Religion – True or False

I love controversy. So here we go again. Just wish I could get some bite backs, but never mind.

Before we go any further, let me declare my beliefs, or lack thereof.

I am an Atheist. Yes, fullstop, end of discussion. I do not believe in god, the devil, the angels, things that go bump in the night. Heaven, hell, purgatory, or any of those sorts of places. I came from the Big Bang, and I will return to the aftermath of the Big Bang.

What I do believe is that most people, at least in our western World, would have great problems accepting life without something to grab hold of to justify why they exist. So they turn to religion, this belief in a superior being that controls and allows everything that happens.

I don’t have this problem. I am content with my life, and I know that one day it will end and that will be it. Nothing else, that’s it. If there is one thing that I can agree on with christian religions, it is the oft made statement “Dust to dust, ashes to ashes”. To me, that is where we came from, and that is where we will return. Why we are here? Well, honestly I have no idea. And  nobody else has any idea. Unless of course you hang on the coat tails of some religious sect.

Fair to say that going back through the millenia, people needed something to believe in. Maybe it was something as simple as the sun rising everyday. And then the moon rising at different times, and then not rising at other times. I can understand that. Most people back then, even the leading churchmen, had no idea what made everything tick, so I guess they came up with stories, fables, make believe, to try to explain these phenomena.

Now I’ll be fair, these leaders, churchmen, no doubt believed what they preached. They had no more idea as to why than the everyday pleb. So where does leave us today. Churches, religions, are big business. some churches are wealthier than the biggest commercial companies in the world. Now that in itself cause me worry. Why is a church so wealthy when thousands, millions, of their followers are so poor they can’t afford to look after themselves.

Just to break away for a moment, let me declare some more about myself. Would not be right to appear to be hiding something. I was baptised as a Church of England person. I found out this was done because this was the nearest church to where we lived. Clearly my parents had a religious hangup and needed to baptise me to salve their consciousness’s. Of course what I’ve learned since is that they were never married anyway. Yep, you’ve got it, I was a born and bred bastard. So I was then sent to a catholic school for education. Apparently my Mother believed the catholic system offered a better education than the state system. So I progressed from kindergarten through year 12, matriculation, in the catholic system.

Needless to say, I was fairly well indoctrinated into the catholic way of believing. But see, my personality is that of a Logician. Now apparently I am in a group of only about 3% of the population. Another story, but as I grew older, I studied what I was being taught, and naturally started to question the logic of what I was being taught. It made no sense to a person who used logic to work out all things. So when it came to religious beliefs, well I had terrible problems continuing to believe what I had been taught. So brings me to the present.

Who, or what, is god? All religions seem to base their beliefs on this person they call god. So who is he, her? An infallible, all loving, compassionate, all knowing being. Okay, first rebuttal is, if he is all compassionate and loving, why does he allow children to be abused by members of a church that claims to be doing the work of god? Which church? Any church you like. I will not criticize any particular church by name. I believe that they all fail in the same way. Many are so rich, yet do nothing for their people.

Getting off track a little. Can anyone offer me some proof of the existence of this so called god? Can anyone offer me proof of an afterlife? Can anybody offer me a reason why I should not eat meat on Friday, especially the so called “good friday”? And what these “Ten Commandments”?

#1   I am the lord thy god, thou shall not have any gods before me. Yep, fair enough, I won’t have any gods before you or after you. Just don’t believe in any god.

#2   You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything. So what does that really mean? I’m not allowed to idolize my football team? Well if I’m not going to have any gods before you, why would I idolize anything else?

#3   You shall not misuse the name of the lord your god. Well that is insensible. If I wished to blaspheme, why would I call on someone or thing, I don’t believe in anyway?

#4   Remember the sabbath day by keeping it holy. Now just which day is that? Well, as I understand it, the sabbath day, or Sabato, is actually Saturday in our calendar.

