kasper

Well Phil Australian politics has an odd old set of parties. Labour/Labor = left'ish (except for Hawke and Keating who did UK style New Labour 10 years before the UK ... not saying Blair and the Scottish problem copied but it was from the same playbook) National = not nationalist per UK/Europeans but very big C conservative Liberal = a very divisional party with Liberal and Conservative arms. Abbot was the biggest C we have had in the lead of that party since the 50's. Turnbull is looking more small l Liberal But the basic oddness in Oz politics compared to UK IMO is that regardless of who is in charge from the 60's we as a nation tend to go for liberal social policies and conservative fiscal policies - the differences between all governments really is the small/big L or C they mix into what they get elected on. And given that much of the service delivery is at state govt level the feds get a relatively free hand on social policy because it really comes down to cash because they for the most part don't do the nuts n bolts delivery. The thing about Abbot as I saw it was he was big C conservative on both social and fiscal AND he did not appear to operate by cabinet government but by presidential direction at times ... Australians don't really like that as a style of operation. And that was before you factor in the religious aspects of Abbot ... Australia aint the US with a president and artificial/nonexistent separation between state and church nor is it the UK with an actual formal state church, factor in that the majority of Australians are not religious AND like on average liberal social policies and Abbot was openly not that you start to get the picture of how he pi$$ed off so many people so quickly. Bye bye Abbot, can you please take that poisonous toad Abbets with you as you leave the room ... he is still the ONLY person who interviewed me for a job and asked who my priest was ...

Must admit it would be rather a tight circuit to stay in range while flying ... it does 40kph and must stay within 30m of the tracker ... but very cool ... now who has an old Lazair hanging around - its slow enough ;-)

Same conclusion here on running the 3.0L Mitzubishi Triton - 20-22% difference in L/100km regardless of trip mixes in the tank used - I have switched off using all E petrol until the price differential is greater than 20%

OK - here is my personal management measure ... so long as my total posts are numbered less than or equal to my likes + points (whatever they are) I am probably not a troll. This post leaves me with 1 free post to remain OK by my measure ;-) Though I do not guarantee I contain no troll tendancies

But that's the - excuse the pun - fundamental issue -> a belief based on faith is irreconcilable to education based on evidence or theory ... basic issue is that faith wins because it ignores anything that is in conflict with it.

http://www.thevine.com.au/life/parenting/atheists-make-better-parents-20150204-293892/ Hmmm ... does that explain why I'm the most popular uncle in my family ... though my husband is also in the running for that title ;-P

Oh dear, shrews are very thin on the ground around here, or will medicare be distributing them as required ?

Ive always said the English were very good at experimental technique ... Populate a distant land with all your relgious extremist and wait 200yrs to see what develops = USA Populate a distant land with all your criminal class and wait 200yrs to see what develops = Australia Got to love the scientific method ;-)

My goodness - my understanding of seveal of the major religions is that belief in their version as the only true one IS the central tenant. But what I meant was to call on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (other deiety and beliefs are available and equally as provable) to bring peace and good will at this end of year. Enjoy your break from work if you're having one.

Over 1,500 posts and given the division between aethiests and those of a religious persuasion are and remain in the class of unfalsifiable claims I just ask ... Where's the flying spaghetti monster when you need him?

When the athiests start holding property portfolios and running educational institutions with incomes in the billions of course they can start paying their fair share. Until then, like any individual religious person they ARE paying their fair share through the taxation system ... well I'll hold off calling it fair, but its at least equal. =:-P

Nope - just the fact that he was apolice officer and therefore the lie was in the course of perverting the course of justice. The UK have a good history of taking lies from officials or from the witness box seriously - demostrably lie under oath on the stand and you can be up for perverting the course of Justice - check out former UK politicians and speeding fines.

