PIc: ABC … The moment Sue Hickey sided with Labor and the Greens to be elected Speaker … Charles Wooley HERE
Tasmania’s parliamentary speaker has given a scathing critique of the three Tasmanian Liberal senators who she said were party to the “vicious, vindictive and vengeful” events that culminated in the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull, reserving special barbs for her long-time sparring partner Senator Eric Abetz.
Sue Hickey, the former lord mayor of Hobart who stood as a Liberal and won at the March 3 state election, said her federal colleagues had engaged in “sabotage”.
Ms Hickey, who outraged her party colleagues when she blindsided Liberal veteran Rene Hidding to snatch the role of Speaker of the Parliament , unleashed after Tasmanian Liberal senators Eric Abetz and Jonathan Duniam commented that the installation of Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg would bring “unity and stability”.
She included Tasmanian federal Liberal Senator David Bushby in her spray, for his role in what she described as the “appalling” events of the week, which resulted in the abandoning of question time due to Liberal chaos.
Sue Hickey has described herself as a “classic, small-L liberal”.
“As such, I found the events of the last few days to be vicious, vindictive and vengeful,” she said on Saturday.
“It’s more appalling that three of our own senators were involved in this sabotage,” she said.
“I have never really been a great supporter of Eric Abetz and I think this time he’s outdone himself.
“He needs to remember that he represents the whole of the Tasmanian demographic, not just the hard right … ”
…
Senator Abetz has been contacted for comment.
• Read the advice of the Solicitor-General on Peter Dutton’s eligibility …
Solicitor-General-Advice-24-8-18.pdf
• Jenny Weber, Bob Brown Foundation: Minister for Environment a powerless nonentity
Peter Bright
August 25, 2018 at 10:38
Less than two weeks after Murdoch arrived in town, Malcolm was assassinated.
Definitely not a coincidence.
[i]”So is it any surprise that Malcolm Turnbull has lost his job less than a fortnight after Murdoch arrived here? Of course it isn’t.[/i]
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/08/23/hello-rupert-bye-bye-malcolm/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sunday Best 20180826
Pete Godfrey
August 25, 2018 at 12:06
Well done Sue Hickey, for saying what needed to be said. It is time that the wreckers moved on.
The Liberal party needs to move Mr Abetz to number 5 on the ticket, and pre-select someone else in Tony Abbott’s seat.
davies
August 25, 2018 at 12:18
Well, I guess Hickey is an expert on sabotage …
#1 … Seriously? If he had that sort of power why didn’t he turn up last year when the Libs still had a chance at the next election?
Turnbull did this to himself.
TGC
August 25, 2018 at 12:21
#1 and #2 … Well! That’s sorted!
philll Parsons
August 25, 2018 at 12:21
Where was Parry? Oh, that’s right. He was out because he was a dual citizen and so the Abetz team was reduced by one.
Colbeck did not sign. Will he be put last on the Lieberal ticket again for disloyalty to Eric, even though Colbeck topped the below the line for the Libs like Singh did for Labor?
Andrew Ricketts
August 25, 2018 at 12:42
Why put him at number 5? Why put Abetz on the ticket at all?
If Turnbull can be rolled, Abetz can be expelled.
Senator Abetz should resign. His behaviour is utterly disgraceful.
Ms Hickey’s candid criticism is entirely justified, in my book.
Jack Nimble
August 25, 2018 at 13:53
Re # 2 … I agree. I am not a Liberal party supporter, never have, never will.
I do have time for Sue Hickey. It’s refreshing to see her having a say regarding the despicable act of removing this country’s Prime Minister.
Sue Hickey has more courage than the rest of the pathetic mob running this state.
J.B.Nimble.
Mark Temby
August 25, 2018 at 14:10
Will Hodgman … Hello? The lights are out and nobody’s home.
Tasmanian Liberal politicians – quiet one day, gone the next.
TGC
August 25, 2018 at 15:20
#6 “… in my book.”
But missing from ‘your book’ when the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Shorten farce was on, or the Abbott / Turnbull business.
