|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. [/quote]First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol.
Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. [/quote]How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right.
Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate...
I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. [/quote]It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong.
Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term?
You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' [/quote]Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable....
I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back"....
Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted...
This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. [/quote]Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss.
The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all.
'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us.
The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it.
The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche.
Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? [/quote]Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true.
I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up.
People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus.
Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? [/quote]You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing.
I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though [/quote]Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve.... It's not an argument - it's a fact No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches. Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it
Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of.
Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass. You can't have it both ways. And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that. [/quote]So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously? So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian? I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault? No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are. The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable. And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that. I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion.
I can't let this one go.
No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world.
We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems.
Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse.
In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over.
Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky. Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not. In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US. As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion. But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes. [/quote]Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion. What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious. What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then. Did I say it was banned? Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them. I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc? They clearly aren't. None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine. Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too? See also Argentina and Brazil.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though [/quote]Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol
Yeah this is the wildest bit.
A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer.
A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates.
Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? [/quote]No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate...
I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it?
And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing.
It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'.
I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? [/quote]Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate.
I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes?
The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack?
I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? [/quote]Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw.
I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'.
And that was that. We never went again.
Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already.
I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours.
I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic.
No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens.
I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P [/quote]Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce.
So pretty much as Mono guessed then.
Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. [/quote]Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them?
Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things.
How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. [/quote]Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same.
First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve.... [/quote]It's not an argument - it's a fact No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches. Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of.
Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass.
You can't have it both ways.
And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that. So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously? So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian? I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault? [/quote]No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are. The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable. And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that. I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion. I can't let this one go. No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world. We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems. Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse. In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over.
Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky.
Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not.
In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US.
As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion.
But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes.
Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion. What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious. What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then. [/quote]Did I say it was banned? Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them. I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc? They clearly aren't. None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine. Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too? See also Argentina and Brazil. I'm not saying anything about your specific family. Fact is though religion was being practiced Yugoslavia. I know this first hand from people who would baptize their children in the former Yugoslavia. So they may have grow up *officially* without religion, many were religious anyway. Today the former Yugoslav Republics are some of the most religious in Europe with around 80% or more in each former republic today belonging to a religion. I already anticipated that you would extricate atheism from Communism. Atheism is foundational to communism. Religion doesn't guarantee economic prosperity. OTOH banning religion guarantees oppression
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. [/quote]Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke.
How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something???
Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. [/quote]Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever.....
To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. [/quote]Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter?
C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. [/quote]Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend.
Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.
Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. [/quote]The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise?
I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum.
And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing.
'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.'
That's you blokes. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? [/quote]Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom?
You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called.
I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.)
I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'.
I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha [/quote]No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well? I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol [/quote]Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters?
No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all.
Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith?
But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to.
To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here.
I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right.
Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... [/quote]I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer?
Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands.
Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things.
I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about.
It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text.
I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. [/quote]I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin?
Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it.
Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. [/quote]I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day?
I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. [/quote]So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes.
The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists.
Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have.
That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. [/quote]But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you?
re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems).
Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. [/quote]Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well? I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws. I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean? As to your Iman. Freedom of religion.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. [/quote]I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though
Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve.... It's not an argument - it's a fact No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches. Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it [/quote]Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of. Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass. You can't have it both ways. And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that.
So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously?
So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian?
I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault? No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are. The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable. And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that. I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion. [/quote]I can't let this one go. No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world. We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems. Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse. In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over. Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky. Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not. In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US. As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion. But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes.
Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion.
What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious.
What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then.
Did I say it was banned? Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them. I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc? They clearly aren't. None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine. Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too? See also Argentina and Brazil. [/quote]I'm not saying anything about your specific family. Fact is though religion was being practiced Yugoslavia. I know this first hand from people who would baptize their children in the former Yugoslavia. So they may have grow up *officially* without religion, many were religious anyway. Today the former Yugoslav Republics are some of the most religious in Europe with around 80% or more in each former republic today belonging to a religion. I already anticipated that you would extricate atheism from Communism. Atheism is foundational to communism. Religion doesn't guarantee economic prosperity. OTOH banning religion guarantees oppression So are you now saying that wherever religion was banned it turned into a shit-how except that religion wasn't really 'banned' anywhere because people kept their religious beliefs under wraps? Like in the former Yugoslavia. (By inference all other eastern bloc countries.) You seem to want to say that banning religion leads to moral decay and millions dead and then when I point out religion wasn't practised en masse in former eastern bloc countries and they're fine you say they had religion anyway. Are you serious? As for atheism and communism being intertwined care to expand on why religion isn't foundational in South American countries that have been basket cases for decades? Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't that simple.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. [/quote]Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke.
How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something???
Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. [/quote]Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever.....
To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. [/quote]Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter?
C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. [/quote]Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend.
Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.
Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. [/quote]The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise?
I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum.
And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing.
'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.'
That's you blokes. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? [/quote]Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom?
You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called.
I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.)
I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'.
I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha [/quote]No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. There is an option to do this kind of class. Although, it wouldn't really be prevalent in public schools.. As I said earlier, I went to a Catholic high school/college/whatever you want to call it. In the past, up until my grade, Year 11 & 12 had to waste 2 units in their timetable for Religion, which was a pain in the arse (according to my sister) because obvs didn't count towards HSC marks, etc. For my grade, the school brought in a new structure, where we all still had to do 'Religion', but we had the option of at least doing one of the two classes on offer: - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol [/quote]Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters?
No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all.
Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith?
But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to.
To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here.
I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right.
Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... [/quote]I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer?
Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands.
Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things.
I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about.
It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text.
I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. [/quote]I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin?
Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it.
Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. [/quote]I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day?
I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. [/quote]So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes.
The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists.
Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have.
That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. [/quote]But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you?
re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems).
Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. [/quote]There is an option to do this kind of class. Although, it wouldn't really be prevalent in public schools.. As I said earlier, I went to a Catholic high school/college/whatever you want to call it. In the past, up until my grade, Year 11 & 12 had to waste 2 units in their timetable for Religion, which was a pain in the arse (according to my sister) because obvs didn't count towards HSC marks, etc. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked. Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. [/quote]How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right.
Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate...
I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. [/quote]It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong.
Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term?
You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' [/quote]Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable....
I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back"....
Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted...
This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. [/quote]Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss.
The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all.
'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us.
The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it.
The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche.
Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? [/quote]Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true.
I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up.
People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus.
Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? [/quote]You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in.
I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for.
Your other point is interesting.
In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school?
I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well? I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws. [/quote]I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean? As to your Iman. Freedom of religion. That would depend on the content of the discussion. A factual discussion on the topic of gender being on a spectrum would be welcome-and easily dismantled for the bullshit that it is- but would hurt peoples feelings that it would never happen. I learned about climate change in chemistry under the chemistry of carbon dioxide. Teach that. Then teach that C02 emissions are proportional to both the world's population and all of the things that kids like to have and do Teach them what they would have to give up and what it would cost them. Teach them what effect their actions would have globally. Then teach them some recent history so they're not another generation seduced by left wing politics. Your point about the Imam teaching Sharia Law is not a gotcha.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts.
hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way.
No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'.
Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous.
You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. (And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation.
Meanwhile:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.html
And the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak...
Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.)
Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue.
As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge.
Yeah nah.
5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology.
The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own.
I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do.
If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?'
What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?)
As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out.
You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done?
I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Why is this science denialism happening now?
Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues,
As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are!
What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists.
Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon
I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.)
If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'.
Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists?
There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say.
Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old.
As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.)
Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpe
I vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion.
And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to.
I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either.
But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want.
As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing.
I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. [/quote]First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve....
It's not an argument - it's a fact
No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches.
Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of. Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass. You can't have it both ways. And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that. So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously? So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian? I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault?
No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are.
The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable.
And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that.
I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion.
I can't let this one go. No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world. We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems. Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse. In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over. [/quote]Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky. Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not. In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US. As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion. But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes. Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion. What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious. What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then.
Did I say it was banned?
Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them.
I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc?
They clearly aren't.
None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine.
Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too?
See also Argentina and Brazil. I'm not saying anything about your specific family. Fact is though religion was being practiced Yugoslavia. I know this first hand from people who would baptize their children in the former Yugoslavia. So they may have grow up *officially* without religion, many were religious anyway. Today the former Yugoslav Republics are some of the most religious in Europe with around 80% or more in each former republic today belonging to a religion. I already anticipated that you would extricate atheism from Communism. Atheism is foundational to communism. Religion doesn't guarantee economic prosperity. OTOH banning religion guarantees oppression [/quote]So are you now saying that wherever religion was banned it turned into a shit-how except that religion wasn't really 'banned' anywhere because people kept their religious beliefs under wraps? Like in the former Yugoslavia. (By inference all other eastern bloc countries.) You seem to want to say that banning religion leads to moral decay and millions dead and then when I point out religion wasn't practised en masse in former eastern bloc countries and they're fine you say they had religion anyway. Are you serious? As for atheism and communism being intertwined care to expand on why religion isn't foundational in South American countries that have been basket cases for decades? Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't that simple. Well clearly those in Eastern Bloc never lost their faith, in spite of the oppression from the atheists because nearly all their populations became practicing memebrs as soon as they were allowed to. Quite amazing about the resilience of religion give the mass murder that occurred in the name of atheism. As for Sth America, like I said religion doesn't guarantee economic success, and like we've seen in the past, religion has and can be suppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. [/quote]How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right.
Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate...
I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. [/quote]It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong.
Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term?
You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' [/quote]Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable....
I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back"....
Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted...
This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. [/quote]Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss.
The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all.
'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us.
The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it.
The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche.
Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? [/quote]Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true.
I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up.
People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus.
Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? [/quote]You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in.
I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for.
Your other point is interesting.
In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school?
I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked. [/quote]Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts.
hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way.
No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'.
Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous.
You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. (And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation.
Meanwhile:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.html
And the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak...
Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.)
Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue.
As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge.
Yeah nah.
5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology.
The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own.
I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do.
If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?'
What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?)
As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out.
You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done?
I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Why is this science denialism happening now?
Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues,
As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are!
What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists.
Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon
I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.)
If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'.
Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists?
There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say.
Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old.
As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.)
Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpe
I vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion.
And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to.
I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either.
But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want.
As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing.
I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. [/quote]First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve....
It's not an argument - it's a fact
No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches.
Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of. Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass. You can't have it both ways. And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that. So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously? So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian? I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault?
No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are.
The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable.
And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that.
I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion.
I can't let this one go. No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world. We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems. Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse. In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over. [/quote]Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky. Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not. In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US. As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion. But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes. Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion. What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious. What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then.
Did I say it was banned?
Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them.
I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc?
They clearly aren't.
None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine.
Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too?
See also Argentina and Brazil. I'm not saying anything about your specific family. Fact is though religion was being practiced Yugoslavia. I know this first hand from people who would baptize their children in the former Yugoslavia. So they may have grow up *officially* without religion, many were religious anyway. Today the former Yugoslav Republics are some of the most religious in Europe with around 80% or more in each former republic today belonging to a religion. I already anticipated that you would extricate atheism from Communism. Atheism is foundational to communism. Religion doesn't guarantee economic prosperity. OTOH banning religion guarantees oppression [/quote]So are you now saying that wherever religion was banned it turned into a shit-how except that religion wasn't really 'banned' anywhere because people kept their religious beliefs under wraps? Like in the former Yugoslavia. (By inference all other eastern bloc countries.)You seem to want to say that banning religion leads to moral decay and millions dead and then when I point out religion wasn't practised en masse in former eastern bloc countries and they're fine you say they had religion anyway. Are you serious? As for atheism and communism being intertwined care to expand on why religion isn't foundational in South American countries that have been basket cases for decades? Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't that simple. Need to correct this. The inference doesn't apply. Yugoslavia was different to the other members of the Eastern Bloc. You could freely settle internationally if you wanted to. No walls keeping people in.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? [/quote]No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate...
I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it?
And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing.
It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'.
I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? [/quote]Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate.
I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes?
The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack?
I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? [/quote]Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw.
I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'.
And that was that. We never went again.
Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already.
I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours.
I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic.
No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens.
I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P [/quote]Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce.
So pretty much as Mono guessed then.
Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. [/quote]Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them?
Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things.
How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. [/quote]Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked.
Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
[/quote]
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-bogglingly easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age, 99% of them at least, is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing.
I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though [/quote]Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve.... It's not an argument - it's a fact No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches. Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it
Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of.
Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass. You can't have it both ways. And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that. [/quote]So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously? So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian? I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault? No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are. The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable. And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that. I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion.
I can't let this one go.
No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world.
We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems.
Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse.
In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over.
Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky. Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not. In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US. As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion. But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes. [/quote]Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion. What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious. What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then. Did I say it was banned? Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them. I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc? They clearly aren't. None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine. Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too? See also Argentina and Brazil.
I'm not saying anything about your specific family. Fact is though religion was being practiced Yugoslavia. I know this first hand from people who would baptize their children in the former Yugoslavia. So they may have grow up *officially* without religion, many were religious anyway. Today the former Yugoslav Republics are some of the most religious in Europe with around 80% or more in each former republic today belonging to a religion.
I already anticipated that you would extricate atheism from Communism. Atheism is foundational to communism.
Religion doesn't guarantee economic prosperity. OTOH banning religion guarantees oppression So are you now saying that wherever religion was banned it turned into a shit-how except that religion wasn't really 'banned' anywhere because people kept their religious beliefs under wraps? Like in the former Yugoslavia. (By inference all other eastern bloc countries.)You seem to want to say that banning religion leads to moral decay and millions dead and then when I point out religion wasn't practised en masse in former eastern bloc countries and they're fine you say they had religion anyway. Are you serious? As for atheism and communism being intertwined care to expand on why religion isn't foundational in South American countries that have been basket cases for decades? Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't that simple. [/quote]Need to correct this. The inference doesn't apply. Yugoslavia was different to the other members of the Eastern Bloc. You could freely settle internationally if you wanted to. No walls keeping people in. And how is that relevant to whether the people in either Yugoslavia or the Eastern bloc were morally corrupt and anarchic because religion didn't (but did or didn't, or did depending on what argument you're running) exist?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? [/quote]No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate...
