It has been a very challenging time to be godless in
Oz.
With the election looming, the Prime Ministerial candidates
are crawling over themselves to display their piety and their theistic
devotion. It does make my godless skin
crawl. Moreover, there are a profusion
of smaller, right wing, often religious parties with views informed by ignorance
and conservatism.
 | |
| The Australian Christian Lobby Election Special which could be joined by churches for $100 per church. |
The Australian Christian Lobby (“ACL”) is the loud and I
imagine not completely representative lobbyist for Christianity. You may recall that its leader, Lyle Shelton
made offensive comments about the children of gay and lesbian marriages. In fact, the ACL seems to me like a pack of
gay and lesbian bashing bastards.
The two Prime Ministerial aspirants presented themselves as
prayerful Christians with a piety and philanthropic outlook that would have
made JC seem secular. It was vomit worthy for a man such as me. Tony Abbott spent some time talking about how
he respected the PM. As I reflected on
this momentary calming of the combative discourse of an election, one must
concede that there is, at least superficially, a civilizing effect of
faith. Its narrative is about service,
charity and the common humanity we all share.
I do concede that these narrative strands do uplift the conversation and
tame its usual belligerent heart. That much must be admitted. Kevin Rudd too
seemed muted by the audience and was sorry for offending those with his volte
face on gay and lesbian marriage. Be
loud and proud Kev I say.
Worryingly, Abbott seeks to lower the “red tape on charities”. This sounds great but is scary. Abbott has set that nasty little Catholic
hypocrite, Kevin Andrews, to gut the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits
Commission. This is a small and regrettable
move that is a poor idea. But it does implement Cardinal George Pell’s explicit
policy directive. It is an ominous sign. But you would expect a Labor voting godless
guy to say that.
Interestingly ACL has collected a broad range of the contestants’
thoughts at its site http://australiavotes.org.au/. There you will discover parties that you
never knew existed. They include the
Rise Up Australia Party, the Australian Christians, Christian Democratic Party,
DLP and Family First. These don’t
include the more secular nutty parties, like Katter, Palmer and One
Nation. The hung parliament has sown the
seed of hope for smaller parties. It is, I expect, and illusory hope. But the Christians give succor to an array of
marginal silly parties. I anticipate that
they will largely be seen as a recent curiosity if there is a decisive
result. That will polarise the
Australian polity and make this blossoming of small right wing and Christian
parties temporary.
And so the godless don’t have much to look forward to. Taxpayer funded religious education will
flower. Touchstone issues like gay and lesbian issues will founder. It is not an uplifting election for the
Godless. But there is the Secular Party
of Australia http://www.secular.org.au/. They have high calibre candidates and good
policy. They have candidates in every
state. Look out for them.
What is your view?
Do you see Abbott as a sinister “Captain Catholic” or is he
merely Rudd without the grey hair and moon face?
Can you forgive Rudd for killing of our noble atheistic
former Ranga PM?
Who will you vote for?
Over to you guys…
Secular Party of Australia
ReplyDeleteReading their policies the only part they got right was the separation of church and state[and euthanasia] although later on they imply this means banning some religious beliefs.
They treat "freedom" as a meaningless floating abstraction since they still advocate the slavery of the so-called "welfare" state.
They appear to oppose Israel.
I would no more vote for them than the Nazi Party.
How's the Nobjockey Party polling?
DeleteSo what are these religious beliefs supposedly facing an implied ban?
DeleteThe way health care is delivered for starters. If health care is to receive government money[it shouldn't] it should be delivered without discrimination. Religious health care is no more "biased" than is secular health care[whatever that is]. Religious deliverers should not be discriminated against for their beliefs any more than secular deliverers.
DeleteFurthermore, from the section on: Health funding
"The Secular Party... We recognise that multiple funding streams, together with the burden of oversight means that private health insurance, and particularly public subsidies for private health care, are an additional inefficient burden, and should be removed"
In other words the Secular Party wants to ban non-government private doctor/patient relationships by banning "private health insurance" - all things health must function by government permission.
This mob is fascist.
"Do you see Abbott as a sinister “Captain Catholic” or is he merely Rudd without the grey hair and moon face?"
ReplyDeleteAbbott's religiosity is a worry but not the main deal. As a person he is more decent than Rudd who is a habitual liar with big personality problems. I believe nothing Rudd says whereas Abbott appears more genuine. I would not vote for Abbott as he appears to be for big government as much as the avowed socialists.
"Can you forgive Rudd for killing of our noble atheistic former Ranga PM?"
That was Rudd's only virtue.
"Who will you vote for?"
At this stage coalition in the senate and informal in the reps.
" Its narrative is about service, charity and the common humanity we all share."
ReplyDeleteNo need for faith to point those out, especially service from politicians.
"Touchstone issues like gay and lesbian issues will founder."
Unless the unthinkable happens and Rudd wins (according to latest polling) they almost certainly will founder, but the odd bi-election might matter later.
"Do you see Abbott as a sinister “Captain Catholic” or is he merely Rudd without the grey hair and moon face?"
Oh he's sinister alright. People who want to push their religious morals onto other people shouldn't be allowed in politics, or out in public.
"Can you forgive Rudd for killing of our noble atheistic former Ranga PM?"
meh.
"Who will you vote for?"
None of the above.
Actually I have seen an interview where Abbott claims that he is not that religious - that he sort of believes in God but that he doesn't think that Jesus is active in his life and doesn't thing about it that much.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he was just covering Gillard.
Most Christians are not particularly religious these days, apart from a few fundies, especially when compared to the medieval [pre-Enlightenment] Christian. They much prefer their creature comforts and, when they can be bothered, just go to church on Sunday. Read the Acts of the Apostles to see how Jesus said his followers should live their lives. The modern has no interest in that sort of crap.
DeleteIf the West is heading for another Dark Ages[possible] it won't be Christianity which wins out this time. It's more likely Islam or environmentalism as both are far more consistent in their worldview than modern Christianity.
Christianity has had its chance and failed.