Simon Warriner
August 25, 2018 at 15:29
“He needs to remember that he represents the whole of the Tasmanian demographic, not just the hard right … “
Thank you, Sue Hickey, for explaining to the voting public why political parties are the cause of so much dysfunction in government. In that one sentence you have encapsulated the whole stinking morass. We pay for representation .. and what we get is self indulgence.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am over it.
John Powell
August 25, 2018 at 18:00
And PING … Julie Bishop undermined by Mathias Corman, no doubt assisted by CoS Brad Stansfield ex with Will Hoffman and MeinHerr Erica – says it all!
The Menzies Liberal Party is #Goneski … and we are seeing it in Tasmania with #HillsongFergie #MeinHerr Gutwhine and #Iknownuttinghodgman.
New Zealand – now [i]there’s[/i] a Government and a PM.
Andrew Ricketts
August 25, 2018 at 20:32
Re #10 … Self-interest, more like it.
Re #9 … This recent episode was the worst. By far.
But the others are not missing from my book at all. I am not attached to, indentured, or a member of any political party, Trevor. What about you?
I am generally appalled by such antics as occurred last week, going back over decades in fact, and consider that the Labor solution, which is an internal one, may not be sufficient at all.
Indeed I was disgusted by Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam.
There is, I suppose, a collection of issues:
Should politicians be able to simply leave the party they were elected under and become something else? An Independent for example. Not in my book. In Tasmania we had Lambie who left PUP and now Sen. Steve Martin left the Lambie Network and joined The Nationals, a part of the Government coalition.
Should the Prime Minister be elected by the people? Why not? Currently many think that simply because the candidate appears in the media as the runner, then that is what they are doing. Sad! Reality is an interesting beast.
Should party members have the capacity to remove a PM at all? And, after a vote has been taken a few days prior, should there be the ability to have yet another go, another vote? Not in my book.
A better fail-safe perhaps, would be a vote of both houses, for example.
I am strongly interested in Shorten’s commitment to create a Federal ICAC.
We need a more robust and accountable Parliament which behaves with more probity and more honesty – in my book.
I hate the rabble that is a self-interested, ego and power driven demagoguery, Trevor.
[email protected]
August 25, 2018 at 20:49
Couldn’t help it … but the following came to mind:
I remember when Eric Abetz first made a name for himself as a newbie in the Liberal Party, here in Tasmania. I heard him interviewed, as I drove down out of the bush, down past the new plantations in the Liffey. He was being greeted as the newbie Liberal. Now …
… he seemed to be skulking in the train of players. I hoped to myself that he would never be given a Ministry again after being … what was he … Special Minister of State … or Minister of Forests (not Minister for Forests).
I can quite confidently state that, in my opinion, anyone who is a Liberal, or who votes Liberal, is suspected of being mentally, societally or morally deficient. Worse than that, they are suspect of only being ‘in it for themselves’ or ‘for their buddies’ or for their families, or similar types. The Liberal Party of Australia – and its Tasmanian counterpart – are just absolute shockers.
If Eric Abetz wanted to do something good for Tasmania, he’d bloody well resign … right now. What a goose! John Hawkins, bless his ‘recalcitrant’ soul, has long sought to inform our community at large of Eric Abetz’s various deficiencies. While once or twice challenging John’s arguments as put, I can say that I agree with him in that we want no Cassius, no Gollum nor worserer in our political system.
The only reason (in my opinion) that a sane person could have for supporting E. Abetz’s remaining in the Parliament is to prevent someone worse from being there. Who could such a person be? Abbott?
Geez! If you had to choose between the two, you’d probably (for the sake of the nation) take a walk out in the snow and cut the sled-dogs loose.
Steve
August 25, 2018 at 23:11
#13 … Great comment, Garry. Loved it. “He is a noble Roman?” I don’t think so!
Simon Warriner
August 25, 2018 at 23:34
Re #13 … If it was not an Abetz or an Abbott it would be someone else. And if it was not the Libs it would be Labor or some other party eventually. The mistake most are making is that they watch the programs, not the programming. The creeping corruption and dysfunction is built into the party system.
Instead of fighting battles, fight the war!
We have a democracy. Let’s use it to put some democratic representation back into our system of government.
Vote Independent if you want things to change.
