rape and slaughter was his personal dislike of the practice.




If an atheist actually said that, they are wrong, simple as that.



> atheist must acknowledge that the logical outcome of his belief is that rape and slaughter are _not_ objectively wrong, no matter how much he wants to believe that they are. If rape and slaughter are subjective, then that’s the end of it. There will always be someone who is prepared to rape and slaughter, and the materialist has no objective means to say otherwise.




As I explained above, rape is objectively wrong, and it can be shown to be wrong by the fact that it breaches moral principles which are not subjective, but which are objective.



> This is not difficult; the number three. Go outside and bring in a three. Of course, you will merely say that man invented mathematics with his brain, but that is merely assuming your conclusion. Interesting isn’t it; the physical universe is




The number 3/three, is just a symbol/word humans have invented to describe something that exists in the physical world.

Everything about it is physical, from the physical things which we apply the concept to, to the original thought that invested it being an emergent property of a physical brain.





> Also it must be noted, you are effectively asking me to provide you physical evidence of something not physical. I am not exactly certain how you would expect anyone to satisfy that question. This should call into mind the reasonableness of such a request.




what is the difference between something that is not physical and something that doesn't exist, I don't really understand what you mean.

it calls into question the reasonableness of your claim, you are claim something non physical exists, and the purpose for this claim is so that you can invoke supernatural answers, probably in the form of your religious concepts of gods etc.

But then when asked to explain what these existing non physical things are, you don't have an answer, except to make logical fallacies about morality and purpose not existing without it. 



> I am happy to answer any questions you might have




Here is my question.

Since you claim that materialists can't answer questions like "What's the meaning of life" and you don't seem to be a materialist, so you should have a better understanding of it, *What in your opinion is the meaning of life??*


The reason I ask, is that atheists often get told that with our views there is not meaning of life, So in your view, what is it????

As far as I have seen no religion has come up with an answer, and the answer most atheists would say is that its a silly question, and its up to each person to give their own lives meaning, not some outside authority.


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Yes I said that. I really did.
> 
> If you know better, then your Nobel Prize awaits, along with fame and fortune beyond anything ever known.
> 
> Or, you are just now finding this out.




They give Nobel Prizes to rapists and murderers do they? I mean, OK fair enough, certain war criminals do get it now and then... but they're psychotic and too powerful to do anything about it. The common murderer and rapists tend to get gassed or life in prison - earning maybe a dollar a day if they're lucky.

But for argument's sake, say an atheist person cannot objectively argue that rape and murder is wrong as you agree with some psycho who said that... I take it that those who follow the Bible or some other religion could objectively argue that rape and murder is wrong then?

How do they make that argument? Because the Good Book taught them to?

Even if that is what you are implying - that an authority in the guise of a God said it is wrong so it is wrong; whereas atheist got no one to tell them... wait. I thought the law is pretty clear about rape and murder, and they're the one who can and will lock the guilty, or found guilty, up.

Another thing... if we follow this line of reasoning you're on... are all those pedophile priests all atheists or what?


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

VC,



> So why make statements like "science could never"




I’m not sure I made such a statement. But while we are at it, can science turn you into me? Can it make a square circle? Can it show that thermal energy travels from cold to hot? 



> Nope, morality is not based on opinion, its based on the well being of physical creatures (I have been through this in depth with other members here)




You just made my point. And obviously didn’t realize it.



> If an atheist actually said that, they are wrong, simple as that.




Actually I think it was the eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel who said that (I could be wrong), in which case it would be because he has studied the issue as his life’s work and has a tendency to tell it like it is.



> Since you claim that materialists can't answer questions like "What's the meaning of life"




I never said that. I said that the logical consequence of materialism is that there is no objective foundation for morality or ethics -- which is true. 



> What in your opinion is the meaning of life??




That is a question that each person has to answer for themselves. That's not my gig.
.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

Luutzu, you don't really read for comprehension do you?


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Luutzu, you don't really read for comprehension do you?




How about you explain it to me like i'm a three year old.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> How about you explain it to me like i'm a three year old.




When a cell uses genetic information to produce a protein, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence. 

Now go clean your room.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> You just made my point. And obviously didn’t realize it.
> .




How so, you are saying that without an external authority to appeal to, morality is subjective. I am saying that its not, and that morality is objective based on scientific facts and no external authority is needed.



> Actually I think it was the eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel who said that (I could be wrong),




Well why don't you go and find a quote that's in context. but either way, this guy is probably just wrong.



> . I said that the logical consequence of materialism is that there is no objective foundation for morality or ethics -- which is true.




As I said, I don't think that's true at all. what is good for human well being is not subjective. 

If I hold you down and pour acid down your throat, it will reduce your health, and given that one of the driving principles of morality is the well being of humans, and it can be shown that as far as well being is concerned good health is preferable to poor health, and freedom is preferable to non freedom, that both holding you down against your will and pouring acid down your throat is not going to be a moral action.

You don't need a god to understand human well being, and outcomes of actions.

It's not based on opinion any more than the answer to a complex mathematical problem is, different people might get different answers if they don't have all the facts needed to work out the problem, but that doesn't ever change what the correct answer is.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

> As I said, I don't think that's true at all. what is good for human well being is not subjective.




Why should we give foreign aid ? Australian foreign aid is now being cut back.

Your argument seems to be that the well being of people in other countries is materially significant to us here in Australia, when in fact it just diminishes our wealth and therefore our ability to look after our own welfare.

If the whole population of Ethiopia is wiped out by starvation it would not affect the well being of Australians, except on our consciences. 

Do you think conscience is physical ? 

I suppose you are going to say that conscience is a function of brain structure ? Do you think that the brain structure of bleeding heart Lefty supporters who want increased foreign aid is physically different to that of Dry Tories who want foreign aid reduced ?


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

VC, you do realize that your belief in "scientific evidence" is subjective - don't you? And you also must recognize that your_ interpretation_ of that evidence is subjective as well. The mere act of interpretation rather implies a  variable, does it not - a subjective variable? Surely you see this.

And this observation is not about what we might all agree to in life, and it is not about who is right or wrong. *Everyone *will arrive at the way they act _subjectively_, whether or not there is an objective standard or not. But if there is no objective standard, then rape and slaughter are not among the things that are objectively wrong, because there is no objective standard for them to violate. You cannot get an _ought_ from an_ is_. This is why the philosopher was troubled to think that the only that separated him from abject butchery was his personal preference to not butcher. Show me someone who holds up their hand to say "what is good for the people is what is objectively correct" and I''ll show you someone who will cut that person down and take his things. He doesn't share your standard, or your scientific justifications for believing in it.

This is my last post on this subject. If you want to talk about scientific evidence then I am happy to have that conversation.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> When a cell uses genetic information to produce a protein, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence.




Creationists / intelligent design proponents always try and point at things say there is no way for them to form without a designer, and so far they have always been proven wrong, they used to point at things like wings and eye balls, now they have been reduced to saying "cells use languages etc that aren't possible without a designer"

Now, I am not an expert in DNA or Cells, but I think such claims are probably equally false.

Why don't you link a bit more info.

Any way, Languages are good examples of things that have developed over long periods of times, why would it not be possible that any complex "Language" used by cells has not developed over long periods of time through natural selection, why would you assume a designer?

also, just because something can be interpreted using mathamatics, doesn't mean it took a mathematician to design it.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> When a cell uses genetic information to produce a protein, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence.
> 
> Now go clean your room.




Tell a three year old again how rape and murder is not really wrong, that if they can be bothered with the mess it's OK to do it. 

What a psycho.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> VC, you do realize that your belief in "scientific evidence" is subjective - don't you? And you also must recognize that your_ interpretation_ of that evidence is subjective as well. The mere act of interpretation rather implies a  variable, does it not - a subjective variable? Surely you see this.
> 
> And this observation is not about what we might all agree to in life, and it is not about who is right or wrong. *Everyone *will arrive at the way they act _subjectively_, whether or not there is an objective standard or not. But if there is no objective standard, then rape and slaughter are not among the things that are objectively wrong, because there is no objective standard for them to violate. You cannot get an _ought_ from an_ is_. This is why the philosopher was troubled to think that the only that separated him from abject butchery was his personal preference to not butcher. Show me someone who holds up their hand to say "what is good for the people is what is objectively correct" and I''ll show you someone who will cut that person down and take his things. He doesn't share your standard, or your scientific justifications for believing in it.
> 
> This is my last post on this subject. If you want to talk about scientific evidence then I am happy to have that conversation.




Just because you can find a murdering psycho to do the rape and pillaging does not then mean that what they psycho think is also objectively acceptable. Does it?

Murder is not just something you "ought" not do, it is something you do not do. Why? Not because one other people, or a group of other people, or an authority figure, or God himself said you "ought" not do it. It is a thing you do not do because, among other reasons, the dead don't come back; because you do not want the murdering being done to you so don't do it to others.

It's a very elementary concept to test morality and goodness objectively: Do not do unto others what you do not wished upon yourself.

And you do not need Jesus to teach you that. And you do not need the police and legal justice department to tell you not to do it either.

Anyway


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> VC, you do realize that your belief in "scientific evidence" is subjective - don't you? And you also must recognize that your_ interpretation_ of that evidence is subjective as well. The mere act of interpretation rather implies a  variable, does it not - a subjective variable? Surely you see this.
> 
> .




The reality and facts of the universe are not subjective.

Imagine a question like this "what is the total number I get if I add the number of dollars you have in your pocket to the total number of dollars luutzu has in his, divided by the number of dogs I have owned in my life"

The answer to that question is not subjective, there is one answer, now we might all guess different answers because neither of us all the information but that doesn't make it subjective, we are either right or wrong.



> But if there is no objective standard, then rape and slaughter are not among the things that are objectively wrong, because there is no objective standard for them to violate.




It can be shown be shown that rape and slaughter cause harm, and reduce the well being of the victim, we don't need an external authority for that, and that's what morality is all about, basic principles to guide actions to ensure well being.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should we give foreign aid ? Australian foreign aid is now being cut back.
> 
> Your argument seems to be that the well being of people in other countries is materially significant to us here in Australia, when in fact it just diminishes our wealth and therefore our ability to look after our own welfare.
> 
> ?




I haven't mentioned foreign aid, so I am not sure what you are referring to.



> If the whole population of Ethiopia is wiped out by starvation it would not affect the well being of Australians, except on our consciences.




Moral principles are not just about you and your club, but about how we treat all humans and even other thinking creatures.

So an action that causes another group to stave, would probably be considered immoral.



> Do you think conscience is physical ?
> 
> I suppose you are going to say that conscience is a function of brain structure ?




Yep, unless you are aware of a conscience that exists outside of a physical brain/other thinking physical structure.



> Do you think that the brain structure of bleeding heart Lefty supporters who want increased foreign aid is physically different to that of Dry Tories who want foreign aid reduced




No, same physical brains, same physical brain waves etc, but different inputs to the calculations they are making.

eg, like the example I gave of two doctors that come up with different answers to complex medical problems, there would be a "best answer", but that doesn't mean every doctor will get to that answer if they don't have all the information.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> Why don't you link a bit more info.




I already linked to an entire website Biosemiosis.org, that is dedicated to explaining these issues at the laymen's level, and that website has a bibliography of more than two dozen peer-reviewed sources in the literature. Among them is perhaps the leading authority on symbol systems, Howard Pattee, Professor Emeritus Physics, SUNY (an atheist by the way) 
_
“Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life.” _


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> Tell a three year old again how rape and murder is not really wrong




Luutzu, is blatantly misrepresenting what I say your only form of communication?


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> The reality and facts of the universe are not subjective.




Correct, but your personal apprehension of those facts *is* subjective.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> I already linked to an entire website Biosemiosis.org, that is dedicated to explaining these issues at the laymen's level, and that website has a bibliography of more than two dozen peer-reviewed sources in the literature. Among them is perhaps the leading authority on symbol systems, Howard Pattee, Professor Emeritus Physics, SUNY (an atheist by the way)
> _
> “Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life.” _




Basically I see a lot of special pleading and logical fallacies, you want to insert a god concept into any area that is not currently understood by science.

I ask you this- "Do you think complex life on earth evolved from simpler organisms or do you believe in something more like the biblical genesis account?"


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> Basically I see a lot of special pleading and logical fallacies




Name one.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Correct, but your personal apprehension of those facts *is* subjective.




yes, but how is that different to mathematics?

you can get a wrong answer when attempting to solve a problem, that doesn't mean nothing can be known about mathematics.

As I said, human beings are physical creatures in a physical universe, the facts that decide our well being are not subjective, to say nothing objective  about morality can be known is silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I haven't mentioned foreign aid, so I am not sure what you are referring to.




I'm just giving an example of where we care for others even though it does not directly affect us, so I'm rejecting your "selfish gene" theory where you seem to imply that we only do good for our own prodigy so that our own genes survive.



> Moral principles are not just about you and your club, but about how we treat all humans and even other thinking creatures.
> 
> So an action that causes another group to stave, would probably be considered immoral.




I agree, but WHY do we think that way ? WHY should we care about others if what happens to them doesn't affect us and our *material *well-being ?

I'm saying that there is something more going on that can't be explained by your references to materialism.




> No, same physical brains, same physical brain waves etc, but different inputs to the calculations they are making.




All politicians have exposure to the same inputs, they hear the same arguments from the aid agencies and from the treasury, some choose to give more weight to some of those inputs than others, so the physical brain structures that you say are the same make different choices. Why ?


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> you want to insert a god concept into any area that is not currently understood by science.




Two things:

1) nowhere on my site do I_ "insert a god concept" _

2) we already understand how translation works in the cell. We've known (and handed out the Nobel prizes) about half a century ago.

The argument is about the *material conditions *required for what we already know to be true.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm just giving an example of where we care for others even though it does not directly affect us, so I'm rejecting your "selfish gene" theory where you seem to imply that we only do good for our own prodigy so that our own genes survive...




Foreign Aid are always under the control of the Foreign Minister, not some non-profit organisation. It's a carrot to get what we want, not done out of kindness.

So when we don't need the carrot anymore for that country, we reduce the aid budget and increase the military one - I've read news report of this happening too.

But more to your point about people wanting to help others for no apparent selfish motive... We do it because when we help others, we take away the potential of them being a terrorist or a burglar; Same reason for Welfare payment... it's paid so that at least people do not starve to death - a good thing; but also so they won't riot and start overthrowing systems and gov't and take all the stuff rich people have.

A lot of these safeguards are being shut down or drastically reduced - good for the short term greed, not good for the long term stability and well being of the country or the rich few though. They just don't know it.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Name one.




The way you insert an intelligent designer as the only explanation for "Information" is itself a case of special pleading.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

If you are going to attack my words, then *post them *so we can see if your objection is warranted.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

> But more to your point about people wanting to help others for no apparent selfish motive... We do it because when we help others, we take away the potential of them being a terrorist or a burglar;




That may be true in some cases for governments, but do you give money to charity ?

Why ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm just giving an example of where we care for others even though it does not directly affect us, so I'm rejecting your "selfish gene" theory where you seem to imply that we only do good for our own prodigy so that our own genes survive.
> ?




Do you understand that humans are the same species, carrying 99.99999% of the same genes?

Defending another human life is contributing to the success of the species.



> I agree, but WHY do we think that way ? WHY should we care about others if what happens to them doesn't affect us and our *material *well-being ?
> 
> I'm saying that there is something more going on that can't be explained by your references to materialism.




Because we are social creatures, who have evolved to care about others.

Also, there is other social contracts which we uphold with the end result being our lives are improved.

eg, Don't steal from me and I won't steal from you. respect my life and I will respect yours. It's in our interests to act morally, because if we all live morally its better for all of us. there are real world benefits and real world consequences.

but we are talking about two different things,

 1, what can be demonstrated to be moral through logic reasoning and evidence.

2, why should we care

Even if we didn't care it wouldn't affect what was or wasn't moral, it would just affect whether we are moral or immoral



> All politicians have exposure to the same inputs, they hear the same arguments from the aid agencies and from the treasury, some choose to give more weight to some of those inputs than others, so the physical brain structures that you say are the same make different choices. Why




No, people raised differently have different inputs.

A person whos father died of cancer is much more likely to want to cure cancer than end starvation, because cancer has affected them personally, a person with a blind neighbor might campaign to get $200K spent to give him a seeing eye dog, when $200K could cure 2000 people in the third world of blindness through cataract surgery, we are not all 100% moral and we don't all weigh up all the facts with the spirit of doing the most good, we all have different priorities, but this doesn't change which options are most moral, it just changes which option we take.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Luutzu, is blatantly misrepresenting what I say your only form of communication?




I did ask if you seriously said, or quoted and agree with, the idea that rape and butchery has no objective basis for being wrong. You said you agree with it right? Or were there sarcasm and eye rolling?

You're turning reason and logic upside down dude.
A devout person could be convinced that killing non-believer, or harming or discriminating against certain group of people etc. to be moral; Why is it moral to them? Because some authority said so and so it is.

An atheist, or any normal people who can think objectively, know that rape and murder IS wrong. Why is it wrong? Not because it would dirty their clothes or mess up their hair or some judge will have them lock up... but it's wrong because you just don't do that kind of crazy stuff.

You might want to leave morality and legality to the warmongers and loonies.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Do you understand that humans are the same species, carrying 99.99999% of the same genes?
> 
> Defending another human life is contributing to the success of the species.




That's a very long bow to draw. There is no way to determine whether saving a life would benefit or harm the human race. The guy you risk your life to pull out of the river might be a serial murderer.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> If you are going to attack my words, then *post them *so we can see if your objection is warranted.




look mate, its pretty clear, the only reason you twist your arguments in knots trying to say there is no object moral principles humans can discover by themselves, and the way you are trying to say information can only come from a designer etc etc is all so you can insert an intelligent designer/ creator.

Why don't you just come clean and tell us what your religious beliefs are, because they are the real reason you twist yourself in knots trying to invoke an intelligent designer.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a very long bow to draw. There is no way to determine whether saving a life would benefit or harm the human race. The guy you risk your life to pull out of the river might be a serial murderer.




Evolution doesn't work by predicting the future, so it doesn't have to now what will benefit the human race, it works by survival of genes.

Now, I would think the longbow would be trying to say that through out the last million years of our history, humans beings working together and protecting each other hasn't increased the survival rate of our genes.

humans dominate the planet, in a large part this is only possible because we were and are a social species, caring for each other and protecting each other helps ensure the survival of our gene pool. examples of individuals sacrificing themselves for the group or looking after others doesn't go against the theory of evolution, its expected as part of it.

When thinking about evolution, its not all about the survival of the strongest individual, its about the survival of the entire genepool, especially in social species.


----------



## Ves (25 January 2016)

Call it a coincidence if you will,  but there's very little, if any outside coverage or discussion of biosemiotics, besides a Wikipedia page, a single Huffington Post interview and a few books with no reviews on Amazon.

I find that baffling for supposedly ground-breaking science.


----------



## Ves (25 January 2016)

> Then In 2014, I retired that essay and began writing Biosemiosis.org in its place. Since that work is available to any reader, I won’t recapitulate it here, but there are a couple of concepts I’d like to highlight – particularly the discontinuity found in the translation of recorded information




From link (known ID community)....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/writing-biosemiosis-org/

As VC pointed out,  there appears to be an Intelligent Design (ID) agenda behind this discussion.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> When thinking about evolution, its not all about the survival of the strongest individual, its about the survival of the entire genepool, especially in social species.




And how do we explain caring for animals that are not in our gene pool, even those that are not involved in our food chain and therefore not necessary for our survival ?

There appears to be a lot of concern now about other species going extinct, even though that has been happening for millions of years and our survival has not been affected. 

Why do we (or some of us anyway) give a stuff about Ledbeater's possum ? If it disappeared what would be the detriment to us ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> And how do we explain caring for animals that are not in our gene pool, even those that are not involved in our food chain and therefore not necessary for our survival ?
> 
> There appears to be a lot of concern now about other species going extinct, even though that has been happening for millions of years and our survival has not been affected.
> 
> Why do we (or some of us anyway) give a stuff about Ledbeater's possum ? If it disappeared what would be the detriment to us ?




probably a few different reasons, some times such things are misfires of our inbuilt evolutionary "care for the group/others rule", eg evolution has built in a rule that in general we should care for others, as our society has developed we have started giving a form of "person hood" to some other species, we realise we wouldn't want to be treated badly so we don't want to treat others including animals badly, it all stems from the same basic line of thought.

secondly,

Some of it is logical, us humans are coming to the conclusion that we rely on the natural environment, and destroying it and the creatures that live in it is probably not good for us either.

---------------------

This is getting pretty far away from the original point, which was that I believe everything is physical in nature, are you still trying to link back to that some how? or have we switched to discussing the development and application of morality in humans?

if you are still trying to get at the materialist question, a better line to be inquiring would be can any of these thought processes either moral or immoral which you seemed to think were based in something non physical, exist outside of a physical brain / structure.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (25 January 2016)

> *VC:* Now, I am not an expert in DNA or Cells, but I think such claims are probably equally false. Why don't you link a bit more info.
> 
> *BIO:* I already linked to an entire website *Biosemiosis.org, *that is dedicated to explaining these issues at the laymen's level, and that website has a *bibliography* of more than two dozen peer-reviewed sources in the literature.
> 
> ...




_facepalm_

My beliefs have nothing to do with the material evidence. They don’t change that evidence in any way whatsoever. Neither do yours. We are all in the same boat. 

If you look closely, you’ll notice I do not make claims that I cannot support with physical evidence and universal experience.  And frankly, I say just the opposite of what you’ve accused me of. At one point in the argument I say that there are those who may take the evidence to mean more than it does, but that it does not and *cannot* prove those claims to be true. The argument is about the _material conditions_ required to organize the heterogeneous living cell. When a cell uses genetic information to produce proteins, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two _unambiguous correlates of intelligence._ These are empirically-substantiated statements of fact

Nowhere do I say _“therefore God” _and I do not say that because it cannot be drawn from what is empirically known. What more could you want someone to do than to recount the evidence accurately and then make no claims that are not supported by that evidence? 

It’s a rhetorical question.

cheers...


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> probably a few different reasons, some times such things are misfires of our inbuilt evolutionary "care for the group/others rule", eg evolution has built in a rule that in general we should care for others, as our society has developed we have started giving a form of "person hood" to some other species, we realise we wouldn't want to be treated badly so we don't want to treat others including animals badly, it all stems from the same basic line of thought.




Gee wizz, so we pick up a koala out of a bushfire because we hope they will do the same for us one day ?

:screwy:



> secondly,
> 
> Some of it is logical, us humans are coming to the conclusion that we rely on the natural environment, and destroying it and the creatures that live in it is probably not good for us either.




As I said, species extinction has been going on for millions of years, so why worry ?



> This is getting pretty far away from the original point, which was that I believe everything is physical in nature, are you still trying to link back to that some how? or have we switched to discussing the development and application of morality in humans?




Yes, I'm still questioning your assertion that everything is physical in nature.

Your arguments seem all over the shop. First you say we have a 'selfish gene' by which we favour our close relatives in order to pass our own genes down the line, then you widened that to all humanity when I pointed out that we do good deeds for strangers, now you invoke a "built in evolutionary rule" to explain our caring for other species. 

OK , if there is a "built in evolutionary rule", how and why did it get built in ? This seems like you are saying that the dice has been loaded by ... ?




> if you are still trying to get at the materialist question, a better line to be inquiring would be can any of these thought processes either moral or immoral which you seemed to think were based in something non physical, exist outside of a physical brain / structure.




No, that's not really the point. The first step is to find out IF such things are happening outside the brain, and then find an explanation as to HOW this is happening.

As I believe I've shown , I don't think you can reduce everything to the physical. Altruism exists, and people do good deeds without the possibility of their genes being passed on or because it may benefit them in some way.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Gee wizz, so we pick up a koala out of a bushfire because we hope they will do the same for us one day ?
> 
> .




Nope, as I said its probably a misfire. A general rule built into by evolution to help those around us. 

As I said evolution builds in general rules that are helpful to the survival of the gene pool, eg a general rule that says "Help those around you escape from danger" is going to be a pretty good rule for protecting the gene pool, it may also make the individual help other species escape danger too, also notice that the more human like characteristic an animal has the more we want to help, not many people rush in to pull insects out of fires.

:screwy:



As I said, species extinction has been going on for millions of years, so why worry ?



Yes, I'm still questioning your assertion that everything is physical in nature.

Your arguments seem all over the shop. First you say we have a 'selfish gene' by which we favour our close relatives in order to pass our own genes down the line, then you widened that to all humanity when I pointed out that we do good deeds for strangers, now you invoke a "built in evolutionary rule" to explain our caring for other species. 



> OK , if there is a "built in evolutionary rule", how and why did it get built in ? This seems like you are saying that the dice has been loaded by <shock> someone ... ?




Built in over long periods of time, and many generations. Those individuals or groups that didn't have characteristics that lead to beneficial behaviour survived less often.

eg, a mother that protects her offspring will have her offspring survive at a better rate than the mother that abandons her offspring at the first sign of a predator, so its a positive cycle that leads to that behaviour being built in.





> No, that's not really the point. The first step is to find out IF such things are happening outside the brain, and then find an explanation as to HOW this is happening.
> 
> As I believe I've shown , I don't think you can reduce everything to the physical. Altruism exists, and people do good deeds without the possibility of their genes being passed on or because it may benefit them in some way




that's got nothing to do with materialism, materialism is a belief on what exists.

ie, A belief that everything that exists is physical in nature, eg Atoms, photons, gravity etc etc 

Any discussion about the behaviour of animals is not really going to get anywhere in regards to materialism, because animals are made of matter, everything about them is material.

--------------------------------

I think I have shown that good deeds does in fact have a evolutionary purpose, even if the individual will not benefit.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Nowhere do I say _“therefore God” _...




No, you say "therefore Intelligent designer"

I just want to know why you are so keen to invoke a designer, when you have no evidence a designer exists.

I am more interested in hearing what your religious beliefs are and why you believe them, because I don't think this intelligent design babble is the real reason you are a theist, I think this stuff came after as a way to justify your beleifs, and you think its a good way to dupe others into becoming convinced.


----------



## trainspotter (25 January 2016)

Religion is CRAZY alright !!


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Missed this one in the above post 



> sir rumpole said-
> 
> Your arguments seem all over the shop. First you say we have a 'selfish gene' by which we favour our close relatives in order to pass our own genes down the line, then you widened that to all humanity when I pointed out that we do good deeds for strangers, now you invoke a "built in evolutionary rule" to explain our caring for other species.




You brought up behaviour where an individual might sacrifice itself, saying this selfless behaviour is evidence against materialism and evolution, I said the genes are selfish and that an individual dying to save its siblings, cousins, nephews and nieces etc, is still helping to ensure the survival of its genes, because its close relatives share so much of its dna.

you then brought up people helping others who are not closely related, so I pointed out that all humans are pretty closely related, sharing 99.99999% of DNA, so protecting another human is still helping to ensure the survival of genes you are carrying, even if they are no closely related.

