Syria

[Dax]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

The perfect reason to ban Yanks from settling here. Who wants to live with illiterate warmongers?

The  biggest war the yanks are in is their internal war, they kill more people a year than all their conflicts combined. When you add the cop slaughter and realise some states and jurisdictions don't even report or count killings by cop, they sure have a mental problem, which fits perfectly with their belief system.

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

The perfect reason to ban Yanks from settling here. Who wants to live with illiterate warmongers?

Nah - the ones who want to come here are generally the reasonable ones.  Much like any other race or culture you could mention.

[Dax]

1 minute ago, Marty_d said:

Nah - the ones who want to come here are generally the reasonable ones.  Much like any other race or culture you could mention.

That's pretty true, yanks that move here mostly have travelled elsewhere and they don't seem to be fervent nutters. Many people from other cultures that come to Aus, don't fit in at all, they all seem to be god nutters of some description and stick to their language and insane cultural beliefs. I think multiculturalism has failed miserably everywhere and is one of the main reasons why there is so much dissent within societies.

[Old Koreelah]

6 hours ago, Dax said:

That's pretty true, yanks that move here mostly have travelled elsewhere and they don't seem to be fervent nutters.

I agree, Dax. Most of the Americans I’ve met are here to enjoy what they don’t have in the US. They tend to be great supporters of our more caring, peaceful society.

 

But…I also know an American immigrant family where siblings have shot up each other’s places.

 

Quote

Many people from other cultures that come to Aus, don't fit in at all, they all seem to be god nutters of some description and stick to their language and insane cultural beliefs. I think multiculturalism has failed miserably everywhere and is one of the main reasons why there is so much dissent within societies.

I fear this is true of some new citizens. If governments had the balls to identify those most likely to disrupt our social harmony, they’d ban mad mullahs, American evangelists and right-wing conspiracy nutters.

[old man emu]

Let's be equitable about this. We should also ban  rabid atheists, and radical left-wingers, as well as anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers. 

 

Never let it be said that the Australian people were biased in anyway.

[willedoo]

I listen to the ABC radio a lot and it's becoming more noticeable lately the amount of American academics here now in our universities. A certain amount would no doubt be on work visas or exchange programs, but some would also be here with permanent residency.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

 rabid atheists

As an atheist my brow furrows a little when people say "atheism is just another religion" or "fundamental atheist".

 

There is a real difference between a LACK of belief in something which cannot be proven, and a belief in something which cannot be proven.  Even people who are true believers in one supernatural theory, like a god, generally have a lack of belief in other supernatural theories, like unicorns or fairies at the bottom of the garden.  However we don't tend to refer to them as "Non-Unicornists".

To generalise a little, because by definition atheists do not share a belief system with anyone, everyone disbelieves multiple things - it's just that atheists don't believe in one more.

 

I will agree that some atheists seem almost evangelical in their actions - for example Dawkins, who I respect, nevertheless sometimes is a little grating.  However he's not trying to get anyone to believe in something - he's holding a spotlight up to their beliefs and pointing out the lack of logic.

[Dax]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

Let's be equitable about this. We should also ban  rabid atheists, and radical left-wingers, as well as anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers. 

Any form of ideologue should be banned in that case, they all believe in fantasy and not reality. Atheism can be a logical way to live one's life. It compels a person to take responsibility for their own actions and not to blame it on a mythical god, the devil or other supposed spiritual forces. Of course there are those who are pretty fervent, but most of those have an ideological agenda, like the cancel woke culture. They seem to believe if we wipe out the negatives of the past and deny them, life will be better. Sadly the opposite is true, we have to remember the past and learn from its mistakes, denying it is no different to believing in a never existed god.

 

Some class communists as atheists, but they have an ideological belief system and their god is a human dictator, which is no different to all theists. In my opinion ideological beliefs are a very primitive mind set, based on deluded fear, egoism and irresponsibility. I understand the fear of antivaxxers, but disagree with them and as for flat earthers, a couple of hundred years ago to ban flat earthers would have meant banning most christians from the country.

