Polititions i would like to think have rational and annilitical minds tempered with wisdom.i hope they read the evidence consider the facts discuss solutions and possible consequences thereoff,finaly ending up with a plan that is both fair and just and that benefits the many over the few.
Religion however is the complete opposite (excluding buddism,taoism)
religions are belief systems
belief is by definition the suspension of rational thought
it has to ignore the facts ,deny the evidence because if it dos'nt it becomes a knowledge system,the opposite of a belief system.
this brings to mind two devoutly religious guys George Bush and Tony Blair, plenty of evidence of their faith in recent years;denial of the facts on WMDs,with hindsight we can see there were no WMDs which means that there could be no factual evidence only faith in what someone made up and told them.
911
the fact that 16 of the 20 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia completely ignored instead we go and attack the wrong contry.bush praying to a supernatural being didnt do us any favours there either.
the list goes on and on
they claim to be christians and yet behave like satans.
Who i ask would Jesus Christ have bombed,who would Jesus Christ have invaded and under what circumstances would Jesus Christ kiddnap and torture innocent or guilty people ?
the answer is noone and none
the truth is niether blair or bush follow christian teachings and yet they claim the faith as theirs,more suspention of rational thought more ignoring the facts and they both got very rich (greed) just another sin on there C Vs
they have the dishonour of being this centuaries first two war criminals ( Kofi Annan )president of the UN at the time,
and you can bet he checked the facts before personally informing them of this fact.
This leads me to conclude that anyone with a religious conviction should be automaticaly banned from political office.leaving governance to rational interlectual and sane people whome i have no doubt would do a much better job and inprove all our lives instead of making things worse.
religions are belief systems...
belief is by definition the suspension of rational thought
That's exactly what tribal politics is too. Politics and religion are not opposites. Some politicians will distort religious beliefs in an attempt to give credence to their political beliefs.
Quote:
anyone with a religious conviction should be automaticaly banned from political office.
What about those with a political conviction? They are just as mad and dangerous.
well yorker i agree with points,the current system is an unholy mess of tribes religion capitalism and little politics.
i have to say that there are some good people in the house of commons ,not enough to out vote the idiots though and not in positions of prominence either,i cannot imagine there frustration at having to tow a party line to show loyalty and unitedness at the expence of intelligence commonsence and morality.sometimes i want to resign and im not even a member :) independant veiws seems a lonely fruitless path and it shouldnt be it should be vibrant and corrageous and bold .the current system seems very like a form of communism to me just with lots of religious nutters added to boot
There is nothing wrong with religious belief, I have none, but have respect for those that follow their beliefs even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. I think it is not the religion but the interpretation that is fault. Most religions are a common sense code to living amicabaly but people alter this code to suit themselves. For example Jesus said it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. How many Christians follow this or apply it to governing.How many who call themselves Christians would vote for any one who actually applied it to governing. This can be said of other religions. On the other hand those with strong political persuasions are equally selective in the way they rule. Independent MP's would be fine we could then vote for the person rather than a party, we would then have the problem of finding out exactly what each candidate thought on every subject only to find that once they got to power they changed their minds. So we would be back to where we are now. The problem the world over is that those who get to rule are by and large people of either very strong beliefs or a desire to have power for power's sake and the material advantages it brings to themselves. This has been the same throughout history and most religious founders were themselves preaching against this attitude. I have found that often the most zealous believers are in fact the newly converted. I don't think many politicians really have any intention of applying their religion to their actions it's more that they proclaim to believe if they think it will get more votes.
averagevoter
i too have no problem with relgious belief,religion has played a pivotal role in human social expansion.that said religions were invented before issues such as over population,resource shortages and global warming were even imaginable let alone here and with us now.So they are unequiped to do the job that needs doing.praying does not feed 6.5 billion people,talking to a supernatual being does not stop enviromental damage.faith will not reduce the price of oil and production decline.faith will be usefull however for burying most of the next generation if we mess up.
