DonRamsay

Oh, and remember when we told you last time you trotted out the crap that atheists kill millions? Stalin is probably responsible for the murder of more people than any other single person who ever lived. Stalin was born and raised in the Russian Orthodox religion. He may well have become an atheist at some time in his life but and this is the bit you can't seem to understand, he killed anyone who threatened his grip on power. He didn't kill them because they were or were not religious (with the possible exception of Jews). The Christians who wiped out half the population of Europe in the 100 years war did so because they were religious Christians and their enemy was a different sect of the same religion.

Are you telling us GG that you are not religious? Really? You need to get hold of a dictionary and check for yourself. While you are doing that explain to yourself how a person who lives and acts without reference to any deity can be seen to be religious. Have another look at the meaning of the prefix "A" as in Amoral versus the prefix "Im" as in immoral and have a look at irreligious and areligious. Also check out the difference between acceptance of a Scientific Theory as the most likely explanation of physical phenomena because it is based on evidence and logic and compare and contrast that scientific method with blind faith or the acceptance of a statement as fact with zero supporting evidence or logic. If you are unable to grasp these most simple clear intellectual concepts then what is the point? Trotting out mindless nonsense like asserting that not believing in your imaginary friends is some how a religion or that accepting scientific method has something to do with faith and nothing to do with evidence is beyond comprehension. Try for once in your adult life to think and not just accept what some fundamentalist American preacher tells you. I apologise if the tone of this post is a bit rough but it reflects the frustration I feel when the Sam drivel is trotted out in a holier than thou fashion. It is demeaning to look down on your fellow man because they choose thought over belief. It is demeaning not to the one being looked down on but to the one being high and mighty without the smallest scintilla of reason.

In very recent times in Northern Ireland, protestants and catholics killed each other because of what the other believed/didn't believe. The 100 years war raged for the same reason. It seems now that the Christians have outgrown this right is might unless you consider the killings in the USA by fundamentalist, born-agains of anyone who breaks the Abrahamic laws. What is happening now in the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq is no different to the intra-Christian sectarian violence or the pogroms of Christian killing Jews by the millions because they were the "wrong" branch of the Abrahamic religion. And in Israel now we see an awful lot of Jews killing Muslims (and vice versa) because of hatred of a branch of the Abrahamic religion. I just wish they'd all grow up and mind their own business and stop looking over other people's shoulder to see how they are worshipping the same God. Pathetic childish, ignorant, nonsense. Whilever Islam, requires the death of non-believers, Muslims who have abandoned Islam and anyone who criticises anything to do with Islam it can never justify calling itself the "religion of peace". It is one of many religions which are utterly intolerant of a different view of our existence. Christian religions relied on scripture to require its followers to accept that the Sun rotated around the Earth and burned people at the stake who disagreed. Only recently, they finally apologised to Galileo but still have the ashes of Giordano Bruno littering the Campo de' Fiori in the shadow of St Peters Basilica. What an utter disgrace!

Turkey is a predominantly Sunni Muslim country but, thanks to Atta Turk, operates with a high degree of secularism. In my experience there few women wear the hijab every day and it is not a specific requirement of Islam. Modest dress is a requirement of all Abrahamic religions and as to what is modest varies from culture to culture from tme to time and depends on the occasion.

[ATTACH]47677._xfImport[/ATTACH] Had me chuckling . . .

As I understand it about 90% of Muslims are Sunni. That covers pretty well everywhere except Iran and the Southern half of Iraq. In this context easy to see why Iran feels isolated and opposed by every other Muslimsnd western country. The Iran/Iraq war was the then Sunni dominated Iraq attacking the "heretic" Shia dominated Iran. It all makes about as much sense as the Protestant / Catholic wars that raged in Europe for hundreds of years and resulted in the deaths of millions. So, Waleed being a Sunni is of little consequence. He is clearly a brilliant intellect and so is his wife. Nuns wore veils that look remarkably pre-medieval and not at all unlike the hijab. They were wore it as they felt it necessary to fulfil their vows of modesty. Many Muslim women wear the hijab as they feel to do otherwise would be immodest. Few western women would appear at a cocktail function in a brief bikini as they would feel immodest. The same women would not feel it immodest at the beach. All a matter of perception of modesty. Nothing to do with obedience. The brainwashing of what is modest dress is more likely to come from their mums than the Koran or sharia law. I have more issue with Waleed's leftish leaning than his religious indoctrination.

