Citizens Opposed to Bureaucratic Bullying and Excessive Regulation

[Bruce Tuncks]

Here's a quote from the latest New Scientist.

 

" Bureaucracy and red tape are slowly strangling us"

 

And the writer doesn't even know about CASA. Well Truss is gone now.

 

I hope the new minister will be better than Truss... he who had the Forsythe review and then did nothing about the findings.

 

 

[DrZoos]

This stuff makes politics look like sensible facts

 

 

[Mriya]

Can you provide references? I have read most of Dawkins books and I don't recall him saying that.

Here is a youtube link which includes Dawkins describe a possible 'multiverse' universe solution. I came across this some time ago when trying to research info regarding the cosmological constant and the problem that the required fine tuning of this number in order for our universe to work. I am not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of other claims in the video, and to be honest aspects of it make me cringe. The presentation is done a very tacky and embarresing way, however the video section of Dawkins is some of what I was referring to.

It is also fair to acknowledge I had an incomplete memory of the specific content and have incorrectly attributed Dawkins multiverse theory to the small chance of evolution occurring, when in fact he wss referring to the problem of the fine tuning of the cosmological constant that is needed for our universe to function. It was some time ago when I saw the video and it was even a challenge to find it again.

 

 

Sorry again for the cringeworthy video, I post it only to answer the query regarding what Dawkins suggests regarding what I understand he is describing as many parallel universes to make the odds of a feasible universe believable, and simply do not know enough about the cosmological constant to verify how much of a problem it presents to physists.

 

 

[Mriya]

. Arguing logic or facts with beliefs is a contradiction in terms.

Having beliefs without evidence is not logical. Some would call it blind faith. Blind faith will likely end in despair and uncertainty. Each of us automatically filters evidence according to our worldview. As is evidenced on this thread a number of people reject any notion of God. Subsequently any evidence that they see will be filtered by this worldview. They will see complexity of life and interpret it as an amazing display of nature at work. A christian might observe the same evidence and due to their worldview interpret it as an amazing display of God at work. I'm guessing other religions will attribute the same thing and attribute it to their deity of choice.

It is obvious to me logically that each of these observations can't be simultaneously correct as they are mutually exclusive. I can no more prove God to an atheist, than an atheist can disprove God to me. The concept of God by very definition sits outside of scientific bounds, as does all spiritual belief. I presume that atheists deny that a spiritual realm exists, however the experience of the majority of the world population suggests that a spiritual realm does exist. For some they will be able to describe the evidence that pursuaded them, while for others it may be just blind faith. I am not the type of person who likes to operate from blind faith and therefore require evidence. At the end of the day each of us needs to be comfortable with the choice we make. It seems obvious to me that when we get to the end of our lives it will become obvious who was right, but until then we will all need to get on with those around us, recognising that a range of beliefs exist.

 

 

[Mriya]

If God made man then he also made cancer

You raise a real question that has been the subject of much theological debate (and of cause much hurt and pain in our world). This thread has probably drifted off topic way too far already for me to open up a new discussion front here.

If you are simply making a statement, then it is probably not fair for me to launch into a theological discussion on suffering now, but as you would expect, there is a great amount of material that tries to make sense of this tough issue.

 

If you did want to discuss publically or privately, then maybe a new thread devoted to this or pm would be appropriate.

 

 

[Mriya]

I am quite interested in the notion of intelligent design. If I understand it correctly it is based on the idea that the universe and the processes in it are so complex that they must have been designed. I would presume that such a complex task would require a designer that is also complex, which does rather beg the question, where did the designer come from? I don't really see the point in explaining one unknown with another unknown.

I did already say that, just as the odds of life beginning spontaneously defy explanation, Neither can the existance of God be scientifically described. However, I (and other christians) would argue that God is not 'unknown' as you describe. Christians claim that God has revealed a great deal about himself through Jesus & the bible. The evidence contained within these sources has convinced many people that God can be very much known and trusted. Obviously not everyone is convinced though.