my point is that i dont want someone who relies on faith over facts to be in charge.someone who relies on factual evidence is more likely to come up with real solutions .unlike george bush who prayed for new orleans to get better ,which it hasnt
is noone going to defend god in politics
i would like to think i was wrong
that there was a fatal floor in my rather strong arguement
that i a mere mortal had got something wrong,that i hadnt expelled god from HMGvt
TB may have disagreed with you on that
and GBs presbeterian father is bound to have had an influance
also HM the Queen head of the church of england may disagree
point taken though, if he had visited they wouldnt behave the way they do .an thats a fact
belief is by definition the suspension of rational thought
it has to ignore the facts ,deny the evidence because if it dos'nt it becomes a knowledge system,the opposite of a belief system.
All the religions were knowledge systems originally. Unenlightened religious leaders added dogma over time to control the masses (and enlightened person cannot be controlled).
all theistic religions invoke the existance of a supernatural being that has no factual evidence to support its existance,this makes it a belief system.known knowledge of the time was added to the religion to give it some credibility and to convince people that they were right.however these facts have been proven wrong over time . Thiestic Religions were also
highjacked by monarchies who are also capitalists and they used it to grow there own power at the expense of everyone else.claiming divine rights for example.They used god as a justification for murder and robbery.ironic huh,you cant kill us but we can kill you ,god says.an if you dont believe in god we will kill you .was the official line probably still is in some places.
an interesting fact released in scientific papers recently stated that ;all societies that had a religion with a god and a devil had the worst murder rape hate crimes,and other crime levels
societies with a religion that just had a god or gods had lower crime rates in all catorgies.
and societies with religions with no gods had the least crimes of all across the board.
what does this suggest ?
all theistic religions invoke the existance of a supernatural being that has no factual evidence to support its existance,this makes it a belief system.
Make your mind up. You said a belief system "has to ignore the facts ,deny the evidence".
It's a fact that there's no evidence disputing the existence of 'supernatural' beings. Theistic religions are not ignoring that fact.
Physics... The reason that the government has such a hard time with religion is the awful deals they have to make,,, see the thread on Supping with the Devil.
TB as well as GB has to square his conscience with what he has to do... I suspect that is why TB saw the Pope privately.. to find out what penance he must do to reclaim his soul after 10 years of breaking commandments Thou shalt not bear False Witness.. and thou Shalt not kill.
DaveGould
[Make your mind up. You said a belief system "has to ignore the facts ,deny the evidence]
donald rumsfield once said about WMDs "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"to which i pondered what is evidence of absence if it is not the absence of evidence?
A justified belief is one that has a justifier,a justifier is a fact(evidence).just one will do
a quote from wiki ;some philosophers have questioned whether "belief" is a useful notion at all.
another :A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge, because in order to be knowledge, there must be some person who knows it.
belief is a psycological theory
donald rumsfield once said about WMDs "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"to which i pondered what is evidence of absence if it is not the absence of evidence?
Really don't know what point you're trying to make here. Perhaps you could check your posts for clarity before adding them?
donald rumsfield once said about WMDs
"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
his point was just because we havent found any does not mean they are not there.
i will try to explain with an example.
say for instance;
I believe, there is a pen in the draw of my desk.
i open the draw and it is empty.(this is the absence of evidence)to say that this is not (evidence of absence),is to say that the pen could still be in the draw.and the fact that the draw is empty is not proof that the pen is not in there.
my point was, he was making a contradiction ,a statement of fact.
political speak or bull sh*t
my next point was that
the draw being empty,(an absence of evidence, of the pen)
was in fact (evidence of absence)proof that the pen was not there.
the draw being empty proved the pen was not in there.
bringing this back to theism .the fact that there is no evidence of a super natural being, proves that there is no supernatural being.
the draw so to speak is empty.
a fact is a truth,
a truth is a fact,
to say you can have a truth without a fact is a contridiction because the two words mean the same thing.
there are no facts that are untrue
there are no truths that are not factual
because someone else says "there are truths without facts" does not make this a fact ,or the truth.
it is a paradoxical statement whose purpose is confusion.
this got moderated
it was titled
ARE THE NAZIS BACK ?
