octave

A lot of QLDers were uninsured too, but you know what? They got out the tools and fixed it themselves.

Are you suggesting that Americans are lazier and less resourceful than Queenslanders? For the comparison to be fair and rational we would have to take into account all other factors like average earnings etc, not to mention the government response. my understanding is that after the Queensland floods the the government imposed a temporary tax levy to help rebuild. I am not sure how effective the disaster response was in New Orleans but this is important if you are trying to compare the character of New Orleans compared to Queenslanders

The reason why so many Italians, Dutch, Maltese, Greeks and Germans have fitted so well into Australian society is because they have the same Judeo-Christian background. There is an mutually understandable affinity which assists with integration.

I have been a musical instrument teacher for since 1990 and I can say without doubt that non christian cultures still integrate and in fact often excell. I have many Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian and Korean (and more) students and I have never thought that not having a Judeo Christian background was neither a barrier to achievement or impediment to integration.

Lefties just love themselves some fresh straw man in the morning. Did it make one scrap of difference to the undeniable fact that atheist leaders have murdered tens of millions of people, more than any other religious group? Obviously not. Did Octave or yourself offer one scrap of conflicing evidence? No. But it has to be from Fairfax or NYT apparently or it never happened. Pathetic.

Octave: but never mind all that mass murder by atheists - look, shiny object over there!!

 

On topic, someone earlier referred to containment; at this point it seems to be the only practical way forward. Open borders has been an utter failure.

Gnu if you are suggesting that a leader who is an atheist and behaves in a hideous way tarnishes the idea of non belief then I am sure you must bear some responsibility for the wrongs committed by "Christians". Where do we start, the Crusades maybe? Witch burning maybe? Institutional abuse of children? The atrocities committed by Christopher Columbus maybe?

In terms of the horror of living in an atheist country, here is a list of the countries with the highest percentage of atheists:

• Japan: 4.3 percent
   
  
• East Germany: 7.8 percent
   
  
• Sweden: 10.2
   
  
• Czech Republic: 11.1
   
  
• Denmark: 13.0
   
  
• Norway: 14.8
   
  
• France: 15.5
   
  
• Great Britain: 16.8
   
  
• The Netherlands: 21.2
   
  
• Austria: 21.4
   
  

Most of these countries I could live in, by contrast the most religious nations...... well, not so much. (sorry for the crappy formatting)

Nicaragua97.672Romania96.963Malta96.824Guam96.695Micronesia96.656Honduras96.647Samoa96.608Paraguay96.309Guatemala96.1210Papua New Guinea95.8411Martinique95.8012Solomon Islands95.8013Tonga95.7614Peru95.4515Puerto Rico95.2816Haiti95.1217Saint Lucia95.0818Mexico95.0319US Virgin Islands94.9520Barbados94.9421Bahamas, The94.6522El Salvador94.6323Cape Verde Islands94.5624Ecuador94.4525Armenia94.43

Oh my are you serious? The Atheist head count is way above the Moslems Jihad one - check Stalin, Castro, Che, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Atheist countries are the most dangerous, miserable and repressive on the planet. However within the framework of Atheism it is impossible to demonstrate that this mass killing is actually morally wrong behaviour. But this is for another thread so that's enough...

Are you really sighting conservapedia as a source, that is hilarious. For any not familiar with conservapedia, it is a copy of wikipedia written by creationists and christian fundamentalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

3) Fine them for indecent language, and detain them for further verification. Exactly what police do if your pulled over and act like that.

No problem with checking credentials of people when there is "reasonable suspicion". There is a world of difference between this and the RANDOM stopping and questioning of students, tourists and other people who are not quite the right colour.

Thumbs up to the government.

Not sure why you are congratulating the government when they claim that random checks were not what they intended and that it was just a poorly worded press release.

In terms of a database, I can tell you after being a citizen since 1971 and misplacing my certificate recently, it was not just a matter of the immigration dept. finding my name on a database, I virtually had to do the whole thing again. I had assumed that it would be a matter of identifying myself, but it was much harder than that and it was not an instant check on an Ipad.

3) Fine them for indecent language, and detain them for further verification. Exactly what police do if your pulled over and act like that.

Who exactly is "Them"?

Last time a policeman asked me for ID I showed him my driver license and went on my way.