Instincts are rules and behaviours built in by evolution, certain things are built in impulses that pop up from deep inside, they are generally things that have helped us survive as a species at some stage, I am not sure why you have trouble coming to grips with the fact that kindness and charity might be one of these instincts.

I think maybe you are still thinking evolution is all about the strongest individuals, which is some what a wrong view in many cases, especially social species.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

> I am not sure why you have trouble coming to grips with the fact that kindness and charity might be one of these instincts.




Because kindness and charity doesn't necessarily contribute to the survival of the species.

e.g. parents and society look after severely retarded children who will never make a contribution to society when resources could be better directed towards people who have a greater chance of making a contribution.

If we help the weak survive they pass their genes on to the rest of the gene pool and so weaken the human race in general. This seems contrary to natural selection, and therefore anti evolutionary, so what I'm saying is that some force outside evolution is acting in these cases.


So would you care to relate kindness and charity that weaken the gene pool to your 'selfish gene' hypothesis ? (Richard Dawkins' hypothesis actually).


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because kindness and charity doesn't necessarily contribute to the survival of the species.
> 
> ).




How does it not contribute to survival?

 sharing food amongst your group etc, directly increases both their survival and your survival, and the survival of the genes you are all carrying.



> If we help the weak survive they pass their genes on to the rest of the gene pool and so weaken the human race in general




There are plenty of ways that nature would kill of the weaker individuals, lending a hand and helping a neighbor today, won't weaken the gene pool, it will make it stronger, in fact ejecting the anti social members of the group is the best way to strengthen the group.

you know the old saying, a champion team beats a team of champions.



> So would you care to relate kindness and charity that weaken the gene pool to your 'selfish gene' hypothesis ? (Richard Dawkins' hypothesis actually




I don't think it does weaken the gene pool, because just because an individual is having a hard time today because of injury, bad luck, bad weather etc doesn't mean he is genetically weak, he could be just having a hard time, and when he recovers it might be very beneficial to have him around when the leopard comes, and we need as many people throwing rocks and sticks as possible, in fact if a member is brave and fights of a leopard and gets injured, do we say "let him die he is weak" offcourse not, its better to help him recover, he might save us again.

remember evolution isn't about what decisions individuals make, its about what instincts get selected by nature, groups that cared a little survived more than groups that didn't, simple as that, and it built up.

When the leopard comes you want a team around, it makes sense to look after that team. 

who do you think survives more, a group that fights for each other or a group that abandons each other?


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because kindness and charity doesn't necessarily contribute to the survival of the species.
> 
> If we help the weak survive they pass their genes on to the rest of the gene pool and so weaken the human race in general. This seems contrary to natural selection, and therefore anti evolutionary, so what I'm saying is that some force outside evolution is acting in these cases.
> 
> ...




Wouldn't you help the weak among you so that they become strong and in turn protect you when you are old and weak? That's why we take care of our babies - so they will one day grow up and disappoint us on all counts 

Maybe we take care of the weak among us because if we do not, we will not find favours or respect within our group - hence we survive and may be thrive that way. If, for example, we do not or could not take care of the weak children, the female would not want us because we're bums and who'd want to take care of two babies.

In the same sense, we go to war and destroy the weaker states because, we're told or we ourselves believe, they are not one of us, they're using things we could use ourselves, they have nice fertile land and other good loots etc.

But it is not all genetics and instincts. We human have the capacity to learn and reason as we grow and develop; that and societal influences and restraints... So human development is not just the gene at work, but the bio, psycho, social interaction (first year psychology - straight from the textbook's title )


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Wouldn't you help the weak among you so that they become strong and in turn protect you when you are old and weak? That's why we take care of our babies - so they will one day grow up and disappoint us on all counts





No, the correlation between helping someone today and being helped one day is too remote, especially if those people reside in another country.

I would help someone because I felt sorry for them, and if someone can explain how feeling sorry for someone is a product of evolution, please do so.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

> When the leopard comes you want a team around, it makes sense to look after that team.




Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.

Animals want a team who are strong to fight the leopard which is why they most likely sacrifice the weak so that the others can survive. If a lion attacks an antelope the other antelopes run away, they don't try to save the one being attacked. 

Humans on the other hand perform anti evolutionary acts as I described above. We have to explain why we do, and the selfish gene theory does not stack up in these cases.



> who do you think survives more, a group that fights for each other or a group that abandons each other?




Quite clearly in the example I gave of the lion and the antelope, the team that runs away lives to fight another day.


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Humans on the other hand perform anti evolutionary acts as I described above. We have to explain why we do, and the selfish gene theory does not stack up in these cases.




One reason is that humans have evolved to the point that they can control their own destiny and in a sense their own evolution. As hunter/gatherers, the weak (physically/mentally) would most likely have been abandoned if it meant that they posed a threat to the group (for example, hindered migration to more fertile areas as the seasons changed). That is no longer the case. As well as having the ability to cure what previously was incurable, technology has also provided us with aids to mitigate the disadvantages associated with human deficiencies (wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs being examples). Of particular significance is the diminishment of the advantage associated with physical strength. Two centuries ago, being among the strongest 10% in the community was a significant advantage in obtaining employment etc. Nowadays that hardly counts. Mental capability is more important for most jobs in the first world. And with technology enabling those with physical disabilities to contribute intellectually if they are that way talented, people who would previously have been regarded as useless to society are now substantial contributors (Stephen Hawkins for instance).

The selfish gene may still be the driver of evolution, but in a highly evolved society, it may influence us to make decisions that are quite different to what we would have done in our more primitive state.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No, the correlation between helping someone today and being helped one day is too remote, especially if those people reside in another country.
> 
> I would help someone because I felt sorry for them, and if someone can explain how feeling sorry for someone is a product of evolution, please do so.




Empathy, maybe. You see your fellow ape being chased and dragged away and imagine what it'd feel like if you were in their shoes. That may then lead you to feel pain and you'd try to stop it from happening to others if you could help it. Then there are some who sit there and laugh or something.

Was watching that something something To the Rescue last week and saw how this VNese family was suffering. The father was diagnosed with terminal cancer; they have a big mortgage; the house was run down; got three young kids he'll leave behind... then saw how a bunch of people step in to help them out. I thought that was nice and wonderful.

Then after that episode there's this show about how the other 1% live. A couple spent 25K pound to throw a dinner for their wedding anniversary. Complete with headphone and a plate of leaves for a truffle hunt where they're sniffing for it like a pig would. 

But that's nothing when they take you on those mega yachts where 2k Pound sterling bottle of wine and snail caviar and other fish eggs goes for a thousand pound a kilo are just what you stock up and chow down each day.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.
> 
> Animals want a team who are strong to fight the leopard which is why they most likely sacrifice the weak so that the others can survive. If a lion attacks an antelope the other antelopes run away, they don't try to save the one being attacked.
> 
> ...




Human do good for no apparent reason might do so because they're thinking of the long term; have a more developed sense of responsibility; it makes them feel good to help others; or all of the above and more.

For example, a son would help his parents and his family and friend because - one, he's brought up that way; two, he was not brought up that way so he wanted to help since he know what it was like to need help but receive none; three he may think long term and want to set good examples for his children to look up to.

Further, you are who you attract. If you are good you tend to attract good people as friends and as life partners; You cheat and lies and manipulate then the good people aren't impressed with you but will stay away from you - then those who do not care too much for proper behaviour would be attracted to you, or at least hang around you until things goes bad. 

So it is selfish but in a good way. The other selfishness is of course still selfish but it leaves behind many victims, some of whom may come after you.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

> Mental capability is more important for most jobs in the first world.




Indeed, but my point was that we also look after those with serious intellectual disabilities whose contribution to society is likely to be minimal.

Evolution alone cannot imo explain why we do this.

 I could envisage a high advanced intellectual society who would not bother to look after such abnormalities regarding them as not worth the effort. 

I cannot see a rational reason to contribute resources to such people, so the reasons must be emotional. 

There is a rational reason generally for love, of ones offspring to pass our genes down the line, but love for someone who would never do this and could probably never understand or return that love seems a mystery to me if framed under the laws of evolution.

This is a reason why I suspect that materialism is not the only factor that makes us what we are.


----------



## luutzu (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed, but my point was that we also look after those with serious intellectual disabilities whose contribution to society is likely to be minimal.
> 
> Evolution alone cannot imo explain why we do this.
> 
> ...




Not really. 

A truly advanced and rational society would take care of its weak and disabled, and does it for rational reasons, not merely emotional ones.

Societies that does not take care of its weak and disabled are not intellectually advanced, they're economically poor or barbaric. Such as Sparta way back, Nazi Germany with their solutions to the handicapped, the gays and gypsies and Jews; Or the Eskimos, I heard, who float their elders out to sea. Or the Viets who, a couple centuries back, carry their elders into the woods and leave them there.

What are the rational reasons? One, it set clear examples of a united people working for the common good. That society will take care of you or your loved ones if you or them are injured or died in working towards a common goal to advance society.

Who would take risk or labour, who would want to volunteer and lend a hand when the moment they're injured or disabled they're abandoned?

Then there's the slippery slope... if we get rid of the disabled because they drain our resources; once that's done let's also get rid of such and such people because they don't contribute as much.

Again, why would anyone want to share and contribute when the moment they can longer society will abandon them?

If that happen, society will be fragmented and will be difficult to rule or to unite. Once fragmented and divided, once it's every man for himself the chances of civil war breaking out is high; until then every person will carry guns and shoot on suspicion.

It benefits everyone to live in a civilised society.


----------



## Value Collector (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.
> 
> Animals want a team who are strong to fight the leopard which is why they most likely sacrifice the weak so that the others can survive. If a lion attacks an antelope the other antelopes run away, they don't try to save the one being attacked.
> 
> ...




Several points you are missing.

Firstly, humans are animals, and when talking about the evolution of instinct and impulses we are talking about things that have been built into us over long periods of time, probably millions of years, 1000's of years ago the only humans you were likely to meet were close relations to you, distant cousins at the most, so having a evolutionary instinct to help others you come across in need not only might help you directly later, but is also helping protect your gene pool, the impulse to give to charity to help others today, probably stems from this primal urge to assist those around us, the fact that the person you might be helping now is on the other side of the world won't switch off this primal urge, 

Secondly I am not missing your point about humans caring for indivduals that won't contribute back, I have offered several reasons for this, one I mentioned above, the other is that assisting any human even those not closely related still helps the survival of the species in general, which is a big part of evolution, because for a species to evolve, first it has to survive, another reason is misfiring of impulses, eg the same parts of the brain that cause a person to feel love and protection for a baby, can misfire and the person can feel affection for another species, eg dogs, cats etc and even koalas, there is actually research that shows the more an animals dementions resemble that of a human baby, eg big head, large eyes etc the more we are likely to care for it.

What's an example of an anti evolution thing humans do?

There are different strategies that different species use, a lot of herd animals will fight back against lions to protect their young, some have relied on running really fast, I doubt apes such as us would have survived if we chose to always run across flat ground to evade big cats.

Throughout history apes have lived in small groups, we have always relied on each other to survive, it doesn't seem crazy to me we would develop impulses to look after each other, if you don't agree I really think you have bought into the silly 1980's social Darwinism concepts rather than understand the complexities of real world evolution.


----------



## Value Collector (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> .
> 
> This is a reason why I suspect that materialism is not the only factor that makes us what we are.




I am still not sure you understand what materialism is, it's got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Luutza's point about empathy is also extremely valid, our brains have evolved to the point that we can have very complex thoughts, and we have developed the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes, seeing some one else experiance something terrible, and being able to imagine what that something must feel like can make us uncomfortable and want to stop it, and it can give us satifaction, like the satisfaction of solving a complex puzzle.

also, we shouldn't discount the "showing off" value of giving, being able to give a lot of money away can be a way to show off your "status", it can be ego driven, or it can even be a bribe to try and get people to join your group, how many religions do that? Lots

Also who said helping people on the other side of the world doesn't help us, I mean if we can help a starving country kick start their economy, and get their health care up, they may become productive, in 20years they maybe be drinking Coca Cola, using Heinz ketchup or even watching Disney movies. When you lift people out of poverty and they become consumers, the global economy should do better.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (26 January 2016)

Congratulations VC. It takes a real commitment to acknowledge upfront that your biases mean more to you than empirical evidence. Most people try to hide such things, or keep them in check. But not you, you've managed to seamlessly integrate logical fallacy into your outlook, without even a whisper of self-awareness. And I can easily understand why you are so willing to be open and unambiguous about it - unlike everyone else, _you know you are right._

You might want to lose the whole "I am a man of science and reason" schtick though. You are neither.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

> Luutza's point about empathy is also extremely valid, our brains have evolved to the point that we can have very complex thoughts, and we have developed the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes, seeing some one else experiance something terrible, and being able to imagine what that something must feel like can make us uncomfortable and want to stop it, and it can give us satifaction, like the satisfaction of solving a complex puzzle.





Oh yes, I agree that we have empathy for others and that this is good, but what I'm saying is that empathy and sympathy are not a part of Darwinian evolution if it weakens the gene pool or diverts resources to caring for the weak at the expense of the fitter or more able.

So, after putting forward the 'selfish gene' concept, you seem to be saying that it no longer applies to human behaviour in terms of the survival of the species, but that we now operate on a 'feel good' basis ?

So feeling good now takes priority over taking tough decisions for the good of the 'tribe' ? 

Well that's fine if we do that but the point I'm always making is WHY is feeling good about something more important than rational thinking ? How is a feel good factor built in to the evolutionary process ?



> Also who said helping people on the other side of the world doesn't help us, I mean if we can help a starving country kick start their economy, and get their health care up, they may become productive, in 20years they maybe be drinking Coca Cola, using Heinz ketchup or even watching Disney movies. When you lift people out of poverty and they become consumers, the global economy should do better.




That may apply on a government scale but do you really think that an individual who gives a donation to World Vision gives any thought to the concept of global consumerism ?


----------



## Tisme (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What is the physical nature of morality ?





You are missing the important distinction between theoretical materialism and actual materialism:-  which is, in practice, if you can touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, taste it or imagine it. Proof for the last one is self evident by the fact VC is arguing with people who may or may not exist, if VC exists that is.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> You are missing the important distinction between theoretical materialism and actual materialism:-  which is, in practice, if you can touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, taste it or imagine it. Proof for the last one is self evident by the fact VC is arguing with people who may or may not exist, if VC exists that is.




Maybe it's all just a bad dream...


----------



## Tisme (26 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> ; because you do not want the murdering being done to you so don't do it to others.
> 
> It's a very elementary concept to test morality
> 
> Anyway




The herd wouldn't survive if everyone killed everyone else and it didn't have ethics. Morality (as opposed to ethics) and murder (as opposed to killing) are an individual's own covenant that implies goodness and malice. 

Religion taps into the morality core because it rises above the cultural baseiine..... higher purpose, closer to God and all that. This is why I consider myself light years ahead of all you wannabe moral warriors with corrupted compass'.... I'll send God your greetings


----------



## Tisme (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe it's all just a bad dream...




Yes maybe we should put on a fondue party where we can act like a collective of wankers and discuss the merits of cogito ergo sum, using big words like marmalade and correcting each other's syntax..... of course avoiding the "go directly to jail, do not collect......"


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yes maybe we should put on a fondue party where we can act like a collective of wankers and discuss the merits of cogito ergo sum, using big words like marmalade and correcting each other's syntax..... of course avoiding the "go directly to jail, do not collect......"




Oh yes, that would be fun


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yes maybe we should put on a fondue party where we can act like a collective of wankers and discuss the merits of cogito ergo sum, using big words like marmalade and correcting each other's syntax..... of course avoiding the "go directly to jail, do not collect......"




What is a fon do ?

Is it a party for flipping old numbskulls ?


----------



## bellenuit (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh yes, I agree that we have empathy for others and that this is good, but what I'm saying is that empathy and sympathy are not a part of Darwinian evolution if it weakens the gene pool or diverts resources to caring for the weak at the expense of the fitter or more able.




Another factor may be that once we moved beyond subsistence living and were able to care for the less fortunate without it directly impacting the survival of the group, the more able began to realise that they themselves might be in the same position as the less able in their later lives or even sooner due to potential accidents. That would have encouraged a more caring attitude in the hope of a quid pro quo when they are in need.

A prime example of this is politicians from one party allocating plush overseas positions to retired/defeated members of opposing parties even though they had spent most of their time highlighting the incompetencies of the retired/defeated members when in office. A realisation that they too may one day want support from that other party when they want to board the same gravy train.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Another factor may be that once we moved beyond subsistence living and were able to care for the less fortunate without it directly impacting the survival of the group, the more able began to realise that they themselves might be in the same position as the less able in their later lives or even sooner due to potential accidents. That would have encouraged a more caring attitude in the hope of a quid pro quo when they are in need.
> 
> A prime example of this is politicians from one party allocating plush overseas positions to retired/defeated members of opposing parties even though they had spent most of their time highlighting the incompetencies of the retired/defeated members when in office. A realisation that they too may one day want support from that other party when they want to board the same gravy train.




Yes, like I keep donating money to the unfortunate James Packer in the hope that I may get some back one day.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh yes, I agree that we have empathy for others and that this is good, but what I'm saying is that empathy and sympathy are not a part of Darwinian evolution if it weakens the gene pool or diverts resources to caring for the weak at the expense of the fitter or more able.
> 
> So, after putting forward the 'selfish gene' concept, you seem to be saying that it no longer applies to human behaviour in terms of the survival of the species, but that we now operate on a 'feel good' basis ?




Not at all, don't you think a creatures with empathy and sympathy will be able to develop stronger social groups, and do more to protect each other from external threats.

every thing has pros and cons, the benefits of looking after other members of the genepool, far out way disadvantages. The genepool that stick together in social groups, will out perform stronger gene pool goes it alone as individuals.

Empathy and sympathy has probably evolved due to social groups, do you think a great white shark has empathy? probably not, if would be a disadvantage to it, but to higher animals living in social groups it would be a net plus, despite the disadvantages.



> So feeling good now takes priority over taking tough decisions for the good of the 'tribe' ?




A animal that feeds a weaker member, will probably also do a lot of other things to help the gene pool, eg helping the stronger members survive also, be a better parent and aunty to its relatives, and also just because a member is weaker, doesn't mean it won't help the stronger one survive.



> Well that's fine if we do that but the point I'm always making is WHY is feeling good about something more important than rational thinking ? How is a feel good factor built in to the evolutionary process ?




Evolution isn't about rational thinking, its not planned, it just happens, the genes that survive spread, and there are many ways to increase the chance of survival, some animals grow big muslces and claws, humans have grown big brains and developed social groups to look after each other.






> That may apply on a government scale but do you really think that an individual who gives a donation to World Vision gives any thought to the concept of global consumerism




Nope, as I said they are just responding to our inbuilt impulse to help others.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Not at all, don't you think a creatures with empathy and sympathy will be able to develop stronger social groups, and do more to protect each other from external threats.




When talking about members of one's own 'tribe' empathy is stronger but how do we explain empathy towards other tribes of the human race or other species ?

You describe it as an evolutionary  'misfire' , that's a pretty convenient explanation but there are others as well such as empathy and sympathy was built in to evolution, a possibility you acknowledged yourself by this remark



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> Nope, as I said they are just responding to our* inbuilt impulse* to help others.




 So how was it built in ?


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> When talking about members of one's own 'tribe' empathy is stronger but how do we explain empathy towards other tribes of the human race or other species ?
> 
> ?




Because for most of human history, the only people you met were either in your tribe or the tribes around you, so they were all very closely genetically related. 

If you can understand that helping your children survive increases they chances your genes survive, you should be able to understand that helping your nieces and nephews also spread your genes, as does helping your brothers and sisters and cousins, even distance cousins.

Being able to help people in foreign countries is a very new thing, for millions of years we have only been able to help those around us who are our relations, so an impulse to help others would be spreading our genes, and as I said a lot of evolution is survival of the species in general, so helping any human is working towards that cause.



> You describe it as an evolutionary  'misfire' , that's a pretty convenient explanation but there are others as well such as empathy and sympathy was built in to evolution, a possibility you acknowledged yourself by this remark




All human emotions have been built in by evolution, including sympathy and empathy.




> So how was it built in




If an individual has no capability for empathy or sympathy, do you think they will thrive in a social group? do you want to be friends with people that are not empathetic? if you are anti social, you will probably have a higher chance of being ejected from the group, and will not thrive, where as a people that are will thrive in social environments.

Even a dog will stay with you and protect you to the death against a predator if you are nice to it and give it some of your scraps, that alone can increase the survival rate of empathic individuals, so if a dog protects nice indivuals increasing their survival, don't you think apes would protect the nice members of their groups that help them out.

if you are nasty and greedy to your group, and you kick dogs, you will probably find yourself alone on the savannah , with no breeding partner, and no one to watch your back.

that's all it takes for it to start to get built in, the people that have the capability, survive at higher rates, those that don't have it survive at lower rates.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

> If an individual has no capability for empathy or sympathy, do you think they will thrive in a social group?




Sympathy and empathy are not necessary or even desirable for survival. It's been shown that there are very successful people who are psychopaths with no empathy for others. Empathy is a distraction when it comes to making rational decisions.

 Viruses have survived far longer than mankind and they have no empathy whatever. They may end up destroying mankind and prove themselves superior to us.

It's certainly possible to envisage an intellectual race that survives* because* it has no empathy and simply wipes out all its competition.


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's certainly possible to envisage an intellectual race that survives* because* it has no empathy and simply wipes out all its competition.





Bankers?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Bankers?




I think you could extend that to the operators of most large businesses.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sympathy and empathy are not necessary or even desirable for survival. It's been shown that there are very successful people who are psychopaths with no empathy for others. .




A population of social animals would not thrive if 90% of them were pychopaths, unwilling to co-operate so it is not evolutionary stable.

a population would thrive though if 90% of them showed empathy to each other.



> Viruses have survived far longer than mankind and they have no empathy whatever. They may end up destroying mankind and prove themselves superior to us.




So what, that says nothing about the evolution of apes.



> It's certainly possible to envisage an intellectual race that survives* because* it has no empathy and simply wipes out all its competition




Humans do wipe out their competition, it doesn't mean we don't have empathy. If something is a genuine threat to the human race (our genepool), we have a huge impulse to kill it.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> So what, that says nothing about the evolution of apes.




So different evolutionary rules apply to different species ?

I'm not sure Darwin thought of that.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So different evolutionary rules apply to different species ?
> 
> I'm not sure Darwin thought of that.




If we are talking about the origins of morality in a species of social apes, it's not relevent to evolution in virus.

Virus arent even animals, its like trying to compare the evolutionary natural selection factors of an animal species to plant species, in fact I am not sure a virus is even considered a living organism, there has been debate on that classification.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

Here is two things you see as problems explained.

The evolution of morality from group selection.



Why psycho paths (pirates) exist and sometimes thrive, but still don't dominate the population.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

Rumpole, this will also help you clear up some of the misconceptions of evolution you have.

If you only have time to watch one of the videos I linked, watch this one.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

It all comes down to the point that evolution (as well as the laws of physics) is a set of principles which we have discovered, think we can describe, but we cannot explain how they originated. 

The two choices are a gigantic accident or some sort of design.

Multiverses may exist, but they still have to come from somewhere. 

People can say that the Universe is the way it is because it could not be any other way. If that is the case then that   points much more to the intelligent design scenario rather than to a freak accident where the odds against would be enormous.

Like it or not, the universe and evolution work to a set of principles, balanced towards life. Finding out how these principles arose is the real question, not the details of their operation.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It all comes down to the point that evolution (as well as the laws of physics) is a set of principles which we have discovered, think we can describe, but we cannot explain how they originated.
> 
> .




Yep, and to on the things we dont know, we should say "we don't know". not make up stories and invent characters.



> The two choices are a gigantic accident or some sort of design.




or it might not be possible for it to exist any other way, so its not realy an accident or design.



> Multiverses may exist, but they still have to come from somewhere.




yep, but any god people care to invent would have had to come from somewhere, and if an infinate god is possible why not an infinite universe or multiverse complex.



> People can say that the Universe is the way it is because it could not be any other way. If that is the case then that   points much more to the intelligent design scenario rather than to a freak accident where the odds against would be enormous.




How so, 



> Like it or not, the universe and evolution work to a set of principles, balanced towards life.




Not at all, life is very rare in the universe as far as we can see.




> Finding out how these principles arose is the real question, not the details of their operation




The details of their operation is far more interesting, eg the story of how the diversity of life arose through the natural selection is a far bigger more interesing tale than how the first self replicating molecules started. it's like saying the story of the development and application of the wheel over the centuries is not impotant, only the story of how the first wheel was invented is the real question.

I am happy to say I don't know how the first self replicating molecules began, because the really interesting part is what happened after that, offcourse it would be interesting to know how they started replicating, but thats only a small part of the story.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Not at all, life is very rare in the universe as far as we can see.




1. And exactly how far can we see compared to the size of the universe ?

2. We have discovered life that can exist in all sorts of conditions that we could not live in. These conditions could parallel millions of planets in the galaxy. Just because we can only see a small part of our galaxy in sufficient detail does not make life elsewhere rare.



> The details of their operation is far more interesting, eg the story of how the diversity of life arose through the natural selection is a far bigger more interesing tale than how the first self replicating molecules started.




Maybe to you.



> yep, but any god people care to invent would have had to come from somewhere, and if an infinate god is possible why not an infinite universe or multiverse complex.




Our universe is subject to time, so it had a beginning and will have an end. It is not therefore, infinite.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I am happy to say I don't know how the first self replicating molecules began, because the really interesting part is what happened after that, offcourse it would be interesting to know how they started replicating, but thats only a small part of the story.



The environment had/has to be right you agree? The environment on other masses that have been observed by the human mind show their environments will not support life. It would be great to have other places out there with life but the environment has to be exact to support life. This exactness makes planet Earth a statistical impossibility. That is if time is important. Forever is matter?

This way of thinking makes human mind religious belief an extreme dream. ("No dreams, only dreaming")


----------



## Biosemiosis org (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The two choices are a gigantic accident or some sort of design.




Eugene Koonin's professional by-line is that he is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. That mouthful means that he is a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary biology, computational biology, and is exactly the kind of guy that would serve as a reviewer on a Origin of Life paper. 

Among many other things, he wrote a paper and a book dealing with _"The Logic of Chance"_, where he gives a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the probability of a "coupled replication-translation" system (like the one I describe on Biosemiosis.org) arising in an "O-region" somewhere in the universe. An O-region is the habitable zone away from a star, suitable for life.

Grab your abacus and follow his remarks, where he describes the calculation:



> *Appendix*
> 
> Probabilities of the emergence, by chance, of different versions of the breakthrough system in an O-region: a toy calculation of the upper bounds
> 
> ...