TGC
August 26, 2018 at 00:13
#12 … “We need a more robust and accountable Parliament …” for which – every three years – at the most – we are given the opportunity.
William Boeder
August 26, 2018 at 00:25
Let there be life without the strictures of an Abetz in Tasmania.
I note that a number of Tasmania’s better-informed commenters hold to the same resolution as I do. Abetz has cost this State hundreds and millions of dollars of lost revenues by him imposing his 1830 opinions on what he had foolishly claimed were in the best interests of Tasmanians. (Remember his push for MIS plantation forest inundation, that in itself was an action against the best interests of Tasmania. He is also a Ta Ann ally which still costs this State its plenty.)
All of Australia will benefit from the demise of that religious cultist activist that prowled about in the dark of night, his plottings with the Exclusive Brethren. One can feel a sigh of relief bursting forth with the promise of an Abetz no longer in government.
Wining Pom
August 26, 2018 at 03:48
It seems that the rabid right is proving its existence.
Studies have shown that people who vote right wing are less intelligent .. and that is being shown in capitals at the moment. That’s not to say all who vote right are idiots, but the further right, the less intelligent.
Apparently it makes them feel safer. Children with less intelligence grow up to be prejudiced. And that’s exactly who Dutton, Abetz and Abbott are aiming at. Trump, too.
Andrew Ricketts
August 26, 2018 at 04:44
Further to #13 and #17 … The Liberal party will simply have a better chance without Abetz, Abbott and Co. Let them form something with Bernardi or Hanson, etc.
I can recall watching Abetz in about 2004. He was in the foyer of the Country Club Casino in Launceston, having just arrived with Howard.
I consider I saw raving, ranting lunatic behaviour from Senator Abetz, accompanying John Howard. The spectacle is etched in my mind. It was unbefitting. I really doubt he has changed.
Peter Bright
August 26, 2018 at 07:33
Wining Pom at #18 states [i]”Studies have shown that people who vote right wing are less intelligent .. and that is being shown in capitals at the moment.
“That’s not to say all who vote right are idiots, but the further right, the less intelligent.”[/i]
Thankyou, Mr Pom. Your comment is the first time I have seen my own perceptions confirmed in print.
Ted Mead
August 26, 2018 at 11:32
#18 and #20 …
Intelligence should not be confused with ignorance!
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
So what is the defining use of knowledge once you have acquired it?
Most humans are intelligent, and that includes many of the conservatives.
It is what one does with that knowledge that is pertinent.
To me knowledge is merely useless unless it is guided through wisdom!
Wisdom is the key factor to individual and collective survival.
And wisdom is what the developing world is losing rapidly!
davies
August 26, 2018 at 13:49
Ah yes, the old left wingers are more intelligent than right wingers .. nicely reinforcing your prejudice. But if you were a more intelligent left winger then surely you were capable of a bit of research?
Measuring intellect accurately is complex. To try and simplify the process, IQ is often used, but that has several well known limitations. But even if we take these results from the studies as accurate, they show an IQ difference of only 3 to 6 points. This is a indiscernible difference.
When you look deeper, there are systemic problems, for example with the two recent studies showing left wingers (and atheists) having a higher intellect than right wingers. I presume these are the studies you are referring to as they got a lot of press when they were published.
Brooks Uni’ study used the IQ of 10 and 11 year olds, then their political leanings at age 30 to 33. But IQs are not set at age 10 or 11 and in addition, a number of the political ‘leaning’ questions were considered to be vague and open to interpretation, further skewing the results. Professor Briggs at Cornell Uni called the study “a contender for worst use of statistics in an original paper, everâ€!
The other study was done by Kanazawa. He used the US General Society Survey and a National Longitudinal Study to get his result that left wingers and atheists were smarter than right wingers and religious people. The problem is those surveys give millions of people a label of left wing or right wing .. which is not reflected in how they actually vote.
For example, many blacks in the US self-identify on these surveys as a right winger (conservative social values) but overwhelmingly vote Democrat. There is a similar issue with the approximate 15% of the population that identify as Libertarian, yet come up as Democrats on the Survey.
