OKAY
I just want to make this crystal clear. I have a friend, who I wont name on here, who sent me this bulitin....
On another board I frequent, someone brought up the rumours about Obama and his birth certificate. Please have a look at these links and decide for yourself.
:)
Fact Check
PolitiFact
Snopes
Fight the Smears
I just want to add some common sence into this.
If Obama was officially an indonesian or kenyan or even british, do you not think you'd be hearing about it from McCains mouth. If I were McCain, i'd be screaming it from the rooftops, if I were Hilary I'd be screaming it from the rooftops.
If however I was a republican, and didnt want to get accused of spreading unbelievable rumours that just muddy the politics and smear the campaigners, I would start an online rumour, which cant be traced, and can be copied over and over again with no question of anyone getting sued.
Guerilla campaigning in the most important US election in the last 50 years.
Ask yourself this one question, did you hear it on FOX, and if not, why not. Because FOX would blow up a democratic secret like this into a thousand TV specials.
The fact is that whilst the news from FOX and the Washington Post etc might be biased, its not totally uninformed, they are subject to law suits and therefore must have some proof behind them.
With that in mind, when you next say oh yeah Palin, she didnt do anything really... actually according to FOX and he Post, she did. Its real news, biased angle perhaps, biased conclusions definitely, but based on fact. FACT.
Everyone and his grandma has heard a conspriacy theory or two, but when you hear one person stand up in public and say 'I Believe This Happened', then start listening, and start thinking. When we talk about the Kennedy assassination, we talk about Jim Garrisson being a man who stood up in a court of law and said this is what i think, and sue me if you want! McCain, Palin and no-one from congress has EVER suggested Obama is not entitled to run for the presidency based on his nationality
A bad rumour shouldnt kill a political career, but a rumour where NO-ONE stands up and says I believe so sue me, is truly dirty and not worthy of a great nation.
Either way, however you want your politics, argue the politics for gods sake. Argue that small govt is better than big. Argue imperialism is better than civil militia. Argue abortion/anti abortion. Argue NHS against Private healthcare. Argue real issues, real politics.
This is the most important US election in 50 years, you have the worlds most powerful nation, and your decisions effect the entire world. Dont argue silly things like legal or not legal, blue or red, leave this to the technicians. The independant bodies set up to make sure the elections are fair. These are silly arguments for petty minds, dont get caught up in the trivial ramblings of blinkered fools, who want to turn this into an Us and Them election.
Think for yourselves, come to a considered decision.
If you truly believe McCains hard line will better protect the US in this delicate world, then vote McCain. If you think that Obama will pull the US out of the financial mess the world is currently in, then vote Obama.
But Please dont vote McCain or Obama cos you have always voted that way. Vote because of real issues. Please, you owe it to the rest of the world, you owe it to your country, you owe it to your forefathers, because which ever way you vote... This time, it is truly historic.
And your vote will never be more important.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Now this blog is probably going to do me no favours, but the my-space thing is all about me so, gotta stick my hand in my mouth and go for it.
I have been reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And whilst i don't believe in the FSM, i cant deny the religious rights the FSM followers are asking for.
In case you don't know about the FSM, according to his followers, He (and I'm only saying he because i don't know what gender he is) created the universe after a night out on the booze which explains why it has so many things wrong with it.
They believe Pirates were the original pastafarians, and have made reference to the rise in global warming being directly related to the fall in pirates.
They claim all 'evidence' for evolution has been planted by the FSM, in an effort to test his followers faith.
According to the faith, there are the '8 I'd really rather you didn'ts', a set of moral guidelines given to Mosey the pirate captain on Mount Salsa
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Whilst I cannot say how devout the 'believers' of this faith are or how rediculous their 'beliefs' are, the message they pervey is one of blind faith. Can we believe in faith blindly? And what evidence is appropriate to refute.
Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher argued...
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
The argument is simple, Russell argues if God exists, then it is down to the believer to prove it, not the non believer.
British Theologian Alister McGraph wrote in his book The Dawkin's Delusion...
"Why is such a book still necessary?", describing the atheist writings of Richard Dawkins. "... for more than a century, leading sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists have declared that their children would see the dawn of a new era in which the 'God delusion' would be left behind for good.".
The argument of why do we need a book telling us there is no god. If there is no god, then it'll be obvious as time goes on. He goes on to say that Science has neither proved or disproved God.