...and then he tells you what he is actually after:




> The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of:
> 
> - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides
> 
> ...




...and then gives you the conclusion:



> In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P<10-1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, in the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions.




P<10-1018 is meaninglessly-large incomprehensible number. There is estimated to be only 1X10-80 fundamental particles in the whole observable universe. And if you look at Koonin's last sentence, he is telling you that spontaneous coupled-translation only makes sense if we can posit an infinite multiverse, because _this universe_ just doesn't have the mathematical resources to make the proposition viable - i.e. your "gigantic accident or design" observation. Thus the title of Koonin's paper:_"The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life"_

There is an interesting side road to this story. The multi-verse is a _non-falsifiable_ proposition, which would make it (in ANY other situation) a *non-scientific* proposition, since falsifiability is a requirement of science. But we cannot allow such a thing, so, believe it or not, there are actually grumblings already to perhaps_ let off _on that whole "non-falsifiable thing". After all, we cannot let go of such a satisfying idea as spontaneous life, can we? What will those unscientific ID people say?

The hypocrisy is stunning, and scary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Meanwhile, we can physically identify an act of intelligence in the coupled-translation system required for life to exist. And we can do so using a methodology that is explicitly endorsed by NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the British Royal Society, and university science departments around the world.

Biosemiosis.org

Why is this Important
.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> 1. And exactly how far can we see compared to the size of the universe ?
> 
> 2. We have discovered life that can exist in all sorts of conditions that we could not live in. These conditions could parallel millions of planets in the galaxy. Just because we can only see a small part of our galaxy in sufficient detail does not make life elsewhere rare.
> .




to say the universe is  "balanced towards life", would seem to be a gross over exaggeration. 




> Maybe to you.




I am just saying it's a much smaller part of the story, I when we eventually find out how those self replicating molecules started replicating, it could probably be explained and understood in a minute or two to a laymen.

Much like explaining how the first wheel was invested, it would be a short story. But the story of what happened to the self replicating molecules after that is a huge story, much like what has happened to wheels over the centuries, you could spend a life time studying wheels in their various forms and applications, how the first will came about would be an interesting story, but not the most important or interesting part of the big picture.



> Our universe is subject to time, so it had a beginning and will have an end. It is not therefore, infinite




Its not something that is as clear cut as you seem to think, an infinite universe has not been ruled out. what makes you think it is not infinite.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

> Its not something that is as clear cut as you seem to think, an infinite universe has not been ruled out. what makes you think it is not infinite.




Because it began a finite time ago within a very small point and expanded at a finite rate.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> The environment had/has to be right you agree?




Yes



> The environment on other masses that have been observed by the human mind show their environments will not support life.




Well, we have only really observed our solar system, its a very limited sample size compared to the number of planets out there orbiting stars, you are talking about billions of planets in each galaxy and there a billions of galaxies, so there are trillions and trillions of chances to get the environment right.




> It would be great to have other places out there with life but the environment has to be exact to support life.




Yes, it does.



> This exactness makes planet Earth a statistical impossibility.




Why, how can you say that, do you know how likely it is for earth like planets to form?

even if its 1 in a billion, the sheer number of planets out there mean that its going to happen, and it may be a statistical impossibility for it not to happen, I mean people will the lotto every day some where in the world, even though its statistically unlikely any one individual will win, the sheer number of tickets sold mean that some one will win, planet earth is a lotto winner. 



> This way of thinking makes human mind religious belief an extreme dream.




sure, people invoke gods as explanations for things we don't have answers for, so far everything that gods were used to explain, when we found the real answer it turns out it wasn't a god, so I see not point in invoking a god.

I have heard people say things like "only 1 in a thousand people survive XYZ, and I survived, so its a miracle from god" I feel like saying "No, your just the 1 in a 1000, 999 other people will probably die, saying your gods chosen one is a bit rich isn't it"


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because it began a finite time ago within a very small point and expanded at a finite rate.




yeah but it's not clear what was around before that, what if what you are describing was just the universe collapsing on itself, and what we are witnessing now is the aftermath of the expanding/ exploding shock wave? 

the "very small point" might have just been a brief part of the universes history, I sure don't know enough to rule that out.

watch the ak47 get fired under water, and see the expand, contract, expand, contract,expand, contract cycle of the gas bubble, imagine if the universe acted like that.

at the 5 minute mark the effect is shown
At the 6 minute mark the effect is explained.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Eugene Koonin's professional by-line is that he is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. That mouthful means that he is a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary biology, computational biology, and is exactly the kind of guy that would serve as a reviewer on a Origin of Life paper.
> 
> Among many other things, he wrote a paper and a book dealing with _"The Logic of Chance"_, where he gives a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the probability of a "coupled replication-translation" system (like the one I describe on Biosemiosis.org) arising in an "O-region" somewhere in the universe. An O-region is the habitable zone away from a star, suitable for life.
> 
> ...




hang on, has this guy solved the riddle of what the first self replicating molecules were? Or how they were formed?

If not how can he know the probability of them forming?

Has he solved the riddle of how big the universe is? If not how can he say the universe isn't big enough.

Sounds like this guy should be winning some Nobel prizes for answering those questions before we can take his probability formula for granted.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

> watch the ak47 get fired under water, and see the expand, contract, expand, contract,expand, contract cycle of the gas bubble, imagine if the universe acted like that.




Someone had to fire the gun though.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Someone had to fire the gun though.




when we are talking about ak47's in pools yes, but I am just showing it as an example of something that explodes and contracts in a cycle, whos to say our universe began at the start of the expansion we are currently witnessing.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (27 January 2016)

Amazing, isn't it. 

None of the editors or reviewers at the journal that published the paper were able to just hone in on the problem like you. The improbabilities of abiogenesis can be safely dismissed for all rational thinkers. Poof.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Why, how can you say that, do you know how likely it is for earth like planets to form?



You're right. Stretching my thought allows the expanse of space and infinite time to birth another place capable of supporting life. Excluding those which may exist now and those that may have come and gone as this planet will.  Nothing is the same, nothing stays the same.

Back to small mind now like paying the internet connection fee, trading securities and organising food to continue existence. What a glitch. :frown:


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Amazing, isn't it.
> 
> None of the editors or reviewers at the journal that published the paper were able to just hone in on the problem like you. The improbabilities of abiogenesis can be safely dismissed for all rational thinkers. Poof.




And where was his paper published?

Well look, all we know is that at some point a certain type of self replicating molecule formed, and this self replicating process eventually lead to simple self replicating life forms, which then went on to evolve into more complex life.

Now as far as I know, nobody has discovered what these first self replicating molecules were, So how in the world can we put a number on the probability of them forming???

Also even if the were only a 1 in a trillion trillion chance willing lotto does that mean it's impossible to win? Offcourse not, especially if you have close to infinite tickets.

------------

We both believe at some point life came from non life, you believe a god clicked his fingers and made it from dust, I think it probably happened through some natural process.

People like you have given gods credit for lots of unknown things, so far they have all turn out to be natural when we discover their real cause.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> when we are talking about ak47's in pools yes, but I am just showing it as an example of something that explodes and contracts in a cycle, whos to say our universe began at the start of the expansion we are currently witnessing.




The cyclic universe is a possibility, we can't say that our universe hasn't expanded and contracted many times but the fact is that the matter and energy must have come from somewhere, something must have started it off once.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> but the fact is that the matter and energy must have come from somewhere, something must have started it off once.



That is crazy to think about. The very beginning in an empty space of nothing with no boundaries.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The cyclic universe is a possibility, we can't say that our universe hasn't expanded and contracted many times but the fact is that the matter and energy must have come from somewhere, something must have started it off once.




Well it's hard for our brains to grasp, but the universe could be infinite and eternal.

You can't really escape an infinite assumption by saying it "must have come from somewhere" because where did the somewhere(insert favorite god concept) come from.

If you insert an external force or creator, all you have done is add another layer, now we have the problem of where did the creator come from, and the assumption that it must be infinite and eternal, so I can't see how swapping the concept of an eternal universe for an eternal God gets us anywhere, if a god can be eternal in your model why can't the universe.

Either way somthing has to come from nothing, without a first cause or it has to be eternal and infinite. The religious folk love to say "the universe must have come from somewhere" and  "well something can't come from nothing" but they fail to see that even there own god story relies on the premise that their God did in fact come from nothing.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> That is crazy to think about. The very beginning in an empty space of nothing with no boundaries.




Even empty space is something, I can't even picture nothing.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

> if a god can be eternal in your model why can't the universe.




You keep confusing a material universe where time is a parameter with something that is outside space and time.

I think I've tried to explain this before. If something can create time then it is not subject to time because it didn't have to create time in the first place.

If God exists then time means nothing to it. Try thinking of a simulation designer. He designs the simulation then sets the program running.  t=0 FOR THE ENTITIES IN THE SIMULATION, but the designer its outside that time frame. He didn't have to create the simulation, and if he didn't then all the creatures in that simulation would not exist.

He can speed up the simulation so the whole thing is over in a few seconds, or slow it down so it takes years.

His choice.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You keep confusing a material universe where time is a parameter with something that is outside space and time.
> 
> I think I've tried to explain this before. If something can create time then it is not subject to time because it didn't have to create time in the first place.
> 
> ...




Firstly I don't know if anything could exist outside space and time.

But either way, this designer sitting outside our universe tinkering with our universe, is sitting inside his own universe and his own reality, so the question stands where did the designer and his universe come from.

See, either way you have to inject an eternal someone into the calculation, I don't see a reason to make it a god rather than just say the universe is eternal.

--------

If you designed a program, that program would still be part of this universe, so our universe is still part of the designers universe, we haven't got any closer to answering where or when the universe came from, we just made the model bigger and included a programmer.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly I don't know if anything could exist outside space and time.
> 
> But either way, this designer sitting outside our universe tinkering with our universe, is sitting inside his own universe and his own reality, so the question stands where did the designer and his universe come from.




If time did not exist in his universe he didn't have to come from anywhere.



> See, either way you have to inject an eternal someone into the calculation, I don't see a reason to make it a god rather than just say the universe is eternal.




Nothing made from physical matter is eternal. It all eventually decays away.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If time did not exist in his universe he didn't have to come from anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing made from physical matter is eternal. It all eventually decays away.




So you're trying to solve the eternal/infinite problem by invoking a god and saying time doesn't apply to him, that's no different to a theists "God is eternal, that's why" claim, it seems a much more complex explanation than just saying the universe itself is eternal, you still need to solve the problem of where it/he came from, otherwise you are just invoking an eternal universe via a god, it's special pleading.

No object is eternal, but the matter itself is, as an object decays the atoms it is made from are not destroyed, they just get recycled into new molecules sure atoms can be split or fused, but again that's just shifting the protons and the neutrons around or converting them into energy, you arent getting rid of them.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> The herd wouldn't survive if everyone killed everyone else and it didn't have ethics. Morality (as opposed to ethics) and murder (as opposed to killing) are an individual's own covenant that implies goodness and malice.
> 
> Religion taps into the morality core because it rises above the cultural baseiine..... higher purpose, closer to God and all that. This is why I consider myself light years ahead of all you wannabe moral warriors with corrupted compass'.... I'll send God your greetings




Do you always have to say deep stuff O'Hennessy? 

But I thought religion taps into ethics, not morality. Ethics here we trace to its Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom"); and Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") [thank you Wikipedia].

That is, Religion does not care for what is "right" but care for what is the customarily right - what is accepted as "right". Hence, discrimination against what the big guy above said is right, is right - even though it might be wrong when you kind of stop and think about it morally.

Example: "civilising" the natives and sending a fair number of them to the Creator they never knew about sooner than they ought to be going... that might be the ethical things to do - so saids certain head of certain religion of just about all imperial power; Morally, objectively... it's pretty nasty, even if it's done with the best of ethics.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (28 January 2016)

> And where was his paper published?




I posted a LINK to it in my previous post. The journal is Biology Direct, which is BioMed.



> We both believe at some point life came from non life, you believe a god clicked his fingers and made it from dust, I think it probably happened through some natural process.
> 
> People like you have given gods credit for lots of unknown things, so far they have all turn out to be natural when we discover their real cause.




I know it is probably meaningless to keep pointing these out, but this is another logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. A physicist can exclusively identify the unique material conditions of recorded language and mathematics, which are found nowhere else in the cosmos -- _except_ in the coding of the living cell. They are the physical means by which the cell is organized, and they had to be obtained in order for that organization to occur. But 670 years ago -- prior to the age of microbiology -- people thought that the Black Death was brought on by an angry deity. We now know it was a pathogen carried by rodents, so we can safely ignore any universal evidence found in microbiology today that infers any such deity.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No object is eternal, but the matter itself is, as an object decays the atoms it is made from are not destroyed, they just get recycled into new molecules sure atoms can be split or fused, but again that's just shifting the protons and the neutrons around or converting them into energy, you arent getting rid of them.




The logical flaw in your argument of an eternal universe is that if matter or energy cannot be created, where did the the matter and energy in the universe come from ?


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The logical flaw in your argument of an eternal universe is that if matter or energy cannot be created, where did the the matter and energy in the universe come from ?




That's not a flaw in the arguement, because in an eternal universe, it's always been there.

What you are not seeing is that invoking a creator doesn't solve that arguement, it just creates another laying of question, eg where did the creator come from? Either way you are invoking the eternal or the something from nothing arguement.

Can you see any other option besides something coming from nothing or something being eternal and infinite?


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> I posted a LINK to it in my previous post. The journal is Biology Direct, which is BioMed.
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is probably meaningless to keep pointing these out, but this is another logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. A physicist can exclusively identify the unique material conditions of recorded language and mathematics, which are found nowhere else in the cosmos -- _except_ in the coding of the living cell. They are the physical means by which the cell is organized, and they had to be obtained in order for that organization to occur. But 670 years ago -- prior to the age of microbiology -- people thought that the Black Death was brought on by an angry deity. We now know it was a pathogen carried by rodents, so we can safely ignore any universal evidence found in microbiology today that infers any such deity.




The precursor to the "complex living cells" we see today would be much simpler non living self replicating molecules, the evolution of life wouldn't have relied on a complex cell forming by chance, it would have been a much simpler none living self replicating molecules, which over time grew in complexity.

If you are simply weighing up the odds of a complex cell forming by itself, you are jumping to far ahead of where it all started.

There are non living things that have coding, eg a virus. 

The border between life and non life is not as black and white as you would like to think.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> That's not a flaw in the arguement, because in an eternal universe, it's always been there.




I see, so you are now denouncing the laws of physics ?

*Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted from one to the other*

For an eternal universe to exist the Laws of Physics must not have existed at some point in order for the mass/energy of the universe to be created.

So who or what created this mass/energy and the laws that drive them ?

Also "always been there" implies that time is not a universal parameter. It definitely is in any observations we can make.

A physical universe requires time.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I see, so you are now denouncing the laws of physics ?
> 
> *Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted from one to the other*
> 
> ...



Sorry which laws of physic am I denouncing.

The laws of physics didn't really exist during the Big Bang, as far as I understand, though I am not a phsicist, Laurence Kraus has written a book called something from nothing, I own it but haven't read it yet, but from speeches I have heard by him he talks about matter being formed from practically nothing.

As I saying if you invoke a creator, the next question is just who created the creator, it gets you no where, either way we are either way we can't escape the to options something from nothing or something eternal/infinite

If it's something infinite, I see not reason to think it's a god, I would assume the universe is infinite and eternal until we could prove otherwise,

I am not sure time is universal, physicists seem to think it breaks down in the conditions before the Big Bang, as I said though I am no expert, I have heard it described as being similar to how the concept of north breaks down at the North Pole, at the North Pole there is no north, east or west only south, but we don't know what existed before the Big Bang, maybe infinite other universes.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Sorry which laws of physic am I denouncing.
> 
> The laws of physics didn't really exist during the Big Bang, as far as I understand, though I am not a phsicist, Laurence Kraus has written a book called something from nothing, I own it but haven't read it yet, but from speeches I have heard by him he talks about matter being formed from practically nothing.




This is where I need to take a break because I think you are confused and don't know where you are going.

You made a claim that the Universe is cyclical and therefore eternal, when that is challenged you fall back onto a competing theory, the Big Bang Theory which is creation at a point in time.

My view has been consistent, creation by an entity which is outside space and time whereas I think you invoke multiple theories depending on what particular point we are discussing and hoping I've forgotten what you said before.

So, good luck with resolving your confusion, I don't think that there is much point in me saying any more.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You made a claim that the Universe is cyclical and therefore eternal, when that is challenged you fall back onto a competing theory, the Big Bang Theory which is creation at a point in time.
> 
> :




Nope, I didn't make a claim, I listed a cyclical universe as a possible option.

in the cyclical universe theory the Big bang "event", wouldn't be a competing theory, it would be part of the cyclical universe, eg the moment after a previous collapse that the universe begins a new expansion.

I don't doubt the big bang happened, saying the universe is infinite doesn't mean you rule out the big bang.



> My view has been consistent, creation by an entity which is outside space and time




Yes, but as pointed out, that theory doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a new bigger one.

eg. what created the universe that this entity lives in, 




> whereas I think you invoke multiple theories depending on what particular point we are discussing and hoping I've forgotten what you said before.




I don't actually have a belief in any of the theories, I am happy to say I don't know and I haven't formed a belief, though I find the both the concepts of an eternal universe and of universe that came from nothing more plausible than either of those options + a god did it claim

your god hypothesis is the same problems, your just trying to ignore the problems by saying god did it.



> So, good luck with resolving your confusion, I don't think that there is much point in me saying any more.




I think the confusion is yours, because you seem to think invoking a creator some how gets you around the something from nothing or eternal/ infinite choices.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (28 January 2016)

> The precursor to the "complex living cells" we see today would be much simpler non living self replicating molecules, the evolution of life wouldn't have relied on a complex cell forming by chance, it would have been a much simpler none living self replicating molecules, which over time grew in complexity.




That is exactly what the Koonin paper is about. I thought that was obvious. Apparently I was wrong.

There is a vivid distinction between people who are merely waiving their hands in order to get through an argument without allowing themselves to be cornered by the issues, and those who are not trying to avoid those issues, but are actively seeking them out in order to understand them. You are the former, which is somewhat understandable. Your beliefs are all that seems to  interest you.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> and those who are not trying to avoid those issues,.




Sorry, its actually you avoiding things, you on a thread about religion, however you are not willing to state what your own religious beliefs are, you keep linking your website and other "papers" which are clearly intelligent design stuff not accepted by mainstream science, the whole intelligent design movement has been rejected by main stream science for good reason.

As I said in regards to your claim that because something is unlikely it therefore can't happen, that claim is nonsense. its like saying you can't win the lotto with 1 ticket, because the chances are 1 in 100,000,000, you don't need to buy 100,000,000 tickets to win the lotto, all it takes is one winning ticket, and in a universe with trillions of trillions of tickets the improbability argument is nonsense.

Also, as I said has this guy identified what the molecules were that started the self replicating process??? 

if not how can he say what the probability was, Does he know the conditions of the early earth??? if not again how can he say.

---------------------------------

Forget about trying to convince laymen, why doesn't mainstream science agree with you???


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 January 2016)

Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.




Opposable thumbs for one thing, enables us to use tools. Have thumbs will think.



Chimps have opposable thumbs on all limbs, so by rights they should be twice as smart as us.


----------



## CanOz (28 January 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.




I don't Wys, thats one of the marvels of our Universe.....wait...err, how do we know we're the only organism to develop intelligence???

Ahhh its all too hard, easier to believe in a old book than try and get to the bottom of it all


----------



## Biosemiosis org (28 January 2016)

> Sorry, its actually you avoiding things




Narrow that down and name it. Explicitly.



> however you are not willing to state what your own religious beliefs are




I already told you, my metaphysical position doesn’t change the evidence in any way whatsoever. Neither does yours. We are in the same boat. In business parlance,_ it’s a wash._ Instead of reasoning about the science, you are pressing this issue in order to create something to attack. Yet between us, you envision yourself as the person of science and reason. 



> you keep linking your website and other "papers" which are clearly intelligent design stuff not accepted by mainstream science




How do you know when an intellect has become incapacitated? When it accuses Eugene Koonin of being an ID advocate. 

Good grief. 



> the whole intelligent design movement has been rejected by main stream science for good reason.




Hey, I see you using all the little props and cartoons. And I bet you know someone in some science forum somewhere – someone who you’ve read and admired – someone who actually knows the issues. Do yourself a favor. Go get them. Tell them whatever you want, but bring them here. 

If you are unable to engage the issues, you can at least watch someone else. While you watch, keep your own counsel. Look to see if his/her comments actually alter the observations, and note whatever assumptions they contain. When he finally gets around to defending his position by pointing out that _“ID has been rejected”_ then you’ll know how silly and weak it looks when you say it.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> ...
> 
> If you are unable to engage the issues, you can at least watch someone else. While you watch, keep your own counsel. Look to see if his/her comments actually alter the observations, and note whatever assumptions they contain. When he finally gets around to defending his position by pointing out that _“ID has been rejected”_ then you’ll know how silly and weak it looks when you say it.




If there's an intelligent designer, why are you around? ha ha

Come on mate, dressing up religious non-sense with scientific sounding words can only fool some. And those are already part of the choir.

Put it this way, if it didn't work for Scientology, it's not going to work for Biosemiosis.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You keep confusing a material universe where time is a parameter with something that is outside space and time.
> 
> I think I've tried to explain this before. If something can create time then it is not subject to time because it didn't have to create time in the first place.
> 
> ...




How big would that Creator be?

If the Creator did create the entire universe, with everthing in it - all the suns, the galaxies, the elements. That all the known universe since the Big Bang is His creation, he'd be one big massive being. I mean, some galaxy would take millions of light years for us to reach - So a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light will take millions of years to reach... that's a very very very long way away.

Then if it is possible that there is this Creator who create all these stuff. Why are we the chosen species in this vast universe He created? I mean, our Earth is a little dot next to some known star out there. We human are a little atom relative to the sun alone. Why would the Creator really take notice and take us as His favourite creation, sending down his only son and all that?

Say I build a house... what are the chances of me sending my son to a little ant's nest to save it?

There are things we don't know, may never know, could never prove... but the idea that need refuting is so rediculous in its scale it just doesn't need much evidence to disprove it.

Again... the Creator create this big massive universe all these billions of years... and it's only the last maybe 5,000 years that our specie kind of started writing - on clay; only last couple hundred years that some really advanced technologies came to do some work for humans; only some 60 years ago that one country could send a few guys to the Moon. and we're somehow the most intelligent, the most beloved of this Creator's creation?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

> Again... the Creator create this big massive universe all these billions of years... and it's only the last maybe 5,000 years that our specie kind of started writing - on clay; only last couple hundred years that some really advanced technologies came to do some work for humans; only some 60 years ago that one country could send a few guys to the Moon. and we're somehow the most intelligent, the most beloved of this Creator's creation?




It's no good coming at me with the religious stuff, I've said I don't believe it.

If you want to know what I think read my previous posts, I've had enough of going around in circles with VC.


----------



## Tink (28 January 2016)

As has been said many times in this forum, 

*Science was never made to disprove God.*


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's no good coming at me with the religious stuff, I've said I don't believe it.
> 
> If you want to know what I think read my previous posts, I've had enough of going around in circles with VC.




I didn't say you believe in a Creator.

Was trying to project what it'd mean if such a creator were to exist.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> I didn't say you believe in a Creator.
> 
> Was trying to project what it'd mean if such a creator were to exist.




I do believe in a creator, just not the kind depicted in the Bible.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

Tink said:


> As has been said many times in this forum,
> 
> *Science was never made to disprove God.*




Science is a method of inquiry. So you're right that it was never meant to disprove God. But it could be use, like any tool could, to do that and other stuff.

Personally I think religion is important. Most religious people, or most people, would want to believe in it... or actually believe in it. And does it so they can feel at peace with the world and all that good stuff that religion can provide.

But of course the downside is when you believe something because it is said so... such trust can be abuse and could lead to nasty consequences on both the believer and the target off the abuse.

But if you start to question it; to not merely take it on faith... well then it's not going to gel.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I do believe in a creator, just not the kind depicted in the Bible.




You do? Have you met this guy call VC?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> You do? Have you met this guy call VC?




Never heard of him.


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> How big would that Creator be?
> 
> If the Creator did create the entire universe, with everthing in it - all the suns, the galaxies, the elements. That all the known universe since the Big Bang is His creation, he'd be one big massive being. I mean, some galaxy would take millions of light years for us to reach - So a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light will take millions of years to reach... that's a very very very long way away.
> 
> ...



Good questions Grasshopper, IF one's view of the creator is the biblical paradigm. But who says the creator is a being, or even conscious in the human understanding of such?

Far from humans being created in God's image, the biblical God is created by man in his own image.

God (for want of a better word) may be something else completely.

Just food for thought. Now go do 1000 push ups on your knuckles.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I do believe in a creator, just not the kind depicted in the Bible.




btw, sounds like my Dad. Was saying to him there's no God and he said of course there is. How else are we here? Must be someone.

I don't know Dad... I've been told once or twice by some guy way back that he created me and he can uncreate me 

How many parents create their kids? Most were just having fun and it kinda got created.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2016)

wayneL said:


> Good questions Grasshopper, IF one's view of the creator is the biblical paradigm. But who says the creator is a being, or even conscious in the human understanding of such?
> 
> Far from humans being created in God's image, the biblical God is created by man in his own image.
> 
> ...




Wise words indeed Master Sifu. 

That something else could be a sperm, an egg and a defective birth control device 


Kung Fu Panda 3 is coming out. The Trailer looks good. Recently rewatch the first two with the kids and have to say, it's a lot of fun. They have better humour than Disney's.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.




What makes you think we are the only animals with intelligence, intelligence is a spectrum, on average humans are more intelligent than chimps, but chimps are more intelligent than dogs, and dogs are more intelligent than mice, but mice are more intelligent than a fish etc etc etc all the way down to bacteria.

We are not the only animals with intelligence, we are probably the highest intelligence on earth right now, but at the end of the day, some animal has to be at the top, and who's to say who is the highest intelligence in the universe, there mite be species out there that see us as nothing but an amusement, like we look at chimps.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2016)

Tink said:


> As has been said many times in this forum,
> 
> *Science was never made to disprove God.*




Correct, science is about making discoveries about things that actually exist.

if God existed, and acted in the way Christians say, science could study him and learn facts about him.

But your version of God probably doesn't exist, so offcourse can't be studied, and hence we have no evidence for it.

You may as well be saying science wasn't made to disprove the tooth fairy or unicorns,.. Offcourse it wasn't, it was made to discover facts about things that exist.


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> there mite be species out there that see us as nothing but an amusement, like we look at chimps.




They might be able to spell might too, mightn't they?


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

wayneL said:


> They might be able to spell might too, mightn't they?