Anyway Kanazawa apparently is known as “the great idiot of social science†and perhaps best illustrated by his findings that low IQ of a Nation equates to poor health care. So according to him, Ethiopia has an IQ of 63 which explains their poor health care …
Eugenics and Nazis used to push the old low IQ arguments. Is this the road you want to go down?
Chris
August 26, 2018 at 14:52
Vicious, vindictive and vengeful. I’ve Got a Little List, and none of them be missed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NLV24qTnlg
1. Jonathon Duniam, ex Abetz adviser and mate to “let’s sell the ABC Hodgmanâ€, who needs advice?
2. David Bushby, he who instigates a “No NBN petition†which disappeared when he realised the 18th century was gone, and those already connected were not in favour of his proactive action and he returned to the back bench of the Senate where his role is to continuously do nothing.
3. Eric Abetz, Rupert’s Friend, IPA and the LIEBRALS main conscience on anything.
.. or any of the others in the new reformed Government ..
1. Andrew Hastie
2. Tony Pasin
3. Craig Kelly
4. Michael Sukkar
5. Kevin Andrews
6. Tony Abbott
7. Ian Goodenough
8. Nicolle Flint
9. Peter Dutton
10. Jason Wood
11. Ross Vasta
12. Luke Howarth
13. Rick Wilson
14. Ted O’Brien
15. Zed Seselja
16 Greg Hunt
17 Steven Ciobo
18 Angus Taylor
19 Alan Tudge
20. Michael Keenan
21 Andrew Wallace
22 Scott Buchholz
23 Jim Molan
24 Slade Brockman
25 Dean Smith
26 Jane Hume
27 Mitch Fifield
28. John McVeigh
29. David Fawcett
30. Amanda Stoker
31. Jonathon Duniam
32. David Bushby
33. James Paterson
34 Eric Abetz
35. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
36. James McGrath
37. Mathias Cormann
38. Michaelia Cash
39. Karen Andrews
40. Andrew Laming
41 Ben Morton
42. Sussan Ley
43. Warren Entsch (for Brendan Nelson)
Wining Pom
August 26, 2018 at 16:23
#22. Yes, I am capable of researching .. and also of accepting research. I am not aware of Nazis using the low IQ argument, though. I think it would have been suicidal to go down that path.
But here’s simple test. You could take a bunch of school kids to a greenhouse and explain why it’s warmer inside than out, and use that to explain climate change. The science isn’t that difficult to understand.
So why is it that all the climate change deniers are right wing? What is stopping them understanding something that most school kids could?
Peter Bright
August 26, 2018 at 17:18
Mr Pom at #24 incisively asks [i]”So why is it that all the climate change deniers are right wing? What is stopping them understanding something that most school kids could?”[/i]
Nothing is actually stopping them from comprehending the obvious Mr Pom; it’s their own wilful decision to deny for purely selfish purposes. For these twits, Climate Change is An Inconvenient Truth.
Similarly, everyone (openly or suppressed) believes in a Creator, but that’s often seen as an inconvenient Truth, too.
Those bent on avoiding reality retreat into the cave called Denial, and they won’t come out lest their real motives for persisting with wrongdoing be revealed.
In the first example above, acknowledging Climate Change interferes with exploitation and money making, and in the second instance acknowledgement of a Creator raises moral issues.
Denial Cave is a very large one, and many (our current flock of boneheaded Liberal goofballs included) are in it.
William Boeder
August 26, 2018 at 18:51
#25, Peter … You are beginning to refer to the Liberal party, State and Federal, utilising somewhat the same form of disparaging terminology as employed by myself.
Can it be that this is borne out through the lately established in-fighting, the deceptions rife through their ranks, then to the nothingness of their legislation not being of anything of acceptable substance to the people of Australia? Or is it the sheer dishonesty rife through their ranks that has descended down through the ranks to land on Australia’s State Premiers?
Or perhaps it may be due to the Extreme right incumbents that believe they are entitled and or privileged to dismiss the concerns of the Australian people, hmm’ treat the bastards as if they were mindless sheep?
Peter, I guess any which way would be a reasonable cause for you to dismiss any further cordiality or civility to be directed toward Australia’s “boneheaded Liberal goofballs” being that they are no longer entitled nor worthy of respectful address. Even so, I am delighted with your transition to code-Boeder-expressionism.