Once again as I said in another post just before, too much drift from the original topic already to open up another front here, but if anyone cares to know more pm or start a new thread on the topic and I'll be happy to participate.

 

 

[coljones]

Present day Western society is reverting to the old fundamentalist, religious beliefs of the dark past. A well fed, comfortable, over-educated society, with too much time on its' hands - which opposes scientific progress. University courses slanted so that students can avoid the basics of maths, physics and chemistry. Not worth the paper they're printed on! The over-regulation reflects the poorly founded fears of our society in respect of science - as well as the over-supply of law graduates. happy days,

And Journalists

 

 

[rotax618]

[pmccarthy]

Rachel Carson was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin put together. Her book Silent Spring led to a ban on DDT, which had never harmed anyone, just as we were about to wipe out malaria. Was she doing Dog's work?

 

 

[facthunter]

Insecticides are some of the most toxic substances around. To kill insects you need stronger substances than to kill humans. Insecticides are often residual poisoning the soil for decades. Where do you get the info that DDT never hurt anyone? Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Now that's a pretty big claim, PM. Sources?

 

Who can say whether malaria would have been beaten? Is this another case of man's astounding arrogance: we must wipe out all diseases that limit our species' population growth, no matter what damage we do to the natural world- on which we depend for our survival?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Please take the trouble to read this:

 

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

 

It is well researched and footnoted. And as to the deaths:

 

Since January 1, 1999, 45 million people have died of malaria. Of these, 40.6 million were pregnant women, or children under the age of five.

 

See http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/malaria_toll.html

 

 

[Litespeed]

I find this about as credible as 'agent orange" is safe.

 

All of the quoted research is selective and quite old. About as credible as the science quoted to deny global warming. Just because a few selective papers find DDT is good for you- does not hold true to the overwhelming scientific research.

 

The amount of money that has been paid by Mosanto and other chemical companies either directly or indirectly to recive faourable outcomes in research is legendary- as it is for pharmaceutical companies, big oil and mining companies.

 

If the claims were true, I am sure Bill Gates would be screaming to allow DDT to be sprayed everywhere- he is big in funding a cure for Malaria and its mitigation of harm. The WHO would have surely also done this.

 

Sorry I don't agree with this 'so called research'

 

 

[facthunter]

Nothing can be TOXIC to insects that isn't more harmful to other life forms. Insects are hard to kill and most of the agents used attack the insects nervous system. Most species develop a tolerence for a poison eventually, so it becomes less effective with time. There's plenty of resistance to Glyphosate (Roundup) weedkiller, same as to antibiotics. (Particularly broad spectrum,) when over used against germs (Microbes). They don't kill virus's..Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

As a side note-

 

There are whole generations of farmers that have liberally sprayed DDT on the farm as a cure all for insects. Many of them died at a younger age than the general population- from cancers, often stomach cancer- a very nasty way to die.

 

My grandfather was such a farmer- stomach cancer took him, as it did many other farmers. There is similar stories about heavy users of other so called safe chemicals. But naturally cancer is one of those disease's that is hard to prove as the definite cause, and little research has been done on this in relation to farmers and application.

 

There are many chemicals that are so called safe only to discover that mutagenic changes have occurred in DNA, that affect their offspring DNA and the effect is pronounced the grandchildren.

 

A classic and tragic example is Agent Orange. The occurrence of congenital disabilities in the grandchildren of Vietnam vets is tragic and well proven.

 

My Niece has Spinabifida and is in fact covered for life time health care by the USA because here grandfather was sprayed in Agent Orange as a Vietnam soldier for Australia. You can be damn sure that Uncle Sam would not pay if it was not proven. Our Government on the hand has a very shameful history on this and any other harm it causes Vets and their families.

 

For those sure DDT is good stuff- feel free to eat it with your wheet bix in the morning

 

 

[Yenn]

So we will find out when we get older. How much older? How do we know that statement is true? I don't know anyone who has experienced the real truth. A few have have had a near death experience and some of them have thought they were in heaven, others say it is all blank,

 

Those ten thou shalt nots are not all do nots, some of them say what you must do, such as worship god. What I can't understand is how there can be so many gods and religions and they are all right. Some must be wrong even if there is a god. So how do we know which is which.

