Atheist knowledge

[dutchroll]

Never. Procreating is too easy (well, for many). No need to operate special equipment. No need to bring anything. Just turn up and do it. Pretty hard to "control" that through licensing!

 

 

[hihosland]

It's all Kruschiev's fault

 

Had he not backed down in 62 we would have had a nice little nuclear winter

 

and things would be coming right about now especially in the downunder end of the globe

 

 

[Marty_d]

We are all going Marty, it's just that people are having too many kids they can't feed, educate, house because it's a sign of manhood, prestige, wealth or "something". Perhaps they don't know what causes it? Nev

Perhaps. I heard a story (possibly apocryphal) about an attempt to increase the use of condoms in remote PNG. The story goes that the well-meaning NGO demonstrated how to unroll one, using a broom handle as a prop. They told the villagers that these would stop babies and went on their way.

 

A later follow-up visit found that the villagers who didn't want babies had brooms leaning against their hut, complete with condom...

 

 

[Yenn]

What is so unusual about population doubling in a persons lifetime.

 

In my life my wife and I have accumulated 2 children, ie a doubling, plus 3 grandchildren, ie 250%, plus 3 great grandchildren. That makes 400% increase. Obviously time to depart this world.

 

 

[Marty_d]

What is so unusual about population doubling in a persons lifetime.In my life my wife and I have accumulated 2 children, ie a doubling, plus 3 grandchildren, ie 250%, plus 3 great grandchildren. That makes 400% increase. Obviously time to depart this world.

If you and your wife (2 people) accumulate 2 children, it's a replacement not a doubling. If everyone on earth only had 2 kids then the population would remain static.

 

I've been a naughty boy and had 3, so I'm partially responsible for the overpopulation.

 

 

[facthunter]

But Tasmania is a dangerous place to be and you have compensated for it. Maybe you had a power blackout. (sex maniac)..Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

We have no kids, so I refuse to accept any blame for population growth.

 

I will, however, accept some degree of blame for land clearing to produce vineyards and malted barley/hops plantations.

 

 

[onetrack]

I've got no kids (by circumstance, rather than choice), and I don't like what we are leaving by way of a future world, to the younger generation. I can understand the younger generations anger at the older generations.

 

Water is going to be the reason for wars in the future, not oil. Some bloke wrote a book about the water wars of the 21st century, and I reckon he could be pretty right.

 

 

[facthunter]

War is madness. If you fight them hard enough there's nothing left bar devastation and hate. Why start something which these days you would have no idea whatever what the end point would be?. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

Makes you nostalgic for ww1, at least they knew it was all for fun. Serious fun I mean, not ha ha fun. And they made such great aeroplanes...

 

I wonder what would be the best ww1 replica plane to build?

 

And the clergy on each side joined in, exhorting young men to go fight for god and church.

 

 

[onetrack]

War is madness. If you fight them hard enough there's nothing left bar devastation and hate.

All too true. However, the recorded history of Mankind is short periods of peace interspersed by civil unrest followed by Wars of varying length.Nothing is likely to change in the near future and the only change we will see is more remote styles of destroying your enemy.

 

The Americans are using hi-tech drones today with reasonable effectiveness against terrorists - the terrorists will get more cunning, and learn, that they too, need improved technology, that enables them to strike their Western "enemies" remotely. However, the terrorists will strike on a larger and more indiscriminate basis, and many more will suffer. War is 90% psychological warfare today, and it is unlikely there will be any end to it, anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

The hardline Islamics have been against us since day one - about 670AD from memory - and they will continue to hate us, while hardline Islamic teachings are taught.

 

The problem is, we are doing little to prevent Madrassas from continually preaching their God of Hatred - and while we have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc., - the Madrassas numbers are increasing, and they are flourishing.

 

If you want to eliminate regular wasp attacks, you target and destroy, the origin of the wasps - their nests.

 

Here's a good article that comes from a devout Muslim who is Bangladeshi. Even though the article is 7 yrs old, the writer clearly demonstrates he knows what all of us in the West know - that the Madrassas are the breeding ground for the jihadists, and that the hardline Islamics are infiltrating and subverting virtually every Islamic nation. He's treated as a pariah in Bangladesh and regularly beaten and jailed, for every trumped-up reason the hardliners can muster.

 

Hate Speech, Political Islam and the Madrassa

 

 

[bexrbetter]

What is so unusual about population doubling in a persons lifetime.In my life my wife and I have accumulated 2 children, ie a doubling, plus 3 grandchildren, ie 250%, plus 3 great grandchildren. That makes 400% increase. Obviously time to depart this world.

You need a constant 2.3 to obtain growth.

 

Currently Western population is under 2, Oz at 1.6 aprox. Muslim is over 4 - you guys figure it out.