A special mention to Chris for having expended so much time to express his deep sentiments. Oh, and another .. keep on Wining Pom.
Good to hear from you John Powell, and a sincere thank you to each of the other like-minded persons that have finally realised the nebula empty of honest factum, then to the disdain hurled down upon the Australian people, by this (should be revoked of all authority to contest in an Australian election) Liberal party herd of beguiling plotting trough-snouters.
Without the Nationals the Liberal party would devolve back to its nebulous self.
Nebula | COSMOS
astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/N/Nebula
A nebula is an interstellar cloud of gas and dust.
The d (in devolve} is a clue to its meaning. When things devolve, they deteriorate, degenerate, fall apart, go to the dogs, and generally end up worse. When a classroom gets loud and rowdy, a teacher might say the class has devolved.
There is another, less negative, the meaning of devolve. You can devolve responsibilities: for example, the U.S. government could devolve a certain responsibility to the states. The non-negative meaning of devolve is kind of like passing things on, as in a will. If I devolve something to you, you inherit it.
Brian P. Khan
August 26, 2018 at 20:21
The Governor General had a perfect excuse to send the whole parliament to a double dissolution after the antics of last week, the reason being that cabinet ministers in both house withdrew their support.
The Governor General could have used his reserve powers when he allowed Whitlam and Barnard to hold all portfolios after the 1972 election.
Turnbull could have been appointed caretaker prime minister with his two loyal cabinet ministers, now PM and treasurer.
The electorate could have passed judgement on the 43 Judases.
Doug Nichols
August 26, 2018 at 22:48
#25 … I was with you with the climate change stuff (and #22’s little test) but then you added a rather odd claim: “everyone (openly or suppressed) believes in a Creator”.
Nonsense! You might. But everyone? How do you know? You haven’t asked me, for example!
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 00:30
Doug at #28 wonders how I may be sure that everyone believes in a Creator being.
He’s right to wonder because my statement was too sweeping to include literally everyone, for example babies and small children are way too young to have begun to think about such matters.
Doug, anyone who thinks logically believes that, by polling all humanity, they would find nobody who would claim to have created this planet (for example) or any lifeform in it. Yet Earth clearly exists, and so do innumerable lifeforms, so we have a thing, and lifeforms, which certainly do exist … but which none of us designed or made.
Well Doug, [i]who, or what, did?[/i] We can ignore [i]what[/i] because nothing inanimate can create anything.
It’s axiomatic that everything has a cause behind it, even though the cause is not always visible and its nature may not be accurately perceived … for the time being.
Without an explanation to the contrary, we can accept the easy conclusion that humanity, openly or privately, acknowledges the existence of an inexplicable, living, intelligent creative force.
Simon Warriner
August 27, 2018 at 01:24
A long time ago it was put to me that “to deny the existence of a god/creator principle was to deny the fact of your own existence.”
Having pondered on the subject ever since, and having observed much in the natural world, my considered opinion is that the natural world is far more adept at getting stuff done than we give it credit for, and that all this creator stuff is a much misunderstood shorthand for a complex process of trial and error repeated on a grand scale. It does not require an all encompassing intelligence to work, or fail.
The creator stuff is mostly a game of power politics played by those who wish to profit from controlling access and should be dealt with accordingly.
Rob Halton
August 27, 2018 at 02:51
Most definitely, Sue Hickey has made a very good point about the circumstances leading up to the removal of Malcolm Turnbull as PM giving Eric Abetz a leading role as one of the wreckers!
Although that is being very defiant as a Liberal when the rest of the State mob don’t say boo it shows strong conviction by Ms Hickey as an individualistic Liberal just as Malcolm Turnbull is, to speak out on his behalf.
I would also suggest in time there will be a showdown between Hickey and Abetz either on Q and A or at the State Parliament, it will happen!
Malcolm Turnbull was deposed because he was trying to lead the Conservatives towards the Middle Right.
If is wasn’t for Malcolm Turnbull Gay marriage would have never have been passed and the Liberals would have remained further back in the polls.
