A Letter to Murray McCully - he replies

The reply to my original letter is posted here as a PDF MurraryMcCully or as a picture below,

This is a response to a letter I wrote to my MP, who had changed his mind about supporting the "same sex marriage" bill, one of ony 4 MP's to do so in the negative way.



I'm not convinced it's a form reply.

I've let his secretary know by way of a reply what I think .

Erica

Thank you for your reply.

Please, if you would be so kind, and should the Minister care to know,  tell him that, should he be standing at the next election, he will not be receiving my vote, as he has enjoyed in the past.

Of course there are more pressing matters of Economy, Welfare, Education, Health and Security but he had it in his grasp to be someone who actually did something for everyone, and not because he has a fear and loathing of the real meaning of equality, and was cowered by sanctimonious religious bigotry.

You'll recall I've been married 25 years, I've no axe to grind, no flag to fly, but to take a stance that it's all equal except for some is morally bankrupt, and frankly he's disappointed one time to many.

It might only be one vote, but it might make a difference.

Related articles

• A Letter to Murray McCully (pdubyah.com)

The Fleece Machine - Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families

This made me a bit angry today  - " Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families " via Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families - National - NZ Herald News.

So to be clear as to where I stand on this - There are no spirits, ghosts, afterlife, angels, sky-god, demons, it's all made up bullshit nonsense to part you & your cash.

You can't talk to dead people, they do not talk to you.

Prayer does not work, the Bible is not the true word of anyone other than then person who wrote it.

There is no plan for your existence, there is no reward in some imaginary afterlife, you will not be rewarded in this life by some imaginary sky-being who watches over you, and there is no after-life.

If psychics were real then the stock market would use them, and lotto would be won at will - don't be taken in with the claims that "it does not work that way" - tell me in what way does it work.

Why are all these spirits hanging about to tell you they are ok, and that you should be ok, and they watch over you. Which is all they do. Is that, in fact, all you do for ever and ever and ever, just hang about watching. Can these "spirits" only tell of the past, of things that you knowingly or unknowingly communicate with your "medium"

What happens when all your immediate family die, and you're a spirit, joined by all your relatives, good and bad? Do you start watching over strange people just for the crack?

Do the dead outnumber the living ?

• Number of people who have ever been born: 107,602,707,791


• World population in mid-2011 : 6,987,000,000

That's an awfully big ratio.

Finally let me confess to tell you, I did once get a freebie to watch one Kelvin Cruickshank  at work in Takapuna, and was amazed at his skill and the way he dealt with the audience. I was impressed and confused as to how he did what he did, but let me state again - he wasn't talking to dead people, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons or anything other than his own thoughts, and his interpretations of the feedback from the audience.

I'm prepared to be made to look a fool and have someone tell me something that they can't know about me but that a "spirit" told them, both my Mother and Father are dead, and all my GrandParents, so you should be able to get something recent, unless they've disowned me.

Do it for free to prove you can do it, if you have a gift why do you need to monetize it?

Related articles some of them Comedic Value only and not an endorsement

• Medium bare: Psychic 'told women to strip naked to increase their spiritual powers' (mirror.co.uk)


• Mediumship is defined (figsandgrapes.wordpress.com)


• Is there a life after death? (healthy-spirit.org)


• Wales News: Psychic Karl Lang found guilty of conning young women into stripping (walesonline.co.uk)


• Christian Spiritualists to offer readings in Erie (goerie.com)

The facination of the media for Redemption

re·demp·tion:

• 
  
  An act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.


• 
  
  Deliverance; rescue.


• 
  
  Theology. deliverance from sin; salvation.


• 
  
  Atonement for guilt.


• 
  
  Repurchase, as of something sold

One of the online media sites in New Zealand,  Stuff.co.nz, uses "redemption" at the drop of a hat.

A quick search returns About 2,590 results on their website which is a little on high side don't ya think?

Redemption and Sport return 2,090 results !! which is a little on the high side don't ya think ?

The other online site The New Zealand Herald returns only about 1,000 results. Redemption and sports gets a paltry 70 results.