The return of the 3rd REICH ?
rebranded as the EU
lets look at some facts
Well there would have to be a plan to grab all of europe and control it from one central Bureaucracy.
A primary aim of the nazi's.
Hmmm i think we can say YES to that one
There would have to be a war criminal in charge,
Hmmm tony blair is an official war criminal so we can say YES to that one.
There would need to be an attempt to beat our armed forces.
Hmmm the new treaties puts them under control of unelected beaurocates and foriegn generals. so we can say YES to that.
We would need to lose control of our own borders.
Hmmm i think we can say YES to that
We would need to see a more dictatorial attitude from our puppet government.
Hmmm i think we could say YES to that.
There would have to be some tribute paid just to show we lost the war ( its tradition ).
Hmmm the £1,300,000 we pay the EU every hour we are in it ,that could count as tribute so we could say YES to that.
There would have to be an attempt to over right or cancell the the british constitution,and our bill of rights.
Hmmm the new EU treatise does just that what a coincedence,so we can say YES to that too.
There would need to be an attempt to destroy / assimilate our currency,the pound,its so british its part of our identity,its why people deal with us.
Hmmm the EURO sounds like a contender for that one so we can say YES to that too.
There would have to be a serious upping of security powers.
Hmmm the terroism bills would fit that nicely so YES to that.
There would have to be a severe reduction in civil liberties ,the right to protest,or even congrigate,
Hmmm the terrorism bill fits that too so YES to that
There would need to be a way of knowing who every one was in the contry and ways of keeping track of them.
The NAZIs were meticulas at that ,with the help of IBM they had punch card systems with details for everyone.
Hmmm the new national data base is just the ticket for that so we can say YES to that one.
There would need to be a social under class of immigrant workers (slaves or the like) working without rights,
for less than every one else doing the menial jobs that noone wants to do.
Hmmm come to think of it we have got one of those ,so YES to that.
They would need to give the police/security forces absolute authority to brutally suppress any whiff of dissent.
Hmmm the EU plans to give those very same people diplomatic imunity allowing them to kill rape and torture without redress .so we can say YES to that
There would have to be armed foriegn nationals on our soil.
Hmmm there are armed foreign nationals on our soil,
at international football matches,at the euro tunnel entrance,and hunting mafia dons in london.
Hmmm so we can say YES to that
any suggestions on how we get out of this nightmare welcome.
:) :) :) resistance is futile ...
i have alot more information on how they work and who's doing what and where they got the power to bring things this far . is it really just a conspiracy theory .???
foot note.
Are any of these facts false?
I also tried to post it under the title THE EU
the truth is supressed even here!!! and yet again !!!
rant over
Last edited by: physics911comfan on 28/10/2007 21:01
Physics... The reason most people use Capitals to start a sentence. Stops at the end of a sentence. 2 spaces after a stop and one space after a comma and lines between paragraphs etc is to make what we write easy to read.
In other words it is the idea of what I am saying that I want my readers to get.. not to have to battle through verbiage to get an idea.
Now I am sure you have a lot in there.. I am disagreeing with you on most of the things you have written but not all.
But every time reading your diatribes are a battle.. I don't and I am sure may others don't have the time.
Please try and use conventional sentences, parseing. Paragraphs etc so It is easy to read and the point is clear..
I am afraid I just don't have the inclination or time to try an battle through what you are trying to say above...
posted here cos astro said from(Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 )thread
although it could easily go on (capitaism is the enemy of democracy)
Firstly) thankyou for pointing out my poor spelling.:)
I have put my glasses on now.I wonder if it will help?
Secondly)My sources are published, scientific papers,
(something this government thinks is medicated and and is applied to their overworked posteriors).
Some are of independant origin and some from universities.
The jist of it comes from The New Scientist magazine 1st sept
In an artical titled "IS GOD GOOD".There are alot of sources referred to in there.
Some (selected by me I admit)points of interest are;
1)America;where 96% of the population believe in GOD and 76% believe in the DEVIL, has the worst crime rates in the WORLD along with the phillapines ,dominican republic and south africa.These have a similar religiosity.