I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it?
And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing.
It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'.
I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? [/quote]Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate.
I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes?
The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack?
I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? [/quote]Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw.
I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'.
And that was that. We never went again.
Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already.
I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours.
I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic.
No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens.
I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P [/quote]Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce.
So pretty much as Mono guessed then.
Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. [/quote]Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them?
Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things.
How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. [/quote]Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this.
Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well?
I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws. I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean? As to your Iman. Freedom of religion. [/quote]That would depend on the content of the discussion. A factual discussion on the topic of gender being on a spectrum would be welcome-and easily dismantled for the bullshit that it is- but would hurt peoples feelings that it would never happen. I learned about climate change in chemistry under the chemistry of carbon dioxide. Teach that. Then teach that C02 emissions are proportional to both the world's population and all of the things that kids like to have and do Teach them what they would have to give up and what it would cost them. Teach them what effect their actions would have globally. Then teach them some recent history so they're not another generation seduced by left wing politics. Your point about the Imam teaching Sharia Law is not a gotcha. Telling you right now even if they weren't preaching sharia law I wouldn't want them in there. And nor would you. You are lying if you reckon you'd be happy to have them in there prosletysing at kids in primary school. No way would you let that fly. But in the interests of fairness and freedom to practice religion there can be no objection if a Moslem cleric insisted on getting up to what the god botherers do at public schools now.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. [/quote]Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever.....
To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. [/quote]Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter?
C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. [/quote]Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend.
Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.
Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. [/quote]The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise?
I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum.
And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing.
'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.'
That's you blokes. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? [/quote]Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom?
You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called.
I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.)
I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'.
I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha [/quote]No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well? I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws.
I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean?
As to your Iman.
Freedom
of
religion.
That would depend on the content of the discussion. A factual discussion on the topic of gender being on a spectrum would be welcome-and easily dismantled for the bullshit that it is- but would hurt peoples feelings that it would never happen. I learned about climate change in chemistry under the chemistry of carbon dioxide. Teach that. Then teach that C02 emissions are proportional to both the world's population and all of the things that kids like to have and do Teach them what they would have to give up and what it would cost them. Teach them what effect their actions would have globally. Then teach them some recent history so they're not another generation seduced by left wing politics. Your point about the Imam teaching Sharia Law is not a gotcha. [/quote]Telling you right now even if they weren't preaching sharia law I wouldn't want them in there. And nor would you. You are lying if you reckon you'd be happy to have them in there prosletysing at kids in primary school. No way would you let that fly. But in the interests of fairness and freedom to practice religion t here can be no objection if a Moslem cleric insisted on getting up to what the god botherers do at public schools now. I can think of two objections : teaching the acceptance of polygamy and child brides.
What do the "god botherers" do at public schools do now?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing.
I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though [/quote]Lazy arguments both of you .... Sexual abuse is not just a religious thing ..... if it where it would be an easy problem to solve.... It's not an argument - it's a fact No bigger institution has been sexually abusing children on a level than the major churches. Nobody says it's a religious thing, but they are the best, biggest and largely have been a cover for it
Since the dawn of time EVERY single conquering army has raped and pillaged, regardless of religion or lack of.
Since the dawn of time we've had religion and according to the arguments at length on the other thread it's been a fundamental driver of man's moral compass. You can't have it both ways. And there's a difference between a conquering army and an orphanage. Not that you didn't know that. [/quote]So are you saying that evil sexual perversions enacted by despicable pieces of shit are a result of their faith in a god, any god? Seriously? So the fat sack of shit in Dog Dick Creek Far North QLD, with thousands of files on his computer of pre teen porn that catfishes a troubled girl and rapes her senseless and buries her in the outback is a Christian? I agree that the Catholic church seems to attract a terrifying majority of these types of people to its ranks but it is NOT the sole institution that perpetrated horrors... Im sure the Lebensborn and the Tyskerbamas of the 30s and 40s? Surely that was the Church's (any church's) fault? No. For the fifth time I'm not saying that. I'm arguing that being a christian or any other god believing/fearing person doesn't make you morally superior given that religious people are just as capable of horrible things as non-believers are. The whole multi-page argument on the other thread about morals was that without religion we'd have none. It's clearly bullshit because even god believing/fearing christian adherents are capable of the most sadistic and sick crimes imaginable. And no, for the 5th time, that doesn't mean all christians are like that. I'm arguing morals have nothing to do with religion.
I can't let this one go.
No-one said that without religion we'd have *no*morals. The real point is would have the "morals" of a Godless society been better overall for the numerous societies that have existed over the thousands of years? Are there any real world examples of how hat turns out in the real world.
We don't have to go that far back, the 1980's is sufficient. Tell me how banning God went in the Eastern Bloc ? Before yo go there you cannot extricate aetheism from those socio=political and economic systems to say "Well no aethesim had nothing to do with it" because aetheism is foundational to those systems.
Your views are actually very similar to those of Hitchens and Dawkins. All of 3 of were and are the beneficiaries of being the last generations of societies founded on Christian principles. Middle class, capitalists, educated and generally free to say and do what you want. You cannot extricate Christianity form those outcomes. Focus on the negatives of religion, judged to the standards of your life experiences, shaped by the time and place you live in, yet everywhere else where religion was banned was horribly worse.
In essence, not only do you have no real idea if Godless societies would been any improvement in the past, you have no idea how banning religion would go in the future. And because banning religion can be done with the stroke of a pen, it doesn't take much for the real fun to begin if the aetheists take over.
Well that's where you're wrong chump. One whole side of my family grew up in what was Yugoslavia without the church or religion. And guess what they're al getting on just fine. In news that is probably surprising to you crime, murder, rape are no higher in the former Yugoslavia than they are anywhere else in Europe. Amazingly they're beautiful people going about their business without a moment's thought to some magical being in the sky. Are you saying Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia and the rest of them are rogue nations because they didn't have religion? Are the people there somehow deranged, immoral, criminals in the main? Of course they're not. In fact if you want to look at the grand daddy of all and shit behaviour then look no further than one of the most 'chistian' societies in the developed world, the US. As to your point about being free to say what I want. What do you want here? An acknowledgement that after literally hundreds of hundreds of years enough people have freed themselves of the shackles of religious indoctrination and censorship to have the ability to speak freely without being branded a heretic *(at the best). Clap, clap, clap. How wonderful. Thank you religion. But back to your morals point. If you're picking and choosing what bits of biblical text to follow and what not to then you don't need a book or a bible. The fact you don't realise this is one of the things I'll never understand about you blokes. [/quote]Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia? He never banned religion. What was the quality of life for the people of living whilst living under the Communist regimes of the day in those countries you mentioned? The Czechs aside, all those examples are majority religious, Poland is around 90% religious. What am I trying to say? Without religion, you might have ended up as like one of the 60 million citizens killed in th USSR. Its only chance that you weren't born there and then. Did I say it was banned? Communism is a shit system that never worked. What's their standard of living got to do with how they behave morally? You want to intertwine them. I'm asking you do you think the people in the Eastern bloc are horrible people and are more morally corrupt because they grew up without religion like most of my family in the eastern bloc? They clearly aren't. None of my family in the former eastern bloc are religious. In the main due to the governments and the systems they lived under post war and they're functioning just fine. Venezuela is a basket case after successive socialist governments and extremely religious. Care to draw your 'long bow' between those too? See also Argentina and Brazil.