“Most Christians are not particularly religious these days, apart from a few fundies, especially when compared to the medieval [pre-Enlightenment] Christian.” (MalcolmS3:07 AM)
DeleteIf they’re not then how are they “Christian” (followers of Christ/God) except in name.
“They much prefer their creature comforts and, when they can be bothered, just go to church on Sunday.”
It’s not the having (or lack) of “creature comforts” that makes one a Christian but following the life principles of Christ (i.e. loving and being of service/use/good to others) regardless of where one finds oneself on the social, political or financial order. Those aspects of life are only temporal things that will pass away but the freely chosen response to others forms the character and lasts forever.
“Read the Acts of the Apostles to see how Jesus said his followers should live their lives. The modern has no interest in that sort of crap.”
Why go to an opinion or hearsay account of what “Jesus said” when we have the primary source in the four gospels - the words of Jesus himself.
“If the West is heading for another Dark Ages[possible] it won't be Christianity which wins out this time. It's more likely Islam or environmentalism as both are far more consistent in their worldview than modern Christianity.”
Wouldn’t one have to eradicate the Enlightenment (and it’s effects and legacy) for there to be “ another Dark Ages”?
“Christianity has had its chance and failed.”
‘Christianity’ has only “failed” where and when people within the churches/organisations have failed to listen to and follow the words/spiritual laws/commandments of Christ. Where people have listened (harkened to) and do listen and have followed (put into practice) and do follow these principles, we have ‘true’ Christianity which does not and cannot fail (see Matthew 7:24-29).
"It’s not the having (or lack) of “creature comforts” that makes one a Christian but following the life principles of Christ"
DeleteOne of Christ's principles was being poor and not having worldly goods. I doubt you follow Jesus in that regard.
"Why go to an opinion or hearsay account of what “Jesus said” when we have the primary source in the four gospels - the words of Jesus himself."
All the Bible is hearsay Ralph, especially the Gospels.
"If the West is heading for another Dark Ages[possible] it won't be Christianity which wins out this time. It's more likely Islam or environmentalism"
DeleteHow is environmentalism going to bring about another dark age? Your views are more likely to bring about another dark age seeing you can't get beyond the 16th century.
". . . we have the primary source in the four gospels - the words of Jesus himself. "
DeletePlease ask someone to explain to you what a "primary source" is. Then do some research into how "the four gospels" were written (hint - they are not in JC's handwriting).
Tony Abbot believes in religion but does not believe in global warming. The evidence however, indicates that we should reject religion and accept that global warming is real. So it is a sad state of affairs that or prospective new prime minister is so disconnected from reality.
ReplyDeleteUnless we accept the science on both these issues, our future is bleak. If we look at the rampant violence and social dysfunction in the Islamic world I don't think we can really accept Dick's contention that faith has a civilizing effect, even superficially.
So, at this precious time I really would urge you not just to look out for the Secular Party , as Dick says, but to Vote 1 Secular. See: www.secular.org.au
So you believe that cataclysmic man made global warming has been proved. That's what happens when crackpots with zero scientific knowledge enter politics. A "vote" does not prove scientific issues. Alleged "consensus" by government scientists seeking grants is proof of nothing. In fact that bizarre belief is as bad as those of the Jesus cults of two thousand years ago and look where that finished.
DeleteCarbon taxes have nothing to do with "saving the planet" and they will not make the slightest difference to the climate. Carbon taxes are a desperate bid by Western governments to save their Nanny states which are heading for bankruptcy.
Secular lefties of the last century lead to the slaughter of 100 million people and were dramatically worse than religions and I say that as an atheist. Thanks for reminding us that you're a phony.
“Tony Abbot believes in religion but does not believe in global warming.” (John Perkins4:03 AM)
DeleteJohn, my understanding is that Tony does accept global warming but is not fanatical about it.
“The evidence however, indicates that we should reject religion and accept that global warming is real.”
What “evidence ... indicates that we should reject religion”?
“So it is a sad state of affairs that or prospective new prime minister is so disconnected from reality.”
A faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion. “Unless we accept the science on both these issues, our future is bleak.”
If we accept that science (in any way) “indicates that we should reject religion” our future would indeed be bleak.
“If we look at the rampant violence and social dysfunction in the Islamic world I don't think we can really accept Dick's contention that faith has a civilizing effect, even superficially.”
A prejudiced person looks only for the bad things that appear to bolster his prejudice. There is overwhelming evidence of the good resulting from properly and truly practiced religion and much evidence to show that the bad things are a result of perverse human nature over-riding the truths of religion that should be followed. “So, at this precious time I really would urge you not just to look out for the Secular Party , as Dick says, but to Vote 1 Secular. See: www.secular.org.au”
I suggest that one would only vote for them if they agreed with what they say. If it’s in the same vein as your faulty reasoning they certainly won’t be getting my vote.
Carbon taxes are a desperate bid by Western governments to save their Nanny states which are heading for bankruptcy.
DeleteIndeed. It's also likely retirement funds are going to be raided as well.
Still, if that means that your kind have to get off your lazy indolent arses and do something useful for a change, it wont have been all bad. ;)
"So you believe that cataclysmic man made global warming has been proved. That's what happens when crackpots with zero scientific knowledge enter politics."
DeleteSo you think it hasn't been proved? That's what happens when crackpots are given access to the internet.
" Carbon taxes are a desperate bid by Western governments to save their Nanny states which are heading for bankruptcy."
You're worse than Ralph at making shit up.
"Secular lefties of the last century lead to the slaughter of 100 million people"
You must think that repeating bullshit makes it true.
"What “evidence ... indicates that we should reject religion”?"
DeleteThe complete lack of evidence showing any religious beliefs to be true.
"There is overwhelming evidence of the good resulting from properly and truly practiced religion "
Present it then Ralph.
Oh and don't tell people off for faulty reasoning when your reasoning is broken beyond repair.
