|
Post by alans on Jul 23, 2016 15:44:20 GMT 10
I enjoy an intelligent discussion and, while being more science oriented myself, realise others aren’t so would like to suggest discussion on one or more of the following:
1. Religion and ethics
2. Are we doing the right thing by our native aboriginals?
3. Climate change – why do people reject scientific findings?
4. Migration: humans have always migrated and usually benefit the environment
5. Big Data – pros and cons
6. Animal welfare – why are we so far behind other countries?
7. Honesty – are we accepting more “white lies” as the norm?
8. Should we be worried about intelligent machines?
9. In a democracy, should everyone have an equal vote when the topic is for a long term resolution (i.e. Brexit)?
10. Is humanity still evolving or are we the pinnacle of God’s work?
11. Is it ethical to ask medics to assist in suicide?
Is anyone else interested? Cheers, AlanS
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 23, 2016 15:54:42 GMT 10
Yes I'm interested in all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 23, 2016 17:35:40 GMT 10
Thanks Alans All those subjects are interesting to me so I am happy to kick any of those cans around.
|
|
|
Post by mipela on Jul 24, 2016 10:30:08 GMT 10
Yes Alans, all your nominated topics are worthy of open forum debate but one at a time for me otherwise it will become an omelette. Let me kick off #1, religion and ethics. I think you would have read on SOL where I have posted that I am an atheist. In simple terms, I believe: Were there a God, he/she has not shown any discretion toward his flock (mankind) as he/she allows full scale slaughter between the various clans and this comes right down to brother/sister (as in Pakistan a week ago), father/son (as in Adelaide about 2 years ago. However, in each of us burns a flame that seeks nourishment, mostly in times of stress, when our conscience needs shoring up to bolster our self belief and worth. Down thru history immemorial, mankind has needed this 'inner straw' to clutch to. Re ethics, this is the measure of tolerance of your own acts and acts of others. Both the Bible and I suspect, the Koran, quote endless examples of ethics - treatment of others and their ideas. You know, intuitively, when you're not 'up to scratch' and/or, when you've done wrong. I am not sufficiently academically endowed to go beyond what I've posted here but I think you, and others, will clearly understand what I am saying. Mipela
|
|
|
Post by mipela on Jul 24, 2016 11:36:33 GMT 10
Responding to AlanS, Topic 'ARE WE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY OUR NATIVE ABORIGINALS ?
I'm disciplining myself here and taking every subject as it comes, no 'cherrypicking'.
This a vexed subject, there are 'correct' opposing views and I guess there always will be. Throughout history, people, clans, races, countries have invaded each other for all sorts of reasons that were there a God to answer to, the reasoning would not stand up to scrutiny. This culture is alive and well today. In 1770, Cook claimed this newly recognised land for the the British throne. Earlier, in the 1500's the Brits colonised Ireland and until very recent times, the native Irish suffered the rules imposed by their more educated, enlightened, colonisers. The wishes of the natives, although heard, went unrespected.
Much the same thing happened here. The colonisers overview of the aboriginals was basically no different to what had gone before. The aboriginals, their place in this, their homeland, was an annoyance to settlement and expansion. In Van Dieman's Land, the aboriginals were almost completely exterminated.
Today, we see the results of racial integration over past 128 years (1888-2016). We see the decimation of the aboriginal culture and their way of life. However, time stands still for no man and no culture. The european immigration to Australia changed forever the ethos of this vast continent. Like the American Red Indian, our original aborigine is a proud and noble warrior, totally at home with his world and customs. The european has destroyed nearly all both groups held and holds dear.
Today, most of our 'modern' aboriginals are of varying degrees of mixed race and this dilution of aboriginal bloodstock will continue unabated. Given time, Australian aboriginals will disappear from the gene pool. Various government initiatives to incorporate these people into our white society to date, have failed. Where I live in NSW, our town has a good percentage of mixed race aboriginals, many of them indistinguishable from non aboriginal citizens. Many of darker coloured of these people are seen to frequent the town's pubs and shopping venues. We want them to obtain work and pull their weight as the rest of us do - but it is easy to see most of these 'welfare layabouts' are unlikely to find work, their ethos is not our ethos. They seem to be able to exist quite well in their current lifestyle, why should they change ?