(Journel of religeon and Society ,vol 8 p 1 )
In Sweden only 18% of people believe in GOD and the
DEVIL,much lower crime levels.
2)Prison populations have exactly the same religious structure as their societies.
3)Many athiest manage to be good without GOD
4)Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity also has some stark contrasts,intrinsic(church going and worship and belief in GOD was an end in its self)showed more compasion and tollerance than
extrinsic(church was primarily a social activity)this group were less helpfull to others , they only helped others if they considered them "the right sort".
Greg Paul tried to quantify religiosity and social dysfuction,(Journel of religeon and society vol7 p1)
In a study of 18 developed nations and concluded that;
"Mass belief in gods is primarily a fear and anxiety based response to insufficently secure financial circumstances,and does not have a deep neurobiological,genetic or any other basis".
Some other books on this subject are
(Moral Minds) by cognative psycologist at Harvard University
Marc Hauser
(The GOD Delusion) by ; British biologist Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford
Last edited by: physics911comfan on 29/10/2007 16:14
I, for one admire Dawkins intellect but pity him for his stance on religion. He has got no proof of the non existence anymore than other have no proof of existence.
Physics anyway this argument has no conclusion possible....
Physics - I enjoy your thinking outside the box and your attempts to expand the envelope of a belief that many say is without proof.
But when you examine the concept of God compared to how humans have managed our world especially in recent times when science and technology has shrunk distances and created a global existence where the children in Sudan or Somalia could be the kids in the flats across the street.
According to the UN every day close to 800 million people go to bed hungry and about 980 million suffer from absolute poverty, with less than one dollar a day in purchasing power.
- People of 31 countries, equivalent to 9 percent of the world’s population, have an average life expectancy equalling to 46 years, which is 32 years less than the average of some countries.
- Ratio between the rich and the poor in some parts of the world is 40 times.
- In some countries, majority of people are deprived of access to education and schooling.
- In many developing countries the maternal mortality rate during pregnancy is 450 per 100,000. This ratio is 7 in the richer nations and the ratio of mortality of new births is 59 for developing countries and 6 for the richer nations.
- One-third of mortality in the world, or 50,000 daily, results from poverty.
Just yesterday in Manhattan thousands of people shouted in the rain that one and a half billion dollars spent on a useless war in Iraq could have been spent on health and education.
What good has come from the men controlling the great powers in our world? This disregard of morals, values, Christian teachings of prophets and directions specified by the all-knowing God as well as the rule of the sinful. How can the sinful that can not even manage and control themselves, rule the humanity and arrange his affairs?
Hypocrisy rules for Bush and Blair right? Do these men think they are God?
To me a faith in God means believing in honesty, purity, justice and loving others!
Nations can be sure that they will benefit from purity, honesty, justice, loving and respecting the human dignity.
Britain and America can be sure that such attributes are considered to be more appropriate, valuable and beautiful by the nations of the world.
Unfortunately they have put themselves in the position of God! They are in servitude of their own whims and desire to have everything for themselves. For them, the human dignity and the lives, properties lands of others are no longer important.
Humanity has had the deep wound caused by impious powers on his battered body. Today, the problems that people around world face are mainly rooted in the disregard of human values and morals and also in the management by the impious.
I am ,contrary to that which
my arguement implies,a spiritual person.
It was rather naughty of me to bring this subject up,
As its real intention was to prove or disprove an
academics proposition that I read that was;
"It is impossible to have a rational discussion
about religion,with a religious person."
I had trouble accepting that billions of people,were all
irrational.
A BHUDDIST SAYING;
"BELIEVE NOTHING,until you have proved it to yourself"...
source BHUDDA I believe . (dont quote me :) )
It is said that this is rule number one ,of Bhuddism.
I have found the original statement proven ;
(that it is impossible to have a rational discussion,ect on this subject).
My reasoning ,is that,
the assertion of no evidence to disprove GOD ,
is not a rational statement.