I'm not saying anything about your specific family. Fact is though religion was being practiced Yugoslavia. I know this first hand from people who would baptize their children in the former Yugoslavia. So they may have grow up *officially* without religion, many were religious anyway. Today the former Yugoslav Republics are some of the most religious in Europe with around 80% or more in each former republic today belonging to a religion.
I already anticipated that you would extricate atheism from Communism. Atheism is foundational to communism.
Religion doesn't guarantee economic prosperity. OTOH banning religion guarantees oppression So are you now saying that wherever religion was banned it turned into a shit-how except that religion wasn't really 'banned' anywhere because people kept their religious beliefs under wraps? Like in the former Yugoslavia. (By inference all other eastern bloc countries.) You seem to want to say that banning religion leads to moral decay and millions dead and then when I point out religion wasn't practised en masse in former eastern bloc countries and they're fine you say they had religion anyway. Are you serious? As for atheism and communism being intertwined care to expand on why religion isn't foundational in South American countries that have been basket cases for decades? Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't that simple. [/quote]Well clearly those in Eastern Bloc never lost their faith, in spite of the oppression from the atheists because nearly all their populations became practicing memebrs as soon as they were allowed to. Quite amazing about the resilience of religion given the mass murder that occurred in the name of atheism.As for Sth America, like I said religion doesn't guarantee economic success, and like we've seen in the past, religion has and can be suppressed. You really are deranged. I don't like religion but you are off your chops when it comes to atheists. You truly believe we/they are evil to the core. You may as well have said 'collective farming' was responsible for mass murder that occurred or that '5 year plans' were responsible for the mass murder that occurred or the 'the banning of private property' was responsible for mass murder that occurred or 'a state centralised banking system' was responsible for the mass murder that occurred because all of these things happened alongside the banning of religion. It is a flat out ridiculous assertion you trot out time and time again. You are so unhinged you truly believe it to be so. In fact you want it to be so so you can revel in all the glory that is god and capitalism whilst raging at people who cross-dress and use different pronouns that you don't agree with. Banning religion isn't ipso facto a reason for the mass murder that occurred under communism. In was one policy of a massive suite of policies that were enacted when these fuckwits came to power. Yes you could get sent to the gulags in Russia for being religious (generally high ranking religious people) but you could also get sent there for being an intellectual, telling the wrong joke, being a homosexual, being mentally retarded, handicapped, wrong political party or the wrong ethnicity. And they got sent there in their millions. (Read some Anne Applebaum for context.) You make out as every single person who went to a church was put up against a wall and shot. That didn't happen.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... [/quote]I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer?
Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands.
Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things.
I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about.
It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text.
I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. [/quote]I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin?
Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it.
Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. [/quote]I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day?
I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. [/quote]So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes.
The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists.
Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have.
That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. [/quote]But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you?
re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems).
Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. [/quote]Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well? I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws. I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean? As to your Iman. Freedom of religion.
That would depend on the content of the discussion. A factual discussion on the topic of gender being on a spectrum would be welcome-and easily dismantled for the bullshit that it is- but would hurt peoples feelings that it would never happen. I learned about climate change in chemistry under the chemistry of carbon dioxide. Teach that. Then teach that C02 emissions are proportional to both the world's population and all of the things that kids like to have and do Teach them what they would have to give up and what it would cost them. Teach them what effect their actions would have globally.
Then teach them some recent history so they're not another generation seduced by left wing politics.
Your point about the Imam teaching Sharia Law is not a gotcha.
Telling you right now even if they weren't preaching sharia law I wouldn't want them in there. And nor would you. You are lying if you reckon you'd be happy to have them in there prosletysing at kids in primary school. No way would you let that fly. But in the interests of fairness and freedom to practice religion t here can be no objection if a Moslem cleric insisted on getting up to what the god botherers do at public schools now. [/quote]I can think of two objections : teaching the acceptance of polygamy and child brides.
What do the "god botherers" do at public schools do now? Well that's your opinion. And what makes you an expert on Muslims and the Koran? Because I have heard them squirm their way out of that, just like you do, when it comes to the quoting of Koranic verse. 'Oh yeah slavery and wife-beating, you're taking that of context'. You've already run those arguments here multiple times. 'God botherers' preach to school children as if god is real. There's a reason it's banned in every state except NSW I believe. The deal done with Fred Nile was Ethics classes could be offered as an alternative. (With all the hurdles put in front of it as I outlined above.) I know a little about this as I was an Ethics teacher volunteer at my kids school.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. [/quote]Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever.....
To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. [/quote]Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter?
C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. [/quote]Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend.
Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.
Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. [/quote]The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise?
I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum.
And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing.
'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.'
That's you blokes. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? [/quote]Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom?
You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called.
I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.)
I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'.
I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha [/quote]No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked.
Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it.
To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
[/quote]
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-boggling easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age 99% of them at least is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
Ah Ok I see.
My son believed in Santa-not so much The Easter Bunny-until 10. A rabbit that gives chocolate eggs is just ridiculous and unbelievable.
I can't say he's suffering from anything negative because of Santa. s He still remembers fondly many Christmas Day mornings- first bike, Butch his dog, his Gamecube, and the excitement going to bed knowing something special was going to happen in the morning. So I'm OK about it. Kids imaginations run wild anyway-its a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... [/quote]I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer?
Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands.
Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things.
I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about.
It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text.
I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. [/quote]I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin?
Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it.
Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. [/quote]I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day?
I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. [/quote]So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes.
The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists.
Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have.
That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. [/quote]But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you?
re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems).
Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. [/quote]- Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked. Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-boggling easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age 99% of them at least is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
[/quote]
Ah Ok I see.
My son believed in Santa-not so much The Easter Bunny-until 10. A rabbit that gives chocolate eggs is just ridiculous and unbelievable.
I can't say he's suffering from anything negative because of Santa. s He still remembers fondly many Christmas Day mornings- first bike, Butch his dog, his Gamecube, and the excitement going to bed knowing something special was going to happen in the morning. So I'm OK about it. Kids imaginations run wild anyway-its a non-issue.
Walking on water, resurrecting the dead and parting the Red Sea not ridiculous and unbelievable?
But you agree it's a piece of piss to instil a mass delusion into a child's head?
'Childishly' easy (pardon the pun) wouldn't you say?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. [/quote]It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong.
Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term?
You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' [/quote]Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable....
I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back"....
Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted...
This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. [/quote]Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss.
The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all.
'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us.
The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it.
The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche.
Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? [/quote]Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true.
I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up.
People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus.
Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? [/quote]You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in.
I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for.
Your other point is interesting.
In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school?
I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well? I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws. [/quote]I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean? As to your Iman. Freedom of religion. That would depend on the content of the discussion. A factual discussion on the topic of gender being on a spectrum would be welcome-and easily dismantled for the bullshit that it is- but would hurt peoples feelings that it would never happen. I learned about climate change in chemistry under the chemistry of carbon dioxide. Teach that. Then teach that C02 emissions are proportional to both the world's population and all of the things that kids like to have and do Teach them what they would have to give up and what it would cost them. Teach them what effect their actions would have globally. Then teach them some recent history so they're not another generation seduced by left wing politics. Your point about the Imam teaching Sharia Law is not a gotcha.