So either the Journalists at Stuff are a Pious bunch who have some intimate knowledge of the religiosity of the people they are writing about,  or someone at these media outlets doesn't think "Redemption" means what they think it means.

In the context that the media use it, mostly, it's for sport. And what they don't divulge is what it is that they are seeking or  receiving or asking redemption for?

A Redemption from what wrong or misdeed that they've done, aside from being an abject failure at their earlier attempt at something. They are mostly professional sportspeople, they've been paid, or are getting paid to do what they do. It's not like they have to give the money back for their failure.

Are they seeking to apologise and show they are worthy of adulation and adoration, and the cash that they comes with it, and to prove that we should throw more money their way?

Worst cases are they don't get paid as much next time, or they don't get another opportunity. Either way it's not a redemptive situation is it?

Sure as an individual it could be that they are trying to redeem their good name then, regain their cachet with their adoring public, from who they crave admiration, seek redress to the bad publicity that comes with some act or other on or off the sporting field. But that does not excuse the media for running over 2000 stories of redemption under any circumstance that I can think of.

If I'm wrong however I'll seek redemption at the earliest opportunity

Related articles

• College Football Powerhouses That Will Experience Redemption in 2012 (bleacherreport.com)


• Redemption Is Near by Roger Edwards (thebarnabascenter.wordpress.com)


• The Redemption. (crittyjoy.com)


• The Redemption Story (catherinekaputa.typepad.com)


• Best of 2007: The Best Look of Redemption (fabsugar.com)


• Redemption (feministperspective.wordpress.com)

13th July : Today the NZ Stuff website ran another story about redemption and sports 

 

As I get older I get different – #3

The one thing that I learned from Twitter is that you have to talk about Religion, Politics, Finance and the weather.



And so Religion.  I don't think it's a secret that I'm Atheist. Dead set I am. But I don't think that it's something that I have to share in public, or in conversation, nor do I have to justify my position.

And I have  full respect for anyone that is "of the faith", any faith and has the need to have a "God" that they worship. I do.

My parents raised me Church of England, which in an of itself is a breakaway church, which makes me smile. When I say "raised" I mean sent me to Sunday School. I don't actually recall attending church on a regular basis at any time. I doubt that we did, despite my sketchy memory of my early childhood. I did R.I. at school, and had parts in the annual nativity at primary school. Fully grounded then in all aspects :0)

What I'm not comfortable with is bagging people of the faith. On a personal level. I'm happy to talk about the irrelevance, the inconsistency and stupidity of religious dogma, but I shy away from confrontation. It's not that important. But also what I'm uncomfortable with is having a label, even if it's "atheist", as if having a label makes it more legitimate for scorn or derision.  I feel the same way about my stand on climate change, and my own belief that despite what you think I'm sure in my own way that it's not man made,  and that because I have that belief I don't enjoy being called a "Denier", I don't deny climate change, just that man did it.

I enjoy learning about the aforementioned inconsistencies in religious teaching to reaffirm that I'm not just a bit weird.  The more you read, and absorb logical and reasoned argument, the further you get away from a belief in a "supreme being".

I wish I could pinpoint the day when I realised that I didn't have to believe in a sky god and that it wasn't going to end in tears. I know it was a long time ago, and that as I get older, and experience more things, and witness more pain, heartache, illness and death I realise that there in fact can't be a caring God, and that confirmation bias just does's cut it.

Related articles

• I had a better impression of Canadians before I read that tripe (freethoughtblogs.com)


• Atheism is not a Religion (kingmidgetramblings.wordpress.com)


• Why I am an atheist - Anonymous (freethoughtblogs.com)


• My Deconversion Story: Living After Faith (mindi.authormeanders.com)


• What Faith Is... (acommonsea.wordpress.com)

My own personal Jesus

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)"][/caption]

It only really just occurred to me that the whole Catholic faith is as a result of extrapolation of a few words and sentence. Whole churches and thousands of followers extrapolated from a bunch of words. Words that have been changed and re-ordered, texts that contain contradictions and statements that can't apply two thousand years after they were written. The fact that there are almost as many variations on churches as there are words in the Catholic Bible should ring alarm bells, but it doesn't.