#5   Honour your Father and your Mother. Well my Mother and Father were never married. So why should I honour then within the context of religious belief? And further, given my knowledge of their further daliances, why would I honour them? Yeah, they were alright people I guess, they brought me into this world, but I could of been brought into this world by any millions of couples.

#6   You shall not murder. Okay. fair enough. In the context that we understand murder, fair enough. But what about the soldier who is sent to war and looks an enemy in the face, and then blasts that person off the face of the earth? Am I any worse a person?

#7   You shall not commit adultery. Well I guess this means that you shouldn’t have nookies with somebody not your spouse. Yeah, I guess that is fair enough. If you commit to a person, you should honour that commitment. But I guess that means you can play the field as long as you are not committed by marriage.

#8   You shall not steal. Okay, that speaks for itself. Simply being in a community suggests that there are community rules which you should abide by.

#9   You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour. See #8.

#10  You shall not covet your neighbours house, wife or property. Covet – Collins Dictionary – to long to possess something belonging to another. Okay, so I shouldn’t want to take your goods from you, but surely it doesn’t mean that I can’t wish for some of the wealth, or a good looking wife like your’s. I would have to go and earn it, but surely the driving force of going for it is my desire to have it?

So really, just what do these 10 commandments really mean? Who really conjured them up? Moses?? Give me a break. Show me proof where Moses went on a mountain, and somebody spoke to him from a burning bush, and gave him these commandments. I can be gullible at times, but this is pushing the boundaries.

Well I will leave there. At the start I said I was an Atheist, and so I just can’t believe any of the crap we have been fed over thousands of years. PLEASE, somebody come back at me and ask me some questions, or put other arguments. That is my challenge.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Original Aboriginals

Hi All

Sorry that I haven’t continued on this topic. I just felt that there was so much new research being published on similar themes, that I would pull back for now.

New research has suggested that the original “Out of Africa” model may not be the “be all and end all” of human development and occupation of various parts of our world. So maybe the new research will support my theories at least to some extent. We are certainly now looking at humaniods populating our globe a lot earlier than 60,000 years ago. We are now talking 100,000 plus years. So it is a whole new ball game.

Honestly, I don’t know that we will ever work it out before our globe comes to its predicted end, whenever that is. But with what we are learning, the Christian idea of Christ and the Garden of Eden, is certainly taking a battering. I recall having the debate with a friend of mine, Catholic by descent, who vowed and declared that the known world only started about 6,000 years ago. My simple throw back of known Aboriginal existence here in Australia for some 60,000 years, sort of put him back on his heels. There is a very distinct lack of logic in the beliefs of churches and religions today. They cling to old beliefs that tend to try and bluff people into believing that this is the way.

Anyway, I will leave it here, and my next subject will follow on from this controversy of religious belief.

Talk soon.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Original Aboriginals – Part 2

G’day,

In the first installment, I set out some theories espoused by Rex and Heather Gilroy, authors of “URU The Lost Civilisation of Australia, that our aboriginals, as we know them, were not the first inhabitants of this country. In fact, they go as far as to say the Australia is the Lost City of Atlantis. They believe that the “Out of Africa” stories are incorrect. I suppose you might term Africa as a “Great Southern Land” but I’ve never heard that term used in reference to Africa. Australia has always been the Great Southern Land.

Another interesting piece of evidence is the finding, by Rex, of a mudstone endocast of a primitive animal hide shoe, encased in a slab of fossilised leafmould and twigs now turned to ironstone. Rex found this in May 1997 at Leeville near Casino in the northern rivers district of NSW.

He has even given the exact specifics of the find. The shoe is a “Size 3”, measuring 24cm in length by 9cm across the toe section, 7.5cm wide at mid-foot and 6.5cm tall at the heel. Now for explanation, An endocast is a 3D representation of the space within a cavity.

Now endocasts are formed over a period of 200,000-250,000 years. So the Leeville fossil shoe must be of considerable age. But the fact that it is embedded in ironstone suggests an even greater antiquity which at present can only be guessed at.