“*"What “evidence ... indicates that we should reject religion”?"* (RalphH) The complete lack of evidence showing any religious beliefs to be true.” (Stranger4:05 PM)
DeleteHow completely ridiculous Stranger. How can “lack of evidence” be “evidence”. Firstly lack of evidence could well mean that it hasn’t been discovered yet. Isn’t that the very nature of the scientific method - ongoing skepticism?
Logically though on the science/religion issue there is a category difference. Science deals with the world of Nature (physical stuff/forms) and religion deals with the world of spirit/life.
Something on a ‘lower‘ level cannot reveal something on a higher level. It’s like being at the base of a cliff and looking up compared with being on top of the cliff looking down. Only a vantage point can provide an overview that clarifies the relationships of things below and around.
“*"There is overwhelming evidence of the good resulting from properly and truly practiced religion "* (RH)
Present it then Ralph.”
Imagine all the religious (not just Christian) charity organisations, current and past suddenly wiped out and then figure what sort of world it would be and would have been with out them - and that’s only at the physical level. Imagine a world without all the religious teachings of love and kindness, tolerance and respect for others.
Although there are a few atheists who are touched by these messages in an indirect way, by and large atheism is the law of the jungle, mindless, purposeless evolution and might/the intellectually smartest is right and superior.
I don’t see atheism even beginning to replace what would be lost without religion.
“Oh and don't tell people off for faulty reasoning when your reasoning is broken beyond repair.”
I call it like I see it. You’re welcome to your own opinion.
"Secular lefties of the last century lead to the slaughter of 100 million people and were dramatically worse than religions and I say that as an atheist."
DeleteThen you must be aware that this same charge is frequently levelled at atheists by religious fundamentalists in order to denigrate atheism. Just because you've put your own spin on it to suit your political leanings doesn't make it any more respectable.
"How completely ridiculous Stranger. How can “lack of evidence” be “evidence”."
DeleteQuite easily Ralph. You may need to think about it for a while before you understand though.
"Logically though on the science/religion issue there is a category difference."
Even if that was the case you still haven't got any evidence of spirits etc.
There are plenty of secular charities, but they aren't an example of properly truly practiced religion, just aspects of some religious behaviour.
There is no tolerance of gay people in your religion Ralph. And despite Christianity's supposed teaching of love and kindness Christians still manage to go to war at worst and discriminate on illogical grounds at best.
"Although there are a few atheists who are touched by these messages in an indirect way, by and large atheism is the law of the jungle, mindless, purposeless evolution and might/the intellectually smartest is right and superior."
Why do you keep lying? And before you whine, I call it like I see it.
RalphH: "If they’re not then how are they “Christian” (followers of Christ/God) except in name"
DeleteThat's my point. They are 'nominal' Christians. I call them Clayton Christians. I know people who regard themselves as Christian who don't believe in God but believe in a Christian moral code. Weird!
My elderly mother goes to church because she enjoys singing hymns. When I ask her about God she says it's a load of rubbish.
“Why go to an opinion or hearsay account of what “Jesus said” when we have the primary source in the four gospels - the words of Jesus himself"
Excellent point. The gospels are hearsay.
“Wouldn’t one have to eradicate the Enlightenment (and it’s effects and legacy) for there to be “ another Dark Ages”?"
Exactly, that process is well under way. In philosophy and science the 'age of reason' is long gone. Chronic scepticism, nihilism and pragmatism have replaced reason, life affirmation and principles in social ideology long ago. Modern Western culture is a disaster waiting to happen. It resembles the period of the collapse of the Greco/Roman world prior to the collapse into the Christian dark ages.
Stranger: "How is environmentalism going to bring about another dark age?"
DeleteHuman progress and prosperity were achieved by exploiting the environment to meet human needs and ends. Environmentalism is the opposite and advocates return to hunter-gatherer culture if practised consistently. Their anti-industrial revolution has begun.
Vance: "Then you must be aware that this same charge [slaughter of 100 million people] is frequently levelled at atheists by religious fundamentalists in order to denigrate atheism"
DeleteI agree. However, my point was that being secular rather than religious does not necessarily make you a better person. That depends on your worldview and moral code. I also think that there should be separation of church and state but the Secular Party goes further and supports discrimination against the religious which is also wrong.
"Environmentalism is the opposite and advocates return to hunter-gatherer culture if practised consistently."
DeleteBollocks.
Stranger: "Bollocks"
DeleteEver heard of Pol Pot dopey?
He was the most consistent Green in modern times.
"Exactly, that process is well under way. In philosophy and science the 'age of reason' is long gone"
DeleteYou better stop using the fruits of the science you say is flawed.
"You better stop using the fruits of the science you say is flawed"
DeleteYou better stop lying.
And appeasing mass murderers.
"He was the most consistent Green in modern times."
DeleteHe was a loony dictator. Being a hunter gatherer is not necessarily beign green either.
Stranger: "He was a loony dictator"
DeleteMost Greens are loony. Hitler was another Green.
"Being a hunter gatherer is not necessarily beign[sic] green either"
Yes it is. Especially if it comes from debasement of a superior culture.
You should take Koko to see "Planet of the Apes" :)
"Hitler was another Green."
DeleteNo he wasn't.
"Yes it is."
No it isn't.
“There are plenty of secular charities, but they aren't an example of properly truly practiced religion, just aspects of some religious behaviour.” (Stranger10:15 PM)
DeleteYou may not realise it Stranger, but “behaviour” doesn’t ‘just happen’. Although many may initially indulge in it by blindly giving expression to their feelings eventually they come to a point where they need some kind of reasoned basis for continuing that behaviour.
This may simply be, “My feelings are as good a guide as any.” (which may seem great until one has feeling of anger against others and feels like hurting or excluding them). Some think more deeply realising that there needs to be a rational basis for behaviour.
The teachings of religion provides that rational basis (when it is not abused and twisted to serve self and ones friends at the expense of others). You may have heard of the well known ‘Parable of the Good Samaritan’ which concludes as follows:-
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36-37)
This principle and the command to “Go and do likewise.” is the rational basis for the Christian behaviour of being charitable to others without which life would be unbearable and hellish for many good people.