That might be true of most religions.

That you can write whole treatises on a sentence or placement of a word seem core to the continuation of the ministry of faith.

Religion is intensely and totally a personal thing, your own personal Jesus is yours and yours alone. I don’t think that there would be two people who would share, in total, the whole concept and nuance of their faith. It is very subjective.

I’m atheist, and I have no problem with acceptance of a natural order of things, nor am I beholden to a core belief that I am not self-reliant or self-sufficient in and of myself. I’m content with the fact that when I die I die. I’m not happy about it, death, nor am I prepared for it. In fact some days I’m downright petrified by the prospect of an end.

But not having a continuance doesn’t bother me, why should it? Why should it bother anyone? Who really has had a life whereby a continuance would make a difference to anything? Anything other than a personal relationship or relationships group that is, ie partners or wider family.

Sure there are historical figures that we draw on for inspiration and hold as examples of change-makers. We’re pretty selective in what we remember and why, and what bits we celebrate and hold true. We’re not prepared to peek behind the curtain lest we see a reflection of ourselves.

The vocal religious types, On the whole, tend to be a bit self-centered and frankly a bit ignorant. A few sentences from a religious tract does not make it righteous. A selective, or enhanced, quotation does not prove your point, nor should it guide your moral compass. And you shouldn’t expect it to guide anyone else. Defending your faith aloud tends to draw attention to yourself and in doing so you call into question the depth of your faith, and your critical thinking. And this is where you leave yourself open to criticism and correction by the often slightly more educated atheist.

After all since the believers are labeling someone as a non-believer then the non-believer has to have a number of counter-arguments and reasoning’s, and trust me they’re all used and have been used, researched and investigated for use. All for naught though since if you have faith then you have it. You can’t stop having faith, you can choose to critically think about the faith you have and understand it’s fallacy.

On Twitter I follow a number of atheist tweeters, I’ve also followed and still do religious tweeters. The atheist twitter accounts, that I follow, tend to be more argumentative. The atheists don’t seem to get the live and let live of religion. It’s unlikely that religion or religious dogma would intrude upon their lives. And where it does ridicule and scorn don’t appear to be an effective counter argument.

It really does seem unlikely that there would be a middle ground, and religion and religious teachings account for a large portion of money, influence and sway in society, in many countries, and that’s not going to change any time soon.

Is religion wrong? Some of the teachings and some of the application of teachings is very wrong. These are human failings and interpretations, and there are vested interests in making sure that the status quo and balance is maintained. Change is slow and constant.

I'd be comfortable with your faith if you were as comfortable as I am with mine, but just don's ask me to defend your position.

Related articles

• If Christians own the Witch Burnings, Atheists have to own Stalin, Pol Pot & Hitler .... uh? (veganfeministpirate.wordpress.com)


• "Mixed marriages" - How exactly does THAT work?!?! (atinctureofmadness.wordpress.com)


• Atheists Need to Do a Better Job of Communication (patheos.com)


• Atheists of Different Types (docatheist.wordpress.com)

One-third of Kiwis believe in alien visits

A third of New Zealanders believe aliens have visited Earth and a majority think psychic powers exist, a study has found.

One thousand respondents were asked by UMR Research if they believed "that Earth has been visited by UFOs from other planets".

via One-third of Kiwis believe in alien visits - National - NZ Herald News.

• Nearly 8 in 10 believe that Jesus was a real person who lived 2000 years ago


• 57 per cent believe in life after death. That belief declined with age, falling from 65 per cent among under-30s to 49 per cent among over-60s.


• A quarter believed astrology can predict people's futures.


• Six in 10 - 72 per cent of women and 52 per cent of men - believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit.


• 55 per cent believed that at least some people have psychic powers such as ESP.

I have an opinion on this, like that's never happened

Aliens exist. In a infinite universe, with infinite suns and infinite planets (give or take) the odds are that there are other life forms in the universe. What like that's a surprise. What isn't a surprise is that they've never visited our planet. If they have ask yourself why? and where are they from. How come they conquered the travel distance thing, and if they are so advanced how is it they can fly vast distances only to get to Earth and crash at places like Roswell. And also ask yourself that with the billions of camera phones that are currently in use that there aren't more pictures and, er, evidence.