To sum up, it is my view, those aboriginals who highlight their 'mistreatment' are the victims of what is loosely termed 'progress'. Had they not interbred and remained in their original state, 'progress' would have seen them die out. Had they been in any other land, it is very likely they would have been killed off. If today's aboriginies want a better deal, the change must come from them, they must fit in with the circumstances that surround them and be much more active in assuming responsibility for themselves. Mipela
|
|
|
Post by alans on Jul 24, 2016 11:43:57 GMT 10
Thank you for that, Mipela. I agree that we should attack the topics one at a time. I was not suggesting that we do any, or even all, merely putting them up as a starting point. I take your standpoint and tend to agree with it. Those of us who came over from TSO enjoyed the religion arguments; I have even had them all downloaded for further consideration. The question is now much broader – religion and ethics. Whether there is or is not a God is peripheral. A question has recently surfaced, thanks to Donald Trump over whether it is ethical for a politician (diplomat, advertising person, etc) to lie; and if so how far can he or she go without incurring legal proceedings. Trump makes a habit of lying and then, a day or so later, correcting the ‘error’, knowing that most people will not associate the two and consequently accept the lie. Our politicians do the same. If one says something in such a way as to cause the other party to believe something else, is that a lie? Have our moral standards come to accept hyperbole as the norm from our leaders? Another point is the fact that drones are now being entirely computer controlled to the extent of choosing their own targets for bombing, etc. In the event of civilian casualties, can the programmers be held responsible? Cheers, AlanS
|
|
|
Post by alans on Jul 24, 2016 11:48:23 GMT 10
Thank you for your second response. I have really hit a nerve here!Progress is the operative word here. Another thought: We have taken their country and now expect them to conform to our way of life. Is this a reasonable determination? The vast majority of Australians do not understand the Aboriginal way of life – their ‘Dreamtime’, their attachment to the land or their religion. A community which has never developed an alphabet or system of counting passes its accumulated information down through pictures, dance and song. As their languages die out, so does the lore and wisdom of the elders. The men used to hunt while the women tended the earth, collecting plants and herbs. However, while living in closed communities, the men have little to do and the women suffer. The Aboriginals have lived here for between 45,000 and 60,000 years. They have therefore lived through the Little Ice Age when Britain was joined to Europe and Australia to Niu Guinea. They have seen the sea inundate their coastal hunting grounds with hills becoming islands. They have seen the death of megafauna and watched as we degrade their lands. If we are to live amicably with them, we must either change our ways or make them change theirs. But to change the habits of generations requires patience and tolerance. Cheers, Alan
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 24, 2016 14:33:53 GMT 10
#1 religion and ethics.
There are animals and trees and mountains and rocks and water and snow but in fact there is no such thing as religion.
We exist as animals (homo-saps) but religion does not exist.
The basic problem unseen by those standing too close to the fence being built is homo saps are just animals and like other animals we form groups for social reasons and protection. We are master communicators compared to other animal groups but that does not change anything, the surviving animal groups all have sufficient communication for their survival.
So religion does not exist as a real thing or an adjunct (if that is the correct word)
We share the same 5 senses as the other animals and many of our body organs are replicated in other animals. Some animals at birth hit the ground running and other animals cannot survive without nurture. Homo-saps are the most dependent animal after birth.
Yet still there is no religion to be found anywhere. There is no Religion helping homo- saps - quite the reverse tho without, nurture by other homo-saps we die.
So there is no such thing as religion and there never will be.
The religions we speak of are social structures and to try to make them sound real buildings (churches, monuments and temples and etc.) and scriptures have been made by homo-saps.
But dear reader they only exist by the hand of man, they are not naturally occuring (not even things put in place by any Gods)
So the truth is there is absolutely nothing natural about religions as far as nature is concerned religion does not exist, and even the idea of religion is superfluous to life on earth.
There ya go, sumfink to getcha going.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 24, 2016 16:46:02 GMT 10
#2 Are we doing the right thing by our native aboriginals? Let's get a few things straight before we start, the 60,000 year occupation while true is a red herring in the big picture. - we are all homo sapiens
- we are all one species there are no subspecies of humans
- anyone 25 years old has not lived anywhere for 60,000 years
- none of us chose our parents or our birth country.