“There is no tolerance of gay people in your religion Ralph.”
To test that statement, it is necessary to define “tolerance” and “gay people”.
Tolerance means putting up with something, it does not mean agreeing with it.
As I have explained many times, there are no naturally occurring “gay people” (Kevin Rudd’s Q&A claim that people are “born that way” is completely wrong).
There are people who experience feelings of sexual attraction to their own sex/gender but (as above) feelings do not determine behaviour - only a reasoned choice does that. “Gay people” are people who choose to affirm those feelings.
There is much “tolerance” for such people in today’s world and in today’s churches even though there is no rational basis for affirming such aberrant belief/behaviour. Yet advocates continually cry foul believing that mandated social acceptance will somehow make it rational or create the illusion that it is.
Christians are taught to be tolerant and accepting of all people (because all have faults and weaknesses of one sort or another) but they are also taught not to accept something wrong as being good.
“And despite Christianity's supposed teaching of love and kindness Christians still manage to go to war at worst and discriminate on illogical grounds at best.”
Supposed? Can’t you read? There is no supposition about it. Christians (and other religious traditions are taught to oppose evil which at times involved “go(ing) to war” and “discriminating” (determining the difference) between good and evil. Sometimes they get it wrong.
"You may not realise it Stranger, but “behaviour” doesn’t ‘just happen’."
DeleteI didn't say it did.
"Although many may initially indulge in it by blindly giving expression to their feelings eventually they come to a point where they need some kind of reasoned basis for continuing that behaviour."
No they don't. Just because you are ignorant about humans behaviour doesn't mean we all are.
"Some think more deeply realising that there needs to be a rational basis for behaviour."
Some of us understand that no there doesn't.
"The teachings of religion provides that rational basis"
No it doesn't. There's nothing rational about thinking God tells you to do things.
"To test that statement, it is necessary to define “tolerance” and “gay people”."
The usual definitions apply.
"As I have explained many times, there are no naturally occurring “gay people”"
No Ralph you have not explained, you have claimed it because you want it to be true. The evidence form biology shows otherwise. Why do you keep lying?
"Gay people” are people who choose to affirm those feelings."
No, gay people are people who have those feelings. Just like you are hetero because you want to have sex with women.
"even though there is no rational basis for affirming such aberrant belief/behaviour"
Actually there's a rational basis for accepting such normal behaviour.
" Yet advocates continually cry foul believing that mandated social acceptance will somehow make it rational or create the illusion that it is."
If someone said that about religion you'd be up in arms. You have no idea how irrational your beliefs are because you are either not intelligent enough to understand they are irrational or mentally ill and think your insane ideas are rational.
"Christians are taught to be tolerant and accepting of all people (because all have faults and weaknesses of one sort or another) but they are also taught not to accept something wrong as being good."
Christians are not taught to be tolerant, as can be seen by the anti-gay laws in countries with a large Christian influence. Christians are also taught to accept bad things as good, like the killing of innocent children, slavery, etc etc.
" There is no supposition about it. Christians (and other religious traditions are taught to oppose evil"
Christians are not taught to oppose evil. They are taught not to do anything about it, you do turn the other cheek don't you? or are you not a real Christian?
Stranger: "No Ralph you have not explained, you have claimed it["no naturally occurring “gay people”"] because you want it to be true. The evidence form[sic] biology shows otherwise"
DeleteFallacy of anthropomorphism.
For human beings values "don't just happen" dopey - they're chosen.
toolshead: "It's also likely retirement funds are going to be raided as well"
DeleteTrue - which is why I don't have one :)
Your centrally mandated super fund won't be worth a cracker by the time you access it.
"Still, if that means that your kind have to get off your[sic] lazy indolent arses and do something useful for a change, it wont[sic] have been all bad. ;)"
I can sit on my lazy indolent arse because I did not sit on my lazy indolent arse in my younger days - my indolence was earned :)
Mark, learn and inwardly digest sonny.
"Fallacy of anthropomorphism."
DeleteFallacy of ignorance.
"For human beings values "don't just happen" dopey - they're chosen."
Sexuality is not a value dopey.
It is for me dopey.
DeleteBut I accept you are just as happy with knot holes in fences :)
"It is for me dopey."
DeleteThen you'd be the only human for which it is.
“Just because you are ignorant about humans behaviour doesn't mean we all are.” (Stranger4:06 PM)
DeleteIf you think me ignorant please explain how and why you think so. “Some of us understand that no there doesn't “need to be a rational basis for behaviour".
If so, why not explain. "There's nothing rational about thinking God tells you to do things.”
There is something rational (and humbling) in believing that reality is far bigger and always will be bigger than the collective subjective opinions of all people past, present and future.
If, and there is no way of demonstrating otherwise, the reality we do know is created by/comes forth from God (the ultimate reality) it makes a lot of sense, i.e. is completely reasonable and rational, to think that God would reveal to us things for our own good that we were incapable of finding out for ourselves. “The evidence form biology shows otherwise. Why do you keep lying?”
What ‘evidence from biology’? A tendency/orientation is not a determination. Humans have free-will to act against unwanted and abnormal feelings.
“No, gay people are people who have those feelings. Just like you are hetero because you want to have sex with women.”
A person attracted to smoking (or some other drug) is not condemned to be a drug addict even though they may have a tough time fighting against those feelings. Those attracted to their complementary gender are no more determined than those attracted to their own. It’s just that one makes sense/is rational and the other does/is not. “Actually there's a rational basis for accepting such normal behaviour.”
So, what is it? “If someone said that about religion you'd be up in arms.”
Religion should never be mandated. It’s acceptance must come from the heart to be genuine. Genuine truths of religion speak to the heart (if it is open to awareness), at one with common-sense and the goodness of which humans beings are capable.
"If you think me ignorant please explain how and why you think so"
DeleteYou don't display any knowledge.
"If so, why not explain. "There's nothing rational about thinking God tells you to do things.”"
It doesn't need explaining, unless you are so amazingly stupid you can't use a dictionary.
