Religion v Archaeology: arriving at a correct historical perspective

Arriving at a correct historical perspective – why is there so much mutual exclusivity?

Every religion has its own peculiar account of history that is not only different from the others but also the current scientific understanding. For instance there is no physical evidence of any early Mormon settlement in the Americas which they claim to have happened over 2,500 years ago – well before the time of Jesus! When we consider that their version of history contains numerous anachronisms (such as horses, elephants, wheat, barley, solk, chariots, windows, steel, swords etc that were not in the Americas at the time) this is totally at odds with accepted science eg archaeology, genealogy and linguistics. Therefore – either science is wrong, the Mormons are wrong, or, possibly, both are wrong!

Let us consider:

Australian Aborigines and the Dreamtime stories (Spiritic)

Biblical creation stories (Abrahamic)

Chinese creation stories (Taoic)

Hindu creation stories (Dharmic)

and several other (Animistic, Magic, Mystic, Siddhic, Superstitious) etcetera, such as Manichaeist, Vudun and Zoroastrian creation stories.

That none agree indicates there is no one theory that fits all accounts. One or two or more may be partially right or they could all be wrong – and that includes the scientific view. Yet because of geographical isolation, cultural norms and value systems all may have ‘evolved’ from the one creation event (including the Big Bang, Mediocre Kerfuffle, or Tiny Little Pop.. depending on one’s bent) into varying interpretations and theories.

Non-religious philosophers argue that Man invents religion to try to make some sense out of the seemingly chaotic world and to give some purpose to the randomness of life. Religious philosophers argue that without a higher spiritual being there is no reason-to-be and life is devoid of any meaningful purpose.

That a person may change their belief systems more than once in a lifetime illustrates that faith is an acquired facet of the personality, not something we are born with, like arms and legs. The tendency to develop faith may in itself be innate, but exactly what the object of such faith may be is left open at birth. The line that divides faith from belief may be more semantic than logical in that beliefs may be more easily changed and faith more or less fixed or fixated. Often faith is recognised by swearing an oath of allegiance to a single God or Dogma but even that is a formality rather than an actual state of consciousness.

Indeed, one may change faiths several times, including apostasy and agnosticism – or even flip-flop between Creationism and Darwinism! However, none of that resolves the differences in history between science and religion/s. These accounts are just observations, much like history itself is a set of observations, and there are many perspectives, resulting in differing sets.

What an oxymoron it is that what unites them all is their exclusivist nature – they all declare that they are the one true knowledge! (and mutually exclude each other) Hence the age-old paradox of life, consciousness, our capacity to feel and think (or not) and what to do with all of that. What sets humans apart from other lifeforms is the ability to act apart from the dictates of the senses and to choose rather than react automatically or instinctively as creatures do. Seagulls foraging discarded fries on the motorway do not look up at the Mack truck bearing down on them and muse, “You know what? I’m done with this life as a seagull. To hell with it.”

One of the silliest, illogical and blind things about a human is that they decide that their own philosophy is superior to anyone else’s – to the point of telling seagulls what to do. “No, you cannot commit suicide, Mr. Seagull; suicide is illegal in the State of Suchandsuch.” Actually, seagulls follow their instincts and do not listen to humans. Probably just as well. It could even make them smarter than us.

So what do we do with all these different histories, religions, philosophies, etcetera? I say we start a war. Isn’t that what we humans do, after all? Okay, now we’re like seagulls fighting over discarded fries on the motorway again, and this time some of us don’t make it out, despite our best efforts.

What is 1.3% of 33% of atmospheric CO₂?

Australia (~1% of all emissions¹) can do nothing major to really affect climate on a global level. Just 3 countries – China, USA and India spew over 50% of the world’s carbon emissions. When I see UN Secretary-General Antonio Gueterres dumping on Australia ‘for not pulling their weight’ about climate change, or angry activists blaming recent floods, bushfires and practically every adverse weather event on the lack of Government Climate Policy, I am truly amazed that they think Australia’s measly contribution of 1.8 parts per million (1.3% of the rest of the world’s carbon footprint) of CO₂ will do anything to change global weather if we got rid of fossil fuels. That’s not just plain wrong, it’s stupid. They obviously aren’t aware of the numbers.

See if you can get your head around this!!!

Australia contributes 1.3%¹ of world CO₂ emissions (man-made carbon dioxide). Human emissions² are roughly a third (33%) of total CO₂ in the air. The air is 0.0418% CO₂ (418 parts per million) as of February 2022. So what’s 1.3% of 33% of atmospheric CO₂ = ?

[¹now 1.14% from recent data.