- We are all tribal
Some tribes got better organized and grew crops and raised animals for meat and built houses and cities and ships and planes and learned science (how things work) and medicine and even surgery. Other tribes remained nomadic and eked out a living off the land on a day to day basis
Now the better organized tribes are expected to do two things for the Australian Aboriginal nomadic tribes who do not travel much anymore. A) Provide integration into the modern society so they can have a better quality of life and A LONGER LIFE EXPECTATION. B) Provide the necessities of life etc but without integration
Unfortunately integration requires both a will from the minority to join the majority and the will from the majority to accept the minority.
Some in the majority and the minority are unwilling to help this happen.
I have no idea what the current % (percentages) are so I do not know if we the organized are doing enough for them the disorganized and non-integrated. There is nothing we can do or are obliged to do for past generations (born 60,000 years back)
Hunting and gathering worldwide is no longer viable ( the world population has exceeded the availability of hunting and gathering for all) so it would seem the Australian Aboriginal has no alternative other than integrate into our modern society.
All assistance should be to that end'
We can't turn back the clocks or the calendar, especially not thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by mipela on Jul 24, 2016 17:23:41 GMT 10
Well said MadameT, in both instances. No disagreement from this Old Fella.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 24, 2016 18:30:17 GMT 10
Well said MadameT, in both instances. No disagreement from this Old Fella. Thanks Mip.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 24, 2016 20:10:02 GMT 10
Found this thread under the heading "Erudite Thinkers and Whacky Writers". Why? Can it be made a sub-forum in its own right?
Anyway, well done, Alan S. for giving us a suggested list of questions that we can chew over forever, but, once again, they probably need to be separate threads. Perhaps Clem can sort them out.
I think I mainly agree with Mipela and Madame T regarding the Aboriginal issue. Perhaps the only difference is that I don't accept the Mabo decision as applicable to the idea that we're standing on "Aboriginal Land". We may be standing on land that once was claimed by a specific tribe, but that they were also the "owners" of land 100 kms away that was claimed by another tribe is to beg the question of what land ownership is, especially when a people in fact claim the opposite, i.e. that they don't in fact own the land: the land owns them. Now that may be pettifogging - physically the land was owned by them even if spiritually it wasn't - but its ownership was only recognised by other tribes, perhaps after some contestation and physical defence. It wasn't a claim recognised by the Europeans and, if asserted at the time, was not able to be defended.
For better or worse what may have been Aboriginal land is no longer, and is now land under the control of the Crown and various Australian authorities who allow it to be owned by individuals or corporate entities. With the exception of land allocated by governments to Aboriginal communities, there is no Aboriginal land, and, despite the song, we are not standing on Aboriginal land.
I respect the Aboriginal people I've known and worked with and don't want to be insensitive. I've heard the stories, even from people younger than me, of removal from their families and placement in hostels and mission schools and the like and have found them very moving. But we have to keep moving on. Those people, at the time I knew them and listened to them, had good jobs and comfortable lifestyles. They'd moved on. The memories and hurts were still there, but the events were in the receding past. As time goes on, Aboriginal grievances will hold less and less weight in people's minds and will only be promoted by people with a self-serving agenda.