Turnbull did a good job as a PM but was not good with handling his political opponents within the party by only providing them with pastoral care for which they did not appreciate at all.
Morrison has only 9 months to turn around the fortunes for the Liberals, the Coalition in fact, I wish him all the best as Shorten himself should be a push over in any debate.
Wining Pom
August 27, 2018 at 12:03
#31 … It’s easy if you’re driving down the road and need to turn around, even in a truck, but when you’ve gone off the cliff, it’s impossible.
Keith Antonysen
August 27, 2018 at 12:55
#29, Peter … Around 252 million years ago we had the great dying, where the vast majority of life forms were wiped out. About 90% of all known land based life forms died; acid marine waters and annoxia left only around 5% of marine creatures. There are numerous references in relation to the great dying; also 4 major extinctions have happened since then. Since those extinctions, new life forms have developed.
Currently, despite extinction of species happening, there are still innumerable life forms in existence. Where does your argument of design fit into past extinctions, and the profusion of many and varied life forms we see today?
I raise the matter on the basis of some who hold religious views do not believe that man has an impact on climate … mainly Creationists. I’m well aware you believe we should be doing something positive to thwart man created greenhouse gases.
William Boeder
August 27, 2018 at 12:57
#27 … Interesting comment, Brian P. Khan. Firstly your comment mentions a precedent event, that if it had been considered would have created another outcome altogether. This lack of intelligent discourse among them has seen the Liberal party itself as good as thrown to the dogs.
The whole of the Liberal party ideals seem to have no sound structure apart from looting the Australian taxpayers’ purse, creating special mates appointments that can be called upon to turn a blind eye to certain controversial happenings such as the flick pass of $444 million dollars over to a bunch of ne’er do wells .. energy industry and essentially a mix of Australia’s major polluters.
I wonder if this money was to force a push forward for the coal mining Ardani fix that is in itself huge threat to the marine environment of the Great Barrier Reef in itself. When one examines the composition of its big boys in the energy creating industry sitting on the board of that foundation, the mind can consider that this foundation could well play a starring role in approving the environmental credentials of the Ardani project.
So, in noting that the board of this foundation consisted of energy industry heavyweights, I don’t believe the Great Barrier Reef in itself was of interest to this body of heavy polluters at all, though they well may have held the credentials to aid the Adani Coal Project to clamber over the last lines of resistance.
This is the sort of Liberal party strategy that would be consistent in light of such a great Houdini event.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 14:00
Keith Antonysen at #33 asks me:
[i]”Where does your argument of design fit into past extinctions, and the profusion of many and varied life forms we see today?”[/i]
I appreciate your interest Keith, as it reveals a thinking mind.
My answer is simplicity itself. I don’t know.
It’s all a grand puzzle. I’ve not been able to figure it all out, or in fact to figure out any part of it.
My main observation is it’s obvious that creation exists. It’s ubiquitous.
I realise that nothing, nothing ever, “just happens.” It’s then axiomatic that there are causes. Given the obvious, it’s likewise obvious that creation has a creator of some kind. Alas Keith, although I wish for insights, that’s as far as I can elucidate. I’m ignorant.
You mention that some of those with religious views deny Climate Change. Yes, they certainly do.
If I told you what I think of their arrant stupidity it would breach Tasmanian Times’ Code of Conduct.
There are Creationists and Evolutionists with strong feelings on both sides. Which is correct?
The explanation is simple. Both are correct, but clearly Creation must have come first. If you and I were creators Keith, we’d surely include a means whereby our various creations could adapt to circumstance and thereby evolve accordingly.
I’m awed by Nature. Man’s duty, and privilege, is to respect it, and to work in with it to limitless mutual advantage.
max
August 27, 2018 at 14:26
#29 … God, or the creator, is a conundrum. If the creator exists, what or who made the creator? If you go along with the creator theory and he made every thing .. us, the moon, sun and the universe, where was the creator before every thing was made?
For simplicity the creator solves all problems and has been exploited by conmen since man first asked the question.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 14:58
Max at#36 asks ..
[i]”If the creator exists, what or who made the creator?”[/i]
Hmmmn. Let’s go back to the start ..
