The National Anthem

[kiwitiger]

The day that everyone realises that nobody owns the land is the day we can all share it.

The indiginous seem to think a patch of this rock that were all clinging to while flying through space is 'theirs'
The notion that any group of people 'own' a piece of this planet is mind boggling to me.

All round to TIGERS he doesn't own the land where his house is. We can all share it. This owning of land is what the British empire was built on.

 

[TIGER]

@TIGER

Lets not get mixed up in semantics. You're an atheist.

You claim that a burden of proof is central to your position, but logic is also a burden of proof to my position. So can you meet the burden of proof that the Supernatural doesn't exist? Because that's the next logical step of anybody who seriously wants to contemplate any form of atheism.

Through natural means you cannot obtain matter from non-matter, life from non-life, or consciousness from unconsciousness. There is an absolute scientific basis to those facts.

So if they cannot be achieved through natural means, and we affirm the existence of matter, life, and consciousness which were created and non-eternal, then that leaves the realistic possibility (probably he only possibility) that they would be required to be created through super-natural means.

If you make a proclamation that God, or the Supernatural doesn't exist, but then stop dead in your tracks without examining the ramifications of your statement and the logical conclusions that must follow from it, you're taking a very superficial stance on a matter which you are voluntarily very vocal about.

That's why atheists have now had to imagine up the pan-spermia theory. They want a logical consistency to their views, but cannot find one through the natural sphere. So even they have affirmed the Supernatural , except their supernatural creator is an Alien from some multiple universe, rather than the God of the Bible.

There is also alot to be said for your "arguments against God" in your previous posts ... but i will leave those for another time as they have been asked and answered about a zillion times over the course of human history.

I know this isnt a theology thread, so happy for Mods to move the conversation as it is off topic.

Yes I'm an Agnostic Atheist, and I don't claim that a burden of proof is central to my position, did you even read what I wrote because it's the exact opposite?
I never claimed that the supernatural 'doesn't exist' nor do I claim that a god doesn't exist, this is the problem where people don't actually listen to what others actually say and instead they assume, so once again I don't know what you're talking about.
(Go and read what I wrote)

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, Gnostic Theists claim that they know a supernatural God exists, the burden of proof lies with them.

Like I said, so far as I'm aware we have no way to confirm if anything supernatural exists so I have no justification for believing it does.

You say that matter can't come from non matter yet you believe that an immaterial God created everything.

We don't know how the universe came to be or how life came to be but we know one thing for sure, saying 'God did it' doesn't explain anything!!
It's as much of an explanation as saying MAGIC!!

 

[Abraham]

@TIGER i read what you wrote. Maybe you should too ... "I’m an Agnostic Atheist, I’m not claiming a god doesn’t exist, I just don’t accept the claim that one does due to the fact that nobody can meet their burden of proof."

You also called God an imaginary friend and all the other usual teenage atheist one liners. So yeah, i read clearly what you wrote.

So you're placing a burden of proof on one side of the coin, but not the other? Why?

Because to apply the same standards to both positions would crush your own position.

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that you decided to be an atheist before figuring out how you were going to make sense of your atheism. Looks like your still in the process of figuring it out, which takes a lifetime if it's a question you actually take seriously.

And yes through naturalism you can't create the material from the non-material. Thats why God is supernatural and of not nature. I could ask you to go back and read what I wrote... but I won't be childish. Simply put, what we know so far about the origins of the universe are that there was a creation event, and matter cannot create itself.

So to discount the supernatural (God) based on false proof burdens is simply trying to come up with an answer before seeing the question .

 

[Geo]

This has nothing to do with players singing/not singing the Australian National Anthem..

If you want to continue the debate on whether God exists or not please do it in a personal message..thank you..

Now I can get back to the Cricket...we could use some help right now ...natural or supernatural..

 

[jirskyr]

Guys can we make a gentleman's agreement to never use the term **"white privilege"** on here ever, ever, ever again? Like, ever again.

And furthermore, can we agree to give a life ban and a Manly Sea Eagles face-tattoo to anybody who uses the term from this time forward?

Legal Disclaimer: This is not directed at anyone in particular. Just a friendly suggestion.

White privilege. You reckon it doesn't exist or you just don't want to talk about it?

 

[newtiger]

I think that last year during the Indigenous Round, where was a version of our National Anthem, with both English and Aboriginal language.
I thought this was a really good version, similar the New Zealand Anthem which is sung in English and Maori.
This could be used to strengthen ties and start to bring our Nation together.


There is no aboriginal language. Most groups had their own language. It could be interesting, pick one and watch the others boycott because their ancestral language is not included.

The former chair of the Australian Rugby League Indigenous Council has urged the NRL to have the national anthem sung in both an Aboriginal language and English before State of Origin matches and the grand final.

Federal politician and shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Linda Burney, only stepped down as the head of the code's Indigenous advisory group late last year and has argued the move would be a step in the right direction.
The combination of traditional and English language being used for the anthem was most notably sung before the Tigers-Cowboys match during the NRL's Indigenous round last year. God Defend New Zealand is voiced in both Maori and English dialect.
"Having the anthem sung in English and traditional language is, to me, a really fabulous way through what’s a very thorny issue for some people," Burney said. "It has happened during Indigenous round before.

This article is from the SMH, there is a video of the combined Anthem on the article.
I don't know how to upload it, unless some IT nerd on here can.

 

[cochise]

@Abraham why don't you like the term "white privilege "?

 

[Abraham]

@cochise @jirskyr

It's a term that doesn't accurately describe the basis of priveledge, and i believe it is entirely unhelpful when dealing with current problems in any case.