In my opinion he is completely right, but in my opinion, Richard Dawkins argument about No God being more probable than God (and specifically a monotheistic god such as in Christianity or Islam). He argues that all science deals with probabilities, and the more probable something is the more we can rely upon it to be true.
We have no 'conclusive' explanation for gravity, we have strong theories, but on a micro-level gravity appears not to exist at all. It is because of this and other anomalies we cannot claim we fully understand gravity. I don't know about you though, but just cos we don't understand it, doesn't mean to say I'm not going to get out of the way when i throw a rock in the air.
Maybe its because I have faith that gravity is there.
Mcgraph's premise that because people spend so much effort trying to disprove god means it may be true, is interesting. I can only point out the huge amount of hate mail collected by the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster predominantly by the christian far right must mean there is truth in there somewhere. It also suggests that the huge protests over the cartoons in Denmark about Allah, must also have some truth behind it.
One letter in particular caught my eye...
I'm a bit confused about this website, and maybe someone would kindly enlighten me… Why take so much trouble to try and dismantle fundamental Christianity if you all sincerely disbelieve it?
I wonder why this whole movement feels like they're so threatened by Jesus if he's not real.
There were many retorts, but this one seemed the smartest.
Do you believe in radical Islam - the Wahabi sect that teaches hatred to nonbelievers and spawns terrorism? No? Then why would you want to dismantle it?
Oh! Maybe because you think it's HARMFUL. Like replacing science with bullshit. This site doesn't try to dismantle Christianity; just the fanatics who want ID taught in schools. We don't need a second Dark Ages, thank you.
It is clear that the site and the religion is mostly followed by people unhappy with the confidence shown by believers of all faiths. Its clear that allowing religion to enter the arena of politics, education and law making, is detrimental to a pluralistic society.
In a free democratic society, certain lines should no be crossed. I don't care what religion the president is so long as he doesn't act according to his or her religion. I believe in religious freedom and rights, provided those rights are not considered more important than the rights of the general population and society.
I appreciate that certain zealots will argue against evolution, claiming Bush's intelligent design as an alternative theory that should be presented in schools as fact in the same way evolution is, but the evidence presented for creationism is circumstantial and unfortunately also fits in with our friends of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Which is the whole point of course.
At some point we have to say, this is proof and this is not proof. Our whole society relies on us having a provable standard. To Richard Dawkins, proof is defined as maximum probability. Alister McGraphs argument is that maximum probability is too stringent.
My feeling is that we should teach to that provable standard and above. The issues about creationism and the flying spaghetti monster being taught in conjunction with evolution, is as simple as evidential probability. There is far more circumstantial evidence for evolution, than there is for intelligent design. Evolution passes the evidence standard, whereas the planet being 6000 years old, and Adam and Eve being the first two people on the planet, does not.
In the meantime, the parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a welcome diversion that argues a point in a very very silly way. And I'm buying a pirate fish mug!
I have been reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And whilst i don't believe in the FSM, i cant deny the religious rights the FSM followers are asking for.
In case you don't know about the FSM, according to his followers, He (and I'm only saying he because i don't know what gender he is) created the universe after a night out on the booze which explains why it has so many things wrong with it.
They believe Pirates were the original pastafarians, and have made reference to the rise in global warming being directly related to the fall in pirates.
They claim all 'evidence' for evolution has been planted by the FSM, in an effort to test his followers faith.
According to the faith, there are the '8 I'd really rather you didn'ts', a set of moral guidelines given to Mosey the pirate captain on Mount Salsa
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Whilst I cannot say how devout the 'believers' of this faith are or how rediculous their 'beliefs' are, the message they pervey is one of blind faith. Can we believe in faith blindly? And what evidence is appropriate to refute.
Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher argued...
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
The argument is simple, Russell argues if God exists, then it is down to the believer to prove it, not the non believer.
British Theologian Alister McGraph wrote in his book The Dawkin's Delusion...
"Why is such a book still necessary?", describing the atheist writings of Richard Dawkins. "... for more than a century, leading sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists have declared that their children would see the dawn of a new era in which the 'God delusion' would be left behind for good.".
The argument of why do we need a book telling us there is no god. If there is no god, then it'll be obvious as time goes on. He goes on to say that Science has neither proved or disproved God.
In my opinion he is completely right, but in my opinion, Richard Dawkins argument about No God being more probable than God (and specifically a monotheistic god such as in Christianity or Islam). He argues that all science deals with probabilities, and the more probable something is the more we can rely upon it to be true.