Pleb-gate in the UK is very topical - just google it

Well it's not a fish, lizard or duck ... yet ... give it time

I accept that the relative viscocity of water and blood at the same atmospheric conditions would support a factual assessment that blood is thicker than water, but as a comment in support or denial of morality as an element within evolution I'm trying hard to not just hold my head in hands and groan. Nature vs Nurture questions answered with trite sayings = belief without or in the face of evidence.

I accept what you say on the basis that in your terms morality equates to social rules. I'd challenge that morality was the result of evolution and offer as a challenge to that the observation that morality between seperate groups of humans is diverse and the 'cross breeding' of individuals from dsitinctly different morality groups does not result in a mixed morality as a rule and further the abscence of the parents from raising indivuduals or their replacement with another as occurs in adoption fairly strongly suggests that morality in not inherant in the individual as a result of genetics but is an applied/acquired manner of operating as a member of the society in which they live. I would modify your last sentence to ready "Without accepted and general social rules groups are more likely to operate in a form that is anachic and as aresult the group is more likely to break-up" Extinction is a bit of a stretch on the indiviual basis as there are lots of other groups to join if you leave your own - but a set of social rules that are no longer accepted by suffient individuals is at risk of being 'extinct'

Ah, it's your external assessment of the actions/words of the athiest you were on about - your subjective view of another - rather than the subjective intent of the athiest themself. Glad I go that clarified - I thought I missed soemthing at athiest induction where I had to hate to be a proper athiest because there I was going along just discounting a heap of religious beliefs as unacceptable and untrue.

Goodness me yes, now where did I put that emoticon of a large man blushing ....

From my perspective you are on a slippery slope against those of a religious belief stating gravity exists regardless of belief as that statement is equally valid that god exists regardless of belief. From my perspective I see the results of what we call gravity. Its explained to me through other experiments and theories as being the result of attraction between everything with mass ... and I can understand that explanations, I accept that they did the experiments and it all fits as a coherant whole so I believe in the theory of gravity as being responsible for what I see as the result of gravity ... because its a better explanation than billions of little invisible fairies buzzing around moving things about that I see as the actions of gravity. So I have to accept as fundamental the operative results in teh world of what we term gravity, I chose to believe that it is a result of eletromagnetic attractions at the atomic level aggrogating to the level of 'things' i see. Morality on the other hand is not a physically measurable thing, it is an individuals reaction to external acts that are governed by their indivdual set of acceptable behaviours. The fundamental difference I see between the two areas you linked so effortlessly is that: - gravity and physically measureable/observable things are universal - they are the same regardless of the persons beliefs or rule sets - morality is a not universal it is subjective - the actions/behaviours are universally observable but the morality of it is determined by the rules of the indivudal observer So I have to disagree entirely with your statement that morality is demonstrated clearly to us by nature - completely incompatible concepts being universal (nature) and subjective (morality). Cheers, end of coffee break

Q - Whats the difference between belief in a religious person and an athiest? A - Openness to challenge Religious person - has belief based on a set of religious constructs and evidence to the contrary is immaterial, you just have to believe the closed set of the religious construct - this is generally termed faith Atheist - has belief based on evidence/aquired knowledge - you don't KNOW that evidence contrary to religion is fact/true, you believe it so (there is still belief involved) its just that what you believe is based on what you have acquired as knowledge and it is subject to challenge and modification based on additional information. Both are belief systems just one is a closed system the other open. I believe in the prior existence of now extinct animals on the earth over millenia and I believe in the theory of evolution - I don't know they are correct and true but I do accept them as the best explaination of what exists and on that basis I can discount creation in a few days by a 'god' a few thousand years ago. Don't get me wrong, I can absoultely see that for humans to live in a society and act together for a common benefit there needs to be accepted social rules of interaction - various religions have codified and provided that over the centuries, its just that society does not NEED a religion as such it needs social rules and they are not the same thing. OK - putting hard hat on for the incoming

Well it certainly would have required God ... the AK47 is a post WWII gun - design '45 entry into service approx 1949