Telling you right now even if they weren't preaching sharia law I wouldn't want them in there. And nor would you. You are lying if you reckon you'd be happy to have them in there prosletysing at kids in primary school.
No way would you let that fly.
But in the interests of fairness and freedom to practice religion there can be no objection if a Moslem cleric insisted on getting up to what the god botherers do at public schools now.
I can think of two objections : teaching the acceptance of polygamy and child brides.
What do the "god botherers" do at public schools do now? [/quote]Well that's your opinion. And what makes you an expert on Muslims and the Koran? Because I have heard them squirm their way out of that, just like you do, when it comes to the quoting of Koranic verse. 'Oh yeah slavery and wife-beating, you're taking that of context'. You've already run those arguments here multiple times. 'God botherers' preach to school children as if god is real. There's a reason it's banned in every state except NSW I believe. The deal done with Fred Nile was Ethics classes could be offered as an alternative. (With all the hurdles put in front of it as I outlined above.) I know a little about this as I was an Ethics teacher volunteer at my kids school. I did say earlier what I had read about Sharia Law is that its incompatible with Western Law. Polygamy and child brides are not legal, so that's where teaching that is a problem. I can't think of any contexts where that would be acceptable. Seems like a reasonable compromise: both sides get to tell their side.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. [/quote]It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong.
Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term?
You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' [/quote]Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable....
I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back"....
Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted...
This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. [/quote]Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss.
The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all.
'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us.
The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it.
The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche.
Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? [/quote]Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true.
I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up.
People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus.
Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? [/quote]You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in.
I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for.
Your other point is interesting.
In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school?
I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked. [/quote]Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-boggling easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age 99% of them at least is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
Ah Ok I see.
My son believed in Santa-not so much The Easter Bunny-until 10. A rabbit that gives chocolate eggs is just ridiculous and unbelievable.
I can't say he's suffering from anything negative because of Santa. s He still remembers fondly many Christmas Day mornings- first bike, Butch his dog, his Gamecube, and the excitement going to bed knowing something special was going to happen in the morning. So I'm OK about it. Kids imaginations run wild anyway-its a non-issue. [/quote]
Walking on water, resurrecting the dead and parting the Red Sea not ridiculous and unbelievable?
But you agree it's a piece of piss to instil a mass delusion into a child's head?
'Childishly' easy (pardon the pun) wouldn't you say?
There are scientific explanations for those events. I could give you credible links. A bunny giving out chocolate eggs is just crazy
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. [/quote]It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong.
Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term?
You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?' [/quote]Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me.
Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable....
I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back"....
Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted...
This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. [/quote]Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss.
The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all.
'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us.
The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it.
The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche.
Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? [/quote]Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. The implication is that people who have a good experience with religion are probably not going to become passionate atheists. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise?
Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true.
I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up.
People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus.
Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? [/quote]You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha
No I would not be happy with opt in.
I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for.
Your other point is interesting.
In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school?
I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked. [/quote]Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-boggling easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age 99% of them at least is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
Ah Ok I see.
My son believed in Santa-not so much The Easter Bunny-until 10. A rabbit that gives chocolate eggs is just ridiculous and unbelievable.
I can't say he's suffering from anything negative because of Santa. s He still remembers fondly many Christmas Day mornings- first bike, Butch his dog, his Gamecube, and the excitement going to bed knowing something special was going to happen in the morning. So I'm OK about it. Kids imaginations run wild anyway-its a non-issue. [/quote]
Walking on water, resurrecting the dead and parting the Red Sea not ridiculous and unbelievable?
But you agree it's a piece of piss to instil a mass delusion into a child's head?
'Childishly' easy (pardon the pun) wouldn't you say?
Don't forget how it all kicked off...Immaculate conception
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? [/quote]Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate.
I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes?
The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack?
I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? [/quote]Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw.
I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'.
And that was that. We never went again.
Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already.
I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours.
I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic.
No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens.
I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P [/quote]Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce.
So pretty much as Mono guessed then.
Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. [/quote]Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them?
Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things.
How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. [/quote]Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked.
Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it. To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
[/quote]
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-boggling easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age 99% of them at least is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
Ah Ok I see.
My son believed in Santa-not so much The Easter Bunny-until 10. A rabbit that gives chocolate eggs is just ridiculous and unbelievable.
I can't say he's suffering from anything negative because of Santa. s He still remembers fondly many Christmas Day mornings- first bike, Butch his dog, his Gamecube, and the excitement going to bed knowing something special was going to happen in the morning. So I'm OK about it. Kids imaginations run wild anyway-its a non-issue.
Walking on water, resurrecting the dead and parting the Red Sea not ridiculous and unbelievable?
But you agree it's a piece of piss to instil a mass delusion into a child's head?
'Childishly' easy (pardon the pun) wouldn't you say? [/quote]
There are scientific explanations for those events. I could give you credible links. A bunny giving out chocolate eggs is just crazy
So you're saying they're not miracles? That'd be news to millions of adherents. I wonder what lowercase johnsmith would think of you saying that.
But you agree it's childishly easy to instil a mass delusion into a child's head?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo. It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever..... To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? [/quote]Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate.
I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes?
The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack?
I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter? C'mon man, why you fishin? [/quote]Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw.
I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'.
And that was that. We never went again.
Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already.
I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours.
I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic.
No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens.
I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend. Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P [/quote]Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce.
So pretty much as Mono guessed then.
Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise? I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum. And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing. 'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.' That's you blokes. [/quote]Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools.
But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them?
Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things.
How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom? You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called. I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.) I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'. I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper. [/quote]Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this.
Ok so we can ban political and social proletysing as well?
I wouldn't allow an Imam to be preaching things that are in obvious contradiction to our laws. I'm assuming you think a discussion in PDHPE about how genders might be on a spectrum and climate change is likely real are 'political and social' proselytising? Is that the sort of thing you mean? As to your Iman. Freedom of religion. [/quote]That would depend on the content of the discussion. A factual discussion on the topic of gender being on a spectrum would be welcome-and easily dismantled for the bullshit that it is- but would hurt peoples feelings that it would never happen. I learned about climate change in chemistry under the chemistry of carbon dioxide. Teach that. Then teach that C02 emissions are proportional to both the world's population and all of the things that kids like to have and do Teach them what they would have to give up and what it would cost them. Teach them what effect their actions would have globally. Then teach them some recent history so they're not another generation seduced by left wing politics. Your point about the Imam teaching Sharia Law is not a gotcha. Telling you right now even if they weren't preaching sharia law I wouldn't want them in there. And nor would you. You are lying if you reckon you'd be happy to have them in there prosletysing at kids in primary school. No way would you let that fly. But in the interests of fairness and freedom to practice religion t here can be no objection if a Moslem cleric insisted on getting up to what the god botherers do at public schools now.
I can think of two objections : teaching the acceptance of polygamy and child brides.