There isn't actually a lot of evidence to support a person called "Jesus" ever having existed.

There is only death. That is it.

That an arbitrary planet can exert some life force upon you and 1/12 of the population seems likely.

Man invented God, any God, pick a god, we've always done it, mostly from ignorance and fear. We've had sea gods, tree gods, air gods, fire gods, animal gods, cat gods, stone gods the list is almost endless

Yes of course ESP. If it was real you think we'd need stockbrokers and market gamblers?

I surprised they didn's ask about Homeopathy, Bio-Mag blankets and the PowerBlanace band to be honest.

What Atheists Have to Believe.

I got listening to a couple of podcasts and the subject of atheism comes up now and again.

But the answer to "What atheists HAVE to belive" can be summed up in a couple of words. Well no that's not true, the answer is not in the question which isn't worded particularly well. The thing that I, an atheist, has believe in,  and this is all, is that "There is no God".

That is it. I don't have to not belive in the Christian God, any God will do not to belive in.

I dont have to believe in  Zeus, Hermes, Hades, Hera, Aphrodite,
or Iuppiter, Mors,  Terra,
or Odin, Thor, Loki, Njordr,
or Krishna,  Vishnu, Kali, Ishvara,
or Shangdi, Mazu, Shou  Xing, Tu Di Gong,
or Izanagi-no-Mikoto,  Izanami-no-Mikoto,
or Cernunnos, Damona, Epona,
or Ra, Isis, Anubis, Osiris,
or An, Ki,  Enlil, Enki,
or Sin, Marduk, Ishtar, Nabu,
or Simurgh, Rostam, Gaokerena,
or Bunyip, Kurreah, Mutjinga etc

not a one do I have to belive in. There is no God.

Being an Atheist does not mean I have no moral standards, or moral code of right and wrong, I don't find it odd to help my fellow-man, nor do I covet my neighbour's wife or oxen most of the time.

I have one thing as an atheist to belive in. That is all.

I don't have to apologise for evolution, I don't have to explain the uncausable cause of the big bang, I don't have to belive in an eternal after-life anywhere for any reason. I don't have to belive that what I think or what I do has any repercussion other than to me and those my actions affect. I don't have to belive in a judgement book.

Mostly however I don't have to belive that I will vilify you, ridicule you or otherwise insult your belief in something. If you have personal experience of a God then good for you!, but that's you and what you saw, I can't measure it, you can't replicate or prove it, but I'm not about that you prove it to me, especially not with a Bible of doubtful origin and content, that would be circular reasoning.

Should a God come visit with me and prove they are God then I'll happily change my mind.  In the meantime I believe that you have a right to what you think, even if you have no basis for that belief, and I'll continue with mine, based on what I've reasoned to be a reasonable position. After all "God did it" is not a reasonable excuse for anything that happens to you, anyone you know or any event in the world that you are too ignorant to think through an explain. Is it?

Related articles

• Atheist vs. Atheist - What?!


• Atheists require blind faith

 

Bible-bangers aren't the brightest, study shows

The more religious you are, the less likely you are to be intelligent, a new scientific study has found.

via Bible-bangers aren't the brightest, study shows - Education - NZ Herald News.

According to researchers, Christians - particularly fundamentalists who believe the Bible is God's word - have a lower IQ than those who are less religious.

A possible reason behind the finding was a tendency for more intelligent people to challenge religious claims, said one of the researchers, New Zealand psychologist Professor Tim Bates.

"If you believe in religion, you haven't really questioned things," he said. "Brighter people were less likely to feel that religion plays a dominant role in their life."

The findings of the University of Edinburgh study were "a bit hilarious", said Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn. "The suggestion that the less intelligent you are the more religious you would be seems to be degrading and insulting," he said.

However, he did agree that less intelligent people of all faiths tended to be more fundamental in their thinking, "whether they claim to be Christians or atheists or Muslims or whatever".