 

Water is going to be the reason for wars in the future, not oil. Some bloke wrote a book about the water wars of the 21st century, and I reckon he could be pretty right.

Doubtful, we can clean any water on the planet to drinkable other than radioactive.

 

Given that the Christian lobby are to get the lions share of 7.5 million to fight against the same sex marriage plebisite, it would appear we are definitely a Christian semi democracy

Australian laws have God at the top, the Queen next, the Governor General, then the Australian Government - no I'm not religious, far from it, but that's the way it is. Marriage comes under that law, i.e with God at the top, the bible states no marriage other than between man and woman and that's how it's written into law. So logically representatives of God, in this case the Australian Christian Lobby, is the correct representation for the "No" case. "The People" rejected the removal of God, The Queen and the Gov General in the 1999 Referendum.

 

Bex, I'm a do it yourself guy and I've wondered about blending chillies and filtering the juice and putting it in a sprayer or water pistol... I never thought of salt or lemons though... was that a tried recipe?Not that I have any use for mace, nothing happens around here. But I like recipes and know-how.

 

If they start molesting us 70 year-olds then I will know how to arm myself.

Well strictly for the purpose of keeping bugs off you favorite plants of course ...

 

Grab a handful of chiles, fresh, dried or powdered already, doesn't really matter. The hotter type the better of course, but not that critical. Metho and spoonful of baby oil or cooking oil. Lemon, salt and water.

 

If you got a blender great, throw the chiles, metho (enough to cover the chiles and then a bit), squeeze in a lemon, and oil in the blender, and mix for a while. If not, grind the chiles down best you can, the finer the better of course, then add metho to cover and then a bit, lemon and the oil, stir it well and let sit for a day at least, the longer the better. Well sealed or covered so the metho doesn't evaporate.

 

Later sieve through a coffee filter and there's your bug remover. Some put this mix into a small perfume type spray bottle, the problem with that is it's only at arm's length with a mist spray coming out, think wind blowing back in your own face or maybe a big ugly big gets closer to you than you would like.

 

Rather, get one of those spray bottles with the air pump, put your bug remover in and fill the rest with water and half cup of salt and more lemon. Then you can spray safely a few meters away from you at any big bug coming towards you. Remember to shake the bottle first.

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

Not quite Bex,

 

The referendum has no effect on this. It was Howard who actually changed the marriage act to specifically say "between a man and woman".

 

Hence parliaments ability to just change the law back and be done with it. But cowardice and christian bullyboys will have none of that.

 

Howard knew there was nothing stopping someone actually having same sex marriage under the law and constitution as it stood. It only required bureaucrats to allow it or a appeal to the high court to enforce it.

 

 

[octave]

Australian laws have God at the top, the Queen next, the Governor General, then the Australian Government - no I'm not religious, far from it, but that's the way it is. Marriage comes under that law, i.e with God at the top, the bible states no marriage other than between man and woman and that's how it's written into law. So logically representatives of God, in this case the Australian Christian Lobby, is the correct representation for the "No" case. "The People" rejected the removal of God, The Queen and the Gov General in the 1999 Referendum.

You can not be seriously suggesting that Australian law MUST reflect the bible????? Does that apply to all pronouncements in the bible? Divorce for example.

 

You seem to be suggesting that our system of government will not allow us to change the laws relating to same sex marriage and yet there seems to be no such constitutional problems with divorce.

 

Leviticus 21:7

 

They shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to his God.

 

Leviticus 18:22

 

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

 

Why one but not the other??????

 

 

[dutchroll]

The Australian Constitution specifically prohibits making "God" or any other deity or religion a part of any Federal laws.

 

In fact Section 116 of the Constitution was specifically drafted to address fears that the preamble, in its reference to "Almighty God" (a reflection of society back in those days), might encourage the Commonwealth to pass religious legislation.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Not quite Bex,

The referendum has no effect on this. It was Howard who actually changed the marriage act to specifically say "between a man and woman".

Not quite Litespeed,

 

It was already Australian Common Law, it was not a new Law, and was a Bill for the purpose of clarification to stop nonsensical and costly legal challenges.

 

And it was Parliament that put it through, not John Howard, was unopposed by Labor, and barely opposed otherwise.

 

... and then given Royal Assent by the Queen, and of course God (makes rare appearances for these occasions apparently).

 

What I am saying about the Referendum is that Laws such as this are ultimately decided by God using Lizzy as his spokeperson and The People of Australia have chosen to keep this process in place.

 

 

[octave]

Australian laws have God at the top, the Queen next, the Governor General, then the Australian Government - no I'm not religious, far from it, but that's the way it is. Marriage comes under that law, i.e with God at the top, the bible states no marriage other than between man and woman and that's how it's written into law. So logically representatives of God, in this case the Australian Christian Lobby, is the correct representation for the "No" case. "The People" rejected the removal of God, The Queen and the Gov General in the 1999 Referendum.

