Rhosty,

You said
"And arguably the finest argument ever put to completely wind back all subsidies on millionaires' super; soon to cost the budget bottom line more than medicare or pensions! [50+ billion?] End negative gearing and finally end subsidies private health! [8+ billion?]"

Ending tax breaks is essentially an increase in tax, which is exactly what you are calling for.

The purpose of tax breaks is to encourage activity that is in the public good. Considering that all super is taxed at either 15% or 30% the "subsidy" is minimal at best and the $8bn "savings" to remove this subsidy is certainly not based on removing the tax break only from the wealthy.

Similarly, tax breaks for private health have so far reduced the cost to public hospitals more than the cost of the tax break, and finally negative gearing (or writing off interest as a business expense) is used by every business in the world, as it encourages investment.

Taxing super will kill it and leave the government with a huge bill later in pensions, and the really wealthy that don't rely on super will not be touched.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Of course I don’t have proof that there is no God, and I never contended I have such proof. I cannot prove that there is no unicorn circling the earth, but there is no evidence to support the contention that there is.

I once believed there was a God. I examined what I was taught and decided that God was just a human invention. That had absolutely nothing to do with science. It was you who brought science into the matter. I do not believe that science is the font of all knowledge.

Of one thing I am convinced. There may be a god. However, if there is a god it is not the arbitrary, irascible, irrational god of the Bible. I can see no evidence that there is one. That is a very different statement from claiming proof.

I do not have a closed mind. I examined what I was taught about God and rejected it. To be able to change one’s mind is a characteristic of an open not a closed mind. I have changed my mind about other things. Unfortunately those who have the opinions I once had assume that I have never examined their positions. It is especially irritating when god bashers tell me to open my mind to their beliefs as though those beliefs are alien to me.

You wrote: “drop your defensiveness long enough to experience the Oneness.”

That’s meaningless crap and offensive. It is offensive to be accused of being defensive. I would rather discuss your views than attack you in any way. ‘experience the Oneness’, ‘your true Self’, ‘awareness is everywhere all the time’ and ‘you'll understand you are not your body, your brain, your breath, your thoughts, or even who you think you are’ are all meaningless New Age gabble.

On believing that there is much more than I perceive possible I agree with you.

I think differently from you. That makes me defensive, unaware and I guess a lot of other things. Arguing by calling the other guy names is not a good way to argue.

Dear David,

If one follows an entity such as the god of the Bible because they believe He exists, then s/he is mistaken in their assumption, yet the outcome can still be good (or it may not, if for example they come to kill and rape through belief in Allah). Belief is merely a technique, so what matters is its outcome, both the final outcome which was just referred to as Enlightenment by ConservativeHippie, but also the positive character-building that precedes it.

The West seems to have forgotten the purpose of imagining various gods and goddesses and dressing God in their attributes: it helps the devotee to focus their attention and meditate on an attractive and beloved object, it's merely a great technique, it was never intended to become a scientific statement, so one should choose a deity with their heart, not with their mind.

In reality there is nothing but God, including other gods, yet if one finds it too abstract to concentrate on God, then one should choose to believe in and worship the deity which appeals to them best.

Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 7, verses 21-22:

"
I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.

Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.
"
(http://www.asitis.com/7)

Yes, to be conscious of the world we need a brain. That brain also holds memories, which are lost once it decays.

Whatever the purpose(s) of acquiring and growing a brain to be conscious through, is well beyond this discussion. My point simply was, that since we already did it once (when or around the time we were born), it is not unreasonable to assume we can and would do it all over again, using a different body/brain.

I'm glad you derive pleasure from this discussion. Pleasure itself is not an obstacle in the pursuit of God, only our attachment to it.

Just for clarification sake, my God is not sitting on a thrown, my God does not have a human-like body, it is not the God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, one of the specific Hindu deities, or Ra of the ancient Egyptians, or even the Sun although it could be all of those. My God is all that is and all that isn't, beyond space and time, ever present, infinite, eternal, within, and accessible.

My God is not New Age claptrap. My God is as simple as being the empty space that contains everything else, the spark of consciousness that let's you know you are awake, Love, Nature, the Universe, the distance between atoms, quarks and the stars, the big bang, the dynamic void, the past present and future rolled into one.

If you were the only person for miles in the middle of a desert when a flying saucer landed, you would always know it happened but most everyone else would think you had some sort of psychotic episode. Their perception of you would not negate the truth about what you witnessed. The ancient sages, mystics, and the Dali Lama are not just a bunch of quacks.

God is not religion. Study your mind. Know your Self.

Perhaps to get back on topic, no, the media have not a clew about seniors.

I know dozens who have given up newspapers, as they are too much hassle.

Even more have given up TV as the people who produce most of it have no idea. A huge number of older people have some level of tinnitus, & it appears few if any TV production people understand how this affects their hearing ability.

While they can hear perfectly well despite a constant noise in their ears, they can only interoperate one line of speaking. With 2 conversations, or one with a TV or radio as well, the sound all merges into just noise.

The same thing occurs with background noise, or "atmosphere" in sporting broadcasts, & even in documentaries. Even background music can render the commentary unintelligible.

I know many who have given up most TV & radio after developing tinnitus in their late fifties. Unless a cure is developed for tinnitus, an aging population will seriously reduce their audience, if they don't start to understand this simple & common affliction, & alter their techniques to accommodate sufferers.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Organised religion is one of the few social organisations in this modern world which build community. We interact with people at work but don't necessarily see them outside of working hours. Many of us get our food from an impersonal supermarket. Even members of a family may not have a close relationship. Religion provides fellowship in the midst of an atomised society. However, the beliefs of religion contain a great deal of nonsense.

To reject organised religion and to keep a belief in fairy tales such as God means to me to withdraw from what is worthwhile about religion and retain the nonsense.