 

Personally I favour the muslim religion. There is no doubt in muslims minds that their god is the one.

 

 

[Mriya]

[ATTACH=full]37937[/ATTACH]

George Carlin obviously knows nothing about what being a Christian is. It has nothing to do with living a life 'good' enough to please God or keeping commandments but rather speaks of a God who has made it possible for imperfect people to come to him because of Jesus. However the abuse of power for selfish motives is a blight on aspects of the church and these abuses rightly make people skeptical of religion generally.

Money is obviously needed in order to keep any group functioning, which is why you will be pursuaded to contribute to any group you belong to from RAAus to your sporting or interest group. One thing that I like about churches that I have been in relates to their desire to uncouple from this stigma that the community has about religion. In one church I was a part of, they deliberately had no offering, but simply have a donation box at the back where members can contribute to costs without any compulsion or pressure. In my current church, although an offering is collected a point is regularly made that there is no obligation to give and in particular visitors are told to simply 'pass the plate' on. People are not getting rich in the circles I move in. I have no doubt that some people abuse the power and get rich, through corrupt religious activity, much like people can do in politics, sports, or any other organisation where money changes hands. This corrupt activity does not mean that the core activity is wrong, but rather serves as a warning of what our human nature is capable of if we have the opportunity and don't think we will get caught.

 

 

[coljones]

Please take the trouble to read this:http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

 

It is well researched and footnoted. And as to the deaths:

 

Since January 1, 1999, 45 million people have died of malaria. Of these, 40.6 million were pregnant women, or children under the age of five.

 

See http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/malaria_toll.html

The track leads to ACSH.org

Haven't had a chance to dig deeper but these are some of the supporters of ACSH.org (American Council on Science and Health)

 

"

 

What people are saying about us

 

“By increasing our understanding of complex issues, you help Americans make sound decisions about their well-being and influence public policy.”

 

– President George W. Bush

 

“ACSH knows the difference between a health scare and a health threat.”

 

– The Wall Street Journal

 

“On one issue after another in recent years, ACSH has stood as a bulwark against the contemporary Luddites who see the beginning of civilization’s end in every technological advance that reaches the market place.”

 

– Edwin Feulner, President The Heritage Foundation

 

"

 

The Heritage Foundation is a Conservative Think Tank - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

 

 

[Mriya]

So we will find out when we get older. How much older? How do we know that statement is true? I don't know anyone who has experienced the real truth. A few have have had a near death experience and some of them have thought they were in heaven, others say it is all blank,Those ten thou shalt nots are not all do nots, some of them say what you must do, such as worship god. What I can't understand is how there can be so many gods and religions and they are all right. Some must be wrong even if there is a god. So how do we know which is which.

Personally I favour the muslim religion. There is no doubt in muslims minds that their god is the one.

I was nearly going to give you a 'like' as I agreed with aspects of your post. In my opinion you are 100% correct in noting that all religions CAN'T be right. Whether Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, or any other worldview you care to be, it is likely that you will believe that you are right and the others are wrong. First question is whether you believe that a deity exists at all - that groups togther the atheists. If you think a deity does exist you then need to examine the various competing claims that the various faiths have to know God (or the gods). The big distinction I see that sets the Christian faith apart from others is that it is not about keeping rules to earn God's favour or reward. The Christian faith centres on what Jesus has done for us, not on what we do to please Him. In contrast other religions (and Christian sects such as Mormons & JW's) are about earning favour with God through good deeds (which for some religions such as Muslims can include rather dubious practices such as killing the infidels that surround them).

Personally, I see enough evidence in the historical Jesus, documented eyewitness accounts, predicted events and outcomes in Jewish history that pointed to Jesuscoming, the intricate design that it embedded into every aspect of the world in which we live and the accurate assessment of human nature and corruption including rejection of God resulting in a broken and divided world.