So how would you prove that you are legally entitled to be in this country? Do we have to start carrying our birth certificates or citizenship papers around with us?

[/url]

 

LA's scheme to cover a reservoir under 96 million "shade balls" may not be all it is touted to be

, experts told FoxNews.com, with some critics going so far as to refer to the plan as a "potential disaster." Experts differed over the best color for the tiny plastic balls, with one telling FoxNews.com they should have been white and another saying a chrome color would be optimal. But all agreed that the worst color for the job is the one LA chose. "Black spheres resting in the hot sun will form a thermal blanket speeding evaporation as well as providing a huge amount of new surface area for the hot water to breed bacteria," said Matt MacLeod, founder of the California biotech firm Modern Moon Farms. "Disaster. It’s going to be a bacterial nightmare.”

 

Biologist Nathan Krekula, a professor of health science at Bryant & Stratton College in Milwaukee, said black balls will absorb heat, transfer it to the water and cause evaporation. And he agreed with MacLeod that the heat will prove hospitable to bacteria." Bacteria required a few things to grow a dark, warm and moist environment," he said. "The balls will give them the perfect environment to live in.

http://space.io9.com/why-are-drought-balls-black-instead-of-white-1724040253

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

Have proper read...I'd be happy if they were wrong.

2 Google engineers say........

http://www.energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-dont-know-much-energy/

The environmental cost of producing renewables, at this stage is more than the benefits gained.

how so?

.

The only yardstick that has been around for a very long time is the Ten Commandments.

The ten commandments have not been around that long compared to the entirety of human history (unless you are a believer in the 6000-year thing). The question is did people kill their own people in a large scale way BEFORE the Old Testament.

Not killing your own kind does not really need any kind of commandment, it is just an essential, to ensure the survival of the group.

I am not a Christian (or believer in God) but I could not kill anyone for the following reasons:

1) My sense of empathy would mean that I would be caused considerable mental pain by imagining the pain suffered by my victim, also the pain and grief I would cause their family and friends.

3) There is a societal deal we make with each other, I won't kill you if you won't kill me, this by and large works well, other than violent acts carried out by aberrant members of society.

3) It is against the secular law, I don't want to go to jail.

Mostly higher animals do not kill members of their own group, they don't need a set of commandments it is just that survival of the group is more likely by ensuring the survival of the individual.

anyway back to the humour

Yeah firstly explain why the earth stopped warming 18 years ago despite every warmy climate model showing this was impossible.

Is CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'? Sure it is but the effect is low level (compared to the effect of water vapour for example) and exponentially decreasing as the CO2 level rises not to mention we are talking such tiny percentages here. If I pee into the ocean does the ocean level rise? Exact same thing. Even the men you put all your faith in know this is all a game, not one of them actually lives in the manner they would if the theory actually had any basis. As do you.

I am open minded, perhaps if you can use your scientific knowledge to disprove this - http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ you may be able to convince me, but I suspect that you will not or can not.

and you'll be waiting until I get interested and get enough time to do the research it deserves - doesn't alter its validity.

But Turbs, you need to get onto this, every year you delay another group graduates from The University of Melbourne - Science Faculty degree course in Evolutionary Biology (and from every other Uni that teaches modern science).

You will be doing humanity a great service with your research and I am sure after publishing and peer review you can expect a call from the Noble prize people

Five points for you to rebut, and you went to water.

and you went to water with your promised report on mitochondrial DNA (#2154) that was supposed to blow evolutionary biology as we know it out of the water. - still waiting.

I would normally say "see you later", on the phone I often say goodbye and yes, I do know that the origin of "Goodbye" is thought to be a contraction of god be with you. This does not imply any belief in god, the meanings of words and customs change with time.

Is that real or a model, more information please.Alan.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/10/flying-rooster/

So fascinating hearing about other people's journey to non-belief.

For me it was not a journey, I don't think I ever believed. My parents and grandparents were not church goers other than weddings and funerals. I do remember attending Sunday school on 2 occasions, I suspect at the insistence of a well-meaning neighbour. I think the realization came after singing all things bright and beautiful, I asked the Sunday school teacher if god also made the things that were neither bright nor beautiful, this, of course, did not go down well.

In 1979 I joined the RAAF, I put Cof E (church of England) on my personal details form (I definitely felt some social pressure). In 1982 I decided to be honest and I changed the religion on my personal details to "None".