What do the "god botherers" do at public schools do now? Well that's your opinion. And what makes you an expert on Muslims and the Koran? Because I have heard them squirm their way out of that, just like you do, when it comes to the quoting of Koranic verse. 'Oh yeah slavery and wife-beating, you're taking that of context'. You've already run those arguments here multiple times. 'God botherers' preach to school children as if god is real. There's a reason it's banned in every state except NSW I believe. The deal done with Fred Nile was Ethics classes could be offered as an alternative. (With all the hurdles put in front of it as I outlined above.) I know a little about this as I was an Ethics teacher volunteer at my kids school. [/quote]I did say earlier what I had read about Sharia Law is that its incompatible with Western Law. Polygamy and child brides are not legal, so that's where teaching that is a problem. I can't think of any contexts where that would be acceptable. Seems like a reasonable compromise: both sides get to tell their side. So moslem clerics can go into your kids school providing they don't talk about polygamy to preach that allah is the one true god?? Cool and normal. Moslems would say while mohammed was betrothed to his child wife consummation didn't occur until a much later time. (Or something like that, I'm paraphrasing.) Fair bit of whataboutery here. https://islammessage.org/en/question/18/-Why-did-Prophet-Muhammad-marry-lady-'Aisha-when-she-was-only-9-years-oldI mean they have their whole own set of the answeresingenesis rubbish like js puts up. Here's a taster. (Only on special occasions.) https://www.alislam.org/question/polygamy-in-islam/
The subject of polygamy generates more misconceptions about Islam than any other. Islam does allow polygamy, i.e., having more than one wife at the same time, but it does not encourage it. In fact, Islam is the only religion that limited this ancient and widespread practice. Previous teachings permitted unlimited and unrestricted polygamy. Islam limits the number of wives allowed to four, and also discourages the practice.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
It's almost like lowercase johnsmith wrote this article. Some of these facts, if true, are wild. Nothing to do with the church though Enzo would tell you. https://islammessage.org/en/question/18/-Why-did-Prophet-Muhammad-marry-lady-'Aisha-when-she-was-only-9-years-oldFor instance, it would be silly to ask, what kind of milk did they drink 1400 years ago or what kind of engine they used back then, therefore one must first understand that things 1400 years ago were very different from now, times have changed and so have humans. 1400 years ago it was very common for women to marry at a young age, It is a historical fact that girls from the ages of 9 to 14 were married off in Europe , Asia, Africa and America. Saint Augustine – 350 AD, He married a girl who was 10 years old. King Richard II -1400 AD, He married a 7 year old. Henry VIII -1500 AD, He married a 6 years old. According to Catholic Encyclopedia "Mary the Mother of Jesus was 12 when she married 99 year old joseph". Before 1929 Church of England ministers could marry 12 years olds in Britain. Before 1983 Catholic canon law permitted priests to marry off brides of at the age of 12. A lot of people are unaware that in the United States, in the state of Delaware in 1880, the minimum age for marriage was 7 years old and in the California it was 10 years. Even now the marriage age for some states are , 14 in New York ,13 in New Hampshire, and 12 in Massachusetts .
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
TIL Mary was 12-14 years old when she married a 30 to 40 year old Joseph. (Possibly 90+ years) Lol. (Thanks Muslim rabbit hole.) https://understandingthebible.org/how-old-were-mary-and-joseph-when-they-were-engaged-and-married/https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/how-old-were-joseph-and-mary-when-they-got-married.aspxAnd by inference / mathematics 11-13 when up the duff.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
Theories and assumptions are great aren't they Muz?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote](I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting) - For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
- Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
- Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
- Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.
Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/____ https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administratorhttps://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator Quiz question: If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do? 1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along". OR2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true. For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines. Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events" https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandalhttps://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.htmlhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breachhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events? - Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false. OR - Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines? Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ? Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with. Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith. The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair. The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym. And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally. And the masses of people do not care. This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened. Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving? I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time. You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement. MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation. 95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.) As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.' So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'. The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system. But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings. The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers. The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from. A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along". So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth. You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense. The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd. In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders. But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong. So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep. Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. Entertaining? The bloke is nuts. hehehe not nuts, just very staunch in his beliefs.... We all are in a way. No mate, he is off his chops. You can't have a 'choose your own adventure' when it comes to things like the age of the earth'. Just think how many people from dozens of scientific fields and dozens and dozens of countries have to be wrong for his assertion to be right. It's flat out ridiculous. You could say 'what's the harm' until these fuckheads get the curriculum changed and books banned as happens in the good old USA. ( And here's Enzo worried about some teacher saying some people are different from other people.
Yeah we need to teach 5 year olds sexuality and have men dressed as women read to them books about homosexuality, cross dressing, and gender affirmation. Meanwhile: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australian-school-students-more-than-four-years-behind-in-maths-20231204-p5eosl.htmlAnd the worst state? Well of course, its also the most "progressive" state: Victoria. (Why do leftists use the word "progressive" to describe their politics when clearly the outcomes of the politrics are regressive? Oh that's right, control language, control thoughts use double-speak... Both things can be wrong at the same time. Obviously you think teaching kids about homosexuals is an existential threat to humanity. Don't panic, not being afraid of homosexuals won't impinge on your rights to live your life the way you see fit. (I mean you might have to use a unisex toilet. Oh the humanity.) Fuckheads that deny science and sow doubt about science are however an existential threat to humanity. To take one example just look at the comeback measles and other communicable diseases are making. All due to science denying fuckwits that don't have a clue. As easy as it is to laugh at YECs they are a problem. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Yeah nah. 5 year olds should be 5 year olds, not tools for pushing gender ideology. The very concept of science is built on doubt. There is no thin edge of the wedge. If its good science it will stand on its own. I've never argued the point about gender ideology with you. I just don't see it as the massive threat to society that you do. If your 5 year old daughter said to you 'A friend of mine at school has 2 dads how come?' What is wrong with explaining to her that whilst most boys like girls some boys like other boys? What is the big deal? Talking to her about the mechanics of anal sex and all the rest of it is of course ridiculous. (Yes I know what you'll say next, they're already doing that. Did I say I agree?) As to science being built on doubt that's to a point. And that point is when it starts to become harmful. Babies going deaf because vaccine efficacy is brought into doubt by self appointed 'truth seekers' are fucking dangerous and need to be called out. You think there is no issue sexualizing 5 year olds? Why does it need to be done? I would say to a 5 hear old daughter to treat her friend the same as her other friends and the way you want to be treated. That she can learn about the other stuff when she's old enough, say when she's 40. ( thats a joke BTW..). Now go and play and have some fun, you're 5 life doesn't get as care-free and innocent as it is right now. Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Why is this science denialism happening now? Our education system is producing scientific and mathematics illiterates. This is not up for debate. One reason for this is the focus on "soft" subjects over "hard" ones as being "equivalent but different". Another reason is the lack of teachers skilled in the "hard" ones. A third reason is trendy but unproven teaching methods and the infiltration of schools and departments by activists and idealogues, As you say, mainstream science sees these people ( science "denialists" ) as an existential threat that must be squashed for the overall good. So how is that done? well, mainstream SCIENCE itself then uses propaganda, misinformation, bias, and censorship of legitimate concerns. In the true Marxist tradition, they then accuse *others* of doing exactly the same things they are! What are you on about? Step out of the rabbit hole for Christ's sake. Who is sexualising 5 year old children by saying to them some boys like other boys and leave it at that? Kids are far more sophisticated than you'd think. Any kid growing up on a farm knows what sex is from the time they can walk and talk or soon thereafter. In news that must be surprising to you they're not all brain damaged and/or marxists. Every time you bang on about 'Marxism' you sound like a loon I've always been extremely open with our kids about sex when they were young. If they asked us we told them. Better to hear it from me than have their heads filled with garbage by some ratbag at school. (You would remember from your own childhood hearing all sorts of rubbish that turned out to be not true.) If you want to stick your head in the sand and not talk to kids about sex then don't be surprised if they have their heads filled by all sorts of crap and come home pregnant at 14 because 'if the girl goes on top they can't get pregnant'. Why is science denialism happening now? Is it marxism? Leftists? There'd be multiple reasons with social media being one of the largest I'd say. Back in the day the bloke banging on in the pub about aliens building the pyramids would be laughed at or ignored but now they have a online community to fondle their balls and indulge them in their idiocy. Case in point is lowercase js who, despite what every scientist on earth has proven almost beyond doubt that the earth is billions of years old prefers his 'truth' that the earth is 6000 years old. As for what's taught at school you wouldn't know a school curriculum if it bit you in the arse. My wife runs a school. You have no idea what they teach. (Now go and link me the extreme example of some pink haired lezzo with armpit hair from some alternate part of the country to prove your point.) Here's the NSW PDHPE syllabus. (One subject and one only.) Have at it quoting at length the marxists in it destroying our children's minds. https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/pdhpeI vividly remember at primary school in the 70s having sex education taught to us across multiple lessons. I would have been in year 3 or 4. Back when people were far more relaxed about sex and thought, rightly so, an informed person was better than a misinformed one. It's nothing new except back then we used to bash blokes at school for being 'poofters' because we all hated 'poofters' with a passion. And why did we hate 'poofters'? Because the Prods and Micks and their stupid bible told us to. I don't know which schools you went to, but sex education was taught in year 9 at my school. There wasn't a single 14 year old girl that came through my cohort that got pregnant. None grew up on a farm either. But sure, talk sex with a 5 year old, if you want. As for modern teaching, whatever it is they are teaching in the curriculum, it isn't working to maintain- let alone improve-learning outcomes. That's indisputable. That's a big part of science and maths illiteracy we're seeing. I love all you old blokes who thinks the world has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to kids. The more things change the more they stay the same. First to look the other way or just gloss over the fact of their favoured institutions rampant sexual abuse of minors back in the day (and still) though Fortunately Santa Claus for adults made sure they got their comeuppance in the afterlife. Fucking lol. Only if they didn't have a chance to repent before the big guy came for 'em though - don't forget that get out clause lol Yeah this is the wildest bit. A doctor, who also happens to be an an atheist, dedicates his life for next to no pay treating blindness in children will die and not be accepted into heaven because he is not a believer. A serial killer who has murdered dozens of people due to be hung the next day can, if he sincerely repents, make his way through the pearly gates. Fuck right off. What a joke. How do you know an atheist Doctor wont get into heaven? Have you got an inside tip to a hotline to God or something??? Your not basing you opinion of all Christianity on what fundamental nut jobs on the internet tell you are you? Inst that sort of like saying all LGBTQ people are child molesters? No I'm not basing what RWNJs are saying. That statement is pretty much as bland as you could get. Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all. Right so now you're telling me non-believers get to go to heaven? Does that also apply to people who aren't of the right faith? But that's the thing with you blokes. YOU CHOOSE which bit to believe and which not to. To give the simplest example some christians are against pre-marital sex, others aren't. They both can't be right. There is no grey here. I'm not picking on you. I think you're one of the most reasonable god believing blokes here but it's an observable fact that you, Enzo and lowercase js have wildly different ideas based on, let's be honest, what you (or what you've been told) to think are christian tenets. And you can't all be right. [/quote]Why cant we all be right?... Belief (whether that is in principles, morals or religion) is an individual choice mate... I don't want to come across as combative here but that is a very convenient get out of jail card isn't it? And it's not just you that says it. Most religious people are the same. My mum says practically the same thing. It's the perfect salve for 'I don't have to think too hard about any of this if we all just believe what we want to believe'. I am interested if you think serial killers get to go to heaven if they are truly repentant though. Probably a better question for js or Enzo.
It might be convenient but is is factual mate... What I , Enzo and johnsmith ( as a small sample size) believe could be VASTLY different in many things... Its for YOUR convenience to you lump us in as "Chrstianity". Its not different for you defending yourself against being a "leftard" "woke" "Marxisit" whatever.....
To answer your question with a question - do YOU believe a solder in war is a serial killer? Swap out 'christianity' for 'god believing' and the point still stands. Choosing what to believe means you don't have to think too hard about these things. I think a lot of people answer yes to 'do you believe in god' without giving one dot of thought to some of the things we've been talking about. It's presumptuous of me to say but I think your belief in god is more a philosophy on life than an actual belief based on religious text. I could have that way wrong. [/quote]Yes yes I know ... Im a sheeple ... is that the right term? You see a "crutch against critical thought" I see a "comfortable explanation as to what its all about" Your "beef" isnt with me I know that, Im just playing devil's (or in this case Jesus's) advocate. I'm intrigued with something you wrote yesterday. Paraphrasing here but you said something like god sent his son jesus down. Yes? The holy trinity doesn't strike you as all out of whack? I mean god is jesus, jesus is god. Who exactly was jesus talking to on the cross when he said 'why have you forsaken me?'
Does it matter?
C'mon man, why you fishin? Yeah probably. I won't pursue it. I just read it yesterday and wondered how do people write this stuff unconsciously without giving it any thought as to the plausibility of it. Just ignore me. [/quote]Again thats a presumption mate and you are fishing... Insinuating that "no thought" has gone into a belief just because you find it improbable.... I dont wanna get into a personal attack because I like debating you (and I respect your thoughts on the matter regardless on what or how much i agree on) but I have found (amongst many others that I have spoken to) that the majority of people who are staunchly atheist or agnostic, usually have a hatred of religion based on previous bad experience.. Its rarely just an "intellectual" discovery through education its more often than not a denial of what is see as "holding you back".... Keep an open mind old fella, it doesnt hurt to respect each others beliefs.... anyway Im exhausted... This was fun btw. I'm an atheist because my mum was religious and my dad wasn't. So while we got dragged to church every Sunday he sat at home. Except for Easter and Christmas when he went too. We moaned about it incessantly until one day, when we were about 15, my dad said to my mum 'you can't make them go forever'. And that was that. We never went again. Over time I've gone from a believer to an agnostic to an atheist. (By the by I think agnostics are just soft cock atheists.) Just commit already. I never had a bad experience about religion except I was bored out of my skull listening to old mate up the front drone on for what felt like hours. I was baptised, did the confession thing and had communion. I was a full on, keys to the door, catholic. No priest ever diddled me but we never went to Sunday school or were in a choir where I think a lot of this stuff happens. I've also enjoyed it. Have a good weekend.
Being forced to go every week is your "bad experience" mate... totally get it... My folks never shoved it down our throats, religion was always sort of in the background so to speak ... Catholics do tend to be alot more intense about it I find. overall but some of my Orthodox bible basher compatriots can be fairly full on also.