²this is at best an ‘educated guess’ based on around 185ppm at the Last Glacial Maximum of 20,000 years ago; to the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Era starting (say, 1750 AD) when it was 278ppm; the current level of 418ppm; and using historical CO₂ records from ice cores going back a million years to see the cyclic troughs and peaks between 180-300ppm. Not factored into this are the combined effects of deforestation, methane from livestock breeding, burning of wood fires, volcanic eruptions, two world wars, mining and skyscraper cities redistributing the planetary mass, orbital fluctuations, changes in the upper atmosphere from space exploration, the list goes on..]

A third of 418ppm is 139.333. And 1.3% of that is 1.8. So the answer is 1.8 ppm, or 0.00018113% of the total atmosphere. If Australia immediately converted completely to renewables and stopped all use of fossil fuels, less than half a percent of 418ppm is the miniscule amount it would lower the planet’s total carbon dioxide – 0.433%! Can you even imagine, let alone perceive, the tiny fraction of a degree of temperature reduction that equates to?

Even if those figures may not be exact it gives a good indication of the size of the factors in play. The cost of reducing carbon emissions is in the zillions of dollars globally, in the trillions for large countries and billions for others like Australia who have smaller GNPs.

The change in temperature and CO₂ between the Last Glacial Maximum and the Industrial Era cannot be from fossil fuels, yet it still happened. So we have to factor in that much of the temperature rise since the end of the last Glaciation period is completely natural anyway – therefore global warming will continue regardless of CO₂ reductions!

That fossil fuels made the West rich and are a dirt cheap source of power for developing economies, it’s easy to see why ideologies that intend to impose restraints on economic development by not allowing ‘satanic fossil fuels’ are unpopular in countries that are struggling.

We also see this in Australia where the opposition party failed to win the election by riding largely on the Climate Change ticket. The ruling party stuck with the Prosperity ticket and people voted with their hip pocket. It seems no-one wants to pay for expensive Climate Change policies if it’s going to damage their quality of lifestyle and economic security. Due to peer pressure everyone agrees that “Climate Change is terrible and we must do something about it” but when it comes down to a secret, private ballot that cannot be scrutinised they vote with their feet. “Not In My Back Yard” as the saying goes!

Scientists against climate alarmism

A quick look at the history of the world’s famous leaders and revered heroes shows that they, far from having our best interests at heart, were selfish men (and seldom women) who led us into bloody wars, mercilessly conquered other cultures, raped nature and committed mass genocide.

Whether it’s Harry S. Truman and Winston Churchill who collaborated to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (an abhorrent practice now a War Crime in International Law) by dropping atomic bombs in Japan; a string of US presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon killing countless other civilians in the stupid, ineffectual and pointless Vietnam War; White Supremacist European powers who used explorers Christopher Columbus and James Cook to invade, conquer and practically wipe out the native populations (and their spiritual customs with it, replacing them with Christianity); barbaric arseholes like Alexander the Great (read: “pissweak”) who got as far as India and then retreated when he was confronted by a massive army mounted on elephants after he had signed and broken a treaty that he would not invade at night (not only did Alexander the Pissweak break his promise but he slaughtered innocent women and children as he set fire to the town); shall I go on? I think you get my point.

The last thing we should do is trust our world leaders. It takes a certain kind of person – a megalomaniac – to aspire to be a powerful famous leader, often ‘by hook or by crook’. Do you really think Scott Morrison, Theresa May, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un (Nth Korea), the president of China Xi Jinping (who?), Emmanuel Macron (France), Angela Merkel (Germany), Justin Trudeau (Canada) etcetera etcetera are plotting for World Peace? The United Nations has hypocritically sanctioned more wars than it has prevented.

Developing countries need cheap fossil fuels to grow their economies and eradicate poverty but the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming movement is designed to stop this from happening. The UN’s radical greenie arm the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a Leftist political organisation whose agenda is to maintain the superior position of the richest elite countries by using their affluent economies to develop renewable energy technologies, create a “climate science concensus” to discredit and outlaw cheap fossil fuels, thereby ultimately keeping poor countries poor.

Scientists Against Climate Alarmism

(h/t and thanks to Leo Goldstein)

Celebrity Climate Change Alarmists

Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA FRSGS

What are all those post-nominal letters and what do they mean? Well, for starters I can tell you that they’re not qualifications, they’re honours that’ve been awarded to him. He’s a very decorated fellow, some say the most travelled man in the world, held in high esteem by Britishers as their very own living icon.

Bravo, I won’t argue wih any of that because I have respect for anyone who is diligent and successful. As for his qualifications, which are mysteriously absent from the letters following his name….

He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Natural Sciences, majoring in Geology and Zoology at Cambridge. That’s it.