Lol, I am bad at that, it's a combination of me either missing or pressing the wrong letters on my iPhone key pad, and then auto correct trying to guess what I was trying to say.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, I am bad at that, it's a combination of me either missing or pressing the wrong letters on my iPhone key pad, and then auto correct trying to guess what I was trying to say.




Might be. Might be not.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.




It depends om your definition of intelligence. The human race is adept at adapting to our environment, we can cure a lot of diseases that would otherwise kill us, but we spend a lot of resources developing new weapons to kill each other and some that potentially could wipe out most life on earth.

Intelligence ? Yes and no.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It depends om your definition of intelligence. The human race is adept at adapting to our environment, we can cure a lot of diseases that would otherwise kill us, but we spend a lot of resources developing new weapons to kill each other and some that potentially could wipe out most life on earth.
> 
> Intelligence ? Yes and no.




Intelligence is just - "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

it's not a judgement on whether your actions are moral or wise.

just about all animals have some sort of ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, other wise animal trainers wouldn't have jobs.

But yes humans as far as I can see are at the top of the stack on planet earth, developing intelligence is the road we took on the evolutionary path, its served us well, better than tooth and claws.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> it's not a judgement on whether your actions are moral or wise.




You can have your definition which is true but limited imo.

Putting humanity on the brink of extinction by stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is not evidence of a clever society imo.

Nor is destroying the environment to increase our levels of affluence, nor is accelerating our use of non renewable resources to create more consumers so a few people can make a lot of money.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You can have your definition which is true but limited imo.
> 
> Putting humanity on the brink of extinction by stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is not evidence of a clever society imo.




I agree, doing those things is very "Unwise" (unless it brings about peace through assured mutual destruction, and world wars are ended, we haven't had a world war since the nuke), but it certainly takes intelligence to build a nuclear weapon, in the scientific usage of the word.



> Nor is destroying the environment to increase our levels of affluence,




We have been doing that since we first cut the first tree down to build a house, when it becomes unsustainable is where it becomes unwise, other wise I am all for raising the standard of human lives around the world.

We in the first world can certainly do things better to reduce waste and lower our impact though.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You can have your definition which is true but limited imo.
> 
> Putting humanity on the brink of extinction by stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is not evidence of a clever society imo.
> 
> Nor is destroying the environment to increase our levels of affluence, nor is accelerating our use of non renewable resources to create more consumers so a few people can make a lot of money.




but... but... 

But if we take the enemy out first, all of them; then they won't have any nuke to hit back at us. If they do have one or two hidden away and we can't get to it, well it will only hit certain cities and we're deep in our bunkers so it won't be us who'd get hit.

Man, it's like some saying I heard... we're a mental asylum where the inmates control the button to self destruct.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I agree, doing those things is very "Unwise" (unless it brings about peace through assured mutual destruction, and world wars are ended, we haven't had a world war since the nuke), but it certainly takes intelligence to build a nuclear weapon, in the scientific usage of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We are having a world war though. If we define World War as wars occuring on three continents at the same time - as opposed to great powers at war directly.

All great powers (and Australia, haha) are converging in the ME. China and India is standing around watching; with one of them setting up new chess boards in a a sea or two for a new match.

I'm hoping for an alien invasion so we could all stop killing each other for a while. But then we'd be stuffed by the aliens so hmm...


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> We are having a world war though. If we define World War as wars occuring on three continents at the same time - as opposed to great powers at war directly.
> 
> All great powers (and Australia, haha) are converging in the ME. China and India is standing around watching; with one of them setting up new chess boards in a a sea or two for a new match.
> 
> I'm hoping for an alien invasion so we could all stop killing each other for a while. But then we'd be stuffed by the aliens so hmm...




I woudn't describe the campaign against terror as a world war, it might be global in nature but its a different beast its not the major industrial type of war that I was saying Nukes have prevented.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I woudn't describe the campaign against terror as a world war, it might be global in nature but its a different beast its not the major industrial type of war that I was saying Nukes have prevented.




Alright, not technically a World War... but global war then.

It might prove more dangerous than a WW in my opinion. With the Mutual Assured Destruction, that MADness prevent the crazies general and presidents from ending life on Earth. With terrorists, if they can get a hand on it it's done. There's no state we could attack to retaliate against - and if we do, they're everywhere so we can't nuke everywhere - can we?

Anyway, we're nuts. We could work together, build and make useful stuff to use and sell, making our lives and income better and not having to kill anyone doing it. Instead we just blow things up and try not to get ourselves kill or wreck the economy with it.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Alright, not technically a World War... but global war then.
> 
> It might prove more dangerous than a WW in my opinion. With the Mutual Assured Destruction, that MADness prevent the crazies general and presidents from ending life on Earth. With terrorists, if they can get a hand on it it's done. There's no state we could attack to retaliate against - and if we do, they're everywhere so we can't nuke everywhere - can we?
> 
> .




Yep, its a different beast alright, and there is no simple answer, nuking and carpet bombing doesn't work. 

All that will really end it is the abandoning of the crazy ideals that lead to it, and in the meantime a lot of good intelligence* and special forces work, and bucket loads of Jdams, lots and lots of Jdams.

*2nd usage of the word, "the collection of information of military or political value" (not related to the 1st usage discussed earlier)



> Anyway, we're nuts. We could work together, build and make useful stuff to use and sell, making our lives and income better and not having to kill anyone doing it. Instead we just blow things up and try not to get ourselves kill or wreck the economy with it




Yep, totally nuts, that's one of the main reasons I distain religion, because it is one of the major problems preventing that outcome, and it makes it harder to move past our inbuilt tribalism, and promotes irrational thinking, and prevents the change in attitudes we need.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, its a different beast alright, and there is no simple answer, nuking and carpet bombing doesn't work.
> 
> All that will really end it is the abandoning of the crazy ideals that lead to it, and in the meantime a lot of good intelligence* and special forces work, and bucket loads of Jdams, lots and lots of Jdams.
> 
> ...




Yea, Intelligence. there's a lot of double-speak in politics and military aren't there. "Peace is our occupation" is one from Dr Strangelove.

Religion and nationalism are obstacles, but if we remove it what do we replace it with? Capitalism seems to be the answer but then they'd do what they do seeing there is no loyalty or care for any people or any country - the whole world is then stuffed. Well some are more stuffed than others.

Maybe the answer is a few enlightened capitalists... like you and me; don't know about you, certainly is me, haha


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

> Maybe the answer is a few enlightened capitalists... like you and me; don't know about you, certainly is me, haha



.

Yes I agree with that, ethical capitalism is what we need.

Maybe more Warren Buffets and Bill Gates (although I think Gates was a bit unethical in the way he tromped over all his competitors) .


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Religion and nationalism are obstacles, but if we remove it what do we replace it with?




That's like asking a person suffering from cancer what are they going to replace the cancer with once they are cancer free, the answer is nothing, you just go on living a healthy life.



> Capitalism seems to be the answer but then they'd do what they do seeing there is no loyalty or care for any people or any country - the whole world is then stuffed. Well some are more stuffed than others.




Capitalism is just our economic system, it exists regardless of religion, and I can't see how its an either / or.

I mean if a person abandons their religion it doesn't mean they need some other indoctrination, they can just go on living as they were minus the fairy tales and beheadings, maybe get a sunday morning hobby, I see drone flying is taking off, maybe read a science book to qwell the curiosity, instead of a religious text.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

> Capitalism is just our economic system, it exists regardless of religion, and I can't see how its an either / or.
> 
> I mean if a person abandons their religion it doesn't mean they need some other indoctrination, they can just go on living as they were minus the fairy tales and beheadings, maybe get a sunday morning hobby, I see drone flying is taking off, maybe read a science book to qwell the curiosity, instead of a religious text.




Yes but I think a lot of people turn to religion because they think that religion cares about them personally,  whereas the capitalistic society just thinks about profits.

If you want to do away with religion then you have to replace it with a caring society, otherwise people will just go back to religion.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> That's like asking a person suffering from cancer what are they going to replace the cancer with once they are cancer free, the answer is nothing, you just go on living a healthy life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not exactly.

Religion and nationalism, or cancer (you don't like religion too much do you )... was defined as a thing that bind people towards a common goal, or a common community. So if we take that sense of "belonging" to one group or another, what will make then combine us together as a people? Being all "Earthlings" is some way off, we're making some strides towards seeing all human as one race - though some are more equal than others and all that. 

The answer seem to be all that talk about Free Trade and globalisation and "The Market" bringing peace to the world and unite people through trade and exchange and smiles and a coke or two. That doesn't really work out in reality, so far.

So trade and capitalism will exists regardless... maybe it is really is what will unite us all a single people, eventually, when the playing field is a bit more balanced. 

Anyway, let's leave discussions of world peace and how I'm going to solve it for another day.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes but I think a lot of people turn to religion because they think that religion cares about them personally,  whereas the capitalistic society just thinks about profits.
> 
> If you want to do away with religion then you have to replace it with a caring society, otherwise people will just go back to religion.




Hence, enlightened capitalists like myself, with all of my two cents


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes but I think a lot of people turn to religion because they think that religion cares about them personally,  whereas the capitalistic society just thinks about profits.
> 
> If you want to do away with religion then you have to replace it with a caring society, otherwise people will just go back to religion.




I think in general people are pretty caring, and we can care about profits 9 - 5 and then do good work after hours, look at the worlds biggest charitable donations, they are from capitalists or capitalist organisations.

Also, I feel the best way to lift people out of poverty is capitalism.

look at this type of work, this awesome, all funded through capitalism, to benefit people and build future business, trade is at the heart of capitalism, and trade lift people from poverty. this is mosaic company, one of the worlds largest fertiliser companies, publically listed on the NYSE



Not charity, just sound business, making profits and changing lives.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I think in general people are pretty caring, and we can care about profits 9 - 5 and then do good work after hours, look at the worlds biggest charitable donations, they are from capitalists or capitalist organisations.
> 
> Also, I feel the best way to lift people out of poverty is capitalism.
> 
> look at this type of work, this awesome, all funded through capitalism, to benefit people and build future business, trade is at the heart of capitalism, and trade lift people from poverty.





Well, as I said I'm all in favour of ethical capitalism, the more the better.

That also involves a mindset in government to encourage ethical capitalism (and ethical government) and not just assume that any business is good business if it makes money for a few.

Ethical capitalism imo means considering and giving equal weight to the effects of its decisions on all those who would be affected by its operations, the shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the environment and society.

Several of our major businesses haven't got the idea yet I don't think.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> not just assume that any business is good business if it makes money for a few.




I think the biggest reason profits flow to a few is that the vast majority of people never consider taking an ownership interest in the economy.

Society raises us to be workers earning a wage, which is great, but in general teaches people nothing about the other side of capitalism, owning the capital and investing in the businesses and assets that make up the economy.

100's of times I have heard children asked what jobs they want when they grow up, never have I heard a child asked what sort of companies do they want to own, never at high school was the working of capital markets and investments explained.

Yet we wonder why the 1% own nearly everything, because the 99% were never taught that owning it was an option.

Super is a start, but people should be taught that from the moment they start working they need to be thinking about building an ownership interest in the world around them.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

> Super is a start, but people should be taught that from the moment they start working they need to be thinking about building an ownership interest in the world around them.




That's fine for some areas but it's questionable whether the profit motive is good for everybody or everything.

I don't think medical drugs should controlled as much by business interests as they are now. The idea that companies can patent genes is just one area where corporations have tried to muscle in on what should be a public interest area.  Public interest vs private interest is a big issue.

Do you want the police privatised ? The courts ? Social work ? Natural Resource Assessment ? 

People need encouragement to go into those public good areas without having a profit motive.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's fine for some areas but it's questionable whether the profit motive is good for everybody or everything.
> 
> .




Profit is just really your payment for supply of the goods you produce. Whether we are talking about companies or people, we all have talents or skills or assets, we will be good at producing something, and when we use these talents or skills or assets to produce goods and services for others, we will generate profit, which we can use to purchase goods or services from others.

people say its driven by greed and it is to an extent, but to make profit you have to be serving others, my local baker invested money to build a set of ovens much much bigger than he needs to make his own bread, and he focuses on producing more bread than he can eat, with the aim of feeding others, and making a profit so he can buy other stuff from other guys who have invested to produce more stuff than they need, every one makes money by providing services to others.



> I don't think medical drugs should controlled as much by business interests as they are now. The idea that companies can patent genes is just one area where corporations have tried to muscle in on what should be a public interest area.  Public interest vs private interest is a big issue.




If the company has spent millions in producing a genetically modified organism, I see no problem with them using a patent to protect that investment, patents don't last for ever.

If a company spend millions producing a new strain of corn that's 20% more productive and uses less water, I think they should be able to patent that and sell seeds to farmers under a contract.





> Do you want the police privatised ? The courts ? Social work ? Natural Resource Assessment ?




No some things are better handled by government.


----------



## Tisme (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Profit is just really your payment for supply of the goods you produce...................
> 
> 
> 
> No some things are better handled by government.




Like Nickel Refineries for example


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I think in general people are pretty caring, and we can care about profits 9 - 5 and then do good work after hours, look at the worlds biggest charitable donations, they are from capitalists or capitalist organisations.
> 
> Also, I feel the best way to lift people out of poverty is capitalism.
> ....




That's an idealised version of capitalism, of course.

Ideally, people, capitalists, ought to be thinking of doing good work 9 to 5. After hours are set aside for family, kids, and trying to get lucky.

When a business do good work, when they create value, they should be rewarded and make good profit to boot. But thing is, and we all know this... there are many ways to make profit - making good product or services is the worst and riskiest part of making money.

Building a better mouse trap require a lot of work, taking a lot of risks, and the results may be complete failure. To make money only, on the other hand... use the money you have and buy off a few politicians; push the costs of, say, clean environment and waste onto the Earth itself, or onto those who either live with it or pay to have it clean up themselves.

If we judged by the number of wealthy individuals versus the number of people sliding into poverty past five years... it does not appear that wealth were created by enriching the other people. Was created by what economists call rent-seeking. Influence politics so that the state will sell you its essential monopolies, you buy it for a steal and jack up the price: result is the few with the cash got real rich, the many who have to use the infrastructure better get second job.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Like Nickel Refineries for example




In some cases, governments are big stake holders in resource projects, they will take huge royalties over time, and huge amounts of taxes on employee wages and company profits.

So in some cases it makes sense for government to help get projects going.

By the way I have no idea on the details of the nickel project you are referring to, I haven't been following it.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> That's an idealised version of capitalism, of course.
> 
> Ideally, people, capitalists, ought to be thinking of doing good work 9 to 5. After hours are set aside for family, kids, and trying to get lucky.
> 
> ...




(maybe we should move this to the philosophy thread) 

I see huge amounts of value generation everyday, everywhere I look I see companies adding value, I think we just take our system for granted.

Sure there is always going to be people doing the wrong thing, and we should try and limit that, but the foundation of our system are strong. Just remember when you sit and eat dinner tonight, you are benefiting from the best food production and delivery system ever constructed on this planet, and it was built by "Greedy capitalists" all working and investing to make sure you're fed, they will probably also make sure your lights are on and your entertained for the night (Hopefully by a marvel or star wars film or maybe a classic Disney film)


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

> they will probably also make sure your lights are on




Private enterprise did not build the power generation or distribution system in this country, they just want to get their hands on what they see as continual profits without risk.

"Socialise the risk and privatise the profit" is the way this country is now operating.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Private enterprise did not build the power generation or distribution system in this country, they just want to get their hands on what they see as continual profits without risk.
> 
> "Socialise the risk and privatise the profit" is the way this country is now operating.




did the government physically build the system or did they tender contracts for construction out to private companies?

Does the government own all of the system? or are sections of the generation owned and built by private companies?

What about the fuel? are the coal mines/gas fields operated by government or private?

 are the vehicles used to run around and maintain everything made by the government or private companies?

 what about all the physical parts and tools, does the government own the saw mills, pine forests etc that provide the power poles, the copper mines and cable mills that produce the wire, the factories that produce countless other parts and chemicals used to run power stations?

I think if you took all the parts of the system away that are either owned, constructed, supplied by or maintained by private companies or contractors you wouldn't have a system.

So yes, private companies are keeping your lights on.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> (maybe we should move this to the philosophy thread)
> 
> I see huge amounts of value generation everyday, everywhere I look I see companies adding value, I think we just take our system for granted.
> 
> Sure there is always going to be people doing the wrong thing, and we should try and limit that, but the foundation of our system are strong. Just remember when you sit and eat dinner tonight, you are benefiting from the best food production and delivery system ever constructed on this planet, and it was built by "Greedy capitalists" all working and investing to make sure you're fed, they will probably also make sure your lights are on and your entertained for the night (Hopefully by a marvel or star wars film or maybe a classic Disney film)




Some of the food may also be contaminated, or have way too much industrial engineering, and delivered to my door with the best of intentions too 

Does bootleg Disney movies count? Not that I would ever thought of it of course.

But yes, the foundation is strong. Just like anything it need an alert public. Else, as they say, the tree of liberty may from time to time be nourish with the blood of tyrants, capitalists and patriots 

Let's be alert shall we.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I think if you took all the parts of the system away that are either owned, constructed, supplied by or maintained by private companies or contractors you wouldn't have a system.




I'm talking about ownership of assets.

Sure, sub contract out to private enterprise the operational bits, but selling (or the stupid 99 year lease) is relinquishing control of public essential service assets to private interests, thereby taking them out of the control of elected representatives who represent us, not a small body of shareholders.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> did the government physically build the system or did they tender contracts for construction out to private companies?
> 
> Does the government own all of the system? or are sections of the generation owned and built by private companies?
> 
> ...




Gov't funded all of the infrastructures. Even those that were build and constructed by private enterprise - it got built, often at extremely high risk and cost over-run, because the gov't foot the bill.

Take the roads... proper roads and bridges were never funded by private capitalists. The Fords and GMs of the world merely built the car, and they would not be taken up in any hurry if the gov't did not then fund roads and bridges. And they definitely would not be running if the gov't does not send armies and embassadors to certain places to secure certain fields and trade routes. 

Take, for example, Boeing and their jets. Heard that the US gov't "sold" all the land for Boeing's plant in Washington for $1. The gov't then funded all its R&D, funded all the subcontractors building those navigation etc. systems... Sure it was done so Hitler won't be coming over but once done Boeing then own the rights and have the know-how to then monopolise the entire market for a long while.

There are not that many entreprenuerial geniuses who create entire markets themselves. Those few that may have are arguably not capitalists at all - but are entreprenuers - the dreamers. Even Elon Musk and his space company, as well as Tesla, are largely funded right now through gov't subsidies.

But if we just read the headlines it appear like the guy take his own cash from PayPal and fund the entire venture. I mean he's smart and innovative and all that of course... just he's not this lone genius who want to change the world while the gov't can't do anything but close down NASA's space shuttles.


----------



## DB008 (29 January 2016)

Good. 

*The Netherlands has recognised the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion​*


> The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has finally been recognised as a religion in The Netherlands.
> 
> Two days ago, pastafarians were told by the country’s Chamber of Commerce that they would be granted official status. They had been trying for several years.
> 
> ...




http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/the-netherlands-has-recognised-the-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-as-a-religion-5649017/​


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm talking about ownership of assets.
> 
> Sure, sub contract out to private enterprise the operational bits, but selling (or the stupid 99 year lease) is relinquishing control of public essential service assets to private interests, thereby taking them out of the control of elected representatives who represent us, not a small body of shareholders.




My original statement was stating that without capitalists input, the lights wouldn't be on now.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Gov't funded all of the infrastructures. Even those that were build and constructed by private enterprise - it got built, often at extremely high risk and cost over-run, because the gov't foot the bill.
> 
> Take the roads... proper roads and bridges were never funded by private capitalists. The Fords and GMs of the world merely built the car, and they would not be taken up in any hurry if the gov't did not then fund roads and bridges. And they definitely would not be running if the gov't does not send armies and embassadors to certain places to secure certain fields and trade routes.
> 
> ...




I never said the governments didn't do anything, I am not one of those anti government folks.

I am just say I am just saying the backbone of the world is free enterprise, we thrive because everyday people wake up and go an try and make a buck, it works, I don't have to be a hunter gather because other people are experts in their fields, doing their best to feed, clothe and house me at competitive prices and I am trying to serve them in my fields as best I can.

---------

Look at that MRM you brought to my attention, every day it's out their competing trying to serve its customers supplying essential services to the rigs.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention by the way, up over 30% so far , I might owe you a carton of beer soon.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I never said the governments didn't do anything, I am not one of those anti government folks.
> 
> I am just say I am just saying the backbone of the world is free enterprise, we thrive because everyday people wake up and go an try and make a buck, it works, I don't have to be a hunter gather because other people are experts in their fields, doing their best to feed, clothe and house me at competitive prices and I am trying to serve them in my fields as best I can.




Yea? And what field is that? Ya lazy capitalist pig. haha...

I was discussing, well kinda me talking while my wife try not to sleep... about Dick Smith and Anchorage. I kinda did not blame Anchorage too much and understand where they're coming from and how people ought to read what they say... that kinda woke her up a bit. Moral decay or capitalism talking?


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Yea? And what field is that? Ya lazy capitalist pig. haha...
> 
> ?




Hey, I have skills man, hahahaha, I'm not lazy, it just doesn't take me long to earn my daily bread, lol

Also being there to buy people's shares in great little companies when they are panic selling is providing a service, isn't it? Lol, some has to have be patient capital to balance out the market.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Hey, I have skills man, hahahaha, I'm not lazy, it just doesn't take me long to earn my daily bread, lol
> 
> Also being there to buy people's shares in great little companies when they are panic selling is providing a service, isn't it? Lol, some has to have be patient capital to balance out the market.




Some may call that taking advantage of people. But since I try to do that too, we're all good 

But yes, value investors are there to keep the market efficient.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Some may call that taking advantage of people. But since I try to do that too, we're all good
> 
> But yes, value investors are there to keep the market efficient.




They click the sell button, not me, me being in the market actually helps them get a better price than they would other wise, so I am not taking advantage of them.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> My original statement was stating that without capitalists input, the lights wouldn't be on now.




Neither would they be without original government investment.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Neither would they be without original government investment.




I didn't dispure that.

My point is that we all have a better standard of living because "greedy capitalist" are fighting to serve us everyday.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't dispure that.
> 
> My point is that we all have a better standard of living because "greedy capitalist" are fighting to serve us everyday.




I don't dispute that either, I'm just saying that we would all be better off if there was more ethical capitalism and less greedy capitalism.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't dispute that either, I'm just saying that we would all be better off if there was more ethical capitalism and less greedy capitalism.




More ethical everything would make th world better.

But, even ethical capitalism needs the greedy bit, I what's the point of the ethical energy generation company building one wind farm and then saying, no that's all we need, my share holders aren't greedy, we want them to want more dividends, so they reinvest back into more wind farms etc.

Waning more, leads to producing more, offcourse I am not a fan of gluttony and waste, but that different to capitistic greed as I think of it. With out that type of greed the huge capital accumulation that has allowed gates, Buffett and countless other to do world changing charity wouldn't be possible.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> More ethical everything would make th world better.
> 
> But, even ethical capitalism needs the greedy bit, I what's the point of the ethical energy generation company building one wind farm and then saying, no that's all we need, my share holders aren't greedy, we want them to want more dividends, so they reinvest back into more wind farms etc.
> 
> Waning more, leads to producing more, offcourse I am not a fan of gluttony and waste, but that different to capitistic greed as I think of it.




In an ethical society, shareholders are only one part of the whole equation and the needs of everyone (including the national and global interests) needs to be weighed up.

So either 1. the corporations can  do this themselves or 2. we have laws that protect the consumer, environment, society, government revenue etc.

So far, only number 2.  seems to have much effect.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> In an ethical society, shareholders are only one part of the whole equation and the needs of everyone (including the national and global interests) needs to be weighed up.
> 
> So either 1. the corporations can  do this themselves or 2. we have laws that protect the consumer, environment, society, government revenue etc.
> 
> So far, only number 2.  seems to have much effect.




Yeah, shareholders are only one part, but it's their money that must be invested to grow companies and provide services into the economy that we need, in any given project, they are the first to have to lay out money and the last to get paid, and they bear the brunt of project and investment risk.

without shareholders willing to continually reinvest their earnings to grow companies, conduct research, explore for resources, and start risky new ventures, we wouldn't have the standard of living we have, the fact that it is probably greed that leads people to do these things is fine, as I said gluttony is the "sin" not greed.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, shareholders are only one part, but it's their money that must be invested to grow companies and provide services into the economy that we need, in any given project, they are the first to have to lay out money and the last to get paid, and they bear the brunt of project and investment risk.
> 
> without shareholders willing to continually reinvest their earnings to grow companies, conduct research, explore for resources, and start risky new ventures, we wouldn't have the standard of living we have, the fact that it is probably greed that leads people to do these things is fine, as I said gluttony is the "sin" not greed.




So you don't think people would want to invest in ethical companies ?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> the fact that it is probably greed that leads people to do these things is fine, as I said gluttony is the "sin" not greed.




Ah yes* Greed is good !*

Objective morality doesn't apply when making money.


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> They click the sell button, not me, me being in the market actually helps them get a better price than they would other wise, so I am not taking advantage of them.




yup. We're the one being taken advantage of - buying things for cheap just to watch it go cheaper. Selling thing at fair price just to watch it go higher. I'm going to stop playing fair man. 

But seriously, I agree with you. Intelligent capital allocation is what builds the world


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> In an ethical society, shareholders are only one part of the whole equation and the needs of everyone (including the national and global interests) needs to be weighed up.
> 
> So either 1. the corporations can  do this themselves or 2. we have laws that protect the consumer, environment, society, government revenue etc.
> 
> So far, only number 2.  seems to have much effect.




They're also working on removing number two too.


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, shareholders are only one part, but it's their money that must be invested to grow companies and provide services into the economy that we need, in any given project, they are the first to have to lay out money and the last to get paid, and they bear the brunt of project and investment risk.
> 
> without shareholders willing to continually reinvest their earnings to grow companies, conduct research, explore for resources, and start risky new ventures, we wouldn't have the standard of living we have, the fact that it is probably greed that leads people to do these things is fine, as I said gluttony is the "sin" not greed.




I think SirR would agree with you there, as would most of us, about companies and shareholders putting up their capital, taking the risks to provide research and develop great products/services to add value to consumers and the world... Yes, by all mean reward them for that, make them all rich because we too get value from them.

But the "greedy" capitalism I think we all disdain is the abuse of market and competition; of doing not much more of anything but wanting more and more pay. Not paying their fair share in taxes; playing politics and get the game rigged.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think SirR would agree with you there, as would most of us, about companies and shareholders putting up their capital, taking the risks to provide research and develop great products/services to add value to consumers and the world... Yes, by all mean reward them for that, make them all rich because we too get value from them.
> 
> But the "greedy" capitalism I think we all disdain is the abuse of market and competition; of doing not much more of anything but wanting more and more pay. Not paying their fair share in taxes; playing politics and get the game rigged.