Forgive me for laughing but this isn't a prediction.

Ken Ring, Moon Man, is still making wild and nonsense predictions guesses about earthquakes in the Christchurch area still and again.

His latest nonsense covers these dates via Earthquake News - Predict Weather - the home of long range weather.

Upcoming dates for possible increases in seismic action are
28th Aug – 2nd Sept, (6 days)
14th-17th and (particularly) 23rd-28th Sept. (4 days) and (6 days)
So that's a total of 16 out of 32 possible days that this prediction covers.
Not so much a prediction then as a scattergun guess.

The article contains many "thinks" and accretions and calls to attention by inference. such as "Imagine if another event is to strike in September", which is a call the fear, and highlights that Ken Ring wants to have his cake and eat it. He didn't get the last "prediction" anywhere close, unless you call "give or take 2-3 days either side" accurate.

And I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense "This also adds weight to the chance of a potent September for Christchurch, being the next equinox period (remember what happened last September?). Due to what I think is the southward drift of lunar perigees, earthquake events have moved from Christchurch since 30 April and 5-10% of all recorded seismic events in NZ have gone elsewhere. "

Due to "what I think" - which is odd because later in the article he claims "it's scientific", and what the heck is "southward drift of the lunar perigees" - To understand this you have to know that Perigee is the point in Moon's elliptical orbit where it is closest to Earth. I have no idea what science is involved in a "drift southwards" and even how that would or could happen. I don't think that it's science. Oh and as a caveat he says "Therefore at least 5-10% more earthquakes have moved further north since April" Pesky earthquakes always being counter-intuitive.

You should read it for yourself, It makes me angry that he calls it "science" that the "gravitational pull" of the moon causes earthquakes when coupled with the tides", which explains many inland earthquakes.

He finishes with this, which is a good belly-laugh "It is not astrology, which some have an aversion to, it is pure science. After all, the planets, Sun and Moon, and the earth and earthquakes, were here a long time before humans arrived to compare birth signs." Which makes no sense in an article predicting earthquakes unless he's going to claim "the not true Scotsman" defense.

But what I'd like to finish with, is another quotation from the same article "The likelihood is great for seismic events around the globe. " to which I would ask "define 'great' and define your qualification standard for 'event'.

To say that I'm skeptical of this is an understatement, there is no science involved in picking 50% off all possible days and associating it with naturally occurring and non-threatening events. If you believe that this is science then you should ask yourself why "that in the last 100 years of earthquakes in Christchurch how come that none of these scientifically dangerous coincidences have occurred?".

Conspiracy Theory #1 in a series

I make no secret of the fact that I'm really not sure that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon as advertised.

JFK was shot by a lone gunman, there is no bigfoot, we are not ruled by Aliens, 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Rosewell wasn't aliens, Area 51 does not house spacecraft or aliens, vaccinations are good. Princess Diana had a car crash.

I don't believe it's man-mad climate change, and I'm against fluoridation of water. And as for the nonsense that was folic acid in bread!

For a conspiracy to be attractive you have to be at the point where you believe in a counter position, or to be sufficiently disbelieving of the stated facts, that your own belief  carries more weigh and your conviction.

Like going to the moon. I'm not convinced that the Saturn V rocket worked first time, and every time afterwards. I'm just not. There are a billion websites and a billion counter websites that go over the arguments for and against, from the dodgy photographs to the physics, I'm just not going to repeat them here. Of course it could be that you just believe that we did, and that the records are correct without question. in no time in history has there ever been falsehood in any account.

The thing is that you don't have to have that many people "in" on the conspiracy, it wouldn't be difficult to stage. It appeals because it's an elegant alternative to someone who has incredulity about the 'actual' event.

Sure many conspiracies unravel over time, but many endure. Is it the grand scale of the moon landings that means I'm wrong, I didn't say I had proofs either way. Besides which I don't know if asked "What would lead you to believe that it was true" that I could give any answer except fly me up there to show me the footprints.