As that time approaches, and in preparation for it, services specifically directed at Aboriginal people purely because they are Aboriginal should be phased out. Indeed, social services and the payments associated with them will need to be phased out in the wider community also, and Aboriginal people will need to become less dependent on these provisions, as will their non-Indigenous fellow citizens. At that point, all Aboriginal people will really become full citizens of this country, carrying the burdens as well as enjoying the benefits of citizenship in the Lucky Country.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 24, 2016 21:04:06 GMT 10
#1 religion and ethics. There are animals and trees and mountains and rocks and water and snow but in fact there is no such thing as religion. We exist as animals (homo-saps) but religion does not exist. So religion does not exist as a real thing or an adjunct (if that is the correct word) Col's right: There's no such thing as religion. Like society - as Maggie Thatcher said, there's no such thing as that either. And, whereas we may be able to agree that "society" can be defined, scholars of religion agree that there is no agreed definition of "religion". Given that most of us probably have no trouble recognizing such traditions as religious, it is perhaps surprising that there is little agreement about what religion is or, indeed, if “it” is anything distinctive at all. www.gla.ac.uk/0t4/humanities/files/mindmapping/Religion1_files/docs/Pragmatics.pdfHowever, religion is a highly contested term with scholars .... arguing that the term "religion" is used as a way to name a "seemingly distinct domain of diverse items of human activity and production". The field of Religious Studies cannot even agree on one definition.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religiousOf course there's no such "thing" as lots of things that exist purely as concepts or categories in the mind. Indeed, the philosopher Gilbert Ryle in 1949 wrote a book The Concept of the Mind in which argued forcibly that there is no such thing as mind either. Not as something you can point to as a thing in the world nor as a category in its own right. It's neither one thing nor the other, in effect. The 19th century Utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, had argued earlier that "a name must be the name of something". If it wasn't then it was a fictitious entity or "legal fiction", something we use at times for want of anything more useful, but as in the case, say, of "natural justice" merely "nonsense upon stilits". So "religion" doesn't exist, certainly not as an agreed phenomenon or category. Whatever it is that Richard Dawkins, for example, has been crusading against all these years is neither religion, nor theology, not theism for many people. Even for those who do resemble the windmills Dawkins tilts at, the idea of "religion" would vary widely. And these people would not be taken seriously by many other practitioners of religion. It's the same with "theist" and "atheist". When pressed, theists have a very difficult time trying to provide a rational definition of God. They end up falling back on ineffable mystery that somehow explains why there's something and not nothing, why anything exists at all. Atheists, then, are not so much rejecting an ineffably mysterious God of the theists, but the back-up proposition that existence needs a creator, something that, in fact, most scientists put aside as a hypothesis when going about their investigations. Atheists, other than philosophers, are not really interested in the possible existence of a metaphysical First Cause, but in the iniquity of much that is and has been done in the name of religion, which, it seems, is not definable and therefore doesn't exist. So, if religion doesn't exist (quite apart from whether "God" exists or not) but we can identify religious things - people, scriptures, obligations, etc - and we can count these things and say there are so many followers of religions in the world and so many churches, and so on - what are we saying? We're certainly not saying that followers of, say, Islam and Buddhism are the same kinds of people with the same sorts of belief, and that temples and monasteries are just another form of mosque, or that Sufis are just like Southern Baptists but under a different name. What are we saying? It can't be about "spirituality". Even Richard Dawkins accepts for himself a kind of spirituality based on wonder and awe. His fellow atheist, Sam Harris, goes further to acknowledge a transcendental spirituality on which he's written a book ( Waking Up). I'll leave it at that, for now. My own path has been through personal religious belief and postgraduate studies in Theology to a position of practical atheism that nevertheless acknowledges a possible Hindu-type alternative that might be referred to as a universal field of consciousness embodied in ourselves and manifested in all existing things. But I don't know the answers and believe humanity can never know them. Is that religious, or spiritual, atheist or agnostic?
|
|
|
Post by mipela on Jul 25, 2016 6:40:10 GMT 10
'Morning Epic. I admire the depth of your thinking and appreciate the trouble you've gone to to pen your thoughts. But I'm troubled by your last para re religion: " I'll leave it at that, for now. My own path has been through personal religious belief and postgraduate studies in Theology to a position of practical atheism that nevertheless acknowledges a possible Hindu-type alternative that might be referred to as a universal field of consciousness embodied in ourselves and manifested in all existing things. But I don't know the answers and believe humanity can never know them. Is that religious, or spiritual, atheist or agnostic?" I take it then, you are just as confused as any of the rest of us ? Read more: acuppateanyarn.proboards.com/thread/1172/ethics-hypotheticals#ixzz4FMQFIjpg
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 25, 2016 7:25:40 GMT 10
Thanks Epic re your response on religion, you put the icing on the cake.
I have not researched the spiritual inner self reality but I do know that brainwashing/advertising can install thoughts in our minds and most of our "original" thoughts are at least seeded by repetitive input of the same information sometimes in variable forms.
Some of these brainwashing/advertising can be so powerful that they override common sense and logic.
One example, close to home for my wife, was her cousin who was a RAAF pilot in the Vietnam war. He was trained the same as everyone else (brainwashed). At the exact point of pressing the button to drop the bombs he realised that he was about to drop bombs on people he had not even met.
But in my lifetime I have come across many devotees of religious beliefs who have lost their faith (including my father) so I was not surprised by Epics last paragraph.