 

 

 

Syria is just another example of the god culture found worldwide, they are all violent, suppressive and dictatorial, only the implementation and lies they use to control the people are different. Even in this once wonderful country, we have god nutters in charge and the results are as expected, when aligned with the history of the cult in every country.

[old man emu]

Is there a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji, or maybe an "irony" one?

[nomadpete]

Settle down Marty.

Ive had the displeasure of working, for many years, with a evangelical athiest. It was impossible to get past ' Good morning' without getting a diatribe of anti-godbothering from him. I'm an athiest, and although he was an otherwise pleasant bloke,  got heartily sick of his extremism.

So, i'll include 'radical athiesm' in my list of intolerances.

[old man emu]

In every human endeavour there is a distribution of attitudes ranging from total apathy to extreme frenzy. This range can be depicted graphically as a bell-shaped curve.

 

 

The diagram shows what is called a "Normal Distribution". To the left side of centre is the data that is against an attitude, and to the right is that which is for it. When data is analysed, these are roughly the percentages of results, and their variation from the average value of all the results. The distribution shows that in a population only 0.3% are the real radicals - the 0.15% at each end - the outliers. So while a person might say that they hold a belief that is different other people's belief, that person is more likely to be in the 68.2% of the group with a similar belief.

 

It could be said that during election campaigns, candidates are really only targeting the 34.1% of the electors who are in the middle, but against you.

[Old Koreelah]

10 hours ago, Marty_d said:

…I will agree that some atheists seem almost evangelical in their actions - for example Dawkins, who I respect, nevertheless sometimes is a little grating.  However he's not trying to get anyone to believe in something - he's holding a spotlight up to their beliefs and pointing out the lack of logic.

Marty you left out about one of my favourite evangelists- a sincere, well-mannered scientist who challenges all sorts of orthodoxies, including atheism:

 

 

 

[Dax]

4 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Marty you left out about one of my favourite evangelists- a sincere, well-mannered scientist who challenges all sorts of orthodoxies, including atheism:

 

Only watched a small part of that video and agree with him regarding science, can't get into it when have to jump up and check the centrifuge constantly, to make sure it's feeding properly and there's no overflow to clean up. Will watch the rest when the tank is full.

 

All our science is according to our primitive understanding of the universe and ideologues think they have all the answers, when I think we have none. If science wasn't so adamant about their theories being correct, then they may find more satisfactory answers.

 

The first thing they need to get over is, nuclear fusion. In my opinion they need to get away from believing black holes crush materials to an infinite size and stars are just big balls of hydrogen burning away. It's much more logical to assume back holes are the other side of a star in another universe or dimension and starts in our universe are the opposite side of a black hole in another universe or dimension. Just looking at how a black hole works, maybe they don't consume matter, but spit it out and they consume what we call dark energy or matter.

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Dax said:

If science wasn't so adamant about their theories being correct, then they may find more satisfactory answers.

One group of scientists might fervently defend a theory and spend their lives trying to confirm it. Another group might vigorously attack a theory and spend all their lives trying to discount it.  A third group might look at what both other sides have come up with and see another way to attack a problem. That's the nature of the scientific method. 

 

Do you mean "If scientists weren't so adamant ..."? That's a big generalisation, but first I'd like to hear what your idea of "scientist" is. Is it the stereotypical, lab-coated eccentric, or someone who makes an hypothesis and sets about researching the literature and designing experiments to test the hypothesis?

[facthunter]

Scientist do a lot of peer reviewing. In a practical sense the process invites comment. Adamant is not a part of that process. There is organised HATE against scientists going on at the moment and I would take many comments with a grain of salt. All part of a disinformation programme for ulterior motives..  Science is much more than "just another belief" as T A Bot would make you believe. "If you don't understand it , don't vote for it" was the line.Nev

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

"If you don't understand it , don't vote for it" was the line

Is that a Botulism?