Actually I don't think that there is all that much "risk capital" in Australia. Almost everything innovative that we do (apart from the Victa mower and the Hills Hoist) gets developed overseas and then sold back to us.

It's been acknowledged that we are big in innovation but small in commercialisation.


----------



## Value Collector (31 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Actually I don't think that there is all that much "risk capital" in Australia. Almost everything innovative that we do (apart from the Victa mower and the Hills Hoist) gets developed overseas and then sold back to us.
> 
> It's been acknowledged that we are big in innovation but small in commercialisation.




It's not just r and d that has risk, take Woolworths attempt to expand into hard ware, massive capital outlays, and huge monthly losses all paid for by share holders funds, but that's the thing with business, nothing is really a sure thing, share holders take all that business risk.

And it's not just big companies, it's every sole trader that puts their life savings into their "great idea" some times it truly is a great idea, most of the time it's not, but we need people out their starting their businesses, if it's greed that drives them, so what, more power to them.

In the morning I will walk down to the bakery and get a pie and a Coke, I want him to be open, I don't want to find he has closed because by Thursday he had met his basic needs with his earnings, I want him to continue serving me on Sunday's, hoping to get that new car or extra $100k In the bank.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> In the morning I will walk down to the bakery and get a pie and a Coke, I want him to be open, I don't want to find he has closed because by Thursday he had met his basic needs with his earnings, I want him to continue serving me on Sunday's, hoping to get that new car or extra $100k In the bank.




Yeah sure, but we all want value for money don't we ?

My supermarket sold some nut bars in a package with a display window, The package was about twice the size of the actual bar but you couldn't tell that from looking at it because the bar filled the display window.

That's false advertising and greed. Fool the customer into thinking he's buying more than he actually is.

If your bakery reduced the size of your pie but increased the price, would you complain or praise his business acumen ?


----------



## Value Collector (31 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah sure, but we all want value for money don't we ?
> 
> My supermarket sold some nut bars in a package with a display window, The package was about twice the size of the actual bar but you couldn't tell that from looking at it because the bar filled the display window.
> 
> ...




If I felt his offering was no longer the best option, I would probably go to the competition, maybe get some sushi rolls.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> If I felt his offering was no longer the best option, I would probably go to the competition, maybe get some sushi rolls.




As should all the gays who want wedding cakes.


----------



## Value Collector (31 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> As should all the gays who want wedding cakes.




Not the same situation at all, if you are selling wedding cakes, you should sell to any customer who walks through the door, regardless of race, sexuality etc etc (unless your not a business open to the public and you are a membership based club etc)

I would be pissed if the bakery was open to the public but refused to serve me a pie because they didn't like my religion or race or sexuality or something.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I would be pissed if the bakery was open to the public but refused to serve me a pie because they didn't like my religion or race or sexuality or something.




Yes, I agree, everyone should be equally ripped off, regardless of their race, creed or sexuality.


----------



## Value Collector (31 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I agree, everyone should be equally ripped off, regardless of their race, creed or sexuality.




Exactly.

---------------

Though I wouldn't say ripped off, at the end of the day, the average person now consumes more products and services than any time in history, while also putting the least effort in history.

I mean compare our life styles to 100years ago, the average person is now sitting in a much bigger home, with machining machines, vacuum cleaners, dryers, computers, TVs, air conditioners, probably atleast 1 car, the person is probably eats more food but does less cooking, owns more clothes, has probably had international holidays, works less hours each day and the work is made easy by modern tools.

We really are richer than we have ever been, but we are never happy. We always still seem to complain even as our life styles seem to improve every generation.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Exactly.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> ...




Yes, I think I agree with all of that.

This table is interesting

20 happiest countries in the world

   1 Paraguay
   2 Panama
   3 Guatemala
   4 Nicaragua
   5 Ecuador
   6 Costa Rica
   7 Colombia
   8 Denmark
   9 Honduras
   10 Venezuela
   11 El Salvador
   12 Indonesia
   13 Philippines
   14 Thailand
   15 UAE
   16 Canada
   17 New Zealand
   18 Australia
   19 Chile
   20 Argentina 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-23/australia-the-worlds-18th-happiest-country/5471108

You wouldn't think Panama, Paraguay and Guatemala were particularly rich countries would you ?

So there is more to happiness that material satisfaction.


----------



## luutzu (31 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Exactly.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> ...




But that whining is also "greed", which is good for business.


----------



## luutzu (31 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah sure, but we all want value for money don't we ?
> 
> My supermarket sold some nut bars in a package with a display window, The package was about twice the size of the actual bar but you couldn't tell that from looking at it because the bar filled the display window.
> 
> ...




And tissue boxes too!

The actual tissue is maybe 3/4 the length. So now I have to not merely just compare with the cents/100 sheets, but fired up the scientific calc on the iPhone to do some conversion based on metre squareage.   Or maybe just compare by weight.


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I think I agree with all of that.
> 
> This table is interesting
> 
> ...




I would love to know has they measure that, maybe it's more of a list of countries that complain the list about there lives.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

This is what happens when corporations get too much power.

Martin Shkreli: Controversial 'pharma bro' refuses to testify over HIV drug, calls US Congress 'imbeciles'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...n-shkreli-fifth-amendment-us-congress/7142232


----------



## DB008 (5 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> This is what happens when corporations get too much power.
> 
> Martin Shkreli: Controversial 'pharma bro' refuses to testify over HIV drug, calls US Congress 'imbeciles'
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...n-shkreli-fifth-amendment-us-congress/7142232




I just watched the whole interview. Doesn't that little **** make you angry.

Boy-oh-boy, what I'd give to punch him in that smug face of his...


----------



## luutzu (5 February 2016)

DB008 said:


> I just watched the whole interview. Doesn't that little **** make you angry.
> 
> Boy-oh-boy, what I'd give to punch him in that smug face of his...




He is an a hole. But a small time crook compares to Big Pharma and what the US politicians do to gouge their American public.

Heard from economist Joe Stiglitz ( I think that's his name) said how Big Pharma, and the Congress and Senate that signed it, made it illegal for US gov't buyers to negotiate drug prices when making big purchases. The few words that forbid trade negotiation on drugs costs American tax payers something like $10B per year.

What this prick did is bad and wrong, but it's capitalism - something I guess we all agree is good?
What big pharma did, the did with politician's blessings, costs taxpayers as well as being anti-capitalist.

When I buy a big item, or buy multiple items, I bargain and negotiate. I don't even need to on some bulk buys at Coles or Woolies.


----------



## FxTrader (6 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Objective morality doesn't apply when making money.




It's always more useful to talk about the ethics of how one makes money instead of invoking an ambiguous term like "objective morality".  The religious like the notion of moral absolutism because it gives them a sense of superiority over non-believers (atheists).  The non-believer they posit has no reason to be, or frame of reference for, being "moral" (this topic comes up frequently in debates with the religious).  Only the jealous, vengeful God depicted in iron-age scrolls can tell us what is moral and not because he is inherently good.  Ipso facto you can only truly be moral if you believe in the God standard - rules for conduct (including thoughts not just actions) inscribed in religious scrolls.  

The sheer stupidity of such an argumentation over the ownership and origins of morality escapes the attention of indoctrinated religious minds since they know with absolute certainty what constitutes right and wrong in every situation - there are no moral grey areas for them.  Just another example of how religion subjugates the minds of followers and substitutes dogma for reason.  

Rules like the 10 commandments may useful for an ordered society but of course could be authored by anyone at anytime in human history and improved upon.  Breaking such rules/laws may have consequences for your liberty in this life but has nothing whatsoever to do with one's eternal destiny.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 February 2016)

I don't think I need make any comment...

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/pastor-insists-church-needs-85m-gulfstream-jet-ghixem


----------



## Tisme (8 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think I need make any comment...
> 
> http://www.executivestyle.com.au/pastor-insists-church-needs-85m-gulfstream-jet-ghixem




Obviously he is trying to succeed where the Tower of Babel failed  ...closer to God and all that.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> Obviously he is trying to succeed where the Tower of Babel failed  ...closer to God an all that.




God has an A380.


----------



## Tisme (8 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I think I agree with all of that.
> 
> This table is interesting
> 
> ...




Makes me less than happy when I see lists that put us near the bottom of the pack 

I'm guessing the key to happiness is over population, endemic poverty and lack of education ... which doesn't bode well for number 8


----------



## Tisme (8 February 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It's not just r and d that has risk, take Woolworths attempt to expand into hard ware, massive capital outlays, and huge monthly losses *all paid for by share holders funds*, but that's the thing with business, nothing is really a sure thing, share holders take all that business risk.




I remember, as a young buck in my twenties, being sat down and chatting with the boss of a really big business here and now internationally, who wanted me to jump ship into his fiefdom and his take of shareholders and the nuisance factor they represented.

Shareholders might think they are integral to a corporation's well being, but in reality they are chooks that like to be fed, but need to be reminded now and again that the granary belongs to management.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> Makes me less than happy when I see lists that put us near the bottom of the pack
> 
> I'm guessing the key to happiness is over population, endemic poverty and lack of education ... which doesn't bode well for number 8




Yeah, ignorance is bliss in a few of those countries I reckon.


----------



## Value Collector (8 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> I remember, as a young buck in my twenties, being sat down and chatting with the boss of a really big business here and now internationally, who wanted me to jump ship into his fiefdom and his take of shareholders and the nuisance factor they represented.
> 
> Shareholders might think they are integral to a corporation's well being, but in reality they are chooks that like to be fed, but need to be reminded now and again that the granary belongs to management.




Yeah, There is always ego centric managers out there.

But have you read Berkshire Hathaways "Owners manual", it lays out how Warren Buffets thinks about his share holders.



> Although our form is corporate, our attitude is partnership. Charlie Munger and I think of our shareholders as owner-partners, and of ourselves as managing partners. (Because of the size of our shareholdings we are also, for better or worse, controlling partners.) We do not view the company itself as the ultimate owner of our business assets but instead view the company as a conduit through which our shareholders own the assets.




The full text is here

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/owners.html


----------



## luutzu (8 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> Makes me less than happy when I see lists that put us near the bottom of the pack
> 
> I'm guessing the key to happiness is over population, endemic poverty and lack of education ... which doesn't bode well for number 8




Stop whining too much and maybe Australia could move up a few rank.


----------



## Tisme (8 February 2016)

luutzu said:


> Stop whining too much and maybe Australia could move up a few rank.




 You reckon


----------



## luutzu (8 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> You reckon





For sure. There's the whining Poms - those must have pulled OZ down ten runk all on their own; then there's the Irish, who tend to be happy since they're often drunk (so that push us up a bit), but then their drunkeness and ahem, IRA-leaning-ness make a few unhappy; Then there's the Muslims who's scaring everyone.

Leave it to the Chinese - they already own all the place (even though they're way behind the Poms and the Yanks and a few others).


----------



## DB008 (19 February 2016)

Planning on having kids, stay away from this place...

*Abortion ban linked to dangerous miscarriages at Catholic hospital, report claims​*


> Five women suffered prolonged miscarriages, severe infections and emotional trauma at Mercy Health Partners when staff neglected patients’ health to uphold religious directives against inducing delivery, report reveals.
> 
> The woman inside the ambulance was miscarrying. That was clear from the foul-smelling fluid leaving her body. As the vehicle wailed toward the hospital, a doctor waiting for her arrival phoned a specialist, who was unequivocal: the baby would die. The woman might follow. Induce labor immediately.
> 
> ...





http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners​


----------



## DB008 (28 February 2016)

What a time to be alive. To think that people take a man made fantasy so seriously...


*Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents​*


> Saudi Arabia has introduced a series of new laws which define atheists as terrorists, according to a report from Human Rights Watch.
> 
> In a string of royal decrees and an overarching new piece of legislation to deal with terrorism generally, the Saudi King Abdullah has clamped down on all forms of political dissent and protests that could "harm public order".
> 
> ...




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html​



*Saudi man gets 10 years, 2,000 lashes over atheist tweets​*


> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) ”” A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism in hundreds of Twitter posts.
> 
> Al-Watan online daily said Saturday that religious police in charge of monitoring social networks found more than 600 tweets denying the existence of God, ridiculing Quranic verses, accusing all prophets of lies and saying their teachings fueled hostilities.
> 
> ...




http://bigstory.ap.org/article/aab8e56dc4724605a71d9fb6eb21c383/saudi-man-gets-10-years-2000-lashes-over-atheist-tweets​


----------



## DB008 (8 June 2016)

What's old mate Rabbi looking at 6 year old girls for in the first place?

*Ultra-orthodox Israeli rabbi bans girls over five from riding bikes because it is 'provocative'​*


> An ultra-orthodox Jewish leader has reportedly banned girls aged five and older in some areas of Israel from riding bicycles - claiming it is “immodest”.
> 
> The rabbi of the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Nahloat distributed the stringent decree to his followers in synagogues across the area.
> 
> ...





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ultra-orthodox-judaism-haredi-israeli-rabbi-bans-girls-over-five-riding-bikes-provocative-a7064201.html​


----------



## Tisme (8 June 2016)

DB008 said:


> What's old mate Rabbi looking at 6 year old girls for in the first place?
> 
> *Ultra-orthodox Israeli rabbi bans girls over five from riding bikes because it is 'provocative'​*
> 
> ...




Lock him up... pervert alert


----------



## noirua (17 July 2016)

The hierarchy of everything in my life has always bothered me. I'm bothered by power. People, whoever they might be, whether it's the government, or the policeman in the uniform, or the man on the door - they still irk me a bit. From school, from the first nun that belted me - people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies … they used to knock the **** out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain - grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same. And I sit and watch politicians with great cynicism, total cynicism.

Irish Comedian Dave Allen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Allen_(comedian)


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

Should be an interesting court case. What if they are found not guilty? What would that say about the morality of The Bible?

*Father and son accused of rape want ‘only law book that truly matters’ at their trial: The Bible*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...erm=.e6b0e33426a0&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Should be an interesting court case. What if they are found not guilty? What would that say about the morality of The Bible?
> 
> *Father and son accused of rape want ‘only law book that truly matters’ at their trial: The Bible*
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...erm=.e6b0e33426a0&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1





In the USA today, who knows ?


----------



## pixel (26 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> In the USA today, who knows ?



US Customs denied Fred Nile a visa to attend Trump's inauguration:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rev-fred-...deemed-a-security-threat-20170125-gtycau.html
They probably thought they already have enough bigots and religious nutters at home, no need to import any more. Wait for an "Executive Order" that reverses the decision and invites Nile to the next White House reception.


----------



## pixel (26 January 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing the key to happiness is over population, endemic poverty and lack of education ... which doesn't bode well for number 8



If you add "sexual liberation" to your list, then Denmark could well fit the bill. And who would deny that a good old romp in the hay increases happiness


----------



## Tisme (23 July 2017)

I scored a solid 8 :


----------



## luutzu (23 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> I scored a solid 8 :
> 
> View attachment 71969




8? Cutting yourself a bit short there McGee.

But man, that's one long hit list. Wondering where is Christ that one can run straight to?


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Wondering where is Christ that one can run straight to?



 Run there in the mind. Just have to ask for acceptance unto the Lord and the mind begins to discard the weight of guilt. That is how the devout folk can sin then ask the Lord for forgiveness, so all can be pell again.
Then there are the righteous types that point the finger while blind to or obscuring their own sins. The ones who have sinned that cast the quadrillionth stone. Then the cunning so and so's. It's a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 July 2017)

The story on 60 mins. about the wife forced to sexual gratification by her Baptist extremist husband was another example of how far from reality believers are. If you meet a Preacher on the road, kill him. Well not in a physical way.


----------



## Tisme (24 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> 8? Cutting yourself a bit short there McGee.
> 
> But man, that's one long hit list. Wondering where is Christ that one can run straight to?




You can find him in the bible my son


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> You can find him in the bible my son
> 
> View attachment 71971



And the Qur'an.


----------



## Tisme (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> And the Qur'an.




No you only find the earlier version of him. 

IN their version he hadn't gone through the whole shape shifting and change of focus in favour of socialism by issuing a new testament of rules and regs. Obviously the Muslims hadn't kept their subscriptions up and used an outdated Standards Israel version.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> And the Qur'an.




Weren't you saying a while ago that he didn't exist ?


----------



## pixel (24 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> You can find him in the bible my son
> 
> View attachment 71971



nope, the Yanks made up their own versions.
lots of them
from Joseph Smith right through to L Ron Hubbard
,,, and ain't that the literary truth (as opposed to alternative facts  )


----------



## Tisme (24 July 2017)

pixel said:


> nope, the Yanks made up their own versions.
> lots of them
> from Joseph Smith right through to L Ron Hubbard
> ,,, and ain't that the literary truth (as opposed to alternative facts  )





You know the page I lifted that from has an argument going on about the voracity of it being 1) written by Jesus his highness self, 2)  written in English in the first instance and 3) written for Americans. And they are fair dinkum !!!!!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 July 2017)

pixel said:


> L Ron Hubbard



There are some gems in his predominantly pulp fiction.
There are SP in society. One either avoids them or confronts them or ...


> Called the “Black Panther Mechanism”, it is repeatedly described in 1950 in the original book: “Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health”.
> 
> Hubbard goes on to say: “Let us suppose that a particularly black-tempered Black Panther is sitting on the stairs and that a man named Gus is sitting in the living room. Gus wants to go to bed. But there is the Black Panther. The problem is to get upstairs. There are five things that Gus can do.” The five alternates are described as (1) *ATTACK*, (2) *FLEE,* (3) *AVOID*, (4*) NEGLECT* and (5) *SUCCUMB*.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Weren't you saying a while ago that he didn't exist ?



I don't believe he did exist (atleast not the character as he is described in the bible)

However, if some one says you will find Darth Vader in "Star Wars - the new hope", I will probably mention you can also find him in the "Star Wars - the empire strikes back"

It doesn't mean I think Darth Vader actually exists, I am just mentioning the other works of fiction you can find his character in.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> IN their version he hadn't gone through the whole shape shifting and change of focus in favour of socialism by issuing a new testament of rules and regs.




Did Jesus issue new rules? In the sermon on the mount he said he didn't come to change the old laws, and that none of the laws will change until judgement day.

Jesus said-"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Jesus said-"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."




Now you are quoting the alleged sayings of a mythical being (according to you).

If you don't believe in his existence it's pretty hypocritical to give a fictional character any credence in a discussion.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Now you are quoting the alleged sayings of a mythical being (according to you).
> 
> If you don't believe in his existence it's pretty hypocritical to give a fictional character any credence in a discussion.




So it's hypocritical to talk about quotes made by fictional characters? how so?

I often hear people say "With great power, comes great responsibility." the fact that quote comes from Spider Man doesn't mean it's not true, even though spider man is fictional.

Also, if some one said spider man believed we should be irresponsible with power, I might reference the above quote, again it doesn't mean I think he is real, I am just talking about the character in his fictional universe.

We can talk about Darth Vader, Harry Potter, spider man and Jesus without believing they are true.


----------



## Skate (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> *Did Jesus issue new rules?* In the sermon on the mount he said he didn't come to change the old laws, and that none of the laws will change until judgement day.
> 
> Jesus said-"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."




*He sure did...*

*John 13:34-35 *A New Commandment (the 11th Commandment if my maths are correct)

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 
35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

*SIDE NOTE: *The man you refer to as Jesus his real name was Joshua ben Joseph - a common criminal of the day.

To be honest, Joshua ben Joseph and Jesus Christ are in fact one and the same person. Joshua ben Joseph was Jesus' given name at birth, he grew up being known as Joshua (son of Joseph). 

He was only later called Jesus by the Greeks, Jesus being the Greek form of Joshua.


----------



## pixel (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So it's hypocritical to talk about quotes made by fictional characters? how so?
> 
> I often here people say "With great power, comes great responsibility." the fact that quote comes from Spider Man doesn't mean it's not true, even though spider man is fictional.
> 
> ...



Mate, your comparison isn't applicable.
A general platitude ascribed to a fictional character - like Spiderman's "With great power, comes great responsibility." or Lazarus Long's "Always store beer in a dark place." - are legit to quote because they apply to general life.
A quote by a fictional character about himself or his abilities - like Superman's "I can fly." or "Leaping tall buildings." - remains however fictitious.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

Skate said:


> A New Commandment (the 11th Commandment if my maths are correct)



There were 613 commandments before we got to Jesus, so maybe that is the 614th commandment.

Makes me wonder why that didn't make it into the original 10, I mean they even banned eating shell fish, and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics before they got to that rule.


----------



## Skate (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So it's hypocritical to talk about quotes made by *fictional characters?* how so?
> 
> I often hear people say "With great power, comes great responsibility." the fact that quote comes from Spider Man doesn't mean it's not true, even though spider man is fictional.
> 
> ...




The Bible (New & Old Testament) *is fictional* - they were teaching stories of the day. 

But "Joshua ben Joseph" *was not a fictional character* he walked the earth and died a terrible death believing he had a special connection to the Almighty Father. 

"Joshua ben Joseph" was delusional right up to the point of taking his last breath - screaming - "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" 

*Matthew 27:45 - 46*
45 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 
46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

pixel said:


> A quote by a fictional character about himself or his abilities - like Superman's "I can fly." or "Leaping tall buildings." - remains however fictitious.




Off course, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about them when discussing those characters. 

For example if we are talking about super man, 

and you say "In that situation he would have died" 

and I am like "Nah, he would have just flown"

and your like "Super man can't fly"

so I say "yeah he can" and I quote various Cannon literature showing you examples where he flew and where he says he can fly.

I tink thats a justified conversation, we aren't being hypocritical (as rumpole said) we are just discussing some fictional characters, we aren't claiming they are real or anything.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

Skate said:


> The Bible (New & Old Testament) *is fictional* - they were teaching stories of the day.
> '




Agreed.



> But "Joshua ben Joseph" *was not a fictional character* he walked the earth and died a terrible death believing he had a special connection to the Almighty Father.




Even if there was a real guy the Jesus character was based on, it doesn't mean the Jesus Character is real.

e.g. St Nick inspired the stories of Santa Claus, But he wasn't Santa Claus from the stories people tell children (flying reindeer etc)



> "Joshua ben Joseph" was delusional right up to the point of taking his last breath - screaming - "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"




I am not sure there is any evidence that any of that even happened.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> With great power, comes great responsibility




That quote reputedly dated from the era of the French revolution, and Churchill reputedly said it as well.

But anyway, you are cherry picking. You quote a supposedly fictitious character and say he's right and then quote him other times and say he's wrong. Pretty silly.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> But anyway, you are cherry picking. You quote a supposedly fictitious character and say he's right and then quote him other times and say he's wrong. Pretty silly.




When have I ever said Jesus was right?

This conversation started because some one said you can find Jesus in the Bible, So I pointed out that you can also find him in the Qur'an.

to which you said



> Weren't you saying a while ago that he didn't exist ?




Offcourse I don't believe Jesus (the bible character who was the son of god and performed miracles) existed, other wise I wouldn't be an atheist.

Any time I quote things Jesus said or did, it is in the context of the fictional work that is the bible.

If I just point out when people misquote that fictional work, it isn't me making a claim any of it is true or real, I am often just pointing out contradictions in the story to show it's not the infallible work of a god, or that a certain persons take on the character doesn't math up to that persons origin story.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Offcourse I don't believe Jesus (the bible character who was the son of god and performed miracles) existed, other wise I wouldn't be an atheist.




So when you quote 'Jesus', who are you actually quoting if he didn't exist ?


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So when you quote 'Jesus', who are you actually quoting if he didn't exist ?




I quote the fictional character from the fictional story that I am discussing.

As I said, its no different to quoting Harry Potter, Spider Man or Darth Vader.

Some one might Say, "Darth Vader said 'Luke, I am your father'"

Then I might say "No, Darth Vader never said that, thats a popular misconception what he said was 'No, I am your father' and it's just the other quote got spread through pop culture incorrectly"

At no point I am saying Darth Vader was right or wrong, nor am I saying he was real, I am simply correcting a mis quote of the original story that has become popular.

----------------
Check it for yourself, he never say "Luke , I am your father" he says "No, I am your father"

Would it be wrong for me to correct people that believe he said "Luke I am your father" by quoting "Darth Vader"

listen to what he says at 1.50


----------



## luutzu (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I quote the fictional character from the fictional story that I am discussing.
> 
> As I said, its no different to quoting Harry Potter, Spider Man or Darth Vader.
> 
> ...





Say what? He didn't say "Luke, I am your father"?

Lucas is a terrible writer. Sounds a lot better with "Luke, I am your father"  

He tell good stories though. Not counting the Star Wars prequels about taxes. Indy 4 I'm still wondering whether I've outgrown the cheesy stuff or Spielberg wasn't into these adventure business anymore.


----------



## luutzu (24 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> You can find him in the bible my son
> 
> View attachment 71971




Don't people turn to the Bible to help them fall asleep?

For a Jewish guy from the Middle East, Jesus sure look real white. Not in that picture though.

But then I guess his Father is God, and God is obviously White so yea.


----------



## luutzu (24 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So when you quote 'Jesus', who are you actually quoting if he didn't exist ?




When you refer to a fictional character, you'd have to immerse yourself in their universe. That is, you go into that fictional world.

It's like watching a fictional movie where the characters does something "unreal" or some stupid fictional stuff just doesn't make sense.

You can say that it's a movie so of course it's unreal and doesn't make sense. We know it's a movie, it's fictional, but in its own universe it still has to make sense.


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Say what? He didn't say "Luke, I am your father"?
> 
> .




Lol, what if I told you Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pigs gang of characters was never called "looney toons"?

It was actually spelt "looney tunes" as in music, not toons and in short for cartoons.

It's crazy how many things are incorrectly remembered in popular culture.


----------



## Tink (25 July 2017)

I see you are pushing your own religion, VC, 'godless communist'.

The totalitarian political correctness.

- _a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state_.


----------



## Tisme (25 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Say what? He didn't say "Luke, I am your father"?
> 
> Lucas is a terrible writer. Sounds a lot better with "Luke, I am your father"




Yeah he did, the Mandela Effect affected can't process the word "Luke" and only hear "No".


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2017)

Tink said:


> I see you are pushing your own religion, VC, 'godless communist'.
> 
> The totalitarian political correctness.
> 
> - _a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state_.



Do you even know what a communist is? Or is it just a word you throw out there? What exactly have I said that is communist?

You are laughable Tink, please quote something I have said that is communist.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do you even know what a communist is? Or is it just a word you throw out there? What exactly have I said that is communist?




Godless capitalist I would say.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Some one might Say, "Darth Vader said 'Luke, I am your father'"




If you go around saying "Darth Vader said X" or "Darth Vader said Y", then people will think you are rather strange because Darth Vader is definitely a fictional character. 

OTOH Jesus is pretty well established historically so even if you think he is fictional, a lot of others don't, whether they agree with the "Son of God" and miracles bit.