The adage that anything built on poor foundations will not last, applies to faith too. Cancer for example can only be described as cruel to the extreme, and is seen by sane people as something God could stop, if there is a God. But the worst of all is birth deficiencies, thankfully tho modern medicine is reducing those (not God, he failed for at least 60,000 years and billions of births).
|
|
|
Post by donte on Jul 25, 2016 10:21:27 GMT 10
As was with the old SOL, so it is with the new. Donte declared he was not going to enter this particular subject of debate….. but then again, Tute never made such commitment. Epic says; ‘I don't know the answers and believe humanity can never know them. Is that religious, or spiritual, atheist or agnostic?’
A wee bit wrong there Epic….All of humanity must know! especially if one follows the assumption of there being a Universal consciousness (combined knowledge) But sadly most of humanity will not recognise it as being so. Whether the latter is innocent by accident or by design is the mute point that has made up spiritual discussion for the past squillion years. Nevertheless whatever your philosophy; evolution of that aforesaid consciousness is in continuous development and will continue to be so. For to find the end, is also to find the beginning and to find the beginning, is also to find the end. It is that situation that keeps the quantum scientists busy, the philosophers smiling and whether you be religious, spiritual, atheist, agnostic, scientist, philanthropist or dunderhead, they are all but a handle that one uses to categorise the bearer of such concepts.
Speaking of concepts; ‘enlightenment’ features high on the list of attainment among many adventurous metaphysical souls from as many various callings. Strangely; irrespective of an individuals calling, there is/can only be one enlightenment. Epic may like to elaborate on that score.
Though ....from this fellas experience, if one wishes to embark on such a journey one has to begin the analysis with what is not…. Not! with what is.
Col, had of you studied Khayyam (as did your father) and expanded on your fathers thoughts, do you think some further metaphysical wisdom could have developed that would now give the necessary twist to assist with further insight….
Just saying
Tute One lot cogitates on the way of religion,
Another ponders on the path of mystical certainty; But I fear one day the cry will go up’ ‘Oh you fools’ neither this nor that is the way!’
Omar Khayyam
|
|
|
Post by alans on Jul 25, 2016 11:49:45 GMT 10
Maybe we could say that religion came into being as an attempt to answer the questions that could not be answered directly by the five senses - why are we here; how was the earth made; where does the sun go at night, etc. Then a few thinkers found that if they could come up with believable ideas then that gave them a power in the tribe - they became leaders through sheer thought (some might say 'bullshit'). It is a fact that the majority of religious leaders today have a psychological need to have power over others. Maybe this is one of the factors in child abuse within an organisation which one would think could not tolerate it. In this sense, religion does exist - even if only in the minds of those who benefit from it. Just a thought. Cheers, Alan S PS If anyone wants to redirect or redefine this thread, it's fine by me. By the way, how do we get our pics up? The one I ended up with is a bit iffy.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 25, 2016 12:46:37 GMT 10
Thanks Donte re Omar.
I cocoon myself with non religious disbeliefs (wow how about that).
I just made a Doc's appointment because I think I need a script change because my sugar readings have been consistently high for too long.
I did not even consider praying to God to fix it for me.
So my cocooning has limited my health and well being to what modern medicine and dietary advice and exercise advice can provide and cocooning has cut me off from spiritual healing. My wonderment about the universe and all, has become a recreational choice and not a matter of homage in the hope that my prayers will be answered (I will survive and not suffer pain.).
Come crunch time, only a complete loony would ask the ambulance with the siren on to stop at a place of worship so he could pay homage. Yet the religious nonsense perpetuates.
Homage does not work when a kid prays for a new bicycle and there was a song about God not providing a Mercedes Car on request and people abandon the idea in favour of critical hospital care.