We have no 'conclusive' explanation for gravity, we have strong theories, but on a micro-level gravity appears not to exist at all. It is because of this and other anomalies we cannot claim we fully understand gravity. I don't know about you though, but just cos we don't understand it, doesn't mean to say I'm not going to get out of the way when i throw a rock in the air.
Maybe its because I have faith that gravity is there.
Mcgraph's premise that because people spend so much effort trying to disprove god means it may be true, is interesting. I can only point out the huge amount of hate mail collected by the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster predominantly by the christian far right must mean there is truth in there somewhere. It also suggests that the huge protests over the cartoons in Denmark about Allah, must also have some truth behind it.
One letter in particular caught my eye...
I'm a bit confused about this website, and maybe someone would kindly enlighten me… Why take so much trouble to try and dismantle fundamental Christianity if you all sincerely disbelieve it?
I wonder why this whole movement feels like they're so threatened by Jesus if he's not real.
There were many retorts, but this one seemed the smartest.
Do you believe in radical Islam - the Wahabi sect that teaches hatred to nonbelievers and spawns terrorism? No? Then why would you want to dismantle it?
Oh! Maybe because you think it's HARMFUL. Like replacing science with bullshit. This site doesn't try to dismantle Christianity; just the fanatics who want ID taught in schools. We don't need a second Dark Ages, thank you.
It is clear that the site and the religion is mostly followed by people unhappy with the confidence shown by believers of all faiths. Its clear that allowing religion to enter the arena of politics, education and law making, is detrimental to a pluralistic society.
In a free democratic society, certain lines should no be crossed. I don't care what religion the president is so long as he doesn't act according to his or her religion. I believe in religious freedom and rights, provided those rights are not considered more important than the rights of the general population and society.
I appreciate that certain zealots will argue against evolution, claiming Bush's intelligent design as an alternative theory that should be presented in schools as fact in the same way evolution is, but the evidence presented for creationism is circumstantial and unfortunately also fits in with our friends of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Which is the whole point of course.
At some point we have to say, this is proof and this is not proof. Our whole society relies on us having a provable standard. To Richard Dawkins, proof is defined as maximum probability. Alister McGraphs argument is that maximum probability is too stringent.
My feeling is that we should teach to that provable standard and above. The issues about creationism and the flying spaghetti monster being taught in conjunction with evolution, is as simple as evidential probability. There is far more circumstantial evidence for evolution, than there is for intelligent design. Evolution passes the evidence standard, whereas the planet being 6000 years old, and Adam and Eve being the first two people on the planet, does not.
In the meantime, the parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a welcome diversion that argues a point in a very very silly way. And I'm buying a pirate fish mug!
Friday, 10 October 2008
Legalese
To honour my Angela joining the legal ranks, i offer you a few pitfalls. That are too priceless for a bullitin... well done Angela and thanks to Marco
These are from a book called Disorder in the America Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
_______________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
___________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Is this a trick question?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh.... I was getting laid!
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you shittin' me? Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
________________________________________________
-- And the best for last: ---
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law
These are from a book called Disorder in the America Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
_______________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
___________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Is this a trick question?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh.... I was getting laid!
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you shittin' me? Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
________________________________________________
-- And the best for last: ---
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law
Sunday, 5 October 2008
In God We Trust
As the american election goes into overdrive, and I got to tell you its been the most entertaining yet. Now I'm not going to tell you who I want to win, not that it matters what I... living in the 'free world' thinks when it comes to voting for the leader of the 'free world' but...
Its kind of funny that one of the founding principles of the american revolution was no taxation without representation, and yet here we are with another american president soon to be voted on, and the rest of the world not allowed to vote, and yet having to put countelss billions into their own money markets, nationalising banks etc just cos of the monumentous cock ups of the american government and its corporatist ideals.
Not that im bitter.
But to be honest, its not the election i wanted to talk about but the dollar note, well specifically the dollar coin... The dollar coin, just recently launched is interesting in that it apparently is the first coint o have writing on the sides of the coin. Well done. Apparently it says the immortal words 'In God We Trust', Not so well done.
I have to ask a few basic and simple questions about this, and please dont get all holier than though, and all weeeelll you aint american so you are a Heathen!