[Dax]

11 hours ago, old man emu said:

Do you mean "If scientists weren't so adamant ..."? That's a big generalisation, but first I'd like to hear what your idea of "scientist" is

No I meant science, you can define scientists in many ways, but science is a generalisation and that's what I meant. The scientific community on the whole tend to agree with the general consensus, like light being the fastest thing in the universe, black holes as big voracious feeders on matter and crush it to infinity, stars being big balls of hydrogen and diary products are good for you. They are all driven by ideological constraints and not logical fact, so they are closed to what the reality may be and that goes for all aspects of an ideologues life, all fantasy.

 

Look at galaxies, big revolving machines with billions of rotating star systems in them, which could be generating dark energy, or something else. Outside these star systems are massive magnetic and radiation systems, which are yet to be explained and could be some form of product created by galaxies and star systems. Not saying that's a fact, just another viewpoint of the viewable universe, taken from a non ideological stance.

 

The facts are we have no idea of what our universe is or does, that's why ideology is in control, the primitive minded fearful need something not material to cling to and places like Syria and all religious countries, which is just about all of them represent that insanity in varying degrees.

 

That's why they claim you shouldn't worship graven images, but all factions of the cult do exactly that. They seek material control, because their beliefs and claims can't be justified or proven, so they resort to controlling the material world claiming they are the opposite and not materialists.

 

An alien looking down on the planet would be shocked at how ideological humanity acts toward the planet, other life and themselves. So they would probably just observe and not want to get involved, we have to understand considering the age of the universe compared to our solar system, there would be many alien civilisations million of years more advanced than us and not warmongering as we are. Or they would have wiped themselves out by now which is what we are currently doing on this planet. We already know there are planets within the habitable zone of the nearest star system to us, the Centauri system, so an advanced life from would have little trouble getting here and probably have. That's what the religious don't want to happen, it would destroy their beliefs completely and that's why they are constantly at war with reality, it's the opposite to what they want to believe so they try to destroy it.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Dax said:

An alien looking down on the planet would be shocked at how ideological humanity acts toward the planet, other life and themselves.

This is not meant to be a criticism, and I get the reference - some intelligent and purely objective being assessing what is going on..

 

But...

 

Why would aliens be any different to people in the sense of the questions of ideology, exploiting resources, of tribalism?

 

Is it only us feeble earthlings that would succumb?

 

(sorry about the thread drift)...

 

 

 

[Dax]

49 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Why would aliens be any different to people in the sense of the questions of ideology, exploiting resources, of tribalism?

 

Is it only us feeble earthlings that would succumb?

We have no idea and it's only assumed speculation on my part. However taking the example of ideological humanity, it would be reasonable to assume that very advanced life forms who have been around for millions of years longer than us, would not be warmongering or ideologically controlled or they would find themselves in the same position as humanity is in now.

 

I see the ideological mindset as a genetic fault, disease or malfunction of the brain. Until I had my second NDE, was most definitely an ideological materialist and like other NDE people who seem to have had a similar awakening and see life very different to the majority. Materialism now seems irrelevant other than for survival, as does the norms of society which to me are bizarre.

 

Hopefully the ideological psychological malfunction is being bred out of humanity and that's why we have the massive sociological conflicts starting to arise as the true reality of the world begins to overwhelm the ideological fantasy we live within. In religious places like Syria, we see this disparity within the same faction of the cult growing and growing. It's the same within all religious and other ideologically controlled societies, they are collapsing internally fast as reality overwhelms their deluded claims and denial.

 

Advanced aliens wouldn't believe in a god, the belief in reality, has only been around for just over 1400 years and already it's gooing the same way as previous ideological societies, down the drain violently. No way you could develop the technology to transit the unvierse really fast whilst indulging in internal conflict and ideology is all about conflict, control and elitism, no matter what type it is.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Dax said:

They are all driven by ideological constraints and not logical fact, so they are closed to what the reality may be and that goes for all aspects of an ideologues life, all fantasy.