Wonderment is fine, just don't expect the cavalry to turn up if you spurn the ambulance and hospital services.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 25, 2016 13:34:04 GMT 10
'Morning Epic. I take it then, you are just as confused as any of the rest of us ? Perhaps so, Mip. But really, perhaps not so much confused as open to the alternatives. The meaning of words is important, too. Though words and meanings change over time they need to be clear for our time. But when discussing the subject matter of religion and theology we are forced back onto words like "God" and "infinite" that are essentially meaningless because they can't be defined with reference to anything in the world of phenomena, reference that requires limits and boundaries. The 18th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the 19th century Mormon prophet Joseph Smith are strange bedfellows in insisting that you can't have a "God" that has no physical limits and boundaries. You just have words - nonsense words and phrases like Noam Chomsky's "colourless green ideas sleeping furiously". Wittgenstein is famous for having said in his younger days that "the limits of my language are the limits of my world". He later retracted this, arguing that it is important sometimes to talk nonsense as a means of exploring all possibilities. For me, The Masters in Theology was rather like that. A lot of theological discussion and, especially, speculation is nonsense, but it does enable one to consider the possibilities from all directions.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 25, 2016 14:08:08 GMT 10
Thanks Epic you said A lot of theological discussion and, especially, speculation is nonsense, but it does enable one to consider the possibilities from all directions. Read more: acuppateanyarn.proboards.com/posts/recent#ixzz4FOCFHZX2That is what Tarot cards do when I offer them to someone with a genuine dilemma. Basically if you overlay your problem with any spread of Tarot cards you will create a new perspective for your dilemma. But of course Tarot are only pictures on cardboard and they know not what they do, it is up to the querant to view his dilemma from as many viewpoints as possible. Basically Tarot can represent many things but top of the list is time and different types of people. It also throws in some wild card considerations that the querant might not have focused on. I would like to know Epic, if you have applied the randomness of Tarot to a finite real problem and if they were any help.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 25, 2016 14:09:13 GMT 10
I have not researched the spiritual inner self reality but I do know that brainwashing/advertising can install thoughts in our minds and most of our "original" thoughts are at least seeded by repetitive input of the same information sometimes in variable forms. Some of these brainwashing/advertising can be so powerful that they override common sense and logic. One example, close to home for my wife, was her cousin who was a RAAF pilot in the Vietnam war. He was trained the same as everyone else (brainwashed). At the exact point of pressing the button to drop the bombs he realised that he was about to drop bombs on people he had not even met. Hi Col I think it's pretty well accepted that, even though we might process our original assumptions and ideas rationally, we don't derive them through reasoning. They come from our heritage and culture primarily, filtered through caregivers and authority figures in our early lives. These early lessons are then built on by formal education, popular media, friends and so on. It's sometimes asked why intelligent and well educated people sometimes believe the weirdest things (creationism, holocaust denial, mental telepathy, communication with the dead, etc) and the answer may be that these people didn't come to those beliefs through pure logic and weighing of the evidence, but through some personal need to believe those things. However, being bright, they are able to rationalise and explain their beliefs to themselves and others persuasively and with the language of logic and reason. We are all subject to the delusion that the inherited and socially derived assumptions we rely on are the most reasonable ones. If we're lucky we might be right, and I would think shining the torch on these assumptions will help us to overcome delusion and the "tyranny of ideas" by seriously considering their alternatives. Most people in the world are not yet ready or able to do this, and it's not their fault. However, in societies where alternatives are open for discussion it is strange that your wife's cousin had to be actually flying a mission before thinking about what he was really doing. One reason, I would think, is that in his training the human and moral consequences would not have been considered, and if they were raised would be laughed off with the black humour (or gallows humour) that military culture applies to human tragedy, especially in war. Incidentally, one of my duties in the RAAF decades ago was to teach a subject called "Military Indoctrination", ludicrously abbreviated to "MIND". Eventually it was changed to "General Service Knowledge" (GSK), a much more acceptable and apt description of the course contents.
|
|
|
Post by donte on Jul 25, 2016 14:40:44 GMT 10
Thanks Donte re Omar. I did not even consider praying to God to fix it for me. So my cocooning has limited my health and well being to what modern medicine and dietary advice and exercise advice can provide and cocooning has cut me off from spiritual healing. My wonderment about the universe and all, has become a recreational choice and not a matter of homage in the hope that my prayers will be answered (I will survive and not suffer pain.). Come crunch time, only a complete loony would ask the ambulance with the siren on to stop at a place of worship so he could pay homage. Yet the religious nonsense perpetuates. Homage does not work when a kid prays for a new bicycle and there was a song about God not providing a Mercedes Car on request and people abandon the idea in favour of critical hospital care. Wonderment is fine, just don't expect the cavalry to turn up if you spurn the ambulance and hospital services. There is not much argument with that Col.... but the situations you quote above are mostly and merely rhetoric.