Enduring conspiracies include, of course, religion, and the whole myth and dogma surrounding jesus. But that's not a conspiracy in the sense that a government is trying to fool all of the people all of the time.

On death, dying and the ever after.

Personally speaking aside from brief moments of fear there isn't much else but death. Death in it's finality. The end.

We're on the earth to make more of us. That's all. More of us by procreation. Ensuring the existence and continuation of the species. That is all.

No big plan, no grand design. And no ever-after.

We're remembered if we're lucky for a few years or so, by an large, unless you're someone famous, and then your name and deeds may live on in folklore.

However ashes to ashes and all that, and that's all there is. There is no other place we go to, no afterlife where we hang around handing out cryptic messages to dodgy people who claim to be able to talk to the dead, none of that.

We stop, it's over. We lived we died, we laughed, we cried. That's all there is.

And I think that's where we hang our hat on the after-life or reincarnation or whatever our personal belief system is. We think we're more significant, special, and that means that there must be more right? Nope.

I get the need to believe that there is more, I get that some people think they can talk in cryptic to the dead, I do. However you're all having a laugh, and you need to exercise you're imagination a little to ponder why it should be that after your four score and ten on the earth you get a couple billion years in some other place?

Oh of course I could be wrong, but then it'll be that's pleasantly surprised and if I'm right we'll never know.

Not beliving in...

Many things.

I'm an atheist. I think I've always been one. It's always been obvious to me that god isn't watching from the sky. And he doesn't talk to people. All of that.

The bible. Either you believe it, in toto, or you don't. You can't believe bits of it. You have to belive in creation, adam, eve, the talking snake, burning bushes, pillars of salt, arks and all that begetting. It's the rules.

You also have to belive it's the whole and only true word of either god or jesus, depends on where you start.

I can't. It's ludicrous to think that the words therein have remained the same, since writ. There are 'standardised' versions of course, but these can be shown to have been changed to fit current dogma.

I can't belive in miracles that have left no evidence. I can't belive that there was light in the east and the wide men from the east followed it, that's a fantastically awkward journey.

I can't belive that the bible is, as is, a self enclosed document, not plagiarised, or lifted from other sources or beliefs, I just can't.

But I can belive that the basic fundamentals of the teachings are collected wisdom. Don't kill someone, that seems reasonable. Don't steal from someone, pretty much dead on the money. Don't lie, again I'm down with that.

Can't agree with the first 4, about belive only in the one god, make no images, don't work on the weekend and don't use god or jesus as an epithet.  And #10 the bit about coveting, that just destroyed the consumer society, so no.

Pasta Rune Enoe kindly says this about the ten commandments and what you can expect if you break any of them, the pastor even questions the order they are given, he's a bit of a wag.  http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=16785

Anyway for instance
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. , the punishment is "severe" which  means that you'll be up for Genocide. Entire cities with men, women, children and animals
must be killed. (Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Numbers 21:34-35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21. Joshua 10:40) In some cases you can keep the girls alive for raping. (Numbers 31:15-18)

So that's why I can't belive in the whole thing, some of it is patent nonsense, fiction and shambolic. Am I worried about death? Aren't we all. And when I'm dead you'll remember me and then one day you won't.  And that's the bottom line.

Tollerance and the patience to have it

It's a pity that there is manifest a certain amount of intolerance in the media, within your peers and round and about you.

We have intolerance of the muslim custom of clothing choice, where it frightens some people. We have the intolerance of race equality when it comes to Maori. We have the intolerance of many things. Today I'm down to two;

Maori. What can you put this intolerance down to, well I'd say that the settlement of grievances is to blame. blame in the sense that they are advertised and that the settlement usually comes with cash and goods as reparation. This is seen by some as pandering to a minority, when they may or may not be disenfranchised themselves in some way, either by wealth or position, race or privilege. For example "why should I work so hard so the Maori can get it for nothing" That's making your world view focus on a result not a reason.

I'm amazed at some of the "claims" that we're told about, by Maori, and these are always highlighted and imply that they are a grab for something, there are very few that result in everyone nodding in sage agreement that a settlement would be just and correct.