Worship/whorship . . . Requires the mindless, unquestioning adoration of something beyond comprehension. People do it because people before them did it and told others they must do it. Might have been useful in suppressing scientific curiosity in the intellectually challenged 3000 years ago but serves no use in the 21st century other than giving people who live at the top of a pyramid scheme what they crave, viz., power and wealth and with that status. The world would be such a better place if all religion disappeared and everybody lived by logically deducible ethics.

Perhaps this is why I don't have an imaginary friend, don't need any help from naturopaths, do accept that Neil Armstrong walked on Earth's Moon, had my kids vaccinated:[ATTACH]47672._xfImport[/ATTACH] And don't get me started on the Illuminati conspiracy theory.

This is close to my philosophy: [ATTACH]47669._xfImport[/ATTACH] And it is easy to look at. The outfit is Guantanamo inspired?

[ATTACH]47668._xfImport[/ATTACH] On the subject of people and inconvenient truth:

To quote myself: "It boils my blood that governments fund Christian, Islamic and Jewish schools that work to divide the community and reinforce ancient superstitions. What next a State funded School for Scientologists?" Dear oh dear Turbo, for an intelligent, well educated person you do occasionally miss the point completely. Surely anyone can see this is a personal opinion - what I think. It is not an appeal to the world at large to shut-down all non-secular education. For it to be that, it would have to have been something like: "All non-secular schools should immediately be shut and all children given only a secular, ethical education based on science and facts and leaving out all unsubstantiated theories of the supernatural." Clearly, this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I have no objection to you having an opinion but, once published, I reserve the right to dispute its logic and desirability. The logical flaw is that you are asking people who equate religion with silly superstitions being asked to have children indoctrinated from the age of 5 years up in these silly superstitions. These children have not reached what the Catholic Church properly refers to as the age of reason - for them that is a very arbitrary 7 years. How can that ever be fair and reasonable? Next, you are asking to perpetuate the social divisions that come from sectarianism. Sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, the Sub-Continent and the Middle East have had an enormous cost in terms of human misery. In the once great State High School, people of many ethnicities, religions and cultures mixed together from an early age without demeaning aspersions like "Heathens" being cast loosely about. Students judged their peers on whether they were good blokes, good at sport, good at academics or whatever. Religion didn't get a chance to divide. By the way, "State" and "Public" have the same meaning in this country - even the "Great Public Schools" are understood to be private, financially advantaged and religious sect based. Thinking something is unreasonable and unfair should not, in a logical argument be characterised as argument from "hating zealots". That one is beneath you Turbo. The quotations may be of fatuous material but they are literal quotes and offered in response to somebody whose entire argument revolves around their view that every word in the Bible is literally true and the inspired word of their god. It is perfectly fair and logically consistent to quote back at them the words they claim are irrefutably true. That you don't accept the Bible to be literally true and are willing to make the judgement as to what bits are true and what bits are parable or misinterpreted is fine by me but not the basis for any sort of logical argument. You can't have it both ways. Well, after 12 years of attendance at religious schools, I know I am in a better position to judge that anyone who has not had that "privilege". My experience of that system and the experience of the other 900 students at my High School were very similar I'm sure. The teaching culture was extremely narrow not broad. There was never any reference to ethics or statute or common law - only canon law. At least I was never asked to accept "Creationism" as an alternative to Evolution. Maths is Maths and Geography, History, Economics, etc., were taught without any form of religious overtones or undertones. Things got a bit sticky around the treatment of Bruno and Galileo but we got past that. I doubt that an atheist would have instructed any differently than did the members of the religious order that thrashed it all into us. Perhaps the thrashing bit might have been excluded as they probably would not have subscribed to the theory that a severs thrashing is good for the soul. I know that if one of my children experienced some of the treatment I endured at the hands of sadists (not sexual as far as I could tell) there would have been religious order blood on the floor of the school. But, being a good atheist, I have forgiven them and moved on. In my experience, religious education was extremely narrow with just one christian sect getting covered. Hardly what you would call a "broad foundation". Theoretically at least, citizens of the USA are provided an education that is free from religion despite the best efforts of creationist idiots. To all intents and purposes, it is education in an atheist environment. And what experience of an "atheist culture" do you have to base that opinion on? No, there is no choice as to whether my taxes go to fund Islamic Madrassas, Christian or Jewish Schools and if the Scientologists (a "Religion" according to the High Court of Australia) applied for funding - they would be entitled due to the narrow reading by the Hight Court of s116. More to do with good gun laws and the history of the secularism of the 20th Century. Sadly, in Australia in the 21st Century there has been a step backwards with increased attendance at unfair, economically and socially divisive rich private schools, Christian colleges and Islamic schools. All working towards inequality of opportunity and pushing our society into separate camps that are encouraged to despise each other.