 

I imagine many others will look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions. That is the right of us all, and one would hope that just because we hold to different worldviews, doesn't mean we can't respect one another. World history (and current events in Iraq & Syria) warn us of what can happen when any one worldview decides that they have a right to kill people who don't agree with them. This is never the right response and if anyone claims that such actions are sanctioned through their Christian faith then I would question their true standing and motives. They are certainly not aligned with Christian princples.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Whilst all that sounds fine in principle- the actual lived experience of many who follow the catholic church- christian is anything but what you expouse.

 

My Catholic schooling was anything but the Christianity you observe. Lot of punishment, hell and brimstone speeches, the evil of heathens and any one who did not conform to their view.

 

The current royal commission is alarming and a true account of what many lived through and not all in far history.

 

The response of the church is anything but christian.

 

Oh and don't forget the legal protection they stand behind to protect the richest church on the planet. It is the largest landholder in Australia, has billions in the bank and uses all the same tactics of a evil corporation to protect itself, even to this very day.

 

Lets not forget they are exempt from the very laws that govern the rest of us- can't be sued as a entity and also pay no tax not even rates.

 

 

[Robbo]

I am getting dizzy reading this thread...

 

I don't think I have the intelligence to understand all this.

 

I will continue with aviation topics before my brain explodes.

 

 

[Mriya]

Whilst all that sounds fine in principle- the actual lived experience of many who follow the catholic church- christian is anything but what you expouse.My Catholic schooling was anything but the Christianity you observe. Lot of punishment, hell and brimstone speeches, the evil of heathens and any one who did not conform to their view.

 

The current royal commission is alarming and a true account of what many lived through and not all in far history.

 

The response of the church is anything but christian.

 

Oh and don't forget the legal protection they stand behind to protect the richest church on the planet. It is the largest landholder in Australia, has billions in the bank and uses all the same tactics of a evil corporation to protect itself, even to this very day.

 

Lets not forget they are exempt from the very laws that govern the rest of us- can't be sued as a entity and also pay no tax not even rates.

Sadly, I agree with you on almost everything you just posted. It is my belief that in large part the Catholic Church has lost its way and often teach a form of Christianity that is legalistic and hard to reconcile with the bible. I do not doubt that there are some Catholics who understand the type of Christianity that I speak of, however, sadly the experience you speak of is all too common and this denomination has successfully turned a whole generation off anything to do with Christianity through the way they chose to conduct themselves. I subsequently have very little respect for this organisation as do many others, such as yourself.

In contrast to the Catholic churches defence of their real estate assets in light of the widespread institutional abuse of children (including religious and non-religious groups), I would point out an example of how some other churches have tried to approach the problem. The Anglican Church in Tasmania decided that it should sell it's bishops grand residence to help pay proper compensation to victims that suffered under their care. They considered it immoral to seek to protect a significant asset and avoid proper compensation. This appears very different from the approach taken by the Catholic church.

 

The only point that I would question in your post regards your concerns about tax treatment of churches.

 

My understanding is that as a not-for-profit community organisation any church is entitled to tax relief. Further to this many sporting clubs and community organisations rightly gain a range of concessions including access to sports fields provided by local councils, which allow them to function without undue burden to their members.

 

It should also be remembered that Christian groups generally are 'punching way beyond their weight' in regards to providing social support and services to the wider community. This generosity is funded in large part straight out of the donations of members who are committed to social justice and support for anyone who is marjonalised in their community. This generosity and action results in lower demand on government welfare and support and so I see no net benefit to the tax-payer in governments shutting down tax concessions to religious organisations, when the end result will be less resources available for social welfare and support activities that rely on this income.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Has anybody praying at night actually had " the voice" speak back to them?

 

 

[microman]

I am getting dizzy reading this thread...I don't think I have the intelligence to understand all this.

 

I will continue with aviation topics before my brain explodes.

My sentiments exactly - why does an aviation site have to be ruined by god-botherers and pointless discussions about politics by people pushing their way-out views?

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Has anybody praying at night actually had " the voice" speak back to them?

I have, but only after 2 bottles of red !