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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)