That's far from the fact. There were requirements in the UK for instance that no public servant could be a catholic. That does not apply in Australia for reasons of separation of church and state. Funny thing it is catholic dominated countries like France and Italy that have the greatest separation of church and state due in large art to Napoleon - one of the good things he did as opposed to the murder of millions and making the French, Europe and by example USA drive on the wrong side of the road. Imagine what the world would be like if Napoleon wasn't a left-hander? But back to topic. The High Court has interpreted s116 in the narrowest way possible. This is what enables the Government to fund church schools that would be prohibited in the USA by virtually the same words in their constitution. It boils my blood that governments fund Christian, Islamic and Jewish schools that work to divide the community and reinforce ancient superstitions. What next a State funded School for Scientologists?

Another shame is that s116 does not restrict the States the same as the Commonwealth. Morons with extreme religious views like Fred Nile consistently wield God like power from their lofty perch in Australia's oldest Parliamentary chamber, the Legislative Council. Australia, like Iran, is a theocracy to the extent that the Head of State (Queen of Australia) is the head of the State religion. Unlike Iran, the Head of State is just a figurehead - ask any ALP voter and they may not agree - but the facts are we do have a Constitution that sits between Autocratic, theocratic power and we 'umble servants of the Crown.

True, it's been quite a few years (decades) since I studied Constitutional Law. However, I recall that, fortunately, that quaint passage, or any other part of the preamble, has no effect in law. Furthermore, it is contradicted by s 116 as quoted by Marty above. Interestingly, that section was based on the USA Constitution. It is a shame that a general knowledge of our constitution is not a part of high school curriculum.

The Macau street is no where near as interesting as the IOM but as dangerous if not more so. Loved the stories about the electric bikes that were so quiet that the birds (feathered flock) couldn't hear them coming and so didn't get out of the way. Wouldn't want to hit one of those big fat Brit sea gulls at 200 mph!

One thing I really despise is politicians who bring their religious views overtly to the forefront. We have by Constitution a secular country but at every chance the religious right trot out their faith and try to enact it in law or oppose secular freedom and equality because it cuts across their religious view that, for example, homosexuals need stoning and not in a druggy way.

Whoever you vote for you end up with a politician - a vocation that is just one notch above journalist and one below used car salesman.

The tradition around the lower Hunter Valley in farewelling somebody is "h'ray" sometimes fully enunciated as "hooray". No idea as to its origins or what it might be a corruption of. On the phone though I often say "talk with you later." I hate it when somebody says "Well, I'll let you go now . . . "

If you think you may be having a bad day imagine how Ron Wayne feels when he hears the Stock Market Report every day. I could imagine him uttering the odd OMFG . . . especially if sought divine guidance before selling his 10% of Apple Inc in 1976. [ATTACH]47653._xfImport[/ATTACH] I thought this was a bit improbable so I looked it up and found it wasn't quite right. He actually got $2,300 and it would now be worth US$75 billion. He was worried if Apple went under that he could lose his house. Oh well, seemed like a good decision at the time.

Not a cheap shot at all, OldK. I don't think the big fella ever gave any pretense of accepting assertions without strong proof. I also doubt that he would have found it easy to accept that there was anyone more powerful than himself. Now, that's a cheap shot.

My respect for KP was never great apart from three great things that he did. Firstly, popularising Packer Wackers at his own expense, telling off a bunch of senators who accused him of arranging his affairs to minimise his tax bill and cautioning them that what he does pay mostly gets wasted. And then there was the fact that at the age 69 with phenomenal wealth he chose accept his fate and die. He could have spent millions keeping himself alive but did not. I could also throw in his contribution to cricket but that would make 4.