[i]Genesis 1:1[/i]
[b]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[/b]
How’s that for a Beginning, Max? Will it do for now?
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 17:46
Russell, prove there’s not.
max
August 27, 2018 at 18:32
# 37, Peter … I am sorry I opened the can of worms called faith, but for far too long the world has been torn apart by faith.
There are twelve classical world religions and they all rely on pure faith. Can they all be wrong or right, or can it only be the one you believe in?
I personally believe that all religions started with primitive people seeking an explanation. We are living in a time when faith is being challenged by science, but the truly faithful still cling to creation over evolution.
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” My question is .. who created God?
davies
August 27, 2018 at 18:36
I conclude from your response that you had not done any research into the claim that left wingers were brighter than right wingers, so it is probably a good idea to retract your statement.
Yes, a very simple test for simpletons … That enclosed glass houses are hotter when it is sunny? Has the C02 level been artificially enhanced? Do you want to show off the abundant plant growth under higher levels of C02? Or are you demonstrating that even much higher levels of C02 have no side effects for humans? That C02 is invisible and odourless?
On the contrary .. the science of climate is extremely complex.
Deniers? Perhaps we need a final solution to solve the issue! Are all phrases/words linked to the holocaust allowed now?
And not all climate sceptics are right wingers. If they were no other party would get a look in at elections.
Doug Nichols
August 27, 2018 at 18:53
Off-topic I know, but never mind. I’ve had enough of the Liberals for now anyway!
Re #29 … Some interesting claims there Peter, but I disagree with the lot!
Firstly:
“Anyone who thinks logically believes that, by polling all humanity, they would find nobody who would claim to have created this planet (for example) or any lifeform in it.”
In my opinion it is a fair bet that you would find quite a few people, among the many billions there are alive today, who claim to have created the planet and everything on it!
Secondly:
“…who, or what, (created the world)? We can ignore [i]what[/i] because nothing inanimate can create anything.”
(a) read “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss. What exactly happened may never be known for certain, but it seems there are ways to create a universe without requiring a creator and this is being actively studied right now.
(b) it is conceivable that a simple self-replicating molecule of some sort could arise spontaneously on the early Earth (and a lot more believable than requiring the existence of a creator). There’s no rush: a billion years is a long time for some fluky chemistry to happen, and it only has to happen once. Darwinian natural selection will take it from there and produce all the amazing life forms we see today without any conscious design effort.
I disagree with the final two sentences as well, but I’ll leave it there.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 20:01
Max #40 … I have no religion in the conventional sense (nor any faith in any of them) but I feel that the man called Jesus of Nazareth, if the account be true or substantially so, knew things. Fascinating things.
He taught, but it was hard going as his listeners were, as they are today, somewhat obtuse. It’s those “things” I’d like to learn about, but such exploration is an entirely personal path with progress slow, and dependent upon spiritual perception and understanding of which, nowadays, there’s precious little worldwide.
I have found that many so-called Christians, such as those hypocrites of the so-called political Right, are often an abomination with almost no understanding of genuine Christianity at all.
Doug #42 … I feel that your reasoning at this early point is primitive, and that your (a) and (b) are rather absurd. I don’t believe that my computer spontaneously self created from local or interstellar molecules because it had millennia to do so, and more millennia to get it right.
It was DESIGNED Doug, to do what it does, so I will ask you this: Who (or what) created molecules?
Keith Antonysen
August 27, 2018 at 20:25
#35, Peter … Thank you for your reply.
John
August 27, 2018 at 20:32
The only people who believe or argue the existence of a creator are those who are too ignorant to admit that their argument is unimportant because the logical person does not care and does not waste time trying to argue a clueless past-time.
William Boeder
August 27, 2018 at 21:36
So why have you posted your comment, John?
A lot of people may think your comment is nothing more than a distraction, such as guessing the weight of a rainbow .. essentially something that many do not want entering into their mind.
Wining Pom
August 27, 2018 at 22:55
#41 … I’m finding it hard to understand your response.
That enclosed glass houses are hotter when it is sunny? Yes. Or not sunny.