But a person with an enquiring mind would be driven to find the facts. That's curiosity. That's why Mankind crossed the rivers, plains and mountains, and in doing so spread itself onto every habitable part of the planet. As Mankind's experience grew and grew over the ages, ways were found to make it easier to apply this curiosity efficiently. From the first of our species who chipped at a rock to make an edged tool to cut flesh from a carcase to those who have worked so hard to develop a vaccine to reduce the effects of COVID, Mankind has sought facts in a way that satisfies the consensus. Admittedly, some exceptions have occurred due to an individual abandoning convention and trying something another way. But the unconventional way is just a way. The reasoning for following a way remains the same.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 minutes ago, Dax said:

Advanced aliens wouldn't believe in a god,..

Why not? Aboriginals are a continuous c. 60 - 80K year old civilization and they still do. Ironically, they seem to be able to live with their environment far better than "advanced" genres. We are a reasonably technologically advanced with a higher degree of agnostics if not athiests, yet ideology abounds. Is t not to do with wanting to belong and identify with?

 

For some, god is a supra natural being, for others a mortal leader..

 

I would also argue that believing in god is not a per-requisite to be an ideologue, exploiter or tribalist.

 

Just musing at this stage...

 

 

[nomadpete]

Your musings are basically hinting at a well known human trait. As a species we have a instinct driven urge to have tight tribal groups. For some, this is expressed through their extended family, for others it might be their religious social group, or even their favorite footy club.

Whatever, it ends up as 'in groups' and 'out groups'.

We see it play out as 'discrimination'. Footy followers discriminate against other footy followers, religious discriminate against all other religions, etc.

 

Whether its a simple footy game or a world war blessed by a convenient hypothetical god, it is discrimination brought about through dehumanisation of other mobs. All in order to get back to our own individual 'in group'.

 

Its a method of excluding the masses (of others) from our minds, because humans cannot keep close contact with more than a dozen or so different people. And there are millions of 'others' out there.

 

Until (or, if) humanity grow out of this primitive trait, which probably served our survival millennia ago, we will continue to be a warring race.

 

And, Dax, although we would advance faster without needless conflict, it is also possible that humanity may continue as it is, without wiping itself out.

[facthunter]

For many THEIR GOD is the excuse for their rotten treatment of those who dare to question the imposed order. IN HIS (it has to be a he) Name unspeakable atrocities are justified.  Nev

[old man emu]

44 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IN HIS (it has to be a he) Name

It is interesting that for early Man, it was very common for a female deity, to be worshiped. We still carry on that tradition when we speak of Mother Nature, Mother Earth or an Earth Goddess. This female deity was associated with fertility, but not fertility of humans themselves, but fertility of agriculture. That would suggest a matriarchal society, but I suppose that as populations increased and availability of resources reduced due to competition between groups, males began to dominate societies because they were doing most of the defending. From then on, patriarchy became the thing. 

 

Matriarchy still exists in some cultures https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/ and it is well known that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the World.

[Old Koreelah]

8 hours ago, Dax said:

…The scientific community on the whole tend to agree with the general consensus, like light being the fastest thing in the universe, black holes as big voracious feeders on matter and crush it to infinity, stars being big balls of hydrogen and diary products are good for you. They are all driven by ideological constraints and not logical fact, so they are closed to what the reality may be and that goes for all aspects of an ideologues life, all fantasy.

Dax that’s a pretty sweeping statement. How do you know anything about black holes, star systems, speed of light or dairy products?  Because of the patient, often tedious work over lifetimes, of the very scientists you are criticising.

 

8 hours ago, Dax said:

…An alien looking down on the planet would be shocked at how ideological humanity acts toward the planet, other life and themselves. So they would probably just observe and not want to get involved, we have to understand considering the age of the universe compared to our solar system, there would be many alien civilisations million of years more advanced than us and not warmongering as we are.

That peace-loving mindset itself is surely a product of the Christian tradition. Perhaps some aliens are more like our Norse ancestors, who loved war and yearned to die fighting.

8 hours ago, Dax said:

We already know there are planets within the habitable zone of the nearest star system to us, the Centauri system, so an advanced life from would have little trouble getting here and probably have. That's what the religious don't want to happen, it would destroy their beliefs completely…

Don’t understimate the survival instincts of religious zealouts; if an alien spacecraft landed in front of their church they’d claim it as proof of Old Testament stories about angels and demons.