But why the hell does the one dollar coin need to have 'In God We Trust', firstly which God? At least half of the population of the US doesnt believe in an all powerful god, and the half that do have trouble agreeing in which one. And if we are talking about the christian god, the bible and all, I seem to remember he wasnt that fond of money, it is easier for a cael to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to yadda yaddda.... or false icons... okay I cant remember the reference here, but im pretty sure he wasnt keen on them, something about a golden calf springs to mind, yet there you go writing those words on your currency. Am I the only person to find this attitude a little weird.
Talking about religion for a second, there are two things that occur to me recently... firstly a quote
"The person of the prophet, is revered so profoundly with a love and affection that cannot be explained in words. It goes beyond your parents, your loved ones, your children. That is part of the faith."
This kind of rhetoric, this kind of blind devotion has been said by many a believer. Im a cabbie and enjoy a decent conversation with random people, but when people tell me they love a prophet from over 2000 years ago, rather than their own family, I start to wonder whats going on. Especially when they go on to tell me that the world is only 12k old...
Now about that, There are muslims and some far right christians alike that deny the holocaust ever happened. The argue that the evidence is not conclusive. Here are some examples of their beliefs;
The Gas Chambers, were just air raid shelters, with no holes in the roof, not in the structure or in the blueprints. Therefore if they werent gas chambers, then there was no holocaust.
The Cremation Ovens would not have had the time, or the fuel to burn so many bodies in the period of time allocated.
Anne Franks diary was written in ball point pen, and was written in a hand much more mature than her hand, so therefore was a fake.
Kristalnacht never happened to the extent claimed, both Hess and Hitler were livid at the violence, and never wanted what was a simple administrative procedure to end up as it did. Not only that, but the night was exascerbated by Jewish resistance with the sole intention of ensuring violence by the german soldiers .
Now I have to tell you, If you look up any of these issues online or through newspapers, you will see a very very different account. If you talk to victims still around you will hear a very different story, if you talk to the scientists you will find scientific evidence that it happened, and yet these people still believe its not happened.
Scientific proof and eye witnesses. That is the extent of proof available to us, Eye witnesses as you know become less and less reliable as time goes on, and yet for religion we are supposed to believe eye witnesses from over 2000 years ago, and scientific proof...
The thing about scientific proof is that, if you just look at things from one angle, say fingerprints on a knife, you may come to the wrong conclusion, which is why courts require alot more than one piece of scientific evidence. They need combined scientific proof to give a best guess. A best guess, not certain knowledge... best guess. Thats the other thing about science, it doesnt have the arrogance of religion, it knows it could be wrong, it accepts that future knowledge and understanding could be different, as opposed to religions blind 'faith', belief without proof perhaps.
So when scientists say the earth is billions of years old, they dont say it because of one test done on one rock, they say it as a theory which they post in a journal, then other sceintists spend their time trying to prove or disprove it, by alternative tests or by a larger population test or by alternative methods ec. This way science has gradually been able to come to some conclusions which they call laws.
These laws are the basis of science and are proved everyday through testing. These laws are the building blocks of science, and help us to understand everything around us. So when someone tells me the earth is only 6000 years old, it is only right that the burden of Proof is on the theory, not lack of proof of others. And also when someone tells me adam and eve are the first two people on the planet, I laugh with the same incredulity as a Jew at the guy who says the Holocaust never happened.
Okay, im off subject here, but there you go.
Its kind of funny that one of the founding principles of the american revolution was no taxation without representation, and yet here we are with another american president soon to be voted on, and the rest of the world not allowed to vote, and yet having to put countelss billions into their own money markets, nationalising banks etc just cos of the monumentous cock ups of the american government and its corporatist ideals.
Not that im bitter.
But to be honest, its not the election i wanted to talk about but the dollar note, well specifically the dollar coin... The dollar coin, just recently launched is interesting in that it apparently is the first coint o have writing on the sides of the coin. Well done. Apparently it says the immortal words 'In God We Trust', Not so well done.
I have to ask a few basic and simple questions about this, and please dont get all holier than though, and all weeeelll you aint american so you are a Heathen!
But why the hell does the one dollar coin need to have 'In God We Trust', firstly which God? At least half of the population of the US doesnt believe in an all powerful god, and the half that do have trouble agreeing in which one. And if we are talking about the christian god, the bible and all, I seem to remember he wasnt that fond of money, it is easier for a cael to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to yadda yaddda.... or false icons... okay I cant remember the reference here, but im pretty sure he wasnt keen on them, something about a golden calf springs to mind, yet there you go writing those words on your currency. Am I the only person to find this attitude a little weird.