So my point is that you don't even believe Jesus existed  and yet you quote him as if he did, so that comes down to being hypocritical.


----------



## PZ99 (25 July 2017)

Darth Vader definitely exists - has his own 757-200 death star, a 58-story empire state look alike building and probably the most likely in*vader *to end the world.





He ain't no son of God, more like the gun of Sod all


----------



## Value Collector (25 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Godless capitalist I would say.




I am happy with that description.


SirRumpole said:


> If you go around saying "Darth Vader said X" or "Darth Vader said Y", then people will think you are rather strange because Darth Vader is definitely a fictional character.
> 
> .




As I said I see no problem with quoting fictional characters when discussing their books or movies.


> OTOH Jesus is pretty well established historically so even if you think he is fictional




The character in the bible is fictional, any person (or people) that existed who inspired those stories is not the same person as the bible character.

You don't think St Nicholas and Santa Claus are the same person do you?



> So my point is that you don't even believe Jesus existed  and yet you quote him as if he did, so that comes down to being hypocritical




If you are discussing a movie with some one, do you ever say something like.

"I like the part when he said XXXX"

or if some one else describes a scene, would you correct them and say.

"nah he actually said XXXX"

If you do, then you are quoting fictional characters, I don't see a problem with that, and I don't think other people do either.


> Jesus is pretty well established historically




He actually isn't, there is pretty much no evidence in any historical record or any artefact that dates back to his life that mentions him except for the bible stories, which were not written for more than a generation after his death.

The real historians don't tend to put much weight in his existence, except to say there probably was a jewish rabbi that inspired the stories, but nothing of the bible claims can be verified, and there is no real evidence for him.

I am happy to say there may have been a person who's stories morphed into fanciful legends than eventually became a religion, but the "Jesus" character from the fanciful stories and that real guy are not the same guy.

So when I say Jesus didn't exist I am talking about the bible character.


----------



## Tisme (25 July 2017)

Just incase you want to sound knowledgeable at your next bbq outing, while discussing Star Wars:

this is a Darth Vader in electrical trade parlance
:


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I am happy with that description.



The Universe is serene.


----------



## Tink (26 July 2017)

I did put it up in the Britain thread, which is a Christian nation.
As you can see, they are subjected to the same rubbish.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

This is my view, you are entitled to your own.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

Tink said:


> *The totalitarian political correctness.
> 
> - a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state*.




Tink, aren't you a member of the Catholic Church?
Doesn't the Catholic Church fit that description perfectly?

you say you are against "Political correctness", yet you are a member of an organisation that has done everything in its power to limit free speech, everything from banning books to putting people to death.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> yet you are a member of an organisation that has done everything in its power to limit free speech, everything from banning books to putting people to death.




Some centuries ago, but the Muslims are still doing it. Why not have a crack at them some time ?


----------



## Tink (26 July 2017)

And you are part of the Dawkins religion.....

The orwellian nightmare of transgender.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...re-of-transgender-politics/20116#.WXfuX9R97Dd


----------



## PZ99 (26 July 2017)

From that link by Tink...


> So if a 32-year-old man decides that he is in fact a woman, he could be able to go to the General Register Office and insist that the word ‘Boy’ be erased from his birth certificate and replaced with the word ‘Girl’, or ‘Female’.



Keep this in mind boys... if you ever have to do bird you can go to a women's prison by giving your birth cert the gender bender treatment. You'll never walk alone. LOL

_We can all have wings.... "Michael Hutchence"_


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Some centuries ago, but the Muslims are still doing it. Why not have a crack at them some time ?



Do you think the last time they banned a book was centuries ago???

If Tink were muslim, and I knew which sect/denomination of islam she was from, and that sect/denomination were guilty of the same things she's accused me of I would have said the same thing, Just replace the "Catholic Church" with which ever sect of islam she was from.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> If Tink were muslim, and I knew which sect/denomination of islam she was from, and that sect/denomination were guilty of the same things she's accused me of I would have said the same thing, Just replace the "Catholic Church" with which ever sect of islam she was from.




Not really the point.

You accuse the Catholic church of atrocities that happened centuries ago , but I haven't heard a word of criticism from you of the torture of two men in Indonesia for homosexuality, the beating of young girls for being along with their boyfriends, child slavery by arranged marriages which are atrocities perpetrated by Muslims today.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Not really the point.
> 
> You accuse the Catholic church of atrocities that happened centuries ago ,




Thats because tink is a member of that organisation, I am pointing out that she bangs on about PC more than anyone else, yet its her own organisation that does its best to suppress free speech etc, Hell they don't even want people to talk about condoms which save lives.

Do you really think I am fine with the atrocities committed by muslims???

The fact is the crimes committed by muslims is all anyone wants talk about, even to the point that the large amount of muslims that live peacefully are being attacked.

I prefer to get to the bones of the issue, which is that religion can corrupt people and makes people believe things that aren't real and that affects their actions often in negative ways.

Attacking muslims in general doesn't help, it works against us, the only solution is a dumping of religious concepts in general.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

Tink said:


> And you are part of the Dawkins religion.....





Hahahaha, nice deflection, you sound like a child.


----------



## notting (26 July 2017)




----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Attacking muslims in general doesn't help,




Neither does attacking members of any other religion, in general.

You don't seem to see a difference between attacking individuals and attacking an evil ideology that they are coerced into believing.

I want to set Muslims free from the ideological chains that they have draped around them, and that means attacking what their religion does in their name. That's not attacking individuals but their religion. I see no problem with that.


----------



## notting (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I want to set Muslims free from the ideological chains that they have draped around them, and that means attacking what their religion does in their name. That's not attacking individuals but their religion. I see no problem with that.




But before you do that -



Get smarter


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Neither does attacking members of any other religion, in general.




I don't think members of any other religion are taking as much heat as muslims right now.



> You don't seem to see a difference between attacking individuals and attacking an evil ideology that they are coerced into believing.




No I see the difference clearly, hence why I am on board with discussing Ideology, and even confronting the beliefs directly of the sects and individuals that hold them.




> I want to set Muslims free from the ideological chains that they have draped around them, and that means attacking what their religion does in their name.




Thats the problem, most westerners treat Islam as if it is one thing, yet the are willing to accept Christianity as 10,000 different sects.

If I bring up Christian sect in Africa burning witches and killing gays, People throw that example out because "Not all christians believe that", They are willing to judge each christian sect on its merits, but with muslims they put them all in one barrel.



> That's not attacking individuals but their religion. I see no problem with that.




I don't think many people bother to ask a muslim group what their beliefs are before they protest the opening of a mosque or call for "Muslims" to be banned.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I want to set Muslims free from the ideological chains that they have draped around them, and that means attacking what their religion does in their name. That's not attacking individuals but their religion. I see no problem with that.



Interestingly humans are herd animals so it will always be so (unless evolutionary change) in some form or another. Obvious reasoning for this is the apparent safety in numbers. Takes courage to break away, self assess, free think and behave as a good quality person. There is nothing after thinking stops - no hell, no heaven but they are great tools to keep the faithful in the fold. You better believe it.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

If you look at the christian preacher and say "Oh, not all christians believe killing gays is good" but then look at the muslim and say "See this is why we need to ban muslims", something is wrong with your logic.





Most people understand all the various christian religions vary in their beliefs, but for some reason they lump all the islamic ones together.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> If I bring up Christian sect in Africa burning witches and killing gays, People throw that example out because "Not all christians believe that", They are willing to judge each christian sect on its merits, but with muslims they put them all in one barrel.




One Christian sect in Africa is not of the scale of whole countries that administer the atrocities of Islam.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Somalia and so on and others like Turkey that are becoming increasingly hardline.

Islam is a global threat to human rights and freedom and needs to be marginalised in this country.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 July 2017)

People seem to choke up when asked what it is about Muslims they don't like.
Sharia law, kill the gays, stoning  for infidelity, forced genital operations, no pork (halal cert. b.s.), no alcohol, females don't reveal skin in public/dressed for religion, death for apostasy, under age marriages, infiltrate free world societies.
Don't choke up, this is present day practice and incompatible with the free world.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Islam is a global threat to human rights and freedom and needs to be marginalised in this country.




By attacking moderate muslims, e.g. refusing them their right to build mosques, trying to ban their religious dress, making a scene about Halal foods, trying to ban muslims in general. 

You are not marginalising Islam, you are marginalising everyday people who are good citizens, and making yourself look like the bad guy, which will push a certain number of people who grow up feeling like second class citizens into extremists.

Religion needs to be starved, but the Paul Hanson style of bogan attacks on muslims feeds it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Islam is a global threat to human rights and freedom and needs to be marginalised in this country.



If not for the "law of the land" we would see the below mentioned religious ideologies practiced here. Indeed there are attempts to practice and have been exposed. Probably going on right now somewhere in Aust., not yet exposed.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> If not for the "law of the land" we would see the below mentioned religious ideologies practiced here. Indeed there are attempts to practice and have been exposed. Probably going on right now somewhere in Aust., not yet exposed.




Exactly. If a religion permits atrocities then the religion has a problem.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Religion needs to be starved, but the Paul Hanson style of bogan attacks on muslims feeds it.




You don't starve anything by pandering  it.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't starve anything by pandering  it.



when have I ever suggested pandering to islam.



> Exactly. If a religion permits atrocities then the religion has a problem.




Yep, but again you (and most outraged westerners)  lazily lump all the Islamic religions together as if they are one religion, while being happy to treat the many different christian religions as independent religions.


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Exactly. If a religion permits atrocities then the religion has a problem.




Is there a religion that doesn't permit atrocities?

I think all of them have this thing for cruel and unusual punishments for eternity.


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> One Christian sect in Africa is not of the scale of whole countries that administer the atrocities of Islam.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Somalia and so on and others like Turkey that are becoming increasingly hardline.
> 
> Islam is a global threat to human rights and freedom and needs to be marginalised in this country.




All religion should be marginalised. And they have in (most) democracies. Any society will be a pretty nasty place to live if it's under some religious rule, even Tibet. 

Imagine if Australia is governed by Christian laws, taken out directly from the good books. We'd still be burning witches, going on crusades, and don't think any independent thought. With secularism, only two of those are still true


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

notting said:


>





Jesus H Christ. Sam Harris.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> when have I ever suggested pandering to islam.




You do that by remaining silent when Islamic atrocities are pointed out.




> Yep, but again you (and most outraged westerners)  lazily lump all the Islamic religions together as if they are one religion, while being happy to treat the many different christian religions as independent religions.




You quote one little Christian sect in Africa and ignore all the Islamic countries I quoted that enforce Sharia law, that's pretty biased imo.


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> Just incase you want to sound knowledgeable at your next bbq outing, while discussing Star Wars:
> 
> this is a Darth Vader in electrical trade parlance
> :
> ...




That does look like him. 

btw, I'm thinking of putting a power point outdoor but where I know the rain won't get to it. Is it safe to go with the normal indoor one or shouldn't risk a life for $10? 

I mean those outdoor ones just cover the plug from water contact right? Or do they have moisture resistant and other safety feature I don't know about?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> That does look like him.
> 
> btw, I'm thinking of putting a power point outdoor but where I know the rain won't get to it. Is it safe to go with the normal indoor one or shouldn't risk a life for $10?
> 
> I mean those outdoor ones just cover the plug from water contact right? Or do they have moisture resistant and other safety feature I don't know about?




This is a religious thread unless you think your electrical prowess may take you into the afterlife.


----------



## notting (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You do that by remaining silent when Islamic atrocities are pointed out.




They're pretty hard to miss!


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> This is a religious thread unless you think your electrical prowess may take you into the afterlife.




Yea, alright, point taken. Should go buy that outdoor unit for $20!


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You do that by remaining silent when Islamic atrocities are pointed out.
> .



Nope, you simply miss the nuance in my arguments.

I am fine with calling out ISIS, I have even said I am fine with dropping Jdams on their positions, But I am not fine with carpet bombing all muslims.

I am fine with pointing out that believing religious nonsense has negative side effects, But I am not fine with people acting like its limited to Islam.

I am fine with pointing out muslim preachers promoting Hatred and violence, I am not fine with  people assuming all muslims believe those things.

Basically I am just saying the average muslim deserves the same respect given the average christian.


> You quote one little Christian sect in Africa and ignore all the Islamic countries I quoted that enforce Sharia law, that's pretty biased imo




You are constantly down playing it, it is not one christian sect, there are various levels of violence and immorality happening all over Africa at the hands of Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Basically I am just saying the average muslim deserves the same respect given the average christian.




So that means not criticising Islam ? What do you mean by 'respect' ?


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So that means not criticising Islam ? What do you mean by 'respect' ?




Criticise the Qur'an all you want.
Criticise all you want any preacher you find preaching violence or hatred.
Criticise all you want any person or group directly involved in immoral behaviour.
Criticise (even Kill) extremists groups taking violent actions.

But don't  treat all muslims as if they are doing the above. ( you wouldn't treat your local group of Lutherans poorly just because some catholics some where were doing something, you wouldn't try to ban churches or crosses)

I mean respect their constitutional rights to practice their religion, just as you respect a christians rights.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> But don't treat all muslims as if they are doing the above. ( you wouldn't treat your local group of Lutherans poorly just because some catholics some where were doing something, you would try to ban churches or crosses)




I don't treat individual Muslims any different to other people. I feel sorry for them being so intellectually and emotionally strangled. But perpetuating their religion only perpetuates their slavery, but even so I'm not saying mosques should be closed or people prevented from demonstrating their enslavement.

If Islam is abolished in this country because Muslims feel that they no longer have to abide by it for 'cultural' reasons, then that will be a great day in my view which I'm sure you would share in.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If Islam is abolished in this country because Muslims feel that they no longer have to abide by it for 'cultural' reasons, then that will be a great day in my view which I'm sure you would share in.




No religion will ever be abolished by force, religions thrive on perceived persecution, The likes of ISIS love that outraged westerners are abusing moderates and trying to make them feel second class.

It does nothing but create polarisation, it pushes the moderates further away from secular society and further into their shell, and that makes them easier to recruit.

If the moderate muslim doesn't feel safe sending their child to a secular school, then how is secularism ever going to grow among the moderates?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

> If the moderate muslim doesn't feel safe sending their child to a secular school, then how is secularism ever going to grow among the moderates?




I agree, but you are not reading me. I said I have nothing against individual Muslims only their religion.

We could do away with public funding of all religious schools for a start. There is no law that says religious schools have to receive taxpayers money.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 July 2017)

It appeared to me George Pell was stooped in the classic jesus christ crucifix bearing walk to court today. The possessed flocked from all parts with pictures, plaques and well wishes. Stripped of the cloth he is just another aged human.


----------



## Tisme (26 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> That does look like him.
> 
> btw, I'm thinking of putting a power point outdoor but where I know the rain won't get to it. Is it safe to go with the normal indoor one or shouldn't risk a life for $10?
> 
> I mean those outdoor ones just cover the plug from water contact right? Or do they have moisture resistant and other safety feature I don't know about?





They are IP rated for their position. If you are going to use a GPO outside you should probably look at putting a cover kit.


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> They are IP rated for their position. If you are going to use a GPO outside you should probably look at putting a cover kit.




Better play it safe then.

While we're on the subject, if a light bulb is burnt out, does it still eat up electricity when the switch is on?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> does it still eat up electricity when the switch is on?




No, it's an open circuit so no current flows (don't stick your finger in it though).


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't treat individual Muslims any different to other people. I feel sorry for them being so intellectually and emotionally strangled. But perpetuating their religion only perpetuates their slavery, but even so I'm not saying mosques should be closed or people prevented from demonstrating their enslavement.
> 
> If Islam is abolished in this country because Muslims feel that they no longer have to abide by it for 'cultural' reasons, then that will be a great day in my view which I'm sure you would share in.




I don't know Rumpole... I don't have any Muslim friends but I do have acquaintances and they seem to be fine believing their version of the Bible [get it, the Bible, Part III ...]

 That and you don't need Islam to intellectually or emotionally strangled a person. Any beliefs taken religiously will do. 

In some way, it would be good to believe in that great protector who will do you right if you turn up to Church/Mosque/Temple once a week, hand over a few bucks. Sometime I wish I could believe it... but then where's life won't be as fun though.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> That and you don't need Islam to intellectually or emotionally strangled a person. Any beliefs taken religiously will do.




Sure but these days the vast majority of Christian groups don't flog, stone, behead or blow people up for so called religious crimes.


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure but these days the vast majority of Christian groups don't flog, stone, behead or blow people up for so called religious crimes.




So are the vast majority of Muslims. 

There are some 1.5 Billion Muslims, how many of them are ISIS? Or Al Qaeda? Or just your typical terrorist?

Worth studying up the history of the Middle East. Particularly its modern history... say, since Britannia ruled the waved and had her boots all over the ME, South Asia.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Worth studying up the history of the Middle East. Particularly its modern history... say, since Britannia ruled the waved and had her boots all over the ME, South Asia.




 If they want to carry on wars of revenge they can do it somewhere else, not in this country.


----------



## luutzu (26 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If they want to carry on wars of revenge they can do it somewhere else, not in this country.




The vast majority of Muslims in Western countries do not fight any war of vengeance on their adopted land. And again, I'm not justifying or excusing any kind of violence... merely pointing out that war and peace is a much more complicated thing than good vs evil, Red light sabre for the bad guys while blue or green for the Jedi.


----------



## Tisme (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> *The vast majority of Muslims in Western countries do not fight any war of vengeance on their adopted land. *.




As someone looking inside from outside how do you know that? Travel north and you will find a country of people who are indoctrinated to hate whitey and burn christian churches to the ground, yet we provide aid and bogans are encouraged to vacation there; a country that will overtake us in GDP in a decade or so.

Travel to the middle east, spend a couple of months and observe the real feelings towards foreigners and women.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> As someone looking inside from outside how do you know that? Travel north and you will find a country of people who are indoctrinated to hate whitey and burn christian churches to the ground, yet we provide aid and bogans are encouraged to vacation there; a country that will overtake us in GDP in a decade or so.
> 
> Travel to the middle east, spend a couple of months and observe the real feelings towards foreigners and women.




I know because there are hundreds of thousands of Aussie Muslims but only a handful of terrorists. There are hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslim but only a few handful of terrorists; there are 1.5B Muslims in the world but only those countries being liberated have lots and lots of them. 

Not a lot of countries and people like foreigners. Can't really blame them when the Whiteys civilian kinda look like the Whiteys with boots and a Humvee doing what appear to be conquering their homeland. 

Again, we somehow have a different standard for Muslims when it comes to their feeling of outrage against those they see as causing their country's cluster fark. Imagine if Iran or China or any country flying their drones over our soil, taking out anyone they don't like... we won't feel too happy about it even if they try very, very hard to not kill our innocent Aussies. 

Anywhoooo


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure but these days the vast majority of Christian groups don't flog, stone, behead or blow people up for so called religious crimes.




No, the vast majority don't just like the vast majority of muslims don't, but some do, since you rule out any crimes that happen in Africa as being irrelevant, here is some from the USA.

20 members of a christian church beat a man until he thought he would die so they could remove the "Homosexual Demons" from him.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-gay-man-church-20170601-story.html

Christians beat Son to death, because he wanted to leave their church

http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/son-beaten-to-death-because-he-wanted-to-leave-the-church/

Christian parents beat child to death "For god"

https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/another-couple-found-guilty-murder-parenting-train-child/


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> No, the vast majority don't just like the vast majority of muslims don't, but some do, since you rule out any crimes that happen in Africa as being irrelevant, here is some from the USA.
> 
> 20 members of a christian church beat a man until he thought he would die so they could remove the "Homosexual Demons" from him.
> 
> ...




The things you have mentioned are being done by individuals or small sects and are punishable by law in the US or Australia or any other Western country.

Islam commits it's atrocities with the protection of the law, because it IS the law in those countries where these atrocities are carried out. I really don't know why you can't see the difference. You fought for the rights of individuals to be free of religious law, why do you keep bringing up relatively isolated incidents of illegal Christian atrocities (as evil as they are) and say nothing about legalised atrocities in Islamic countries ?


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The things you have mentioned are being done by individuals or small sects and are punishable by law in the US or Australia or any other Western country.





So are most of the things you would charge Islam with, e.g. ISIS is an outlawed group that is being fought by the surrounding muslim governments.

When I bring up an examples of christians bringing in laws which would have gays killed or Jailed, you thing things like "oh, thats just some country in Africa, the vast majority of muslims don't do that" So you don't count that as a strike against Christians, but if some muslim nation did the same thing you would count it.

When a christian terrorist commits a crime you don't count it, because "Most Christians don't act like that", but if it were a muslim you would count it.

When a christian sect beats a child to death, you don't count it because "Most christians don't act like that" but if it were some little muslim sect you would count it.

So you are counting your hits and ignoring your misses.

I think it all boils down to I am fine discussing the negative affects of religion, (all of them), you just want to single out one, I am fine with agreeing the vast majority of religious people just want to live in peace and are not extremists, you only want to admit that in regards to christians, not muslims.

You seem to think every muslim is a terrorist in waiting, they aren't they are just want the same things we do.

I mean remember the time a muslim man handed in $50,000 he found on the train?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ustralia's most honest man&itmt=1501130324244


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So you are counting your hits and ignoring your misses.




No that's what you are doing.

Counting a few little Christian individuals or sects and ignoring giant theocracies like Iran, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia indicates to me that you have things way out of proportion.

What are we going to do about them ?



> I think it all boils down to I am fine discussing the negative affects of religion, (all of them), you just want to single out one




Some Christian sects are repressive, Islam is repressive on national scales.



> You seem to think every muslim is a terrorist in waiting, they aren't they are just want the same things we do.




No I don't think that, as I said I don't hate individuals but if they continue to expound a repressive religion then they should be watched and prevented from preaching in schools or universities.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> No that's what you are doing.
> 
> Counting a few little Christian individuals or sects and ignoring giant theocracies like Iran, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia indicates to me that you have things way out of proportion.
> 
> ...




I thought Indonesia is a Democracy? 

If you let Christianity rule the political aspect of any country, it'll be just as repressive as Islam or any other religion would. The only reason most Western democracies are not religious is because the religion that was/is their cultural heritage got separated from making laws and collecting taxes. 

And yet we still have law against gay marriages, and until very recently, the oppression of women, denying them the rights to vote or work or be educated. 

We have a tendency to take the progress secular, non-religious, just normal people wanting to create a good and fairer society... take those as though it's what Christianity as a state is all about. 

As to the Middle East and democracy... they are not permitted to be democratic. Why would any imperial power want their colony to be democratic? Imagine the costs of having to put on a show like that.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> If you let Christianity rule the political aspect of any country, it'll be just as repressive as Islam or any other religion would.




That's right , which is why we don't let them.

We need to keep Islam in a box as well for the same reason.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's right , which is why we don't let them.
> 
> We need to keep Islam in a box as well for the same reason.




We should. 

But that's not the same as letting people the right to worship whoever or whatever they want. There's that individual freedom, anti-discrimination, religious freedom stuff we shouldn't throw away or only use to favour one religion or group over another.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> But that's not the same as letting people the right to worship whoever or whatever they want.




Who is denying them that right ?

As long as they do it in private and doesn't disrupt the rest of us I really don't care. But we should take religion of all kinds out of schools , universities and government.


----------



## Tisme (27 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So are most of the things you would charge Islam with, e.g. ISIS is an outlawed group that is being fought by the surrounding muslim governments.




Which ones, legitimately?


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Who is denying them that right ?
> 
> As long as they do it in private and doesn't disrupt the rest of us I really don't care. But we should take religion of all kinds out of schools , universities and government.




I thought you were suggesting denying them that?


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Again, we somehow have a different standard for Muslims when it comes to their feeling of outrage against those they see as causing their country's cluster fark. *Imagine if Iran or China or any country flying their drones over our soil, taking out anyone they don't like..*. we won't feel too happy about it even if they try very, very hard to not kill our innocent Aussies.
> Anywhoooo



That is absolute rubbish. Religious affiliation has nothing to do with it. Whoever wants to take on the Americans are up for a fight that will be extremely destructive and unless they got the firepower they will lose. No need to imagine because no Aussies are blowing up Iranian or Chinese buildings and people. Australia is a peaceful country, not warmongers. The people targeted in the M.E. have a serious hate issue with the Americans, their (arrogant) interference in the Middle East and East Asia and their military strength and success as a freer country. Millions (yes a lot) of civilians were killed in the great wars for no reason. War is ugly and a part of being human.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> Which ones, legitimately?




Syria? Seeing how one of the country ISIS wants to replace is written in the thing.


Wysiwyg said:


> That is absolute rubbish. Religious affiliation has nothing to do with it. Whoever wants to take on the Americans are up for a fight that will be extremely destructive and unless they got the firepower they will lose. No need to imagine because no Aussies are blowing up Iranian or Chinese buildings and people. Australia is a peaceful country, not warmongers. The people targeted in the M.E. have a serious hate issue with the Americans, their (arrogant) interference in the Middle East and East Asia and their military strength and success as a freer country. Millions (yes a lot) of civilians were killed in the great wars for no reason. War is ugly and a part of being human.




So if a foreign state were to fly their drones over our skies, we'd be fine with it? If they blow up some terrorist or people they deemed their enemy and it accidentally kill a few of our people, we're cool too?

It's accepted International Law that no country can preemptively start a war with another state unless they are in imminent danger. Imminent as in the enemy is blowing down the gates. 

Seriously, why would any country want to take on a nuclear-powered country with the biggest, baddest military in the history of the world? Anger issue? Suicidal? 

The people in the Middle East lives there. How are they "interfering" in their own countries? You know who doesn't live there? Non-Brown people. 

Australia is a peaceful country. I mean we kinda finished with that Terra Nullius phase and things have settled... but part of being someone else's vassal state is we got to come along to their wars, carry some water, help a bit. The price we have to pay for foreign protection. 

It's not nice to hear... we all want to believe we're just awesome. But there's beliefs and then there's reality. Don't worry about it though, we got good companies. Even The UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, France... they're also vassal states. 

To the victor goes colonies and vassal states. Guess who won WWII? 

And don't mistake those at the top echelon of power with the average joe. Their interests do not align, despite all the democracy and elections and stuff. 

To go fight to defend your own country's freedom and independence... that I heard. To do it for someone else's... that's never ever been done, by any country of any religion and race at any time in history. 

That's why I kinda like Trump... "just take the oil. Take the oil". He said it like it's the greatest idea never tried before. I swear he thought the US military is in the ME for Iraqi Freedom. 

And just to show that it's not a White or an American thing, just look at China and its colonisation of the seas around it. It's for "protection", security and freedom. Their air craft carriers and all the drills are obviously trained for humanitarian rescue efforts.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> ... Millions (yes a lot) of civilians were killed in the great wars for no reason. War is ugly and a part of being human.