"There is something rational (and humbling) in believing that reality is far bigger and always will be bigger than the collective subjective opinions of all people past, present and future."
Only if you can show it is, otherwise it's irrational.
"If, and there is no way of demonstrating otherwise.."
That's a big if, and seeing you can't demonstrate it how do you know it is true?
"What ‘evidence from biology’"
Do we have to teach you everything? There's nothing in biology that supports your assertions about homosexuality.
"A person attracted to smoking (or some other drug) is not condemned to be a drug addict even though they may have a tough time fighting against those feelings."
We are talking about sexuality, not addictions. You really have no idea what you are talking about, ever.
"So, what is it?"
It's normal and doesn't hurt anyone.
" Genuine truths of religion speak to the heart "
The heart doesn't hear anything.
You wouldn't know common sense if it introduced itself to you and gave you a card so you can call it later.
“You don't display any knowledge.” (Stranger7:46 PM)
DeleteObviously false! Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
“It doesn't need explaining, unless you are so amazingly stupid you can't use a dictionary.”
How is YOUR ability to explain (or lack thereof) effected by MY ability to use a dictionary?
“Only if you can show it is, otherwise it's irrational.”
Nothing is “irrational” simply because it cannot be shown/demonstrated. It may not be known or understood sufficiently or it may belong to a different category i.e religion rather than science.
“That's a big if, and seeing you can't demonstrate it how do you know it is true?”
You don’t/one doesn’t but neither do you/one know it’s false. I suggest applying ‘Pascal’s wager‘ or you/one could ‘listen to your/one’s heart’.
“*"What ‘evidence from biology’" (RH)
Do we have to teach you everything? There's nothing in biology that supports your assertions about homosexuality.”
The question was, “Is there anything that supports yours?” Please read the question.
“We are talking about sexuality, not addictions. You really have no idea what you are talking about, ever.”
You’ve never heard of ‘sex addiction’? Here’s the Wiki link to begin your education:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_addiction
“*“Actually there's a rational basis for accepting such normal (homosexual) behaviour.” (Stranger) "So, what is it?" (RalphH)
It's normal and doesn't hurt anyone.”
Any chance of answering the question i.e “What is the rational basis?” - not just an opinion repeat.
“The heart doesn't hear anything.”
It doesn’t when it’s closed (not talking about the physical heart of course but the spiritual one. )
"Obviously false!"
DeleteI meant of science etc, mostly.
"How is YOUR ability to explain (or lack thereof) effected by MY ability to use a dictionary?"
I don't know, have you used a dictionary to find out what the words mean?
"Nothing is “irrational” simply because it cannot be shown/demonstrated"
Making things up and claiming them as truth is irrational, so is believing in things just because someone says they are true.
" I suggest applying ‘Pascal’s wager‘ or you/one could ‘listen to your/one’s heart’."
Pascals wager applies to any deity, ans is not a rational basis for believing in a deity. My heart tells me you're a loon.
"The question was, “Is there anything that supports yours?” Please read the question."
In that case, everything in biology. it's my fault you are ignorant.
"You’ve never heard of ‘sex addiction’?"
We are talking about sexuality, not addictions. You really have no idea what you are talking about, ever
"It doesn’t when it’s closed (not talking about the physical heart of course but the spiritual one. )"
According to you spirits don't have bodies so can't have hearts.
"Any chance of answering the question i.e “What is the rational basis?” - not just an opinion repeat."
I did answer. Do you need help understanding the words?
"Nothing is “irrational” simply because it cannot be shown/demonstrated."
DeleteIf you cannot offer a rational basis for your beliefs, then they are irrational. It really is that simple, Ralph.
“In that case, everything in biology.” (Stranger3:53 AM)
DeleteThat’s a rather silly, extravagant claim. If biology demonstrates anything it shows us that things exist for a purpose - to perform some particular function that contributes to the whole.
What objective function is served by sexual behaviour between two of the same sex. None that I can think of i.e it may have an emotional basis for some people but not a rational one.
“it's my fault you are ignorant.”
To the extent that I am ignorant’ and it’s definitely no where near as ignorant as you think me (how can one who displays so much ignorance themselves be capable of accurately judging the ignorance of others), I absolve you of any fault and take full responsibility myself.
“We are talking about sexuality, not addictions. You really have no idea what you are talking about, ever”
Wherever there is abuse there is the potential for addiction and homosexual behaviour is an abuse/misuse of the sexual function. Why do you think it’s called an abomination in the OT? Not to make people feel bad about it but to demonstrate that it has no potential of serving a useful purpose and therefore has no future as a sexual conjunction between a man and a woman has the potential to do.
“According to you spirits don't have bodies so can't have hearts.”
I have never said that spirits “don’t have bodies”, I’ve said the exact opposite. Spirits no longer have physical bodies (which they had when living in the physical realm as we are now doing) but they have spiritual bodies which are essentially their inner character which was built up according to the values and behaviours they decided to embrace and make their own when living in the natural world.
"* "Any chance of answering the question i.e “What is the rational basis?” - not just an opinion repeat." * (RH)
I did answer. Do you need help understanding the words?”
You ‘made an answer’ which was no more than a reiteration of what you’d said previously but (as previously) it did not answer the question.
“If you cannot offer a rational basis for your beliefs, then they are irrational. It really is that simple, Ralph.” (LJS4:12 AM)
DeleteI believe I can and have LJ so it’s really a matter of conflicting opinions. There is nothing definitive to show that my beliefs are “irrational”. There is only the belief of some based on a limited idea of reality i.e that the physical world is the basis/source of all reality. Since it’s a ‘created’ world, it makes no sense to me to believe that to be true.
"There is nothing definitive to show that my beliefs are “irrational”. "
DeleteApart from them not being based on reality and the total lack of supporting evidence you mean.
"Since it’s a ‘created’ world, it makes no sense to me to believe that to be true."
Nuclear physics makes no sense to you, it must be false then.
"That’s a rather silly, extravagant claim."