Example;
There is no evidence to disprove fairies exist.
This a true statement.
It is not proof of existance.
How real are they ?
By useing the same arguement proposed to justify god,
we must accept that fairies exist.
DaveGould
I find your posts both enlighting ,informative
and clearly stated ,on all but this subject rationality
is the corner stone of your statements and this site is
privaliged with your participation.
Jonji
I concluded that thiestic beliefs have no place in the
political areana.This is just my point of view.
I would prefer facts rather than faith to be the basis of
decision making that will affect millions of peoples lives.
I have not tried to disprove GOD ,
rather show that the arguements we use to prove GOD
are false arguements.
When / if proof of GOD is found ,
then I will have been proved the fool.
If it is found then I to will believe.
may your god be with you
love and kindness to everyone
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Last edited by: physics911comfan on 28/10/2007 16:04
True Physics and thanx for yr love and kindness; I have no religion and I cannot prove a God exists. I do however have a sense of good/evil which is a subtle difference from knowing right from wrong.
Truth and honesty to me are good and deceit and lies that affect peoples lives are evil. I oppose the argument that sometimes evil must be used to prevent an even greater evil.
If you are a spiritual person then put yourself in the position of 'creator', cast your eyes over the world. What do you see of the creation that you have made from the energy that is part of your own existence?
Then ask yourself again - shall I prove my existence to this cosmos I created?
I would answer 'no' knowing that the gift of time must expire before the integrity of the creation is proved. We can deduce this from nature because she will allow growth unless growth becomes abnormal then it must die.
A complex argument Physics but I offer you my thoughts in a very simplistic form but one which I feel holds up to scrutiny.
[There is no evidence to disprove fairies exist. ]
"no there both in the dont know catorgory"
This also applies to;Tinkerbell,
peterpan,the tooth fairy,
the man in the moon,zebadee,
rudolf the red nose reindeer,santa,
donald duck,frankinstien,the genie in aladins lamp,
the invisible man,captian scarlet,
the mysterons from mars,puff the magic dragon,
ali baba,the clangers,danger mouse,
thunder birds,the bogey man,
hobbits,the queen of hearts,
cruella de ville,sherlocke holmes,king kong,
zaphod beeblebrox president of the universe ,
flash gorden,mr ben,willow the wisp,
the bermuda triangle,unicorns,
angels,the four hoursemen of the apocalypse,
shankses pony,cinderella,the wicked witch
of the east,Odin,Thor,007,batman,barberella,
uncle tom cobbly,Noahs ark,the devil,
gomez adams,willy wonka,adam and eve,
action man,the daily mirror.mustafa fag,
weapons of mass destructions in Iraq.
buffy the vampire slayer.has more credability
not as many followers i will grant you.
The theme here is fantasy;
Not a sensible thing to believe in .Is it ?
But seriously apart from the hundreds of
contridictions in the bible.
Why did GOD pick Moses who was the high priest
of egyptian sun and sex worshiping cults,
and a bit of a psyco -to boot to be his prophet
(or profit)
an then send him to hell.
An why is israel named after three egyptian gods
Isis raa and el.
Isis the throne god,
Raa the sun god
and el commonly thought to be a god that
represented saturn,
which the little jewish hat represents.
(the disk of the hat represents the rings of saturn)
An what the pope wears under his mitre
which is another strange thing not the 2 hats
(wierrd enough)
but the mitre is actually a fishes head,
thats what its supposed to be,
look at a picture of him wearing it
theres the two eyes and a big open fishy gob.
A big fish head on ya bonse ,
very egyptian if ya ask me.
God said do that did he?
Its all stranger than fiction
And there's me thinking I could get a
better grasp of reality an the big picture
really learn things to make life better for people.
You could end up with a nasty headache
trying to work all that out.
Touche^ and my point me believes.