On a more serious note you did quote a paragraph or two a few years back on the subject of reincarnation; I do recall the effort as being rather profound given the normal declamations on your behalf as to anything remotely spiritual. It prompted my reference to your father because I also recall you saying at around the same time that he was a fan of Khayyam.
I also thought this time around we could keep the debate away from the school ground....ah well...
But for the record; I too think there are more than just a few looneys taking advantage of the ambulance service these days. To say naught about the prospects of any cavalry. I do drive a Mercedes Benz though .... but I don't recall the almighty being among those of the MB franchise either.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 25, 2016 15:56:14 GMT 10
Madam T I thought survival of the fittest started at conception?? I still find in favour of the concept of religion to be earth based, the true find will be when we impregnate someone away from earths fields, after that will each generation be weaker in mind than those present on earth, without the earths fields will the brain develop the same and thus be able to tune into the fields upon return or will we find them alien upon return. There will for us eventually be an answer, if they ever start a colony on mars. Me I expect those generation on Mars will not carry religion as Mars has an entirely different field to live in. So for the most part religion is just like Santa for Adults, and unfortunately adulterated to an incredible extent. The concept of Ethics was indeed stolen by religion. To me religion must have been the first industry. OOps just realised this is for the last page not this one
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 25, 2016 16:14:48 GMT 10
G'day again Madam T, you said above "I did not even consider praying to God to fix it for me"Praying from what I have been lead to believe is for fixing mind games, like broken promises. Fixing your body is the same as mine, best dealt with by a physician. Physician = Physical Brain = physical, Mind = Prayer Matter of fact someone above said the mind is in doubt just like religion. seems to fit
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 25, 2016 16:48:37 GMT 10
If it is Ethics that we so need to discuss then? Is it the erosion of community by the I am Society or should that be "the me generation" ? that we need to study. Outside of that Epics comment on Mental Telepathy rang some bells in me. I'm inclined to believe we at some time had a better connection with our planet and all on it. Haven't chased that rainbow in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 25, 2016 17:05:34 GMT 10
If it is Ethics that we so need to discuss then? Is it the erosion of community by the I am Society or should that be "the me generation" ? that we need to study. Outside of that Epics comment on Mental Telepathy rang some bells in me. I'm inclined to believe we at some time had a better connection with our planet and all on it. Haven't chased that rainbow in a long time. Thanks CSTER we all have feeling of belonging to where we were born mentally (ie age 7 I believe, but it may change with the times or the places.) This feeling of belonging is even inherent in some budgies who will not leave their cage for love nor bird seed. The aboriginals are always talking about their attachment to the land but it is the same for everyone. The traditional aboriginals tho do not have much (volume to talk about) they had no housing or furniture or other possessions like cars, and they could not discuss the latest blockbuster best seller. So I guess they focused on the land. But everyone is attached to their land.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 25, 2016 17:43:19 GMT 10
Perhaps I and the Aboriginals have a similar theme going, they tying themselves to the land and I to the magnetic fields, gonna end up the same I suspect, that is ditched by progress.
I was hoping for a comment on separation of soul and body with your analogy of the doctors.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Jul 25, 2016 18:41:35 GMT 10
Perhaps I and the Aboriginals have a similar theme going, they tying themselves to the land and I to the magnetic fields, gonna end up the same I suspect, that is ditched by progress. I was hoping for a comment on separation of soul and body with your analogy of the doctors. Terry Pratchett's character "Death" uses a scythe to detach souls from dead bodies and then he puts them in jars. But that is fiction. If there is such a thing as a soul - no one has seen one - let alone dissected one. So no one knows about good or bad, large or small souls, but the ones who prove they are 90% water (often crying) are described as sensitive souls.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 25, 2016 18:48:55 GMT 10
LOL yeah sensitive souls good one, but its interesting to me that we cant define the soul or the mind. Yet we can put a brain in a jar just like a heart or liver. They say the Neanderthals are part of our DNA and didn't die out so much as were bred out. Perhaps with our gigantic brains we bred out our connection to others. Pratchett sounds just the shot for putting the kids to bed. Maybe not keeping them there but surely allowing the father to enjoy reading them to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by red750 on Jul 25, 2016 19:38:58 GMT 10
By the way, how do we get our pics up? The one I ended up with is a bit iffy. Hi Alan, Check your yahoo email for a pdf detailing uploading photos. Peter.
|
|