Instead of 10 commandments I have just one - "don't be a dick", this has served me well so far. I do not fear death although I do fear pain and suffering. I enjoy my life and I do not need religion.

Gnu and Turbo, if you wish to attempt to convert me you would need to answer all of my questions (which you can't).

Well certainly not to me, it is to be expected and pitied: 1 Corinthians 1v18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." As for the reference to David Phelps trying to sing (a very successful and highly regarded tenor) this suggests jealousy, again to be pitied. I note the fundamental atheists here have been stung by the article but not one has posted counter arguments to any of the writers five points, they are just upset with me for bringing it up as like all religious folk they object to critical scrutiny of their faith.

#5 - The first assertion that Hill makes is that non-believers actually have leaders. Although the likes of Dawkins, Harris et al write about atheism or non-belief in the supernatural this does not mean they are the leaders of a movement, they are no more leaders of non-belief than Don Burke is a leader of the gardening movement. It is not up to Hill to assert that atheist follow a leadership and to decide who those leaders are any more than for me to assert that the pope or the archbishop of Canterberry are the leaders of the Christian movement.

Hill says of Dawkins "But then, slowly but surely, he revealed himself to be an asshole." this is purely subjective and is hardly a worthy debating point.

Hill says that " and he went off on that weird tangent about watching dogs have oral sex." The implication here is that Dawkins is somehow perverted or obsessed with animal sex, however, the context of these remarks is important. These remarks were an answer to a question on twitter -

Lucy Wainwright ‏@Whoozley 24 Mar 2014

...I can't quite believe I'm asking this, but do any other species have oral sex? (Tenner on bonobos and/ or dolphins.)

Although many people may find a discussion of sexual behaviour in animals to be distasteful it must be remembered that Dawkins IS a BIOLOGIST. The tactic here is quite transparent, first connect group A with person B, suggest that person B is bad therefore people in group A must also be bad.

Hill goes on to say - "Stephen Hawking? He's too busy inventing black holes." I would suggest anyone who wants to bag a scientists work must first have at least some understanding of that work. Besides trivialising Hawking's work, Hill is just factually wrong, Hawking did not "invent black holes" but rather predicted the existence of so-called Hawking radiation. This is just a shoddy argument and neither indicates that Hawking is a terrible person or a leader of atheists.

#4 - "It's become tied to awful ideas"

The main criticism here seems to be the suggestion atheism is anti-feminist and or anti-woman. Again atheism is not a club with a book of principles, I have met bigoted atheists as well as open-minded christians. Pointing out that a particular atheist is sexist tells you nothing about atheists per se. It seems to me that this argument is disingenuous. The notion that atheism is not feminist enough whilst christianity............

#3 - "Arrogance to it" as a nonbeliever, I know I will die sometime between right now or sometime in the next 40 years. My family and friends will mourn me but they too will eventually die. The molecules of my body will break down and be incorporated in other things. With time, the ripples of my existence will dissipate, anyone whos life I have influenced will be gone. This certainly seems less arrogant than thinking that I was created in the image of a perfect god and that I am so special that I should have life after death for eternity.

In terms of how atheists debate believers, I do not think that atheists or more arrogant than believers. I am sure it is quite easy to find arrogant atheists ranting on youtube but is is very easy to find ranty arrogant christians also.

# 2- "it's become too defensive" - Also, atheists have a tendency to insert themselves into conversations where they aren't invited or even relevant." - I have never ever had an atheist knock on my door, I have never been stopped in the street by an atheist.

I really don't care what people believe, if believing in a god makes your life better than go for it, as long as you don't impose it on me.

# 1 - "focused on the wrong goals " - "But the few leaders atheism has have become famous not for making scientific discoveries " Hawking???? - no scientific discoveries???? Dawkins is known as an atheist but has had a long career in biology with many published papers.

The fact that many christians think that I will burn eternally in hell (oooh scary lol) is fine (along with people of other faiths and those who believe in god but do not accept christ!), I get it, I have been forwarned. If people find their life is better with belief then I am happy for them but I am not convinced so perhaps it is best to go on with your happy life and look forward to your eternal reward.