Lots of things are part of being human, it doesn't mean we have to learn and live with all of it like it's some incurable illness.

People in poor and repressive countries can't do much about war and peace, of anything but take what's handed down on top. We live in a democracy, can speak our minds. The politicians technically work for us and represent our interests, right?

So read, think and decide the kind of stuff we want done in our name, using our blood and treasure. 

Wars where we send a handful of our troops thousands of miles away. Putting all that firepower against some semblance of a military... those kind of wars are not wars of necessities. 

War and state planners knows this. That's why they don't have the draft for these kind of wars. Send poor and desperate young "volunteers" nobody really cares about... When no one that matters asks any questions, game on.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> So read, think and decide the kind of stuff we want done in our name, using our blood and treasure.




I have no problem using our resources to help defeat ISIS. 

Have you ?


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I have no problem using our resources to help defeat ISIS.
> 
> Have you ?




First, ISIS weren't even born yet when the Coalition came to overthrow Saddam.

Second, ISIS is one of those problems that if we leave it alone, it'll go away. Or at least it won't be bothering us.

Since when did we suddenly decided to go fight all the bad guys in the world? Australia has no better use of its resources at home? Its soldiers should be put at risk for... for what? Oh yea, to "destabilised and ultimate defeat ISIL".

Get clean drinking water to your people, Obama (I know he left office). And Mal, there are underfunded schools, there are homeless Australians, there are Aussies doing it really tough.... and there's that giant up north that's waking up from its century of shame, about to push its weight around, conquering seas and corals as stepping stones... and no, it's not North Korea!

Learn from history. The French and British empire practically collapsed because they overstretched themselves and having to defend its outposts all day as the sun never set on its dominions. Got so stretch France became a province of the Third Reich, and Britain was a few Spit Fires away from collapse.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Second, ISIS is one of those problems that if we leave it alone, it'll go away. Or at least it won't be bothering us.




What gives you that idea ? 

These sort of things spread like cancer and they attack the West for simply being different to them, not to mention the poor locals that they slaughter and enslave.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Lots of things are part of being human, it doesn't mean we have to learn and live with all of it like it's some incurable illness.



That is why the goodies kill the baddies. If you lived in a totalitarian society .... well you wouldn't - be alive - today.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> What gives you that idea ?
> 
> These sort of things spread like cancer and they attack the West for simply being different to them, not to mention the poor locals that they slaughter and enslave.




Do you know why Osama and his terrorist mastermind order 911, murdering all those innocent people?

It's not Islam.

They committed act of terrorism against Soviet interests when the Soviets was in Afghanistan. Those acts of terrorism against the Soviet stop all of a sudden when the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Some might draw a conclusion from that kind of change in channelling Islamic anger.

Maybe we know all there is to know about Muslim hatred and their evil Islamic teachings, a simpler explanation for their anger and hatred might not because they hate our civilisation and values, just they don't like their cities being flatten, their family and relative being blown up whenever.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2017)

> Maybe we know all there is to know about Muslim hatred and their evil Islamic teachings, a simpler explanation for their anger and hatred might not because they hate our civilisation and values, just they don't like their cities being flatten, their family and relative being blown up whenever.




The main victims of Islamic terrorism are other Muslims. So maybe we should stay out of their internal squabbles, but if we do maybe the west will be attacked by other Muslim groups because we did nothing and the west is therefore evil and only looking after themselves and doesn't care about innocent Muslims being slaughtered.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Maybe we know all there is to know about Muslim hatred and their evil Islamic teachings, a simpler explanation for their anger and hatred might not because they hate our civilisation and values, just they don't like their cities being flatten, their family and relative being blown up whenever.



So the West is doing this?


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> That is why the goodies kill the baddies. If you lived in a totalitarian society .... well you wouldn't be alive today.




If I live in a totalitarian society, I'd keep my mouth shut and won't stop clapping. So I'd be alive and well.

There are no goodies and baddies when it comes to war and international conflicts. Who decides whose killing is "good", whose are "bad"? All killings are bad and terrible. 

In case you think the Coalition is over in the ME to liberate, bring democracy and build freedom and stuff... just take a look at the place. 

Look up Afghanistan president Karzai... He eventually tell the Americans that maybe they ought to do some rebuilding of the place, help the people a bit. Lucky for him it would look bad to remove him so it's decided that the power of Afghanistan shouldn't be in the hand of its president, but another titled prop.

Anyway, it's imperialism at work. If you want to believe it as anything else... I got a bridge you can take it off me for cheap.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> So the West is doing this?




Who's in that coalition of the willing? Some Arab states too, so it's not all Western countries.

Recall one of Chomsky's finer lines... the US and Pentagon/State planners don't care for Islam or Judaism in any of those countries in the M.E. Those people can be Martians for all they care. As long as they do what they're told, as long as the place provide that strategic and stupendous source of wealth oil and commodities provides, it will need a firm hand of freedom.

And just in case you think I'm anti-Western or whatever, I've said the same thing of Chinese, Soviets/Russian, Vietnamese aggression. 

China just sent a sizable number of its military personnel into its base in Djibouti. They don't call it military force of course. It's just a "logistic base", on the horn of Africa, ready to defend the looting of African resources against pirates and their canoes.

Best to know things for what they are I reckon.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The main victims of Islamic terrorism are other Muslims. So maybe we should stay out of their internal squabbles, but if we do maybe the west will be attacked by other Muslim groups because we did nothing and the west is therefore evil and only looking after themselves and doesn't care about innocent Muslims being slaughtered.




The West is not in the M.E to help out if that's what you're saying.

Like all countries and all states, they're there to defend their national interests. Just that that interests meet resistance and so will have to be pacified. 

Look at the case of Saddam... have you seen Rumsfeld shaking his hands? Providing him with weapons and WMD? Why? Because he's right next to Iran, he want to slaughter the Iranians, take its oil fields... and the US wouldn't mind a bastard slapping a bunch of Islamist rebel daring to overthrow the Shah to reclaim Iranian independence. 

That's not to say that Iran is a pleasant place to live or that its Clerics, or that ISIS etc. etc. are nice and stuff. Just things are way beyond good and evil. They're statecraft and all that national interests business that's way above our understanding. So we have to be lied to, like children being kept out of how the sausage is made.

Anyway, I read a fair bit of history. It's not that hard to understand when you stand back and not take sides.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)




----------



## Wysiwyg (28 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> If I live in a totalitarian society, I'd keep my mouth shut and won't stop clapping. So I'd be alive and well.



That is very funny. 



> There are no goodies and baddies when it comes to war and international conflicts. Who decides whose killing is "good", whose are "bad"? All killings are bad and terrible.



The baddies want to either kill or control their victims. If you live then kiss your life choices goodbye. Freedom v domination. That is why the goodies sacrifice their lives, for freedom. E.g. American Civil War.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> Who's in that coalition of the willing? Some Arab states too, so it's not all Western countries.



Finally, for tonight anyway, since my teens when I was a Midnight Oil fan,  I have strongly believed America should be a passive world power. However without their support during the great war the Nazis may well be controlling everything west of Russia.
The on going problem is in the mind man, look at Kim Jong's brain. Oh but that's because America is basing nearby isn't it. Mania, schizophrenia, self aggrandisement, paranoia, dominance/submission .... with our thoughts, we make the world.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I have no problem using our resources to help defeat ISIS.
> 
> Have you ?



So far its mainly muslim blood and resources that have been used the most to defeat ISIS.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The baddies want to either kill or control their victims.




Here is the thing though, in every conflict, both sides believe they are the good guys.

Both sides are willing to commit acts of extreme violence in the name of their cause, because they believe they are right.

Hence my distain for religion and the concept of believing things on faith, because with faith there is pretty much nothing you can't believe, and nothing can change your mind.

Religion warps peoples world views and makes them believe all sorts of things that are not real, this leads to actions which can be terrible.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So far its mainly muslim blood and resources that have been used the most to defeat ISIS.




That's the point I've being trying to make for some time.

Luutzu seems to thinks the war on ISIS is all about western jackboots tromping all over the poor citizens of Mosul in pursuit of oil or diamonds or whatever.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's the point I've being trying to make for some time.
> .





So you are willing to accept that muslims are both the main victims of islamic extremists, and also the main group trying to defeat islamic extremists, yet you still want to lump them all together in one group.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So you are willing to accept that muslims are both the main victims of islamic extremists, and also the main group trying to defeat islamic extremists, yet you still want to lump them all together in one group.




Have I ever said that all Muslims are terrorists ?

The fact that Saudi Arabia is trying to defeat ISIS does not detract in any way from the atrocities that Saudi Arabia itself commits in the name of Islam.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Have I ever said that all Muslims are terrorists ?




I am not saying you do call all muslims terrorists.

I am saying you lump them all into one group, and act like every one that calls themselves Muslim is subscribed to the same religion, while you don't do that with Christianity, you accept there are many versions of christianity a lot of which reject parts of their holy texts, but you fail to realise that its the same with Islam, not all muslims interpret their text in the way the saudis or ISIS do.



> The fact that Saudi Arabia is trying to defeat ISIS does not detract in any way from the atrocities that Saudi Arabia itself commits in the name of Islam.




But you want to treat the average hard working Aussie battlers Muslim, as if he has the same religion as the Saudi theocrats, when he probably doesn't.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's the point I've being trying to make for some time.
> 
> Luutzu seems to thinks the war on ISIS is all about western jackboots tromping all over the poor citizens of Mosul in pursuit of oil or diamonds or whatever.




Just yesterday, a headline say Trump's admin want American mining corps to have a meeting with the Afghanistan government on.... freedom? Democracy?

There's a gold or copper deposit estimated at some $US1 Trillion. I guess it's just accidental.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> That is very funny.
> 
> The baddies want to either kill or control their victims. If you live then kiss your life choices goodbye. Freedom v domination. That is why the goodies sacrifice their lives, for freedom. E.g. American Civil War.




Funny. And true. I'd probably do what some North Korean does at those public gathering... rub dirt in my eyes to bring on the waterworks to show devotion to the dear leader, and death to the capitalist pigs. 

The American Civil War weren't fought to free the slaves. 

Lincoln didn't sign that emancipation to free them either. It's to remove a major labour force in the South, further weakening the Southern economy, stir up some rebellion, force the confederates to at least use some of its resources to police a potential uprising from the slaves. 

And it and did "free" the slaves. 

Though if you look into what happen to most of the slaves after they were freed... new laws were instituted to make it very, very easy to imprison a black person. Like looking at a White lady funny, standing at some corner and be "up to no good", potentially.

That law lock up plenty of blacks. Those prisoners were then put back to work as chain gangs. 

And here they are much worst off than when they were slaves. Because a plantation owner would treat their slaves better than a prison... it's their assets, they got to feed and shelter it more properly. Leaving the beating and raping to a minimum.

With blacks as prisoners... well they're criminals. Fed and housed by the state at taxpayers expenses. The plantation owners can hire the chain gangs out. Then off they go back to another site once the season is over. 

See, there's the Disney version then there's real history.

Don't forget Segregation in the US didn't end until the 60s, some 100 years after that Civil War to free the slave.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> There's a gold or copper deposit estimated at some $US1 Trillion. I guess it's just accidental.




Years ago I heard the massive Copper deposit being mentioned as a key part of how the Afghanistan government was eventually going to be weaned off outside support and become self funding.

At the time 2020 was the year they aiming for to be able to end outside funding, at the time that seemed along way a off, now it's not that far off, but man that going to be a difficult mining operation from a security stand point, and transporting the out put over the boarder in china seems easy enough, but I would imagine it's going to be expensive providing the security.

You are a sitting duck on those mountain crossings.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> but you fail to realise that its the same with Islam, not all muslims interpret their text in the way the saudis or ISIS do.




The majority of Muslim countries implement violations of human rights so I don't want that sort of thing to happen here.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The majority of Muslim countries implement violations of human rights so I don't want that sort of thing to happen here.



So do the majority of christian theocratic nations, but that doesn't mean all christians believe those same things.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

What Christian theocratic nations ?


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> What Christian theocratic nations ?



The African ones you don't count for a start.

But, there is less true christian theocracies in existence now, But don't let that fool you, remember how they acted when they had all the power, the fact that there is not as many christian theocracies committing terrible deeds is not because something about christianity makes it better, it's because western society has become more secular.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The African ones you don't count for a start.
> 
> But, there is less true christian theocracies in existence now, But don't let that fool you, remember how they acted when they had all the power, the fact that there is not as many christian theocracies committing terrible deeds is not because something about christianity makes it better, it's because western society has become more secular.




But there are more Muslim theocracies now, and they are the problem today.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> But there are more Muslim theocracies now, and they are the problem today.



I would say the Christian Theocracies are still a problem, because the problem is religion in general.

but what's Islamic theocracies in the ME got to do with the garden variety Aussie battler muslims?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> but what's Islamic theocracies in the ME got to do with the garden variety Aussie battler muslims?




They follow the same ideology as Islamic theocracies it just happens to be tempered by secular law in Australia, but if the Muslim population gets too large they will try to introduce their own laws and turn us into a theocracy as some have tried already. We can't let that happen.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They follow the same ideology as Islamic theocracies




That's my whole point, they don't nessasarily have the same ideology.

Just as the Catholic Church has different ideologies to the prespitarians, and the prespitarians believe different stuff to to the Mormans, and the Mormans think the baptists are crazy, and the southern baptists think the northern baptists are going to hell, and the northern baptists disowned the westborrow baptist church, but the west borrow baptists think the johvah witnesses are going to hell while the pentacostals talk to snakes etc etc etc etc etc

There are over 10,000 different Christian religions and it's the same with Islam, perhaps even more so.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> That's my whole point, they don't nessasarily have the same ideology.




Well my point is that in Islamic theocracies they follow the same practises of religious punishment to different degrees.

Malaysia might seem 'moderate' but they still cane people for homosexuality, same in Indonesia,and of course in Saudi Arabia women can't even drive a car without being arrested.

Some areas of Britain want to introduce Sharia law, so if you give Muslims an inch they will take a mile. It's best to keep them in a box from the start and not let too many in.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> What Christian theocratic nations ?




United States of America.  

And I'm only half kidding.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> United States of America.
> 
> And I'm only half kidding.




Yes, I agree you are half right.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Years ago I heard the massive Copper deposit being mentioned as a key part of how the Afghanistan government was eventually going to be weaned off outside support and become self funding.
> 
> At the time 2020 was the year they aiming for to be able to end outside funding, at the time that seemed along way a off, now it's not that far off, but man that going to be a difficult mining operation from a security stand point, and transporting the out put over the boarder in china seems easy enough, but I would imagine it's going to be expensive providing the security.
> 
> You are a sitting duck on those mountain crossings.





I guess where there's money, there's a way. Pretty freaking sad actually. 

You reckon they will have the Afghan gov't agreeing to repay the US/Alliance for all military expenses from these copper and other minerals?

Saw a doco years ago, probably "Why we fight", where some historian said Bush Jr.'s admin had the Iraqi gov't agreeing to using its oil export fund to repay all the costs the US put into liberating them (the country, not the oil ). 

There's this part in the new Brad Pitt starred War Machine (on Netflix) where the average Afghani farmer could only grow two crops in their region - cotton or poppies. Cotton would compete against US cotton farmers so they have to either grow drugs or die starving. 

Yea, it's been a long time. I was practically a kid when 911 happened, then Bushes' march to wars. Was glued to the tv and news for a couple of weeks straight. Hard to believe it's almost 2 decades... and Mad Dog Mattis recently said the new 4000 additional troop deployment "is just the beginning".


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Finally, for tonight anyway, since my teens when I was a Midnight Oil fan,  I have strongly believed America should be a passive world power. However without their support during the great war the Nazis may well be controlling everything west of Russia.
> The on going problem is in the mind man, look at Kim Jong's brain. Oh but that's because America is basing nearby isn't it. Mania, schizophrenia, self aggrandisement, paranoia, dominance/submission .... with our thoughts, we make the world.




No, the US didn't go into WWII to save the world from Nazism. 

In fact, US planners had already drew up the world where the Nazis control all of Europe/UK and the Soviets. What changed their mind was England somehow managed to survived the initial attacks, got enough troops out of Dunkirk, and Hitler drawing the Soviets against him by attacking it.

Once it appear that England might be able to survive this thing, FDR increased their Lend/Lease programme to help the Brits survive and keep the Nazis occupied a bit. 

Some conspiracy theory has it that Churchill knew of Japan's planned attack on Pearl Harbour... and here I am just guessing that the US planners also knew because the cracked all Japan's codes a long long time ago... but let Pearl Harbour happen to draw the US into the war. Without that, the American people wouldn't have wanted to enter the war. 

It's this point that many warmongers points to to rationalise pre-emptive strikes. Problem with that theory is that not every warlord is a Hitler. I mean they might be just as nasty as the bastard was, but you need more than nastiness to conquer the world and slaughtering millions. 

That and look at the bastards the US props up or befriends with. So wars were never fought for genuinely altruistic reasons. They're rarely fought for defensive reason either. Most are fought for commercial and strategic interests. 

So on the world stage, the US went into WWII for dominance, not liberation of Europe or Asia. 

Take a smaller example of a similar war that I know of... Communist Vietnam marched over into Cambodia. That ended the Pol Pot regime. But the VC didn't do it to free or liberate the Cambodians as they claimed. They did it because most of the capital was emptied and the comrades thought to finish their ancestors' annexation of all of Cambodia instead of only half.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Here is the thing though, in every conflict, both sides believe they are the good guys.
> 
> Both sides are willing to commit acts of extreme violence in the name of their cause, because they believe they are right.



I don't think so. Defending oneself or country from an attacker is the alternative to lay down and get killed or owned. It is only natural to defend against attack as all animals do. Not to be right.


----------



## Value Collector (29 July 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't think so. Defending oneself or country from an attacker is the alternative to lay down and get killed or owned. It is only natural to defend against attack as all animals do. Not to be right.




Do the taliban believe they are the bad guys? Off course not, they believe they are the good guys, they set their Ieds and lay their ambushes believeing they are doing the right honorable thing.

Same with our boys, they conduct their raids and ambushes thinking they are doing the right honorable thing.

Which is correct, well you will get different answers from different people, depending on what that person believes.

The vast majority of people want to do the right thing, and be seen by their peers and community as good people.

However beliefs inform actions, and if your beliefs are flawed, your actions are flawed, religion and faith mess with your beliefs and therefore cause flawed actions. 

This can lead a person to believe the right thing to do is to fly a plane into a building, I prefer people to avoid faith based thinking, and instead base their world view on rational thought and reality.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2017)

Will Australia adopt this too?

http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-a...ces-comes-into-force-20171001?c=1506859586705


----------



## PZ99 (3 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Will Australia adopt this too?
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-a...ces-comes-into-force-20171001?c=1506859586705



_"The law also prohibits surgical masks, ski masks, clown make-up, as well as the balaclavas preferred by black block protestors"
_
So in other words virtually any form of face covering? Ski masks? In Austria?
That's a bit daft considering it'll rarely get above zero degrees there for the next few months.

How soon before we ban the cross because it can be used as a weapon? LOL


----------



## Tink (3 October 2017)

Which religion..

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4


----------



## Tisme (16 October 2017)

http://worldstory.co/archaeologists...is-may-prove-that-jesus-never-existed-photos/



> *Archaeologists Unearthed The First Pope: This May Prove That Jesus Never Existed (Photos)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (19 November 2017)

*Televangelist Jim Bakker threatens viewers’ grandkids with eternal damnation unless they buy his pancake mix*​Disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker stoked fears of presidential assassination while claiming that their grandchildren of his audience could face eternal damnation unless they call a 1-888 phone number and send him $60 (plus shipping) for a bucket of pancake mix.

“You know, if they kill our president, or they destroy him or whatever,” Bakker worried. “If we elect the other side, I mean they’ve come out against God.”

“I think maybe Trump is here to give us time to get ready, because all hell is going to break loose,” Bakker suggested.

“We’re not going to have the anti-Christ to show up to get the sign of the mark of our beast on our forehead, it won’t happen without hunger,” he claimed.

“Hunger is going to be the main thing. You don’t get it, most people don’t want to get it, but that’s why I’m so obsessed with you all being prepared,” he claimed.

Bakker resigned from his Assemblies of God ministries after facing accusations of drugging and raping an employee. He was convicted of fraud and imprisoned.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/te...al-damnation-unless-they-buy-his-pancake-mix/​


----------



## bellenuit (19 November 2017)

DB008 said:


> Disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker stoked fears of presidential assassination while claiming that their grandchildren of his audience could face eternal damnation unless they call a 1-888 phone number and send him $60 (plus shipping) for a bucket of pancake mix.




Much as I can't stand religious charlatans such as Bakker, I certainly did not here him say what is claimed in the above post. He did talk about hunger while at the same time showing an ad for his pancake mix, but that is not quite the same thing.


----------



## DB008 (20 November 2017)

*Victims 'told not to report' Jehovah's Witness child abuse*​Children who were sexually abused by Jehovah's Witnesses were allegedly told by the church not to report the crimes.

Victims from across the UK told the BBC they were routinely abused and that the religious organisation's own rules protected perpetrators.

One child abuse lawyer believes there could be thousands of victims across the country who have not come forward because of a "two witness" rule.

A statement from the church said it did not "shield" abusers.


*'Bring reproach on Jehovah'*​BBC Hereford and Worcester spoke to victims - men and women - from Birmingham, Cheltenham, Leicester, Worcestershire and Glasgow, one of whom waived her right to anonymity.

Louise Palmer, who now lives in Evesham, Worcestershire, was born into the organisation along with her brother Richard Davenport, who started raping her when she was four. He is serving a 10-year prison sentence for the abuse.

The 41-year-old, formerly of Halesowen, West Midlands, said when she told the church of the abuse she was told not to go to police.

"I asked [the organisation], 'what should I do? Do you report it to the police, [or] do I report it to the police'?

"And their words were that they strongly advised me not to go to the police because it would bring reproach on Jehovah."

Another woman, from Worcestershire, said she was sexually abused as a child by a friend of her brother.

She said she told her parents and elders in the congregation what happened and they advised her not to report it.

"It started off just being very cuddly and I was always a very tactile little girl, but it gradually got worse and worse.

"It escalated until... he started raping me."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42025255​


----------



## DB008 (28 February 2018)

*YouTuber who claimed veganism cured her cancer*
*dies of cancer*
​Mari Lopez credited veganism and a faith in God as the cure for her breast cancer last year, just months before her breast cancer returned.

In a video posted to YouTube last January titled 'Cancer Transformation FAQ - SEE IMPORTANT UPDATE,' Lopez credited veganism and a faith in God as the cure for her breast cancer, adding, "The lemon-ginger blast helped me remove inflammation from my body." Additionally, Lopez went on a 90-day juice cleanse, which lead to "food withdrawals."

https://tinyurl.com/yameunpr​


----------



## Tink (28 February 2018)

Vegan is The Greens

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/the-australian-greens-party.20238/page-62


http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

DB008 said:


> *YouTuber who claimed veganism cured her cancer*
> *dies of cancer*
> ​Mari Lopez credited veganism and a faith in God as the cure for her breast cancer last year, just months before her breast cancer returned.
> 
> ...




I have fears for Olivia Newton John who apparently has married a herbal remedy spruiker.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...n/news-story/fa7e66ff84114156ce485f094b3a3164


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

A vegan diet can reduce your risk of developing cancer, But once you have cancer, you need to forget about the herbal remedies and go to the real doctors.


----------



## Tisme (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I have fears for Olivia Newton John who apparently has married a herbal remedy spruiker.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...n/news-story/fa7e66ff84114156ce485f094b3a3164





She is having photon radiation though


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> A vegan diet can reduce your risk of developing cancer, But once you have cancer, you need to forget about the herbal remedies and go to the real doctors.



Agree once the damage is done.  A neighbour off the fags 20 years and died of lung cancer. 

Stopped smoking some years back on a method called "The Easy Way" The author Allan Carr off them for years died the same way.  So one steps with trepidation, a vegan now myself have discovered that meat and alcohol are both regarded as cancer agents.

Anyway too many of us on this planet so just party and enjoy each day.

Back to topic folks.  The further I go the more I see religion as a man made tool to chain the sheeple up.


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

explod said:


> Agree once the damage is done.  A neighbour off the fags 20 years and died of lung cancer.




Unfortunately air pollution in Australian cities causes lung cancer, So dropping smoking greatly reduces your risk, But it doesn't reduce it to zero.



> a vegan now myself have discovered that meat and alcohol are both regarded as cancer agents.




I am a pescatarian, No Diary, Eggs or land Based animal products, I basically have a vegan diet, But I eat seafood food 2 or 3 times a week.

I also eat honey, I think it is silly so many vegans are against honey when they are generally trying to reduce their impact on animals and beekeeping for honey production is probably the lowest impact way we have of producing food.

eg, we already need to keep bees for pollination, so using the honey for food just increases the productivity output of the farms, secondly we can put bee hives in undisturbed bushland and get food from it, there is no other way to produce food with out clearing the bush land.
.



> Back to topic folks.  The further I go the more I see religion as a man made tool to chain the sheeple up.




Yep, if it were true they would have better evidence.


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Unfortunately air pollution in Australian cities causes lung cancer, So dropping smoking greatly reduces your risk, But it doesn't reduce it to zero.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Chained down with veils over the head, indoctrination from childhood and ordered in  their Koran to obey their man.

Evidence is clouded with dreamland belief.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am a pescatarian,




Your religious views are no concern of mine. 

What's wrong with dairy and eggs ?


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What's wrong with dairy and eggs ?




both are sourced from animals that have a high level of consiousness and self awareness, so I don't want to support an industry that kills them, and puts them under stress when there is plant based alternatives that I can use with lower impacts to the environment and animals.

Even best practice animal slaughter is far from perfect, so I would prefer to avoid using mammals and even birds as a feedstock.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> both are sourced from animals that have a high level of consiousness and self awareness, so I don't want to support an industry that kills them, and puts them under stress when there is plant based alternatives that I can use with lower impacts to the environment and animals.
> 
> Even best practice animal slaughter is far from perfect, so I would prefer to avoid using mammals and even birds as a feedstock.




I admire your principled stand on this, but I doubt if milking cows puts them under a lot of stress.


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I admire your principled stand on this, but I doubt if milking cows puts them under a lot of stress.



As a kid I milked cows by hand on our farm.  The cows constantly mooed to their calves nearby who also were calling back to their Mothers.  We put the milk through a separator and fed the calves with the skim milk, the cream was collected for the butter factory.  And I related to the feelings of those animals and the haunting of it is what in later life turned me initially into a Greenie.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

explod said:


> As a kid I milked cows by hand on our farm.  The cows constantly mooed to their calves nearby who also were calling back to their Mothers.  We put the milk through a separator and fed the calves with the skim milk, the cream was collected for the butter factory.  And I related to the feelings of those animals and the haunting of it is what in later life turned me initially into a Greenie.