DeleteNo it isn't. If you weren't so ignorant about biology you'd understand.
"What objective function is served by sexual behaviour between two of the same sex."
"(how can one who displays so much ignorance themselves be capable of accurately judging the ignorance of others"
I haven't shown that level of ignorance. More lies from you so you can feel better about yourself.
Stops overpopulation, gives extra hands for child rearing for examples. If you weren't so ignorant you'd know these things already as the information is available.
"Wherever there is abuse there is the potential for addiction and homosexual behaviour is an abuse/misuse of the sexual function"
"Why do you think it’s called an abomination in the OT?"
It was written by liars.
Why do you keep lying?
"but they have spiritual bodies which are essentially their inner character"
So they still don't have hearts.
"You ‘made an answer’ which was no more than a reiteration of what you’d said previously but (as previously) it did not answer the question."
Yes it did answer the question. Do you still need help working out what the words mean?
“Apart from them not being based on reality and the total lack of supporting evidence you mean.” (Stranger4:29 PM)
DeleteAs I said Stranger,”Not based on your limited concept of reality.” Do you really think that you totally understand reality? Is that your ignorance or arrogance speaking?
“Nuclear physics makes no sense to you, it must be false then.”
Why would I have a problem with “nuclear physics”? Sure there’s a lot I don’t understand but I have a reasonable grasp of the current knowledge and concepts. I don’t deny the ‘laws of nature’ but see them as God’s laws applying to the physical plane of existence. It’s the way God operates in creating, providing for and sustaining His creation.
What I do deny is idle speculation (made by secular and atheistic scientists) that assumes that the intermediary causes of natural events somehow does away with the ultimate or originating cause i.e. God. I see them as ‘just happening’ (out of nothing) ideas which, IMO, are totally irrational.
“........ If you weren't so ignorant about biology you'd understand.” (Stranger4:37 PM)
DeleteThat’s not the point (we only have your imagined idea that I am ignorant of biology by the way), The point is that you believe that biology somehow demonstrates that there is a rational basis for homosexual activity. I’d like to know what you think that basis is. The fact that you keep avoiding the issue leads me to believe (as I suspected) that you are just ‘making it up’.
“Stops overpopulation, gives extra hands for child rearing for examples. If you weren't so ignorant you'd know these things already as the information is available.”
So homosexuality serves the same function as contraception. Wouldn’t it be better, and far more sensible, to use normal methods of contraception and limit the size of families to a size where the actual parents could raise their own children. You have missed the whole point and ignored the place and purpose of marriage.
The purpose of marriage ( as revealed by God is that two beings (it works for inanimate objects too) can become one - a more complex, more useful construct that can for example be instrumental (in it’s animate forms), in producing new forms of life. Also, because men tend to be more thinking creatures and women more feeling creatures the two can perfectly complement each other in the production of useful domestic, economic and social activities.
“*"Why do you think it’s called an abomination in the OT?"* (RH) It was written by liars.
Well, that’s one way to discount any information you don’t like. It seems to be your regular MO.
“*"but they have spiritual bodies which are essentially their inner character"* So they still don't have hearts.
Yes they do because the human character (being human) is in the human form. There is a spiritual counterpart of every organ, structure and part of the physical body. The spiritual heart is the will/the volition (which gives life to the physical heart when the physical body is operational), the lungs represent the understanding, the brain the intellect etc.
An example of the duality that exists is ‘seeing’. We can see with our physical eyes (if we are not blind) and/or we can see with our spiritual eyes. When we understand something we say,”I see!” even though we may have been staring at the physical object for hours (or even years) without seeing i.e. understanding.
"As I said Stranger,”Not based on your limited concept of reality.”"
DeleteWhether I understand it or not is irrelevant to the fact you don't have any evidence, ie reality.
"Why would I have a problem with “nuclear physics”?"
Because you have trouble accepting things that don't make sense to you personally.
"What I do deny is idle speculation "
Then stop your idle speculation.
" I see them as ‘just happening’ (out of nothing) ideas which, IMO, are totally irrational."
So just because you are ignorant of how things work God has to be involved.
"That’s not the point"
Yes it is.
"The fact that you keep avoiding the issue leads me to believe (as I suspected) that you are just ‘making it up’."
I haven't avoided the issue, you are just woefully ignorant about biology.
". Wouldn’t it be better, and far more sensible, to use normal methods of contraception and limit the size of families to a size where the actual parents could raise their own children. "
Nature doesn't work like that. Your all-powerful deity could of course do that, but hasn't for some reason.
"Also, because men tend to be more thinking creatures and women more feeling creatures the two can perfectly complement each other in the production of useful domestic, economic and social activities."
Sexist as well as stupid and ignorant, well done you.
"Well, that’s one way to discount any information you don’t like."
Just like you saying all the bad things done by God aren't real. But if you had evidence that the Bible was accurate you'd have presented it by now. The writers of the Bible were liars as they made it up knowing it wasn't true.
"Yes they do because the human character (being human) is in the human form. There is a spiritual counterpart of every organ, structure and part of the physical body. The spiritual heart is the will/the volition (which gives life to the physical heart when the physical body is operational), the lungs represent the understanding, the brain the intellect etc."
There you go making shit up again so you can feel better.
"I believe I can and have LJ . . ."
DeleteDo you have a rational basis for that belief? I think that your belief that your belief is rational is another irrational belief (I'm a bit intrigued to discover how long the chain of your irrationality might continue)
"However, my point was that being secular rather than religious does not necessarily make you a better person."
ReplyDeleteA better person would have made that point in a more reasonable manner.
Meaning?
DeleteMeaning?
DeleteYou're a flaming nutbar.
No need to thank me. Just glad I could help out there.
Oh.. you're still alive!
DeleteHere.. step into this bear trap and I'll beat you with an axe handle!
ROFLMAO
A better person would have made that point in a more reasonable manner.
Deletelol
No need to thank me. Just glad I could help out there.
DeleteLOL
Pfft... loser
DeleteHere.. step into this mouse trap and I'll beat you with a teaspoon...
lol
See how its done? ;)
A cat that needs a mouse trap? Pathetic!