There is much mounting evidence that Australia and New Zealand were part of a mighty ‘land bridge’ that extended through what is now island south-east Asia to the Asian mainland, and that a continuation of this ‘bridge’ extended from New Guinea and island Melanesia, through to New Zealand, which was then a single land mass. And, readers, this is not a new supposition. It has been accepted for as long as we know, that Australia was connected to New Guinea and on to Asia. Perhaps the inclusion of New Zealand and Melanesia.

Aboriginal traditions, and current archaeological evidence, demonstrates that they, the Aboriginals, arrived here by watercraft from South-East Asia around 68,000 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence to show that other, earlier races, WALKED here. Similar beliefs are entertained by the peoples of island Melanesia, through the Solomons, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and on to New Zealand.

Now talking of Aboriginal myth, legend and traditions, here is another piece of evidence to show that our Aboriginals were NOT the first. Aboriginal myth, Australia wide, identifies the URU as Sun-worshipping ‘Serpent Beings’ and the creator of man.

The tribespeople of the Kimberley district in W.A. recall them as ‘worshippers of serpents’, and in Central Australia they are linked with Uluru (Ayres Rock), which to the Aborigines means “Serpent of the Rock”. The Aborigines described them as a tall, pale (as in WHITE) skinned, blue-eyed race. These traditions are mirrored in those of the Solomon Islanders, who claimed “Serpent Beings” inter-bred with their ancestors, having arrived from the great land south of New Guinea.

As I said in my first installment, I love controversy. So what we are seeing so far is an acceptance, by the aboriginal people, that not only was there a race of people here before them, but they were “WHITE”. And the above mention of 68,000 years pales into insignificance when compared to the possible 250,000 years suggested by the fossilised shoe mentioned earlier. Gee wilikens, I might be subject to a protest march if I keep this up.

Further, mummified and skeletal remains of these “Serpent Beings” are said by Central Australian Aborigines to lie hidden in secret burial places. As do the New Guinea and Solomon Island natives. Such claims are also made by the Fijian, Tongan and Maori peoples.

Just to conclude this installment, let me leave you with some other thoughts.

The proposition that an advanced Stone-Abe civilisation could have evolved in Australia will seem absurd to people reared on the great archaeological discoveries of Europe, the Middle and Near-East. Until recently, Australia was largely overlooked by overseas historians and archaeologists, as a land offering little of importance to human prehistory researchers.

BUT, then came Kow Swamp, Lake Mungo and many other major discoveries, and with them a realisation that Australia was the birthplace of modern humans. Rex Gilroy contends that the ‘lost’ megalithic ‘mother’ civilisation of URU sprang from these early Homo sapiens, and that it was the origin of the Atlantis legend of later centuries.

As Rex contends, an aura of mystery enshrouds the lost civilisation of URU. The silent stone circles, menhirs, alignments and carved stone heads of once-venerated gods that stand weathering in the harsh Australian sunlight, for so long overlooked by scholars are about to receive the recognition they deserve.

So friends, that is it for now, more installments to come, although they may not be on a daily basis, but I will try.

Cheers for now

Bill

Posted in Uncategorized

The Original Aboriginals

Gidday All

Topic of the day, or month, or year, is what whitey allegedly did to today’s recognised aboriginal people. The so called original inhabitants of Australia. I love controversy, so in this blog I am going to take on the claim by our indigenous brothers that they are the original inhabitants of this country. See, told you I like controversy.

See, whilst there are a lot of obvious aboriginal people out there protesting, as in Melbourne on Australia Day, methinks there are a lot of protesters that have little or no aboriginal DNA. One thousand people reportedly in the above protest, is a very minor protest, and their behaviour was downright disgusting.

However, I have been re-reading a book by Rex and Heather Gilroy, titled, URU, The Lost Civilisation of Australia. I found it in our local country library a while back and found it fascinating in its suggestions as to the real Original Inhabitants of Australia. Given the current furore of who was here first, I have got hold of the book once again.