Has the C02 level been artificially enhanced? Not unless the operator is a professional grower and wants maximum returns. It can be raised to as much as 1500 ppm.
Do you want to show off the abundant plant growth under higher levels of C02? Well, I don’t want to show it off. Most people understand photosynthesis.
Or are you demonstrating that even much higher levels of C02 have no side effects for humans? I don’t know the rate for higher levels to affect humans, but I would guess it would be much, much higher than what there is now, or expected.
That C02 is invisible and odourless? Yes. But it can be measured by scientists.
On the contrary .. the science of climate is extremely complex. Indeed. The complete understanding of all the intricacies. But a basic understanding of it is simple. A bit like explaining how a car works.
You put petrol in a car and a spark ignites it and produces energy which is transferred to the wheels to create motion. Don’t ask me how that happens, but you understand that, I would imagine.
And heat from the sun is radiated in very narrow rays which can pass through glass, or the atmosphere, very easily. Whereas heat radiated, or released from objects which have received that heat, have a much wider wave so cannot pass through the glass, or the atmosphere quite so easily. And the more CO2 or other gasses (methane is much worse that CO2) in the atmosphere, the thicker the glass.
So yes, I’m a simpleton and I understand it.
Doug Nichols
August 28, 2018 at 15:39
Re #43 … I really can’t bothered arguing with a creationist, Peter. Read some up-to-date science .. anything from 1859 onwards will do.
It is your reasoning that is primitive, not mine. In particular I am surprised to see the design argument still being used as it is perfectly possible for complicated living things to have NOT been designed. The mechanism by which this happens has been understood for such a long time – and studied in such immense detail – that you really ought to have seen the error in your thinking by now. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
How life got started is still a mystery, but only because it is too hard to study back that far, not because the actual story, if we were able to uncover it, involves anything supernatural.
How all the ‘stuff’ in the universe came to be is more of a mystery, but scientists are studying it and their theories and ideas are always interesting .. unlike the entirely unsatisfactory and rather childish “god did it” argument.
Great strides in understanding have been made. All the oxygen and nitrogen and calcium and iron and copper and whatever else – all the chemical elements heavier than hydrogen in fact – form inside stars. The mechanism was figured out in the first half of the last century.
This sort of stuff is a whole lot more fascinating than any ideas about a creator doing it all – because it is real.
William Boeder
August 28, 2018 at 18:49
#49 … Hello Doug. Another great mystery of life is how an ill-willed person who creates nothing of value to the people of Tasmania, and who has left a trail of financial losses across the State of Tasmania, can retain a prominent role as a Liberal party Senator in the State of Tasmania.
As a matter of interest, I have tried to learn or understand the mechanism that permits an enormously unpopular person to continue to lord himself across this State.
Even as recently as this morning I had found it necessary to correspond through the online facility, made available by Senator Eric Abetz, to allege that he is far better known for his betrayals against the people in Tasmania than for any substance of good that he may have accidentally occasioned.
I put it to you Doug, with your capacity of sharp awareness to matters material, how does the above-referenced person maintain such a high profile as a no-goodnik in public office in the climate of today’s society that normally rejects such eccentric characters?
So given the State had rejected a Liberal party minister, Nikolic, through our electoral system, how can a Senator in the name of Abetz continue to remain in office?
http://theconversation.com/a-fox-guarding-the-henhouse-andrew-nikolic-takes-the-reins-of-parliaments-security-committee-55393
max
August 28, 2018 at 20:28
# 39 … Did god make man or did man make god? If god made man it wasn’t in god’s image as claimed. Why did he send down his only begotten son to die terribly when he could have just fixed the mistakes he made in the first place? But it is a good story that gave priests the power to prey on his flock.
Doug Nichols
August 28, 2018 at 21:07
#50 … Simple answer William: he gets himself placed no. 1 in the Liberal Party’s column on the Senate ballot paper. That means he wins a vote from all the people who don’t want to think about their vote and simply tick the Liberal box above the line. They don’t specifically vote for him. Not many people do. We all know this.
Harder question: How does he get himself posted at the top of his column all the time? That .. I don’t know. In order to find out one would have to inveigle oneself into Liberal Party circles. I’d rather make friends with a nest of wasps!