Old Fred can get it right too! hard to believe but he has had an idea that most Australians share.And that a few who deny it is a view those Australians have or are entitled to say is evil or wrong.
Education can be a savior, but if it is to hate? to never become part of our culture?
Accountability is a worthwhile standard for all our actions all of us, but what if lies are used as often as we drink water to cover a growing undermining of Australian culture?
Some within both major religions are a threat to world peace, more in my view thought needs to be given to increasing the devisions in our country, Fred just once you got it right.

Well, here we see some teddy (god) talk concerning the drought and then teddy playpens fighting each other defending their king teddy. When will people ever grow up to the fact that there are no teddies and no one is ever likely to find one no matter how hard they grovel.

On matters of mind ......

Just seems for the teddy believers it is mind before matter which is impossible, therefore there can be no teddy.

Mind over/under matter comes from this teddy belief, therefore simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host with classic alpha and omega insecurity. Now that is belief in belief or religion which generally builds down from some anthropic principle using deduction ...... never to find anything of course but gives us the entirely maladaptive.

Mine is mind out of matter which matters a great deal with unparalleled richness. This is where there is an inseparable quantum inter-connectedness as reality that requires assumptions like infinity, relativism, causality, uncertainty and complementarity.

AND ...
Isn't it the inductive mindset that perceives everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole, that is undivided, unbroken and without border, which flows to orderly action and along with it to the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor "mentally" unhealthy.

'Way out west where the rain dont go' its raining today and there is rain forecast for most of the week. There are no Christians to pray for rain here of the two churches one is a couple of walls and a pile of stone , the other rebuilt into a house. There are no Muslims to pray for rain. There are no custodians left here , the indigenous people long forced out but as I watch the moist black clouds fuse grey haze with the earth as they follow the creeks to the hills I gather the origional custodians saw this all very differently. Despite the drought there are still rock pools and mud springs along the creeks. Wildlife still gather at these places. This year has seen bumper crops in quandongs, native peach and acacia seeds. Starchy bulbs like old mans beard dont look like they have suffered a drought at all. European bees have all but gone except near the creeks and native bees appear to be enjoying a population revival.
It is not hard to imagine when biodiversity was higher a drought would have little significance here.

The problem we are facing is not drought , it is reoccuring drought which is climate change to a climate where rain falls infrequently. Prayer is a waste of breath , it is occult magic which is useless except for entertainment purposes. If the superstitious really want to bring the rains back then they should work at arresting climate change and stop polluting the atmosphere.

Those who use prayer as a brainwashing crutch should pray for strength to use less resources and the ability to buy environmentally friendly, convincing yourself a drought will break is doing nothing.

West I assume you drive a modern air conditioned car, live in a house using electricity (obviously your on the internet). Could I suggest you change your use of energy and transport. Horses also discharge methane gas into the atmosphere. You are just as responsible as your neighbour for polluting the atmosphere affecting climate change. I suggest you begin by putting into practise your notion that man is responsible for the drought. After all that is what the religious are claiming - though I dissagree.

Philo when we built our house we solar orientated it to capture the breeze and winter warmth. The north side is shaded by deciduous trees in summer and is exposed to the sun in winter. I plant between 50 to 500 trees a year depending on need carbon capturing any emissions I have created out of electricity or car use. I am fortunate there is little obstacle to my driving routes , a slow moving vehicle produces more pollution. We do have a private woodlot. We do have airconditioning but we only need use it on the hottest days, yes the worst time to use electricity. We heat the home with a filtered combustion heater , we use between two and three 10 year old trees a winter. We have enough wood for 1000 years in the wood lot alone. We only keep enough live stock on and off for private consumption. The waste product ends up as compost to fertilise our vegetables. We had considered using our sewerage for methane power generation, alas I am either too busy or too lazy to follow it up. I could do a lot more like anybody.I do do a lot more besides. I have minimised my footprint mostly accidently as I hate clutter but my footprint over the past decade and a half would be much lower than the average suburbanite.

Philo I am surprised that you a chemical engineer does not believe pollution has effect and affect. Religion is not addressing polution and its climate change it is simple saying god is punishing us, which of course is nonesense.

BOAZ: ‘…there are enough "violent Muslims" out their to bring 600 death threats his way.

To my mind, the whole religion should be removed,’

What exactly do you mean by ‘removed’? That is beginning to sound a little euphemistically sinister.

Posted by saintfletcher, Saturday, 17 March 2007 12:15:12 AM:
‘Ah Rob, I thought God in Christianity used a capital "G". This is so in the Oxford and Macquarie dictionaries. Just a point of order.’

What an excellent observation.

The ‘God’ usage only imparts ‘defining characteristics’ within monotheistic religions. In Hinduism for example there are hundreds of gods – to use the single name ‘God’ for a myriad of radically different entities would be stupid. And even within monotheistic religions defining characteristics are only consistent among members of that particular religion, eg even though Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic it seems, from casual observation, that they don’t regard the entity they each call ‘God’ as the same thing.

Apart from that, the ‘god’ usage has been the common convention among academics and anthropologists for many decades for exactly the reasons stated above. This means that the fault lies in the dictionaries themselves and it adds fuel to my assertion that the MacDic was only ever an Australian edition of the OxDic with a little fresh pepper on top. I don’t know who is in charge at MacDic anymore but if I stumble across an example to cite (and I can be bothered) I will send them a citation and use an extract from your post, covering the consistency between the 2Dics, in support – I know it isn't necessary but we do like to add a twist if we can, do we not? It should be especially ‘twisting’ considering Macquarie’s trumpet blowing about the superiority of ‘descriptive’ theory’ over ‘prescriptive theory’ and their application of it.