Talking about religion for a second, there are two things that occur to me recently... firstly a quote
"The person of the prophet, is revered so profoundly with a love and affection that cannot be explained in words. It goes beyond your parents, your loved ones, your children. That is part of the faith."
This kind of rhetoric, this kind of blind devotion has been said by many a believer. Im a cabbie and enjoy a decent conversation with random people, but when people tell me they love a prophet from over 2000 years ago, rather than their own family, I start to wonder whats going on. Especially when they go on to tell me that the world is only 12k old...
Now about that, There are muslims and some far right christians alike that deny the holocaust ever happened. The argue that the evidence is not conclusive. Here are some examples of their beliefs;
The Gas Chambers, were just air raid shelters, with no holes in the roof, not in the structure or in the blueprints. Therefore if they werent gas chambers, then there was no holocaust.
The Cremation Ovens would not have had the time, or the fuel to burn so many bodies in the period of time allocated.
Anne Franks diary was written in ball point pen, and was written in a hand much more mature than her hand, so therefore was a fake.
Kristalnacht never happened to the extent claimed, both Hess and Hitler were livid at the violence, and never wanted what was a simple administrative procedure to end up as it did. Not only that, but the night was exascerbated by Jewish resistance with the sole intention of ensuring violence by the german soldiers .
Now I have to tell you, If you look up any of these issues online or through newspapers, you will see a very very different account. If you talk to victims still around you will hear a very different story, if you talk to the scientists you will find scientific evidence that it happened, and yet these people still believe its not happened.
Scientific proof and eye witnesses. That is the extent of proof available to us, Eye witnesses as you know become less and less reliable as time goes on, and yet for religion we are supposed to believe eye witnesses from over 2000 years ago, and scientific proof...
The thing about scientific proof is that, if you just look at things from one angle, say fingerprints on a knife, you may come to the wrong conclusion, which is why courts require alot more than one piece of scientific evidence. They need combined scientific proof to give a best guess. A best guess, not certain knowledge... best guess. Thats the other thing about science, it doesnt have the arrogance of religion, it knows it could be wrong, it accepts that future knowledge and understanding could be different, as opposed to religions blind 'faith', belief without proof perhaps.
So when scientists say the earth is billions of years old, they dont say it because of one test done on one rock, they say it as a theory which they post in a journal, then other sceintists spend their time trying to prove or disprove it, by alternative tests or by a larger population test or by alternative methods ec. This way science has gradually been able to come to some conclusions which they call laws.
These laws are the basis of science and are proved everyday through testing. These laws are the building blocks of science, and help us to understand everything around us. So when someone tells me the earth is only 6000 years old, it is only right that the burden of Proof is on the theory, not lack of proof of others. And also when someone tells me adam and eve are the first two people on the planet, I laugh with the same incredulity as a Jew at the guy who says the Holocaust never happened.
Okay, im off subject here, but there you go.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
My catch up
It has been some time and I have plenty of irrelevant things to say, so where to begin.
Firstly, I have bought myself a set of Bongos, now even though I cant play them to any extent, other that bashing them semi-rhythmically along to Rolling Stones numbers, I do intend to be a bongo afficianado by the end of next year, headlining at the Garden (obviously I mean my parents garden, not madison square)
Secondly, I caught a rather painful ear infection which left me nearly totally deaf. In fact my right ear still has some blocked fluid and so i still jump a mile when my flattie creeps up on me on that side.
I have been staying off myspace, not because I am being mean, but simply cos i have too much on my plate recently. For that I apologise. And I will endeavour to do better in the future.
Thats it for now, cos i am uninspired at the mo, but I promise to write more soon.
See ya's
Firstly, I have bought myself a set of Bongos, now even though I cant play them to any extent, other that bashing them semi-rhythmically along to Rolling Stones numbers, I do intend to be a bongo afficianado by the end of next year, headlining at the Garden (obviously I mean my parents garden, not madison square)
Secondly, I caught a rather painful ear infection which left me nearly totally deaf. In fact my right ear still has some blocked fluid and so i still jump a mile when my flattie creeps up on me on that side.
I have been staying off myspace, not because I am being mean, but simply cos i have too much on my plate recently. For that I apologise. And I will endeavour to do better in the future.
Thats it for now, cos i am uninspired at the mo, but I promise to write more soon.
See ya's
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)