Just wondering how these Commonwealth countries are able to do it if we somehow can't?

 

Great Britain

 

Canada

 

New Zealand

 

South Africa

 

 

[bexrbetter]

You can not be seriously suggesting that Australian law MUST reflect the bible????? Does that apply to all pronouncements in the bible? Divorce for example.

You seem to be suggesting that our system of government will not allow us to change the laws relating to same sex marriage and yet there seems to be no such constitutional problems with divorce.

Oh My God! Wait, what?

 

Not suggesting anything, just telling you some facts. The Queen ultimately makes the decision although rarely interferes. Canada seems to indicate she won't interfere with same sex marriage.

 

The sovereign's Australian title is currently Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. The shared and domestic aspects of the Crown are therein highlighted by way of mentioning the sovereign's role specifically as the Australian monarch separately from, but along with, the his or her other lands. Typically, the monarch is styled King or Queen of Australia and is addressed as such when in Australia or performing duties on behalf of Australia abroad. The sovereign is the only member of the Royal Family to have a title established through Australian law; other members are accorded a courtesy title, which is the title they have been granted via Letters Patent in the United Kingdom.

 

You see the Grace of God bit? She is obligated to act in the eye's of God to uphold that aspect best she can. Luckily we live in times where that has obviously become rather flexible and less nonsensical/superstitious/magical.

 

Leviticus 18:22

 

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Well I rarely lie to my mates like I do to my wife.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Just wondering how these Commonwealth countries are able to do it if we somehow can't?

Great Britain

 

Canada

 

New Zealand

 

South Africa

More Poofs in Parliament obviously, always suspected the Kiwis..

 

 

[Litespeed]

It was Howard that put the law through cabinet, then the lower house and was not stopped by the senate- which is entirely different to been approved by Labor.

 

Our constitution does not have anything to do with god and actually prohibits it.

 

It is merely case law that has agreed to by judges that traditionally have been conservative christians.

 

A lot of our governments laws and spending programs would not stand up to consistent onslaught over the matter of religion and its role in society. It is only by very narrow definitions of case law that so far the high court has not thrown the religious chaff out completely. A case in point is school chaplains- it failed to be illegal narrowly on a technical point of case law and new legislation was hurriedly made to try and provide support. A sustained attack on this case law would eventually win. And the government would no longer be able to fund anything to do with religion.

 

And the country would be far better for it.

 

 

[octave]

You see the Grace of God bit? She is obligated to act in the eye's of God to uphold that aspect best she can. Luckily we live in times where that has obviously become rather flexible and less nonsensical/superstitious/magical.

So we know that she did not feel "obligated to act in the eye of god" enough to stand in the way of same sex marriage in Britain, so what makes you think she would make an exception for Australia?

 

 

[Litespeed]

"Grace of God"

 

What a load of codswallop- it just means whilst she continues to breath.

 

Ever heard the old saying " here i go by the grace of god"? It only has some meaning in the sense that under british law royalty must be a member of the church of england to be head of state. Which was purely a measure to stop the catholics getting back in control after the debacles of Henry VIII and bloody Queen Mary.

 

Our Constitution bars explicitly any religious test for been a officer of the crown, which also includes any employee of the comonwealth

 

Lizzy has and the english parlaiment and the Privvy council long since been written out of our affairs. It is merely a figure head and has no legal effect.

 

Lizzy did not approve of Kerr sacking the Whitlam government- it was all done on Kerrs back and she had nothing to do with it. Nor could she have stopped it.

 

Just as she could no longer send us to fight for Queen and Country. We have to be dickheads and volunteer our forces instead.

 

It is only a vestige of the old commonwealth as we have no president to sign into effect our laws

 

 

[Litespeed]

I actually have four very heavy volumes of English law written at the turn of last century and even it is not real supportive of the power of god.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

It was Howard that put the law through cabinet, then the lower house and was not stopped by the senate- which is entirely different to been approved by Labor.

One man can not put a law through by himself, what an absolutely stupid claim.

 

I did not say it was approved by Labor, I told you a fact, it was unopposed by Labor. it could not go through into Constitutional Law with out Labor's consent and finally, the Queen's consent, i.e. Royal Assent - guess what, another fact.

 

IOur constitution does not have anything to do with god and actually prohibits it.

Prove that statement.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

So we know that she did not feel "obligated to act in the eye of god" enough to stand in the way of same sex marriage in Britain, so what makes you think she would make an exception for Australia?

Do you only read part of my posts?

 

. Canada seems to indicate she won't interfere with same sex marriage..