Well certainly not to me, it is to be expected and pitied: 1 Corinthians 1v18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." As for the reference to David Phelps trying to sing (a very successful and highly regarded tenor) this suggests jealousy, again to be pitied. I note the fundamental atheists here have been stung by the article but not one has posted counter arguments to any of the writers five points, they are just upset with me for bringing it up as like all religious folk they object to criticism of their faith.

Didn't think it worthy of reply, but will happily do so if you wish as long as you will actually address the points I raise.

I would also remind you that you started this thread with a lame "aren't atheists stupid joke" (which, by the way, makes no sense). Did you really think that this thread would not provoke a response? Have any atheists started threads on this forum having a go at christians? If so I could you point them out? I am more than happy to keep my none belief to myself, but it is a two-way street.

Still the questions

and no answers

Not at all, I would like to see you say something of substance as people did in the original context of forums.

If you read my post you will see that it is mainly questions, not comment, I like to clarify what someone is saying before I debate them. Did you read Gnus link?

You seem to have a particular problem with me, I am sorry, but I disagree with you, should I cease posting? Does anyone else find my posts lacking in substance?

Happy to stop posting in areas other than my recent flying activities if my posts lack "subtance"

Yes, I intend to and not just mitochondrial, but that could take months. I'm engaged in unpicking several ancestral family Illigitimacies over the next few months, and that might give me some practice.

Any predictions when this might be finished Turbs? I am sure Melbourne University would like to know ASAP so they can stop teaching https://science.unimelb.edu.au/evolutionary-biology

Yes, but you could give it a rest for a while Octave, continually asking for the names of the survivors of the Titanic gets boring after a while.

If we are writing a thesis then yes, we would be expected to provide a bibliography and references, but this is a simple forum.

"Give it a rest" - What? are you kidding? if you go back through this thread (or any other thread) you will find that I am not a prolific poster (certainly not as prolific as your good self)

I have not posted in this thread for quite a while, gnu revived it, but you are suggesting that I should not comment????

I am sorry if you are offended or challenged by me not accepting opinion as fact. I don't comment without carefully reading the links that others post (did you read gnus link?).

I did not start this thread and contrary to what you might think I do not go around proclaiming my atheism (I would rather refer to it as non- belief in the supernatural) I merely replied to a thread that started with an "aren't atheist stupid joke " which did not even make much sense (yes I am an atheist and I do know why different animals' excretions are different - I did study biology!)

Now I had forgotten about this but weren't you going to post about mitochondrial DNA and blow the theory of evolution out of the water?

"but they do not have the right for that opinion to go unchallenged."

Speak for yourself!

OK, I will speak for myself, I believe that we should all be free to express any opinion we wish BUT we should not expect that those opinions can not be challenged.

5 Ways Atheists Argue Their Cause (That Aren't Helping)

#5. The Closest Atheism Has To Leaders Are Terrible People

 

#4. It's Become Tied To Awful Ideas

 

#3. There's An Arrogance To It

 

#2. It's Become Too Defensive

 

#1. It's Focused On The Wrong Goals

#5 - who are these people and in what way are they terrible? As a person who does not believe in the supernatural of any kind, I don't consider that I have a "leader"

#4 - what "Awful Ideas" do you consider it has been tied to?

#3 - Non- believers just like believers can be arrogant or not, perhaps you find the most outspoken atheists to be arrogant but then I find the most outspoken believers to be arrogant. I personally would not dream of knocking on doors and trying to convert people or start a thread with an "aren't they dumb" type joke.

#2 - there is nothing wrong with defending one's position, everyone does have a right to express an opinion, but they do not have the right for that opinion to go unchallenged. I have no interest in converting believers into non- believers but if a believer tells me I should behave in a certain way because it says so in THEIR holy book or it is ok to teach scientific theories A, B and C but not theory D because it contradicts THEIR holy book then I have a right to politely and rationally argue.

#1 "Focused on the wrong goals" - I am not sure who "it" is and what you perceive the goals to be, perhaps you could enlighten me.

5 Ways Atheists Argue Their Cause (That Aren't Helping)

aren't helping what? Belief in the supernatural continues to decline.

I don't really understand why atheism bothers you so much, after all you believe that you will be rewarded in heaven and I will burn in hell for eternity along with those who believe in different gods or those who believe in a god but not christ.

Interesting to see what other countries do

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12