In the early 60s he started a post-graduate degree in Social Anthropology at London Uni but left to return to the BBC (no-one really knows how far he got with it but I think it was a year or two). He has amassed some 32 Honorary Degrees, all without attending universities or anything, bestowed on him from various institutions for his extraordinary work in TV, mostly documentaries (as if we didn’t all know already!).
So how does he get to lecture us all on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Like Arnie Schwarzenegger and Leonardo de Caprio, prominent actors who get plenty of air time on climate change because they’re celebrities, apparently you don’t need a university degree in Climatology if you’re famous.
None of the following celebrities are qualified in the science of Climatology:
Al Gore has a BA in Law. Brian Cox is an Astrophysicist. Tim Flannery – Paleontology. David Suzuki – Zoology, Genetics. Name a famous Climate Change Activist and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single Climatologist amongst them. Yep, you’ll find some glaciologists, environmentalists, atmospheric physicists (close), biologists, journalists, more politicians, geographers and zoologists and even more celebrities. (Not that having a University Degree means everything – there are plenty of highly qualified idiots out there, ha ha!) What does all this mean?
The religion of Climate Change is a political movement. Most commercially owned mainstream media is owned by the capitalist Left, and we have gotten so used to it that we think that the news we watch is Centrist and unbiased. Whether we realise it or not, much of what we accept as normal owes its roots to the Hippie Era of free sex, drugs and dropping out, the agenda of Marxist Culturalism designed to tear down the fabric of Western Society by destroying Judeo-Christian values.
Sound like a load of gobbledygook?
Conspiracy Theory #45: Marxist Culturalism invented the concept of politcal correctness. Some really good things came out of it. Speaking of which, for druggies, society became more tolerant of those who were ‘out of it’. It put an end to racial segregation, apartheid, etc and although it made discrimination illegal it hasn’t eradicated racism and probably never will (it could be a survival gene). It promoted Feminism and made great strides in achieving Equal Pay etc, but will never truly eradicate sexism whether it be mysogeny or misandry (womanhaters/manhaters). As far as homosexuality etc goes, although their input into human survival is a disputed area, hardly anyone wants to see the Sexual Freedom campaign continue unbridled, lest it degrades into orgiastic rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual perversions. Am I allowed to say that, perversions? No, that would be politically incorrect. Perhaps the right term is “expression” or “adventure”. Whatever. I still think it’s depraved. But that’s just my opinion.
Ok, rant over, back on topic. I could barely stand to watch his docos for more that maybe a quarter of an hour, partly because of his stuffy accent but mainly because of his Darwinian commentary. Starting out as an Atheist, he later admitted to getting closer to admitting that there COULD be ‘intelligent design’ and therefore some God behind it – but remains an Agnostic and sticks to the theory of evolution even though it lacks proof and remains a theory.
As a believer in the person known as the Supreme Being, God, the Almighty etc naturally I am a Creationist (those Lefties love labelling, don’t they!) and find it quite absurd, the idea that chemicals mixed together and life spontaneously arose; let alone that the Universe similarly arose from nothing with the Big Bang. To me, these are attempts by atheistic scientists to ‘explain away’ something that only God can do; and substitute an “accident”, a “freak of nature”(when there was none to begin with?) or some “unknown factor”. Yep, they got the last part right, the unknown factor is Bruce Almighty. Whoops, sorry, I meant God.

Anyway…. this last evangelical tirade of his is the last straw for me. I have lost all admiration for him. To me, he is another Darwin, a Hawking, another Plato (who said the Earth was the centre of the universe, not the Sun). I think Sir David now looks like a doddering old man, a gibbering fool, a feeble shill, paid off by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). These celebrities are recruited as puppets to promote the Climate Religion cause. And his sermon was straight out of the Big Book. It used the same guilt trips and threats of punishment that Biblebashers employ. If you’ve read this far you probably agree with me. If so (or if not) please leave a comment and let me know by giving me your feedback either way.
ॐ हरे कृष्ण ॐ

(I imagine most if not all of you are now thinking “well who the fuck are you Sam? You didn’t go to uni, you failed school and are not an academic. Well, in my defence… If I had initials after my name, say, Sam Treloar WTF, IDK, LOL, FFS, ROFLMAO – would that be more impressive or convincing? Post-nominal letters can be deceptive. We place far too much emphasis on “experts”. When I read the work of an intellectual writing on a topic, I scrutinise their style of delivery, vocabulary, grammar, and especially parsing of sentence structure in order to ascertain if the left and right brain activity is balanced and how integrated the two halves’ thinking is. One can often tell poorly-thought out illogical rants by the disconnected phrasing or the non-stop continuous raving.)

(and… You should never have to re-read a sentence unless a particularly complex principle is being explained. If so, you can take it for granted that the writer’s imagination is working overtime and their left brain (the critical part) has shut down. In contrast, one can tell when the author’s right brain is dormant if the same points or words are being used repetitively (or over and over, repeatedly, continuously, too often; you get my point) showing a lack of creativity, losing the reader’s interest. A way to tell an overactive right brain is the overuse of flowery language, unnecessarily descriptive ramble and extraneous cogitation like I am illustrating now.)
[Author’s note: I do so many edits and extensive proofreading of my work that I lose count. Methinks both sides of my brain have a mind of their own ha ha]