The authors are not university trained anthropologists. By their own admittance they are what we might call amateurs. But looking at the evidence they provide in their book, they would appear as skilled as anyone with a university degree. Unfortunately, we still suffer from the idea that you have to have a university degree for your findings to hold any relevance at all.

Heinrich  Schiemann (1822-1890) is a great example of this prejudice. Heinrich discovered the “mythical” Lost City of Troy in 1873. The negative minded scholars of the day declared that he was wasting his time and money, searching for a city that was nothing more than a myth born in the mind of Homer.

So, my friends, the above should give an idea of what faced our authors when they disclosed their findings. Thing is that their findings are supported by the best collection of photographic evidence I have ever encountered.

Their theory is that the Lost City of Atlantis was, in fact, Australia. This theory is supported by dialogue from the ancient Sumerians that clearly describes this great southern land that could only be Australia. I have heard this claim elsewhere, but I can’t support the source.

One of their claims is that the URU had a written language. It is broken into time segments to show the development of the language. Prehistoric Uruan language was a combination of pictographic and petroglyphic art pre-dating 100,000 years.

What they call “Archaic Pictographic” dates from about 100,000 years to around 50,000 years BP. Uruan stone-age art continues. Erection of the earliest stone arrangements of the “Star Cult” era. By 50,000 years BP these were being astronomically aligned parallel with the development of crude mathematical calculations as shown by engraved markings.

Middle Pictographic dates from around 50,000 years to around 35,000 years BP. Picture writing developed parallel with improved mathematical calculations and the erection of the earliest astronomically-alligned stone arrangements.

This development continued over the years as I will explain in further posts. I will also show that when our aboriginal people arrived here, in Australia, it was not “Nulla Terris”. Now remember that Phillip declared Australia “Nulla Terris”. That was his get out for taking over this country.

So, my point at this stage of the story is, aboriginals declared that the country was not “Nulla Terris”, but the URU obviously declared that it was.

Oh what a lovely state of confusion. But one thing is very certain. The URU certainly pre-dated our so called aboriginals. Our accepted indigenous people came here about 50,000 years ago. My source for that information is normally accepted info available to anyone on Google. What I have outlined above suggests that the URU either came here, or came from here, over 100,000 years ago. Refer to my above claim that Atlantis and Australia are one and the same places.

Cheers, more soon,

Bill

Posted in Uncategorized

The Road Toll

Follows is a copy of my recent letter to the Courier Mail here in Queensland. Typically it didn’t get a guernsey but that was no surprise. So thought I would post it on my blog, which goes to Facebook and Twitter as well.
Sir
The following are my thoughts on the serious topic of road fatalities and trauma. I submit letters now and then, but they must not meet your requirements. This is an important topic that I believe is being swept under the carpet by simply saying,
“We will increase the penalties and put people in goal”.
“Look people, your Government is really concerned and we are doing something”.
Whether that something has any hope of achieving the stated goal, doesn’t seem to matter, as long as the Government is “Seen to be doing something”. I know my letter is long with regard to your normal letters, but I would hope you might be able to fit in somewhere. And Sir, I would hate to think it would be edited.

Sir,

After reading your P38 Special Report on the road fatalities in Queensland, I must proffer a different view to the one seemingly proposed by your article.

Firstly, after recent publicity about older drivers, and their collective inability to be allowed on our roads, your own published statistics show that fatalities caused by 60yo’s and above were 28.3%. Simple arithmetic shows that 71.7% of fatalities involved 16-59yo’s.

As for causes, again your published figures show that 57.2% of fatalities were caused by speeding, drink driving and fatigue. What are the other 42.8%? You know, that is nearly half of the fatalities, but we are not told what they are. Yes, sure I know that you only published the main players, but there are almost as many other causes. They must be unimportant?

But sadly, the gist of your article is to hit the offending drivers with bigger penalties, including gaol time. If you, or our authorities, believe that these actions will have a positive effect on our road fatalities, then you all have your heads in the sand, and very deeply.