In your view perhaps. I don't have a census of the tribe of Moses but I think I'd be safe in guessing that the goat herders heavily outnumbered the pharisees, civil engineers and mathematicians. Moses description of his tribe as he came down from his psychedelic experience with a burning bush on the top of the mountain confirms even his suspicion that they were a group of shallow-thinking simple, superstitious people who had melted down the gold and cast it as a calf and were now adoring it as the supreme being. Try telling anyone that these people were not gullible? I saw his brother Aaron's alleged burial place in the Sinai a few years back. No idea if it really was or was just folklore like so many other claimed relics. Similarly, it would be interesting to read an account by the Egyptians of the facts around the Bible story of the exodus. Currently we probably get only a very one-sided, colourful view. Was Moses what he said he was, an adopted Prince of Egypt? Was the "baby in the bullrushes" yarn a fable, parable or historical fact? Is there anyway of ever reliably knowing which? I mean, you would think that the news of losing an army due to the magical parting of the Red Sea would have rated a mention in hieroglyphs somewhere. But then you wouldn't want to ruin a great movie script with the facts. To my mind, the purpose of studying history is to understand the present and to not inadvertently repeat bad history. Other than that it is just plain interesting and I love it. I'd rather read well researched history than fiction any day. Well researched or not, it often doesn't make the story any less entertaining, e.g. Jason and the Argonauts. However, I doubt that there is anything we could learn today on the subject of Civil Engineering from people who were around pre 1 CE. But that probably wasn't your point. I'm guessing you were lecturing me on the idea that as well as ignorant (by today's standards), desert wandering, superstitious goat herders, there were some excellent civil engineers and mathematicians. True? Well, the lesson is wasted on me because I have stood at the foot of the pyramids at Giza with my mouth open, just like Napoleon and Julius Caesar did before me and thought, "farcus, how did they do that?" I've been to Luxor (Thebes) and the temples there and walked around inside the enormous tomb of my forebear, Ramses IV, and been utterly gobsmacked at the magnificence of their achievements and all done without so much as the assistance of a Sinclair ZX1000. I know that there were very clever people around 10,000 years ago despite the Bible claiming the world is only 6,000 years old. Plenty of those otherwise clever people succumbed to the superstitions that were prevalent in their time. The thing about superstitions that makes them so hard to counter is that you can't prove them wrong and the people who believe them don't need to have them proved right. They have faith! The people who adopt a superstition get quite rankled with people who point out how illogical it is to believe such twaddle. One man in the 7th Century CE writes that he is the last prophet and in the 21st Century CE, 1.25 billion people believe he was and run their based on his writings.

On the lighter side, in the Australian Army back in the late 1960s you had to advise your religion as one of catholic, C of E or OPD (other Protestant denomination). This classification scheme was the result of the widely held belief that there are no atheists in a foxhole. If you made the mistake of choosing any one of the categories on offer you got hauled off to church parade. If you were brave enough to cross them all out and write "none" you got assigned to the work detail of the damned.

As I said, it seemed a bit fanciful to me as well and contributed heavily to my leaving Catholicism to Catholics. But do not doubt for one moment that the Catholic Pope's interpretation of "keep holy the Sabbath" was attend catholic mass or commit a mortal sin. This is the sole reason why a greater percentage of Catholics go to church on Sunday's that C of E. Interesting interpretation by the Vatican in that the Catholic mass was not invented until centuries after the 10 commandments were carved in stone, smashed and re-written on goatskin. OK, you win, maybe the scribes just bludged on the goat herders like the TV evangelists do now. Is it not the bible story that they were a tribe of escaped slaves wandering around the Sinai peninsular looking for another tribe to decimate, steal from and enslave?

I too grew up in a strong church environment. Religious schools, even spent a few days at a monestary and loved it. I began to question what had been fed to me from infancy when a good friend who was one of the most decent people I have ever known was a non-attendee at mass on Sundays. According to the hierarchy he was all set to burn in hell for all eternity. I just couldn't see that as likely and that therefore, something was wrong with the church. Did a lot of research of a lot of religions and graduated to churchless agnostic. There is a logical argument in favour of agnosticism that goes along the lines of that nobody can know for certain that there is not one or several supreme beings or even the three in one favoured by Christians. Just the same as religious people can not be certain that there is - they make up the credibility gap by inserting belief. Finally got to the stage of stepping back and looking at "faith" as a device that is successful from an evolutionary viewpoint. People of faith flock together and have a social cohesion that helps to fend off threats. It has psychological advantages in making the insufferable, sufferable. No wonder just about every civilisation invents some form of imaginary friend for comfort and bind the group together. Happy to now be a grown up and stand and fall on my own ideas of how to live a good life. While the goat herders may have contributed part of my personal philosophy most of it I reject as deplorable in the 21st century CE. From reading this thread, I now have a new simplified guide, a restated golden rule on how to live and I treasure it: "Don't be a dick". Genius can concentrate a holy book into a phrase. Thanks.