Priveledge is the result of circumstances and decisions, rather than skin colour.

 

[Abraham]

@Geo thoughts and prayers.

 

[TIGER]

@TIGER i read what you wrote. Maybe you should too ... "I’m an Agnostic Atheist, I’m not claiming a god doesn’t exist, I just don’t accept the claim that one does due to the fact that nobody can meet their burden of proof."

You also called God an imaginary friend and all the other usual teenage atheist one liners. So yeah, i read clearly what you wrote.

So you're placing a burden of proof on one side of the coin, but not the other? Why?

Because to apply the same standards to both positions would crush your own position.

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that you decided to be an atheist before figuring out how you were going to make sense of your atheism. Looks like your still in the process of figuring it out, which takes a lifetime if it's a question you actually take seriously.

And yes through naturalism you can't create the material from the non-material. Thats why God is supernatural and of not nature. I could ask you to go back and read what I wrote... but I won't be childish. Simply put, what we know so far about the origins of the universe are that there was a creation event, and matter cannot create itself.

So to discount the supernatural (God) based on false proof burdens is simply trying to come up with an answer before seeing the question .

Again I'm not making a claim so a burden of proof is not essential to my position it's essential to the one making the claim.
Yes I believe God is a concept conceived in human minds but once again I'm not claiming to KNOW you need to understand the difference between belief and knowledge claims.

No I didn't 'decide' to be an Atheist people are either convinced of something or they're not and we don't get to decide what convinces us.
So what you're saying is nonsense, just like people don't 'decide' to be gay or heterosexual they're either attracted to the opposite sex or they're not and they have no say in it.

If you think that you have a way to confirm that anything supernatural exists don't waste your time here trying to prove it to me, write a paper and submit your evidence for peer review, you might win a Nobel prize as the first human being in the history of mankind to show that the supernatural exists.
What's stopping you?

What we know so far about the origins of the universe is that we have no way to know if it even began to exist or not, I know that might come as a shock to you but Cosmologists have no way to know because at a certain point the laws of physics break down, we can only get so far with the current tools we have.

You didn't answer my question so I'll ask again.

How can an immaterial god create a material universe?

Since you say matter can't come from non matter.

 

[Geo]

You didn’t answer my question so I’ll ask again.
How can an immaterial god create a material universe?

Do it in a private message...thank you

 

[Abraham]

How can an immaterial god create a material universe?
Since you say matter can’t come from non matter.

I already answered this in my previous post.

Send me a private message if you still don't understand.

Now let's all stand for the Anthem.

 

[Jock Koss]

@Abraham no let’s not, because that’s clearly not inclusive or even applying a relevance to thread topic which is NOT standing. Ffs Abe

I understand your religion position, it just so happens our indigenous have a rich religious history of their own that’s got nothing to do with you nor I - if you really think any point you’ve made resonates to them or is a fair reason to why they should always be made to stand - unfortunately doesn’t hold sway today!

It’s just impersonal to finish on that note

(The boys who didn’t sing did seem distracted and I’m not all for that) 😠😠😠😠.

 

[jirskyr]

@cochise @jirskyr

It's a term that doesn't accurately describe the basis of priveledge, and i believe it is entirely unhelpful when dealing with current problems in any case.

Priveledge is the result of circumstances and decisions, rather than skin colour.

?? White privilege is just one type of privilege and yes it has to do with skin colour. Also, obviously: monetary privilege, cronyism, oligarchy, male privilege. Religious privilege in many countries.

And if you reckon skin colour isn't involved in privilege, then you are as mad as a hatter and I'm not quite clear what world you think you are a part of. Race, religion and greed for property accounts for about 99% of all the wars and atrocities humans have ever set upon each other.

 

[Danny Blanco]

@jirskyr their utopia is my dystopia!

 

[Danny Blanco]

@jirskyr plenty of social expirements showing how people are perceived & treated differently if they are considered 'different'. Jane Elliot's work comes to mind I'll attach a clip below, check it out.

https://youtu.be/jPZEJHJPwIw

 

[Danny Blanco]

https://youtu.be/Nqv9k3jbtYU

 

[Abraham]

@jirskyr How about good job privilege, or not being born in the year 1350 privilege, or not being aborted privilege, or being healthy privilege, or having your parents not get divorced privilege, or hetrosexual privilege, or not being born in Rawanda privilege, or being a good athlete privilege, or having a high IQ privilege?

What you're describing is life. Or what i termed your **'circumstances'**.

The overwhelming basis of privilege comes from your circumstances and your decision making in light of these circumstances.

If what you said were true, then Asians and Indians would not be among the privileged in Australia today. And Campbelltown would be full of Ferraris and 3 hatted restaurants.

I mean, i'm a Catholic Lebanese guy who comes from a poor immigrant family background (i don't satisfy any of the W.A.S.P. criteria) , and i earn 3 x the average NSW Wage. How come my lack of white privilege hasn't seen me begging in the gutters or queuing up for welfare? Easy. My circumstances (being born healthy in an aspirational country, to the most prosperous generation in history, with a stable family life) and my decision making (studying hard, working hard, not having kids out of wedlock, saving my money etc). **Circumstances and Decision Making** will Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon empty notions of privilege every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

 

[Danny Blanco]

@Abraham bro, you made it in life & so now it's all good ay, sweet how good bro.

 

[Abraham]

@Danny-Blanco made what in life? A good career?

If that's how you judge 'making it' in life, then yeah. I have a much different criteria though.

Bro.