I accept that drink driving can cause road fatalities. Whether .05 is the correct measure, well that is another argument. I accept that speeding can kill. I do not accept that speed per se, is a killer. Just think, I’m doing 60kph in a 60kph zone, but we are having a normal tropical storm that is dumping up to 2 inches per hour. According to the law, I am not breaking any laws. But when you consider the dangers of driving in those conditions, let alone at the allowed speed limits, you will become aware that whilst I was not exceeding the speed limit, I was certainly speeding under the prevailing conditions.

Yep, just one silly example of speed versus speeding, but if you think about it, it is crucial to our deliberations on the causes of our high fatality rate on our roads.

I read this weekend of a motorist allegedly doing 180kph in an 80kph zone. This in one of our city tunnels. There is no penalty that you could threaten this person with to make him/she slow down. Nothing will change that kind of mentality.

A person having a few beers with his mates generally does not count how many beers he has had. He feels good – that is the alcohol, so when it’s home time, he wanders off to his car and hopes he will make it home without being booked. Please note, I do not say that he hopes he won’t have an accident, let alone a fatal accident. That does not enter his mind. All that concerns him, if at all, is that he might get caught for DUI.

My point in all this is that penalties do not matter. We already have penalties that would blow the mind of ordinary motorists. But ordinary motorists do not drink and drive, they do not exceed the speed limit by 100kph.

We really need to go back to square one. It is too easy to get a licence. We think it is our right to have a driving licence. No! It is not a right, it is a privilege. First and foremost, I believe that a defensive driving course should be a mandatory component of obtaining your driver’s licence, contrary to what our past Premier, Anna Bligh, stated. It doesn’t teach you to be a speeding hoon, as suggested by Anna Bligh. Apart from giving you experience on a skid pan, it teaches you observation, and teaches you limits as to what you and your car can do, despite what you think.

The other point is the mental condition of the learner driver. I don’t know how to approach this matter. I’m not that clever. But clearly, anyone who does 100kph over the posted speed limit, has a mental problem. No, I don’t mean that person is “ga ga”, I mean that person has deep seated problems about his/her place on society, and behaving in a fashion that does not consider the safety of others in their community. This I believe is the main problem with our increasing road toll. Penalties, no matter how harsh, do not mean anything to them. Perhaps it’s the “I won’t get caught syndrome”, I don’t know, I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Just for the record, I’m 71yo and have had a licence since I was 18. I have probably done a million miles or more, driving private cars, taxis and interstate transport. I have never had a major accident, normal bumps and scratches, but nothing that ever approached the problem we are now faced with. Yeah, I’ve had my share of speeding tickets, or should I stress, tickets for exceeding the imposed speed limit, that’s another argument.

So one and all, before you all go off your brain, just think about what I am saying. This problem is much bigger than just increasing penalties. That will do nothing to arrest the problem. I believe that is proven by the increasing road toll, irrespective of the penalties imposed. We need to open our eyes and look outside the square. And Governments have to stop being hypocrites and look at solutions that don’t necessarily increase consolidated revenue. Thought I’d forgot that one, hey.

Respectfully

Since writing this piece, I note we have had a driver on the M1 doing about 203kph, another one on the Flinders Hwy near Townsville doing about 215kph, and a woman, a mother with kids in the car, blow a reading of .28 something.

The current penalties say that these three will immediately lose their licence. Same with the driver speeding in the tunnel. Now if these people have any serious traffic history, then perhaps they could go to gaol, if the magistrate so decrees.

So they lose their licence, but does that ensure they don’t drive unlicenced? Does that mean that when they get their licence back they won’t do it again? Perhaps the penalty in such cases could be that we tear up their licence for good. But then again, perhaps they should not have been given a licence in the first place.

As I said, a very hard decision as to how we decide whether you should get a licence or not, in the first place. How do we establish whether a person has the appropriate mental aptitude to be allowed behind the wheel of what can be, and unfortunately is in too many occasions, a deadly weapon.

