M61A1

I disagree.....it is the fundamental concept of Christianity to "turn the other cheek" or die for your god, while the extremists are all happy to kill for their god. The lack of resistance (or vacuum) to extremists is a result of the Christian ways, we need to forget the turn the other cheek thing and start eradicating them without mercy, and stop worrying about what god will think.

If it is some of my posts you refer to, it is not the light school based stuff I refer to. While I strongly object to RI being funded by the public purse, I have no issue with students being educated about different religions in the same way that they may learn of other countries and cultures. My objection is to those parents who use the typical "how to mould your child's behaviour through guilt and fear" model used by many religious institutions. Personal choice has been raised as the issue here, but where is the personal choice of the child, who has no say in the rubbish fed as truth? Using the same argument, it would be perfectly acceptable for paedophiles to do as they please as long as it's their own child. I do not see how one is acceptable, and the other is not. They are the same in my view.

I'm not suggesting car drivers don't chuck stuff out their windows, it makes me see red anytime I see something thrown out a vehicle window. What I'm talking about is the "I'm an environmentally friendly cyclist" thing, I witnessed a few weeks ago, then tossing his drink bottle off into the grass. Damn right about smoke butts, got hot, dry, windy conditions, and still the morons throw them out the window. The last place I lived in had about 100m of road frontage, I used to pick up about two full shopping bags of rubbish every week from filthy scum throwing their takeaway and bottle-o empties out.

Saw more of these clowns this morning.....a pack of them, a narrow county road, 3 and 4 abreast on blind corners. Then later on, one doing it right....going where he needed, using only the space he needed. I would also mention the hypocrisy of the "environmentally friendly" cyclists, the same ones littering the roads around here, discarding their drink bottles.

This "personal freedom" you speak of, is exactly the issue...just as paedophiles have no right to groom children for sex, because it's a life changing event for when you are an adult, the religious have no right to impose such life changing circumstances on the young and impressionable. Minors should have the personal freedom to choose religion as adults, not be groomed from a young age to follow in some nutter's footsteps.

It bothers me because I was one of them, the crap spoon fed from a young age still affects me as an adult. The years of my life I will never get back, I will not go into details, but I was once religious, and now my eyes are open.

One of the reasons atheist' have the attitude, is that children are indoctrinated from an early age. Society demands that children be shielded from from many things that could supposedly distort their minds ( drinking, porn etc), but for some reason, religion is ok. Realistically, how many would still be believers if they weren't fed it daily as an impressionable child? It's a form of grooming, much like pedophilia, and that is what I despise about it.

Cut and paste from CAAP 166-1 .... I think cyclists and other traffic could use such a clause. 3.9.3 Pilots flying recreational, sport or general aircraft should consider giving way to commercial aircraft, provided that this can be done safely and without undue inconvenience to their own operation. Operators of commercial aircraft should never expect a ‘give way’ offer to be assumed or automatic. Any offer to give way must be explicit and its acceptance acknowledged.

On that note, consider what the wealth of the Catholic church migh achieve.

Absolutely....Gillard actually increased the funding for the chaplaincy program by massive amounts. A good read is The Australian Book of Atheism...written by many authors (printed 2010), edited by Warren Bonett, covers personal, education, social and cultural, politics, philosophy and a chapter titled "religion and the brain".

I see what you are trying to say, but I think that translates poorly. My main issue here is that often bicycle riders (I'm one too), While acting within the law, do deliberately provoke confrontation when they could have been considerate. Yes, it cuts both ways, and in Queensland, most driver and cyclists seem to want to take up whatever space is available just because they can. I think that it is a dreadful trait, but when you are in/ on a small unprotected vehicle being right won't help if you're dead. Unfortunately, that is the bottom line.

The fact that I've seen it happen says it's not....your life, do as you please. I will feel free to point and laugh if it should happen.

[ATTACH]47461._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Consider this scenario....you are riding along in the middle of the lane, the approaching car/truck sees you and goes around, the following vehicle hasn't seen you as you have been obscured by the first vehicle, and their room for evasive action may be limited by on coming traffic. If you feel it's safer, I think you really need to think about some other scenarios that could easily lead to your death......whether or not you were acting legally at the time.

Yeah, but on a motorcycle, if you are holding up traffic, you're riding wrong.

Yes, one of the two times I have been hit while motorcycling, I was wearing fluoro pink wet weather gear, and the guy crossed double white lines to hit me head on, fortunately, evasive action on my part meant that my only injury was a bruised ankle. I have learned to make my safety, my responsibility, and it has served me well for the last 25 years of motorcycling. I get very annoyed when I see members of a certain motorcycle club for the elderly, riding their cruisers in the same manner they would drive their Volvo, and expecting to live.

Well unfortunately, the average cyclist still takes up the equivalent of one car space if not more, and yes cyclists still barge into roundabouts and through red lights, mostly, they do all the dumb things that car drivers do, with one big difference, and that is that they are more likely to be hurt doing it, and then they want it all to be someone else's fault. I have worked with triathletes that train regularly and frequently discussed the techniques the use on the road to ensure that they get a full car space of road, and what they do to piss drivers off. The only thing that surprises me now is that so few of them end up hurt, and when I hear about one on the news, I can't help wonder just what they did to contribute to their own injury. I cycle myself, and have done so without injury for around 30 years, but I do make every effort not to use more road than I need to, whether I'm entitled to or not. It's called consideration, I suspect if more cyclists had some, it would be reciprocated more often. I assume you may have seen a video that made the news a while ago, where a cyclist in Brisbane was hit from behind? Maybe he shouldn't have been hit, but from watching the video, you can see clearly that he was unnecessarily taking up a whole lane, with plenty of room to the left. He put himself in that position deliberately, got hurt, and made it someone else's fault. No sympathy from me. Here are two good examples of cyclists deliberately put themselves in harms way (legally, in the middle of the lane), bear in mind that you could legally close your eyes and walk onto the freeway, because the law says pedestrians have right of way, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to do it, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/dashboard-camera-captures-cyclists-crash- http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclist-hit-by-car-challenges-police-over-fine-video-evidence-20130906-2tb68.html 20140317-34x4s.html

Yeah, I get what you mean. I cycle as well as ride to work at times. There are marked bike lanes on the road to work, yet since the introduction of the new laws, I regularly see this one twat that insists on riding about a metre to the right of the marked bike lane. I think though that cycling should be encouraged and free, but laws need to make cyclists more responsible for their own safety.

You got way too much spare time....

Now, I'm not going to suggest that this is science or truth, but it is a very interesting take on things. You sound like a broken record FT, I don't think many people don't believe that the climate is changing, or that humans are having no impact, the issue is more about whether or not what we are doing will actually change anything.

The problem here is too much politics involved to pick science from BS....CSIRO is under fire for "adjusting" temperature data. Temperature could rising from man made causes, or not, hard to know what reality is. If politics were to stay out of science, it might be easier to be convincing.

Your best bet to ensure the survival of your offspring (as far as climate change), would be to work on a project that will prevent asteroid impact. I am led to believe that this is more likely than man made climate change to cause significant damage. It has occurred before, it will happen again.

Back to the playing chess with a pigeon concept.

From Sickipedia... I don't understand why all the religious people are whining about the abuse I give them on the internet. Why don't they just pray for me to stop?

So he knows his shit....does it mean he knows other stuff?