DeleteHere.. step into this nobjockey trap and I'll beat you with a riding crop...
Delete;)
No, you won't.
DeleteNo?
Delete"Nobjectivist trap", and early Edwardian era carpet beater then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_in_Syracuse,_New_York#Carpets_and_implements
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_in_Syracuse,_New_York#Carpets_and_implements
Just looking at all the old advertisements on this page. Not a lot "new" happening in Syracuse it seems.
Made me curious.
It says here that Syracuse's economy has faced challenges over the past decades as industrial jobs have left the area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse,_New_York#Economy
Why do you think that Syracuse's economy is having problems tooly? Do you think it was socialists?
Yes, I think it might have been socialists...
Billy: Why do you think that Syracuse's economy is having problems tooly? Do you think it was socialists?
DeleteI reckon it was her philosophers, intellectuals and poets. They used to run naked through the streets screaming eureka, you know. Imagine what Andrew Bolt would say about that?
Mal: In philosophy and science the 'age of reason' is long gone. Chronic scepticism, nihilism and pragmatism have replaced reason, life affirmation and principles in social ideology long ago. Modern Western culture is a disaster waiting to happen. It resembles the period of the collapse of the Greco/Roman world prior to the collapse into the Christian dark ages.
ReplyDeleteCuckooooooo!
Furthermore
DeleteThere are striking similarities today between the Western countries in Europe, US, UK and Australia with the German Weimar Republic and we know where that led. The atmosphere of foreboding is ominous.
All along the Germans had thought they lived in the world's most cultured and civilised country - a land of philosophers, intellectuals and poets! So what went wrong?
Her philosophers, intellectuals and poets!
...cultured and civilised country...
DeleteHer philosophers, intellectuals and poets!
Fallacy of anthropomorphism
zedinhisbigflyingloonytoolshead: "Fallacy of anthropomorphism"
DeleteNo it's not.
No it's not.[sic]
DeleteYes, it is.
Mal: So what went wrong? Her philosophers, intellectuals and poets!
DeleteAs usual, you portray yourself as an elderly curmudgeon with a very narrow understanding of the world. This lot had as much to do with the Weimar’s problems as kangaroos had with Labor’s. But I do share your disdain of them, particularly the philosophers. Never has there been a breed of people who have invested so much mental effort for so little useful return.
Terry wrote: "Never has there been a breed of people who have invested so much mental effort for so little useful return."
DeleteHmm... let me think about the figures that have been most active in philosophising recently. Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, Dennett ...
Well you might just be right there.
MalcolmS wrote: "Her philosophers, intellectuals and poets!"
DeleteThere was also that fellow Hitler and his followers.
I think that they were more part of what went wrong that people like Moritz Schlick.
"There was also that fellow Hitler and his followers"
DeleteExactly, but why was such a nutjob so all encompassingly popular? That's the question. The ideas that he espoused were held by Germans right across the cultural spectrum - Jews and non Jews alike. Such universally held views can only be explained by reference to the discipline which deals with fundamental ideas: philosophy.
The most important of the day were the ideas of Kant. It was Kant who had shut down the Enlightenment in German thought with his "Critique of Pure Reason" in which he held that reason could know nothing about reality. Reason was replaced by the *emotionalism* of the period. Also, of high influence was Kantian *duty* which was a much more extreme form of self sacrifice than Christian duty had ever been. Then there was the so-called 'dialectic process' of history advocated by the two German philosophers who came after Kant: Hegel and Marx. These ideas manifested as 'class struggle' in communism and 'race' in nazism.
Anyone interested in the ideas which caused the rise of nazism in Germany should read the 'Ominous Parallels'[Peikoff] for a full account.
Mal: Anyone interested in the ideas which caused the rise of Nazism in Germany should read the 'Ominous Parallels'[Peikoff] for a full account.
DeleteThat’s right. And anyone interested in how the world was created should read the Bible.
And you would be incapable of reading either.
Delete"Never has there been a breed of people who have invested so much mental effort for so little useful return."
ReplyDeleteDepends on what you consider to be a "useful return". Of course, tdefining what kind of mental effort might be useful would be a philosophical question, so it's probably not worth the effort.
Actually, the entire course of human history, and why it went in such a direction instead of another, is determined by philosophy. Philosophy not important? Ya gotta be kidding.
DeleteSuch universally held views can only be explained by reference to the discipline which deals with fundamental ideas: philosophy.
DeleteGotta say: It's hard to imagine you in relationship to anything involving discipline tooly
Actually, the entire course of human history, and why it went in such a direction instead of another, is determined by philosophy.
ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Philosophy not important?
(Your) foolosophy irrelevant!
lol
Mal: … discipline which deals with fundamental ideas: philosophy.
DeleteIt is not a discipline. It is a collection of arguments, all at odds with each other, yet seemingly internally consistent (which is easily achieved if you arbitrarily pick axioms, such as ‘existence exists’, which lead to desired conclusions).
As for fundamental ideas, philosophy may try to ‘deal’ with them, but it doesn’t succeed. As with religion, all its attempts to explain the world have been shown up by science.
Mal: Actually, the entire course of human history, and why it went in such a direction instead of another, is determined by philosophy.
DeletePhilosophy has done nothing of the sort. It was the invention of things like washing machines, which did more to emancipate women than anything else, and guns, ships, trains, steam, tar macadam, pasteurization, penicillin and wine that determined the course of human history.
LJS: Depends on what you consider to be a "useful return".
DeleteGood point. It’s a subjective term. Should I have said ‘edible material’ instead?
"Actually, the entire course of human history, and why it went in such a direction instead of another, is determined by philosophy."
DeleteActually it wasn't.
Terry: "It was the invention of things like washing machines, which did more to emancipate women than anything else, and guns, ships, trains, steam, tar macadam, pasteurization, penicillin and wine that determined the course of human history"
DeleteAll of which was made possible by certain ideas - the ideas which resulted in the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the 'age of science' which followed. None of the above could result from the ideas of Christian medievalism.