So you don't eat dairy food either ?


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you don't eat dairy food either ?



No, total vegan and my health has improved enormously since.

Of course I'm just a pup at 72


----------



## wayneL (28 February 2018)

explod said:


> No, total vegan and my health has improved enormously since.
> 
> Of course I'm just a pup at 72



Im pesco,  like VC.  Tried to be a vegan for the longest time but with my job I just wasn't able to cope without some sort of higher protein source


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

wayneL said:


> Im pesco,  like VC.  Tried to be a vegan for the longest time but with my job I just wasn't able to cope without some sort of higher protein source




Now we are having true confessions  I have tried to eliminate red meat from my diet, eating mainly chicken and fish, but still eat dairy and eggs, although I use low fat cheese and milk.


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I admire your principled stand on this, but I doubt if milking cows puts them under a lot of stress.




Firstly all the males get killed, because you can’t milk the boys.

Secondly, the females are impregnated to kick start the milk cycle then get their babies removed which is stressful for mother and calf.

Thirdly, once the old girl slows down on her milk production she is killed.



These calves are removed from their mother and shot, so that is humans can have the milk their mothers made for them.


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

wayneL said:


> Im pesco,  like VC.  Tried to be a vegan for the longest time but with my job I just wasn't able to cope without some sort of higher protein source




Protein actually comes from plants, the biggest and strongest animals on land are vegan eg gorilla, elephant, rhino etc

What you may have been missing was vitamin B12 and iron, a vitamin supplement can fix that, or some fish


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

Many top athletes, particularly short distance runners and weight lifters are vegans.  It does take a bit of research and sorting but a focus towards nuts and beans is a good start.  Animals in the field of course love grain, hence flour and rice.  I've also moved away from the strict three meals a day time lines and graze throughout the day. Often wake around 3am and have a herbal tea and dry biscuit.  In antiquity (before lights) when we went to bed with the sun the nights were long so its in our makeup for this rise for awhile in the night.


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly all the males get killed, because you can’t milk the boys.
> 
> Secondly, the females are impregnated to kick start the milk cycle then get their babies removed which is stressful for mother and calf.
> 
> ...






Many old milkers are sent to the USA where they find themselves in fast food chain burgers.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Many old milkers are sent to the USA where they find themselves in fast food chain burgers.




Yeah as I said they are killed, just like beef cattle, so the dairy industry isn’t lower harm than he meat industry, it’s actually worse, because it had the same level of killing, but it has extra stress on the animals.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

Also the egg industry is no better, the males are killed often by being feed into a grinder while they are still alive.

And the females live their live often in poor conditions until they slow down and are slaughtered.

This video shows how the males are roughly sorted and then sent to the grinder alive.


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah as I said they are killed, just like beef cattle, so the dairy industry isn’t lower harm than he meat industry, it’s actually worse, because it had the same level of killing, but it has extra stress on the animals.




The young males are still castrated into steers rather than killed. One of the old fellas (79) I socialise with keeps 800 head and is till handy with his knife.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> The young males are still castrated into steers rather than killed. One of the old fellas (79) I socialise with keeps 800 head and is till handy with his knife.




Thats beef cattle, not dairy, male dairy calves do not grow fast enough or large enough to be worth while to be raised for meat, So as it shows in the video I posted, they are shot.

But, in the case of steers, I still don't think castrating an animal, then eventually sending it off to slaughter is a moral way of treating it, especially when its also bad for the environment and we have alternatives.


Take a look at how these "Waste products" are treated, they deserve better.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 March 2018)

This debate is getting off topic.

I'll start another one dealing with ethical foods.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> This debate is getting off topic.
> 
> I'll start another one dealing with ethical foods.




Last post Here,

But can you see why I see Milk and eggs as being just as bad, if not worse than eating the meat?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Last post Here,
> 
> But can you see why I see Milk and eggs as being just as bad, if not worse than eating the meat?




What you have brought out here has got me thinking, I'll admit that. 

Most of my dietary decisions concern my own health needs but certainly there is a lot of room for improvement in the food processing industry in regards to animal welfare.


----------



## wayneL (1 March 2018)

explod said:


> Many top athletes, particularly short distance runners and weight lifters are vegans.  It does take a bit of research and sorting but a focus towards nuts and beans is a good start.  Animals in the field of course love grain, hence flour and rice.  I've also moved away from the strict three meals a day time lines and graze throughout the day. Often wake around 3am and have a herbal tea and dry biscuit.  In antiquity (before lights) when we went to bed with the sun the nights were long so its in our makeup for this rise for awhile in the night.



Can you name these athletes?


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Can you name these athletes?




Can we caveat that to include only those raised from birth as vegan?


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Can you name these athletes?



There is a new documentary about vegan athletes called "the game changers"


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There is a new documentary about vegan athletes called "the game changers"





So they are relying on the diet from before as the foundation for their change? 

Do vegans have to use processed supplements and fortified foods to augment their diet?


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> So they are relying on the diet from before as the foundation for their change?
> 
> Do vegans have to use processed supplements and fortified foods to augment their diet?




No go over and watch that video of the vegan weight lifters in the other thread, one of them has been meat free since being a child.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Do vegans have to use processed supplements and fortified foods to augment their diet?




Actually the average meat eater is more deficient that the average vegan.

the only vitamin not available to vegans is B12, but that can be gained through fortified food or a supplement.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 March 2018)

Gentlemen, this thread is about religion, there is another for veganism et al.


----------



## bellenuit (15 May 2018)

*Is This an Angel? Pastor, Michigan Neighbors Say 'Yes'*

*https://www.christianpost.com/amp/i...ors-say-yes-223985/?__twitter_impression=true*

_"It was really clear to me the minute I looked at the photo, I just kind of freaked out a bit," Moes said. "I went like 'Whoa! That's an angel!' And I texted him back, 'That's an angel.' There wasn't any doubt in my mind that we were looking at something supernatural."

...

"We have studied the photo from all possibilities. This 'Being' is behind the truck with translucent wings._
_
_

I suppose all possibilities does not include it being an out-of-focus moth attracted by the lights of the security camera.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 May 2018)

bellenuit said:


> *Is This an Angel? Pastor, Michigan Neighbors Say 'Yes'*




Who knows. Photoshop can do anything to photos these days.


----------



## DB008 (10 June 2018)

*B.C. couple loses child custody after stuffed lion purportedly transmitting the word of God acted as their lawyer*​
A B.C. couple whose religious views are too extreme even for churches and pastors and put them at odds with family, doctors, social workers and anyone else trying to help them with their daughter, have lost their battle for custody of her.

The unusual child custody trial featured the couple speaking in tongues to a stuffed animal they said transmitted the word of God directly to them and refusing legal assistance because Jesus Christ — through the stuffed lion — was their lawyer, witness and judge.

In November, when the girl was one, the Provincial Court of British Columbia formally declared she was in need of protection and placed her in provincial custody, a decision the parents appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court. The parents claimed the judge violated their Charter rights, discriminated against them as Christians and made procedural errors.

Both parents were raised in Christian homes, she in Ontario and he in B.C., but strayed from their roots until reconnecting with their beliefs as adults. They met in 2014 and shared a mutual interest in their own emerging view of the Christian faith and were privately married a year later, court heard.


http://vancouversun.com/news/canada...wyer/wcm/ddcd15c1-0661-44f3-b0f4-debeeb530ddb​


----------



## DB008 (16 June 2018)

I think this Tweet sums it up....






​


----------



## grah33 (17 June 2018)

DB008 said:


> I think this Tweet sums it up....
> 
> View attachment 87830​
> 
> ​




Actually the stuff on giants doesn't come across like  a fairy-tale.  It's also in Jewish tradition and archaeology. And there's incredible structures around the planet that were supposed to have been built by them, something like that anyway.  They were around the land of of Israel before the Israelite came 1000s of years ago. Devastating in war...


----------



## DB008 (2 July 2018)

*Ultra-Orthodox men again hold up plane, refusing to sit beside women*​*Captain of Austrian Airlines flight to Vienna forced to intervene, asks women to move; plane arrives over an hour late; MK Lapid calls to remove such passengers immediately*

A week after an El Al flight was delayed by ultra-Orthodox men’s refusal to sit beside women, another flight ran behind schedule Friday morning under similar circumstances.

The Austrian Airlines plane left Ben Gurion Airport 40 minutes late due to the refusal of 26 ultra-Orthodox men to be seated by women, passengers said. The flight eventually arrived in Vienna over an hour behind schedule, as its late arrival forced it to wait for landing clearance in the busy morning skies.

*The plane’s late arrival reportedly caused multiple passengers to miss their connections in Vienna.*


More on link below....

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ultra-orthodox-men-again-hold-up-plane-refusing-to-sit-beside-women/​

If these idiots made me miss my connection, l'd have steam coming out of my ears. Muppets!


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Gentlemen, this thread is about religion, there is another for veganism et al.




Actually the more I talk to people the more I have realised the "Meat eating cult" is very much a religion, With their own Myths and Comforting stories, and there are different branches within the religion, with different cultures, They all find different meats edible while finding others disgusting.

The reasoning about which meats are considered moral to eat and which aren't vary depending which meat eating culture you were raised in.

Meat eating religion explained.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Actually the more I talk to people the more I have realised the "Meat eating cult" is very much a religion, With their own Myths and Comforting stories, and there are different branches within the religion, with different cultures, They all find different meats edible while finding others disgusting.
> 
> The reasoning about which meats are considered moral to eat and which aren't vary depending which meat eating culture you were raised in.
> 
> Meat eating religion explained.





Interesting.


----------



## notting (1 August 2018)




----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

notting said:


>





I'm not an advocate of organised religion myself and I've certainly had some fun over the years mocking skyfairies, skylords and wotnot, but what I have noticed about anti theists is that they all tend to carry a grudge about the persistence of religions.

Tink comes in for a fair amount of glib cheap shots from the usual suspects and I find that disengenous because if becoming an atheist means getting pleasure from trying to belittle good people's spirituality it's hardly a goal to aspire to. Of course if the religion is a bad one then they followers need their heads read


----------



## Darc Knight (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm not an advocate of organised religion myself and I've certainly had some fun over the years mocking skyfairies, skylords and wotnot, but what I have noticed about anti theists is that they all tend to carry a grudge about the persistence of religions.
> 
> Tink comes in for a fair amount of glib cheap shots from the usual suspects and I find that disengenous because if becoming an atheist means getting pleasure from trying to belittle good people's spirituality it's hardly a goal to aspire to. Of course if the religion is a bad one then they followers need their heads read




Mate, can you stick to the Trump threads please. Your posts in there are bringing me no end of laughter.


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Mate, can you stick to the Trump threads please. Your posts in there are bringing me no end of laughter.




Now you're jumping threads!  You an apprentice of bas or something? I bet your heart is racing at being owned and trying to wriggle out of it by feeble attempts at ridicule

I honestly thought you were smarter than this


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Now you're jumping threads!  You an apprentice of bas or something? I bet your heart is racing at being owned and trying to wriggle out of it by feeble attempts at ridicule
> 
> I honestly thought you were smarter than this




Making friends everywhere you go ey McGee.


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Making friends everywhere you go ey McGee.




Yep. I'm like an itch people like to scratch. 

But I still like you Lu, nothing will change my love for you and you oft misunderstood humour.


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Yep. I'm like an itch people like to scratch.
> 
> But I still like you Lu, nothing will change my love for you and you oft misunderstood humour.




Not sure if that's a compliment anymore 

I'll just excuse you as having friends in the Southern united states and that... affects people. That or you have a very perverse sense of humour, kinda like myself, just less understood.


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Not sure if that's a compliment anymore
> 
> I'll just excuse you as having friends in the Southern united states and that... affects people. That or you have a very perverse sense of humour, kinda like myself, just less understood.




We're not here to be popular Lu, we here to be right (in all things).


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> We're not here to be popular Lu, we here to be right (in all things).




The sacrifices we must make in the pursuit of truth, justice and The Way. That or just trolling.


----------



## DB008 (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Tink comes in for a fair amount of glib cheap shots from the usual suspects and I find that disengenous because if becoming an atheist means getting pleasure from trying to belittle good people's spirituality it's hardly a goal to aspire to. Of course if the religion is a bad one then they followers need their heads read




I am guilty of this.

My apologises to Tink.


----------



## Tink (2 August 2018)

Thanks, Tisme and DB.

We have all been contributing to what we see of our own country.

I have said about our Christian heritage, and how our country was established.

Faith, Family, Truth and Freedom.

----

As Jordan Peterson says SPEAK.



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/jordan-peterson.33786/page-5


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2018)

Bishops still required by the Vatican to cover up sexual abuse of children.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...c-bishops-cover-up-abuse-expert-says/10057532


----------



## luutzu (2 August 2018)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Tisme and DB.
> 
> We have all been contributing to what we see of our own country.
> 
> ...





Just curious though, how was Australia established and what was Christian about it?

Unless you believe, as the Viets do, that your country was established by, say, a Dragon King and a beautiful Phoenix angel. Laid 100 eggs, each with a different surname (for some reason) who married each other... but then that'd reduced the surnames to 50, not 100... anyway... Unless all the surnames and races were miraculously birthed and love each other, as siblings do... you might not want to be too proud of the way Australia was "discovered" and settled.

I don't read the Bible but from the few quotes of Jesus I've heard over the years... the good man might not concur. 

Not saying the current generation should be blamed and such. Just you know... might not be cool with Jesus to point to what happened and say Hell yea! That was awesome. 

I mean, there are plenty of things you can point to and be proud of. Anyway...


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Just curious though, how was Australia established and what was Christian about it?




Sending convicts half way around the world away from their families was hardly Christian I suppose.

And the good Christian free men who took those convicts as slaves and lashed them to within an inch of their lives or more were I'm sure doing the word of the Lord.


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Sending convicts half way around the world away from their families was hardly Christian I suppose.
> 
> And the good Christian free men who took those convicts as slaves and lashed them to within an inch of their lives or more were I'm sure doing the word of the Lord.




preparing them for perdition and sending a message to those who would falter not to do so. From my travels it was the French who were the worst offenders of imperial punishment ... they still have the multistory stacked cages in New Orleans as landmarks and Vietnam has a view cell blocks on show.


----------



## DB008 (4 August 2018)

Why *wouldn't* you do the right thing...??? Crazy


*Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to hand over evidence*
*in sexual abuse case*​
Religious sect Jehovah’s Witnesses has refused to hand over documents to the public prosecutor in which an ex-member admits the abuse of a child, also member of the sect at the time, RTL Nieuws reports.

Samet G, now 31, was a minor himself when the abuse of his 4 year-old niece started. The abuse continued until she was 14 and was reported to the police in 2015 when the girl and her mother left the Christian sect.

A court in Breda last week sentenced G to a 9 months suspended sentence and a fine for the abuse but did not have access to the confession, which dates from 2011. G is appealing against his conviction. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own internal committees which sit in judgement in cases of sexual abuse and do not involve the police. A record of these proceedings is made and kept.

According to RTL, the public prosecutor’s request for a copy of the confession was refused on the grounds that it would compromise the man’s privacy and that, by law, clergymen, or in this case the elders, cannot be forced to reveal what has been told to them in confidence.

Although there is doubt among lawyers that the Jehovah’s Witnesses elders can claim this right, the public prosecutor accepted the refusal, RTL writes.

The sect also refuses to cooperate in an independent inquiry and, according to minister for legal protection Sander Dekker, it cannot be forced to do so.

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/...e-to-hand-over-evidence-in-sexual-abuse-case/​


----------



## Lantern (4 August 2018)

^ Should be jailed as an accessory to the crime.


----------



## bellenuit (26 August 2018)

Ex-Nuncio Accuses Pope Francis of Failing to Act on McCarrick’s Abuse

http://m.ncregister.com/57855/d#.W4JDYC1L2F0


----------



## grah33 (3 September 2018)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Tisme and DB.
> 
> We have all been contributing to what we see of our own country.
> 
> ...





I noticed you like Augustine from one of the other threads... After I came across some of his writings (City of God, Biblical commentaries), I thought he was quite a special person. Here is a little excerpt from one of his books. He recounts a great miracle in the time of the Roman persecution. A blind man is cured, which changes the dynamic for everyone(4th century, exhilarating stuff):

“
Not long had the Church of Milan begun to use this kind of consolation and exhortation, the brethren zealously joining with harmony of voice and hearts. For it was a year, or not much more, that Justina, mother to the Emperor Valentinian, a child, persecuted Thy servant Ambrose, in favour of her heresy, to which she was seduced by the Arians. The devout people kept watch in the Church, ready to die with their Bishop Thy servant. There my mother Thy handmaid, bearing a chief part of those anxieties and watchings, lived for prayer. We, yet unwarmed by the heat of Thy Spirit, still were stirred up by the sight of the amazed and disquieted city. Then it was first instituted that after the manner of the Eastern Churches, Hymns and Psalms should be sung, lest the people should wax faint through the tediousness of sorrow: and from that day to this the custom is retained, divers (yea, almost all) Thy congregations, throughout other parts of the world following herein.

Then didst Thou by a vision discover to Thy forenamed Bishop (Ambrose) where the bodies of Gervasius and Protasius the martyrs lay hid (whom Thou hadst in Thy secret treasury stored uncorrupted so many years), whence Thou mightest seasonably produce them to repress the fury of a woman, but an Empress. For when they were discovered and dug up, and with due honour translated to the Ambrosian Basilica, not only they who were vexed with unclean spirits (the devils confessing themselves) were cured, but a certain man who had for many years been blind, a citizen, and well known to the city, asking and hearing the reason of the people's confused joy, sprang forth desiring his guide to lead him thither. Led thither, he begged to be allowed to touch with his handkerchief the bier of Thy saints, whose death is precious in Thy sight. Which when he had done, and put to his eyes, they were forthwith opened. Thence did the fame spread, thence Thy praises glowed, shone; thence the mind of that enemy, though not turned to the soundness of believing, was yet turned back from her fury of persecuting. Thanks to Thee, O my God. Whence and whither hast Thou thus led my remembrance, that I should confess these things also unto Thee? which great though they be, I had passed by in forgetfulness. And yet then, when the odour of Thy ointments was so fragrant, did we not run after Thee. Therefore did I more weep among the singing of Thy Hymns, formerly sighing after Thee, and at length breathing in Thee, as far as the breath may enter into this our house of grass.
“


----------



## DB008 (2 October 2018)

Pastor claims that you are robbing God if you are not donating 10%, even if you are in debt

​


----------



## Tisme (4 October 2018)

DB008 said:


> Pastor claims that you are robbing God if you are not donating 10%, even if you are in debt
> 
> ​





get out of debt by giving God 10% of 3/5th of FA ... anyone got His  PO Box or BSB numbers?


----------



## DB008 (10 January 2019)

*Pastor Who Praised Pulse Nightclub Gunman Resigns After Allegedly Paying for Sex*​A Baptist minister in Texas who came to national attention in 2016 when he praised the gunman who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., resigned from his ministry last week after allegedly using drugs, gambling and paying for sex with prostitutes.

Donnie Romero, who founded the Stedfast Baptist Church in Fort Worth in 2014, told congregants at a church meeting on Jan. 2 that he had not “been ruling my house well.”

“I have been a terrible husband and father,” Mr. Romero said, according to video of the meeting that was posted to the church’s official YouTube channel. “This is the best decision — for my family and this church — to make.”

Mr. Romero did not elaborate on his alleged impropriety at that meeting, which was largely run by another pastor, Steven L. Anderson. Mr. Anderson told congregants that “the lord says” Mr. Romero was “disqualified” to lead them.​https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/us/donnie-romero-orlando-shooting-prostitutes.html​


----------



## explod (10 January 2019)

Tisme said:


> get out of debt by giving God 10% of 3/5th of FA ... anyone got His  PO Box or BSB numbers?



They don't pay rates on their properties or any taxes, they take from the poor and preach lies whilst preaching "Suffer the little children and bring them unto me".


----------



## DB008 (28 March 2019)

Pot.Kettle.Black.

*‘Gay conversion therapist’ comes out: Exclusive interview*​_He was a leader of the controversial 'gay conversion therapy' movement in the United States - so it came as a shock when David Matheson publicly came out as gay._

_For decades, Mr Matheson - a Mormon - ran retreats offering therapy to suppress or manage sexuality, - claiming to help people live as straight men rather than gay._

_In an exclusive interview [...] he's now conceded that the practice, which almost 700,000 Americans have undergone, is not only built on a harmful philosophy but should be banned._​

​



...and another one...


https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/unerased-smid​


----------



## lindsayf (28 March 2019)

Hypocrisy....seems to be a central tenet of any religion


----------



## Tink (28 March 2019)




----------



## DB008 (20 April 2019)

*'Church' to offer 'miracle cure' despite FDA warnings against drinking bleach*​Group to hold ‘effective alternative healing’ event in Washington state in which they peddle a ‘sacrament’ known to be industrial cleaner

A group calling itself Genesis II Church of Health and Healing plans to convene at a hotel resort in Washington state on Saturday to promote a “miracle cure” that claims to cure 95% of all diseases in the world by making adults and children, including infants, drink industrial bleach.

The group is inviting members of the public through Facebook to attend what they call their “effective alternative healing” at the Icicle Village Resort in Leavenworth on Saturday morning. The organizer of the event, Tom Merry, has publicized the event on his personal Facebook page by telling people that learning how to consume the bleach “could save your life, or the life of a loved one sent home to die”.

The “church” is asking attendants of the meeting to “donate” $450 each, or $800 per couple, in exchange for receiving membership to the organization as well as packages of the bleach, which they call “sacraments”. The chemical is referred to as MMS, or “miracle mineral solution or supplement”, and participants are promised they will acquire “the knowledge to help heal many people of this world’s terrible diseases”.

In fact, MMS consists of chlorine dioxide, a powerful bleach that is used both on textiles and in the industrial treatment of water. It has been banned in several countries around the world for use as a medical treatment.

In the US, the chemical cannot be sold for human consumption. In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put out a public warning after it was notified of many injuries to consumers from drinking the fluid, with symptoms that included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, severe dehydration and one person who had a life-threatening reaction.

The FDA issued the blunt advice: “Consumers who have MMS should stop using it immediately and throw it away.”

A spokesman for the FDA told the Guardian that the agency could not comment on possible civil or criminal law enforcement actions, but added: “The FDA continues to advise consumers about the dangers of Miracle Mineral Solution and the agency has issued warnings to consumers over the past decade.”

The headline attraction of Saturday’s event in Leavenworth is Mark Grenon, a self-appointed “bishop” of the Genesis II Church. He is author of a book titled Imagine A World Without Dis-Ease: Is It Possible?

In a video posted on the “church’s” website, Grenon says that the “sacramental protocols” sold by the group can eliminate 95% of the world’s diseases, including malaria, ebola, dengue fever, all types of cancer, diabetes, autism, HIV and multiple sclerosis. It sells 4oz bottles of sodium chlorite as “sacramental cleansing water” for $15, giving instructions on how to mix it with citric acid to make chlorine dioxide.​

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ent-despite-fda-warnings-against-miracle-cure​


----------



## qldfrog (21 April 2019)

Just a note on the previous crook selling chlorine as cure all.
I think a problem media has is continuous use of sensational headlines.
The powerful industrial cleaning mentioned is just that if used at strong concentration.
So Joe Doe goes to the meeting, see people drinking the solution and NOT getting ill
Then she heard about the warnings, read the guardian and says: it is BS...
I do not advocate gulping chlorine that is for sure, but every time you go to the public swimming pool, or take water sanitation tablets in a jungle trip, you actually do that.
The technical incompetence and know it all of journalists chasing sensational headlines is IMHO a key factor in the "cretinisation" of our world, as seen in global warming debate, russiangate or election "debate" 
And Assange is sent to the gaol..
But 8n case it is needed: a warning do not drink bleach


----------



## rederob (21 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I think a problem media has is continuous use of sensational headlines.



And that would be quite different to your regular postings at several threads that are consistently devoid of facts.


qldfrog said:


> Then she heard about the warnings, read the guardian and says: it is BS...



If people have to read the Guardian to work out it's BS and a scam, then they should be paying a heck of a lot more for this cure-all.


qldfrog said:


> I do not advocate gulping chlorine that is for sure, but every time you go to the public swimming pool, or take water sanitation tablets in a jungle trip, you actually do that.



I can tell from your regular posting that the concept of *false equivalence* is one you are clueless about.


qldfrog said:


> The technical incompetence and know it all of journalists chasing sensational headlines is IMHO a key factor in the "cretinisation" of our world, as seen in global warming debate, russiangate or election "debate"



Whereas you are a prime candidate for the *pot kettling award*.
Thanks for brightening my day.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 April 2019)

Need one say more ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...s:-officials-confirm-prior-knowledge/11034760


----------



## So_Cynical (22 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Need one say more ?
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...s:-officials-confirm-prior-knowledge/11034760




Warned 10 days before and did nothing, i imagine because nothing has ever happened before they didn't take it seriously 
enough, Christians are a minority as well so not much of a political price to pay for getting it so wrong.


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2019)

So_Cynical said:


> Warned 10 days before and did nothing, i imagine because nothing has ever happened before they didn't take it seriously
> enough, Christians are a minority as well so not much of a political price to pay for getting it so wrong.



Buddhist hardliners will no doubt be pissed. This will affect tourism. 
Rumors going around that muslims were also forcing conversions prior. 
Good luck to the minorities now.


----------



## qldfrog (22 April 2019)

Noone i mentioning the green plague yet, but the targets being what they are, i would think islamists will be once again the perpetrators.
Or a short circuit like in notre dame, before even the investigator can even access the site?
The war is on but one side is unaware


----------



## bellenuit (22 April 2019)




----------



## DB008 (23 April 2019)

bellenuit - I have also seen a trend and seen the difference in the response to these 2 attacks.

Basically - Islam in the West gets a pass


----------



## DB008 (2 May 2019)

*The Satanic Temple in Salem is now a tax-exempt church*​

SALEM, Mass. - The Satanic Temple says it's been designated a tax-exempt church by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Salem, Massachusetts-based organization said Wednesday it recently received notice from the federal agency of its new tax status.

The organization says the designation will help in its legal battles against religious discrimination, allow it to pursue faith-based government grants and guarantee the same access to public spaces as other religious organizations. The IRS didn't comment.

The Satanic Temple says it's a "non-theistic" group and members are not literal devil worshippers.

The group temporarily placed a statue of the goat-headed creature Baphomet at the Arkansas State Capitol last year after a Ten Commandments monument was installed. It also sued Scottsdale, Arizona after members weren't allowed to deliver the opening prayer at a City Council meeting.​

https://www.boston25news.com/news/the-satanic-temple-in-salem-is-now-a-tax-exempt-church/943434601​


----------



## SirRumpole (17 July 2019)

Nice try I suppose, but how crazy are these people ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-17/christian-family-ordered-to-pay-2.3-million-tax-bill/11318538


----------