To my knowledge, an airline pilot must undergo mental aptitude tests throughout their career. Examples are there where a pilot has lost it, and taken out a plane load of innocent passengers. If we had people dying in airplane accidents to the extent we do on our roads, we would have an uprising. something would be done. But my cynicism remains, if the Government really did something to fix the problem, they would lose a lot of consolidated revenue. IMHO, that’s what it’s all about.

Food for thought

Posted in Uncategorized

Climbing Uluru – To Be Banned

Been missing in action a bit, but that’s how us oldies are, we go looking for something but get sidetracked numerous times. We end up not knowing what the hell we were trying to do.

See in the news today that Uluru will be closed to climbing as of October 2019. A decision made by the boards of Uluru and Kata Jutta. A couple of Government people were also involved.

This of course goes to the indigenous belief that the rock, and areas around it, are sacred. In fact, the area from where you commence the climb is to do with “Sacred Men’s Business”. And no, I don’t have any idea what “Sacred Men’s Business” is all about. Anymore than I know what “Sacred Women’s Business” is about either. There was an incident some years back in South Australia where the indigenous people were trying to stop the building of a bridge from the mainland to an island.

I’m an atheist, but having said that, I do not hold against anyone believing in their religious or spiritual dogmas. Though it must go without saying that if those beliefs impact negatively on mainstream society, then I would be less than supportive.

So the question is, do you support a ban on climbing Uluru (Ayres Rock)? I climbed the rock back in the mid 1980’s. It was an exhilarating experience by all accounts. But I read that some climbers have defecated on top, left their rubbish, and one women did a striptease. Well, maybe the later may have been interesting, but the others certainly were not. However, I must say that the striptease episode would probably not sit well with the indigenous view.

My personal view is that no part of Australia ought be restricted to its citizens. Exceptions of course for security or safety reasons. And yes we know that 30 odd people have died on the climb since the 1950’s. But then should we ban driving cars? No idea how many have died from that.

Perhaps a fee could be charged. You have to pay a fee to get into the park, so why not something extra for the climb. I would have no problem with that. Sort of user pays.

I don’t wish to belittle the Aboriginal’s sacred beliefs, but! If Catholics were able to close butcher shops on Friday’s because they don’t eat meat on Fridays, then the nation would be in an uproar. They would be enforcing their beliefs on everyone else. Not fair, not right. But this decision will only effect a small proportion of the Australian population, so if you want to climb the rock, better do it before October 2019.

Posted in Uncategorized

Banks and their profits

Thought I’d look at another subject tonight. The big four, plus Macquarie Bank, are going to be hit with a tax. Okay, maybe there is some argument there, but when they announce their profits, everybody seems to think they are obscene – their profits that is.

Let me ask a question. If you are going to invest your hard earned somewhere, what sort of return would you expect? 2%, 5%, 10% or maybe 20%? If you invest your asset (cash) into a business venture, you will be wanting a fair return on that asset, wouldn’t you? I remember many years ago in the heyday of BHP when people and the media would declare that their profits were obscene. Then, we were talking about a return of about 2%.

According to the figures available on the stock exchange, the big four banks made the following returns for their efforts.

  • ANZ – 0.6% return on assets, 10.1% return on equity.
  • CBA – 1.0% return on assets, 15.7% return on equity.
  • NAB – 0.8% return on assets, 12.2% return on equity.
  • WBC – 0.9% return on assets, 13.2% return on equity.

Now, for the uninitiated, return on assets means the percentage profit returned as against the value of the banks assets invested in the business.

Equity is basically total assets minus total liabilities, or shareholders funds. Obviously you are comparing profit against a smaller number than when compared just against assets.

From my days in private enterprise, our target was a return of 14% on employed capital (assets), so what the banks are returning is quite miniscule. Difference being of course, the bank’s assets are quite large compared to an average amount for medium size businesses.

So because of their large volume, maybe the Government can substantiate a tax or levy as put forth in the budget. But otherwise, perhaps we are all a bit hastey in our criticism. Food for thought.

Posted in Uncategorized