Last edited by: physics911comfan on 29/10/2007 16:18
To understand all that you would have to go and look at the Pagan religions and how it came to be that patriarchy demonised matriarchal society and caused sex to be a sin.
did you know that Vestal Virgins were originally sacred prostitutes who perpetuated the King lines. Hence Jesus was born of a Virgin and was angered by the stoning of a sacred prostitute Mary Magdalene. The founder of Rome was born of a Vestal called Rhea Silvia. The Egyptian King lines were founded by temple priestesses and it was only later when the Kings wanted to perpetuate their own lineage by marrying their brothers or sisters or other family members that they banned Vestals and ordered them into chastity.
The fish head on the Pope's mitre represents Pisces.
Isis represents the Moon
Ra represents the Sun
El represents creation
Moses speaks to god in a burning bush - a sacred flame - flames represent the Vestals - this dates back to the teachings of the ancient Egyptian Priests and the Mystery School Teachings which were about creation based in the cycles of time - the cycles of time relate to Saturn.
The word Moses means the 'drawing of water' hence you got a story about the sea opening up and him being found in marshy ground hence the fish allegory because water and flame were vital and intrinsic to life and creation - the Bible is illustrative - not literal.
you just have to understand the symbology. But hey, some people still believe that Jesus was the only person born of a virgin - but if you look into it you will find that so was Mithras who was also born on 25th Dec. which happened to be the solstice as was Zoroaster.
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God
you don't need to prove the existence of God, you just need to look in the right place and accept you've been deceived for many thousands of years in order that a small cabal of men could impose their will - not God's will - theirs.
Truth is though
1.600,000 years ago (dont quote me on the exact date although i can source it if nessecary)
we were actually still haveing sex with chimps
and producing offspring that turned into us.
This is why we share 98.6% dna with them.
And way before that we were fish,All human feteuses (spelling) start of as fish,as we once were fish.
The shared dna is there,ears are modified gills hence the eustation tubes between ear and throat.
Way way back we were worms,the precambrian times,big extinction event only worms survived,3 types from which (all) non plant life decends.
There is however a preverbial eve a woman whose offspring colonized every where except africa (allready humans there for at least 140,000years)and australia colonized at least 40,000 earlier.
She 60,000 years ago(civilization of humans had been going 140,000years),took her men into europe at the end of the last ice age.
Inhabiting europe,china,russia,america,infact every were except africa and australia which were allready inhabited.
This as all documented in everbodies DNA
And is very specific.
Another point is there is no such thing as a male liniage genetically speaking.
Males only copy the female liniage of there mothers.
Females however have a true liniage going i suspect back to the worms.
(the effect of our genes dropping redundant DNA may make it slightly trickier than I suggest but with cross referances to other species not impossible)
This is all true ,we can prove it as fact.
Sort of puts moses on some drug trip or another dont it
And all the other cartoon charlies.
I spoke to god.yes moses go smoke somemore bush.
As I said earlier quoting (the journel of society and religeon volme 7 page 1)
"Mass belief in gods is primarily a fear and anxiety-based response to insufficiantly secure financial circumstances,and does not have a deep neurobiological,genetic or other basis"
(Greg Paul)An independant researcher whose work was backed up by 2 universities who looked deeper into his work,
Vanderbilt University Nashville was one .
That said it does not affect BHUDDISM or TAOISM
It sure knocks the crap out of any other mumbo jumbo
I believe in santa-jesus divine right b*ll*x
And did you know BILLIONS of people fall for that SH*T.
In BHUDDISM we yes WE can evolve into gods....(Humans)
You start this never ending journey by behaving like one
meditation and Loving kindness ,and wisdom gained through effort ,are the start.Mostly meditation.will do,short little ones,for beginers
2 rules
1)believe nothing until you have proved it to your self
2)ANYBODY CAN DO IT.
That said ASTRO;love and kindness specially for you
A footnote;It does not conflict with theistic or other religions
There are many christian bhuddists ,hindu bhuddists ect
bhuddist catholic priests,ect.ect. (if thats how you spell it)
also the tirrade against theistic doctinism is my path an not a bhuddist teaching per say.One is encoraged to argue
about anything and everthing to find truths.
Last edited by: physics911comfan on 29/10/2007 18:12