Have a good weekend too... And play nice with Enzo ... you've both got a lot more in common than you think... play the ball NOT the man..... behave ::P
Might be a European thing - Catholic, but Italian, and my family was very much the same. Nonna has her little religious trinkets around the house, and as a family, we generally only went to church for events (Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals, Easter, Christmas) - although we went to Catholic schools, so maybe my parents thought we got enough religion during the day? I think the ones who usually went a lot in my experience were people who had suffered a loss. [/quote]The only church I got was on Sunday morning. On every other day of the week, including the minute we walked out the church door, we weren't religious at all. 'Sunday christians' as my mate used to call us. The whole of my extended family were the same save for one Aunty who was a bit of a nutjob about it. The real shame of it my poor mum suffers from enormous 'religious guilt' which has really become evident the last few years as she's gotten older. This is the bit that pisses me off. She absolutely believes she is 100% unworthy of god's love. It's a pretty disgusting thing to have foisted upon your conscience. (She did grow up in the 60s and went to an all girls primary and high school.) The more I talk to her now, particularly since dad passed the more I realise they've damaged her pysche. Bunch of cunce. So pretty much as Mono guessed then. Do you think Section 116 of Constitution should be amended so that it is no longer illegal for the Commonwealth to make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Don't know enough about it. Care to summarise?
I hardly classify being 'bored' as a bad experience that led me to atheism. I credit my father and his sceptical outlook on the world and my own brain for not falling for a mass delusion. I've been an atheist for 40 years. It's only recently, the last 10 years since my dad died, that I've realised the psychological damage they've done to my mum.
And who cares how I got there. What's the implication of having a 'good experience' with religion? You question none of your beliefs because it might force you into some uncomfortable reflections on the delusion you're undergoing.
'Oh church and religion are wonderful to me and my family and provide answers to existential questions about, life the universe and everything and it brings me comfort in times of need. Who cares if it's real or not.'
That's you blokes. Sect 116 is pretty straightforward: Live and let live. No-one is required to take up religion, but everyone is free to do so. No religious qualification is required to hold public office, but no-one is prevented if they have. That aligns with my view: there's many positives across the thousands of years, there are negatives too-nothing like Godless societies- if people wish religion to be a small part, large part or no part in their life choices, then who am I say otherwise? [/quote]Yep and more's the pity because they happily accept what they've been told and accept it without regard for what might actually be true. I almost feel sorry for some people who you can tell believe in god because that's what they were told and how they were brought up. They have wonderful, enquiring minds on every aspect of their lives except religion. They're so close but they push that side of their minds down because they don't want to know what they probably know deep down to be true. They're only religious because that's how they were brought up. People are free to be religious in Australia is my understanding. The government shouldn't change that. I'd prefer we were more secular than we are. RE (religious education) is still taught in NSW schools. What a farce. And it's not 'this is what religion is' or comparative analysis type studies. It's zealots talking about Jesus. Get the fuck out of public schools. But that's just you pushing your view onto them. They don't feel sorry about themselves, indeed they might very content, why should you feel sorry for them? Is RE compulsory in public schools? If its not, they have the same right as anybody to attend (or not). Should they be hosted in schools-are the parents taxpayers? Do they vote? Then they have the same rights to access publics schools as all the other nut-job loons teaching made-up things. How do you become "more secular" without banning religious freedom?
You have to opt out of RE. Ethics, which is available in primary school, is not allowed to be offered as an alternative or even out into a newsletter until the child opts out. Thanks Fred Nile and the Christian Democrats or whatever they're called.
I would bet a million dollars against one of your dollars that if a Moslem Imam made representations to your kid's school because they wanted to teach a sharia version of Islam you'd be the first bloke on A Current Affair blowing up about it. (Don't forget they're taxpayers too.)
I said 'I ALMOST feel sorry for them'.
I definitely feel sorry for my mum. They've fucked her head good and proper.
Ok so they can opt out of RE. It should be opt-in. Not ideal but its just a tick a box formality. Its not compulsory. Would changing that satisfy you? re: Sharia Law. Our legal system is founded on Christian principles. I don't know a lot about Sharia Law but what I have read makes it incompatible with our legal system, (and there's no place for multiple parallel legal systems). Blowing up on ACA got a chuckle. Haha [/quote]No I would not be happy with opt in. I'd be happy with a small one year course that dealt with comparative religions and their history and influence. Any proselytising and you're banned from the school. You want a religious education that's what religious schools, the church and Sunday school are for. Your other point is interesting. In the interests of 'you're free to practise whatever religion you want' and in the interests of fairness are you saying you wouldn't allow an Islamic Imam preaching at your kids school? I just want to make sure Mr 'Freedom of Religion' is actually saying this. - Sharing Our Stories - the Sunday School style of religion class
- Studies of Religion - Breaking up studying of aspects of 3 religions from the choices offered (we did Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism)
So, on that aspect the opportunities are there. But obviously that depends on the school in question, and most likely would not be offered in a public school setting unless the student specifically asked.
Your thoughts on this? Enzo has conveniently ignored it.
To instil a belief in a supernatural construct is amazingly easy. Think about how easily kids believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy all because you tell them so and people surrounding them back it up.
All man-made fantasies that, with enough anecdotal confirmation, are accepted without a barely a cursory sceptical reflection. Every parent knows how simple it is.
Went to lunch so I did miss it.
I don't see why you would ban RE given that most of the world is religious. As part of that I don't see why you would ban Jesus given that he's the central figure for one of the most popular religions in the world.
What you are arguing against is indoctrination-you don't think [public] schools indoctrinate? Haha.
[/quote]
Completely missed the point. Wasn't talking about RE. And RE is fine if they're not preaching BUT THEY ARE.
I was commenting just how easy it is to instil a false belief into a child. Namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and just what you thought about that. Because it's mind-bogglingly easy to do.
'Believe if you want to receive'.
Every child under a certain age, 99% of them at least, is suffering under a man-made mass delusion.
Do you have kids? Did they believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny? Do they now? Happy with lying to them?
Thoughts on this mass delusion?
Replace 'Santa' with 'god' and every step of indoctrination is exactly identical with easily predictable results.
(Fucking italics. Once you quote part of the post it stays in italics even if you change it in the format tab.)
I am presuming (God I really hope so) that you allowed your children the wonder of believing in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as kids? If not why?
What possible harm could childish hope do? Mass delusion? What, a bullshit tale you tell a 3 year old to stop them from crying when their tooth falls out??? Jesus mate.
I must be the biggest liar on earth telling my son, prepping for an operation, that "everything will be 100% fine because daddy guarantees it" or telling my daughter her dog, run over with its guts smeared all up and down our street, didnt suffer at all and died instantaneously and is in heaven with the other puppies, playing and laughing....
Stare into the cold abyss of space and tell yourself life is godless and ultimately meaningless and your time in the current bag of meat you occupy will end just as an organic compound in a moist patch of dirt...That is your right and I will fight anyone on your behalf for your right to believe it. . but believing everyone that doesn't see things your way is being indoctrinated and suffering a mass delusion makes you no less inflexible than those you abhor....
|
|
|
|