What is it you want? Maori equality means they are starting from a lap down. What do you exepct when suddenly bright educated people identifying themselves as Maori understand some of the ways to get them on a level footing. It's isn't about getting ahead of the whitey, it's about being the same, and accepted as being the same as.

Muslims. The burqa, the face mask or niqab. Where to go with this. The full body covering that muslim women choose to wear or the face veil. My ignorance and fear should not be a want to ban them from wearing it. I don't support it, I don't understand it, I'm appalled if it's a forced choice. What I'm not is intolerant of their choice based on their beliefs to choose to do what they do.

I can choose to believe they are ignorant, and don't want to be part of my society, they aren't being ignorant or insular. They are sharing a country with me, we're not in an arm wrestle for control that I know of, we want to get on with our lives.

Sure there are radicals in every religion, there will be white  religious supremacists that want to blow something up, there will be muslim radicals that want to do the same. There are probably angry Buddhists somewhere. Can you imagine them wanting everyone to wear orange as their cause, we're not offended by them singing and dancing in the streets.

So my muslim full veil fear? I'm going with my own thoughts that we are hunter gatherers. We don't like not seeing a face, or facial expressions or body language, it scares us. It scares us because of the rarity of the full veil muslim in our presence, I bet if you were in a city where it was prevalent that you wouldn't worry so much. It scares you as it's not your normal. Your fear is no reason to make them change. It just isn't.

Things to belive in - Part one the First

I've been listening to a number of skeptical podcasts, that is podcasts that have a skeptical look at things. I'd recommend the Righteous Indignation podcasts, they've been interviewing 'believers' in a very sympathetic way.

Anyways. Thing is. Climate change. Again.

I don't believe it's a man-made thing. I still believe this. I believe in climate change, it's obvious, or seems obvious with age. Seasons are later then I remember as a child, and summer seems to last longer into the new year. So it seems.

What troubles me still is the 'man made' bit. I've blogged a bit on this before, so this is not a new position for me.

Where do I sit then when people want to throw out labels such as 'climate change denier'. Skeptical podcasters do this, somehow they've elevated themselves to label makers. Of course I side with them about Homeopathy, Psychics and UFOlogists, but they are just different thinkers.

But "denier" gets my heckles up in an angry way. I don't deny it, I just deny that man did it.

I don't believe man went to the moon either. Just don't believe they had the technology.

I don't believe that there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, that Dianna was assassinated or that Lizards are the true rulers of the planet.

I believe that injections for vaccination are good things, I don't believe that fluoride in the water is a good thing - mass medication seems wrong, like putting folic acid in bread for the tiny number of pregnant women that have a deficiency - just seems wrong in an overkill way.

I don't believe in God, Heaven or Hell (I do capitalize just in case :-) )

Things to belive in - Part one the First

I've been listening to a number of skeptical podcasts, that is podcasts that have a skeptical look at things. I'd recommend the Righteous Indignation podcasts, they've been interviewing 'believers' in a very sympathetic way.

Anyways. Thing is. Climate change. Again.

I don't believe it's a man-made thing. I still believe this. I believe in climate change, it's obvious, or seems obvious with age. Seasons are later then I remember as a child, and summer seems to last longer into the new year. So it seems.

What troubles me still is the 'man made' bit. I've blogged a bit on this before, so this is not a new position for me.

Where do I sit then when people want to throw out labels such as 'climate change denier'. Skeptical podcasters do this, somehow they've elevated themselves to label makers. Of course I side with them about Homeopathy, Psychics and UFOlogists, but they are just different thinkers.

But "denier" gets my heckles up in an angry way. I don't deny it, I just deny that man did it.

I don't believe man went to the moon either. Just don't believe they had the technology.

I don't believe that there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, that Dianna was assassinated or that Lizards are the true rulers of the planet.

I believe that injections for vaccination are good things, I don't believe that fluoride in the water is a good thing - mass medication seems wrong, like putting folic acid in bread for the tiny number of pregnant women that have a deficiency - just seems wrong in an overkill way.

I don't believe in God, Heaven or Hell (I do capitalize just in case :-) )