Where did such ideas come from? The intellectuals!
Where did the intellectuals get their ideas? From more *fundamental* ideas!
Which profession deals in fundamental ideas? Philosophy!!!
"Which profession deals in fundamental ideas?"
DeletePhysics.
Where did such ideas come from? The intellectuals!
DeleteWhere did the intellectuals get their ideas? From more *fundamental* ideas!
Which profession deals in fundamental ideas? Philosophy!!! [sic]
Fallacy of begging the question
Stranger: "Physics"
DeletePhysics no more deals with fundamental ideas than does biology, astronomy or psychology.
The point is that the specific sciences all deal with one particular part of reality and not the rest.
The science that deals with *reality as a whole* is philosophy.
It is the discipline which provides the ideas upon which ALL science is based. It is the discipline which integrates all the specific sciences.
The science that deals with *reality as a whole* is philosophy.
DeletePhilosophy isn't a science tooly.
Silly: No more cheese at bedtime for you!
*reality as a whole*
DeleteDoes that include the world of nonexistence you were talking about before tooly?
lol ;)
Philosophy, when systematically and rationally studied, is a science toolshead.
DeleteSo Mal doesn't know what science is either.
Delete
DeleteIt is the discipline which provides the ideas upon which ALL science is based.
You mean ideas like phlogiston tooly?
I found a story you might like. Some of the characters sound just like you!
The World, as we Know't
http://bitly.com/17KdyDO
Perhaps it's the fatty earths?
"Does that include the world of nonexistence you were talking about before tooly?"
DeleteThat's a simple one.
Do you have any ideas of your own on that one dopey?
Come on toolshead - give it your best shot :)
Philosophy, when systematically and rationally studied, is a science
DeleteThe systematic and rational study of philosophy? The systematic and rational study of philosophy is not itself philosophy toolie.
And that would also spawn an infinite regress. Cant have those.
I think what you meant to say was, a systematic and rational philosophy
That's a bit more "sciency".
It still isn't science though...
Do you have any ideas of your own on that one
Deletelol
Nonexistence is your concrete baby toolshed.
Keep at it. Dont be shy... lol
Mal: Where did such ideas come from? The intellectuals!
DeleteWhich particular philosophical idea was it, do you think, that led Hamilton Smith to the invention of the rotary washing machine in 1857? Or, better still, the one that led to the wheel?
"I think what you meant to say was, a systematic and rational philosophy"
DeleteNo, what I meant to say was what I said.
Please pay attention.
Mal: Philosophy, when systematically and rationally studied, is a science …
DeleteCrap. Philosophy is argument. Nothing more.
No toolshead, I didn't think you could answer it.
DeletePlease remember I don't need your questions.
It's you who needs my answers :)
Er.. and the same applies to you Terry.
DeletePhilosophy, when systematically and rationally studied, is a science
DeleteI think what you meant to say was, a systematic and rational philosophy
No, what I meant to say was what I said.
lol
Ok, whats the name of this science? Do you know?
;)
"Philosophy is argument. Nothing more"
DeleteNo, *argument* is the science of 'polemics.'
Polemics and the related science of logic comes from philosophy.
"Crap"
No, that'll be you Terry :)
zedinhisbigflyingloonytoolshead: "Ok, whats[sic] the name of this science? Do you know?"
DeleteStill making with the questions I see :)
Don't you ever listen?
It's you who needs my answers :)
DeleteBetter come up with some then.
No use just leaving them floating in the world of nonexistence is it? ;)
the science of 'polemics.'
DeleteRofl.
Next you'll be telling us that baking fudge brownies is a science and that's all you can say about it...
;)
"the science of 'polemics.'"
Deletepo·lem·ics
noun ( used with a singular verb )
1. the art or practice of disputation or controversy: a master of polemics.
2. the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.
If you think polemics is a science you really are dopey.
From Andrew's selective definition of polemics: "the art or practice of disputation or controversy: a master of polemics"
DeleteAn 'art or practice' which is pursued rationally and systematically *is* a science.
So thanks for your enthusiastic endorsement dopey.
An 'art or practice' which is pursued rationally and systematically *is* a science.
DeleteSo it would be fair to say that you've turned nobjockeying into a science then.
Well done professor! ;) rofl
"From Andrew's selective definition of polemics"
DeleteIt wasn't selective.
"An 'art or practice' which is pursued rationally and systematically *is* a science."
Golf is a science now? I didn't endorse you, dopey.
"Which particular philosophical idea was it, do you think, that led Hamilton Smith to the invention of the rotary washing machine in 1857?"
DeleteI stink, therefore I am (going to find a better way to wash my clothes)?
Mal:
ReplyDeleteNow argument is a science, too. Ha, ha. You mean, like, Ork argues the wheel should be round, and Gop argues it should be square, but Ork wins the argument and therefore the wheel ends up round, and that's science at work. Ha, ha.
At last, something original emanated from your volume-challenged cranium, and it is very entertaining. You should do this more.
Don't give up the government job sweet-pea.
DeleteNow argument is a science, too...
DeleteWhy yes Terrence. In nobjectivism land, many many things are sciences.
dopey
dopey
dopey
dopey
Saying "dopey" is a science
existence exists
Tautology is a science
I wonder what other things there might be? ;)
There are striking similarities today between the Western countries in Europe, US, UK and Australia with the German Weimar Republic and we know where that led. The atmosphere of foreboding is ominous.
DeleteNazi Meteorology is a science
Nazi Meteorology is a science.
ReplyDeleteActually, it's Peikoff whose doing the forecasting, so that would be 'objectivist meterology is a science'. It's a branch of the science of objectivism, which is not to be confused with the philosophy of objectivism, although philsophy, like marriage, is also a science.
The science of objectivism was founded by Gop, the indigenous Australian scientist who argued, unsuccessfully, that the wheel should have four sides of equal length and four right angles. All modern day objectvist scientists, and indeed objectivist philsophers, who are also scientists, are descended from Gop.