[hopertveyk]

>>>I have never heard that before, do you have a reference for that?

Ony a vague recollection from an NS article maybe 10+ years back.

[weightpillsnow]

I wonder if trolls are a species created as part of God's divine plan, or are did they evolve?

[onlineslotetes]

>>>>Thats the arugment that irritates me the most, that somehow religion is necessary for ethics and morals.."

Indignity, outrage, humiliatation, embarrassment, interesting array of potentially disconcerting feelings associated with those probably related to the moral sentiments. All of them likely related to self-esteem and social status in some way.

[roundman]

>>>>Thats the arugment that irritates me the most, that somehow religion is necessary for ethics and morals.."

Indignity, outrage, humiliatation, embarrassment, interesting array of potentially disconcerting feelings associated with those probably related to the moral sentiments. All of them likely related to self-esteem and social status in some way.

*steps away from self esteem attribution at least*

[t78VPkdO]

>>>>Thats the arugment that irritates me the most, that somehow religion is necessary for ethics and morals.."

Indignity, outrage, humiliatation, embarrassment, interesting array of potentially disconcerting feelings associated with those probably related to the moral sentiments. All of them likely related to self-esteem and social status in some way.

*steps away from self esteem attribution at least*

[saturninus.ribb]

By related am meaning things that tend to be avoided also, even social gaffes for example. Esteem and status are fairly related.

Should qualify my loose use of the term "loons" above, meant it to mean extremists, or absolutists is probably a better term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutists

Was considering how the moral sentiments probably generate religion.

In some sense God is a metaphor for consciousness/self-awareness, maybe a metaphor for what some may call the executive of the mind, if you can stomach executive being used that way. Maybe executive is alright but CEO is a stretch. Perhaps some of the less thoughtful outcomes of the God metaphor, of its purpose if one could be ascribed, is where it goes to a type of collective consciousness, at the expense of broader kindredness of human natures.

If a moral shortcoming could be said to exist amongst and from literalists, it probably would be abuse of metaphor.

[sPncEjF7]

I would like to chime in and say that what is being expressed by some in here on this topic concurs with my subjective experience. I detect an over-religious/spiritual emphasis or encapsulated, confabulated discourse in many of the programs. Also, there is too much sport in RN - that should be left for local ABC radio.

And as described above, "tweeness". I's coming mainly from the female presenters. They are totally predictable, and verging on the anti-intellectual. Geraldine Doogue has an excellent intellect, but since she became a Catholic, she mortgaged her brain to the Archbishops, Cardinals and the Pope. That was totally predictable. Any system of religious beliefs based on some sort of scripture or revelation cripples the mind.

Even the politics is being done as sound bites, discussions with the conflict-seeking tone, and an eye for the gaffe and the gotcha.

RN is not really meeting my needs any more, and I get more sustenance and elucidation from article and forums on the internet. Philip Adams and Norman Swan are the only bright spots now, and i mainly catch them by accident.

Of course, local ABC Radio such as 774 in Melbourne, is saturated with sound bites, promos, shallow discussions, and in particular, is riddled by sport-think from top to bottom. It has become worthless for me, and to clinch it, the awful pop music I find totally repulsive. I never listen to it any more, (unless there's bush-fires).

And News Radio is fatuous rubbish with endless, loud fanfare music.

Roll on, the internet!!

[Poeetiol]

what do people here think of the science show on RN?

[Flalafuse]

link

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...s/scienceshow/

[Zebrabitch]

what do people here think of the science show on RN?

appreciate the link. too early for an opinion sorry.

[ballingham]

what do people here think of the science show on RN?

I've listened to the Science Show for years - until recently. Up until a couple of years ago their coverage of science was interesting, factual and useful and I could always go look for more information if I wanted it. These days it's lost a lot of the "punch" it used to have and some contrary items have been introduced, I suspect, to add what the ABC calls "balance". More talking heads and less factual stuff. It's not the programme it once was, but it's still worth listening to sometimes. I'm annoyed they shifted the repeat time. It used to be repeated on Monday evening, now Monday afternoon at 2:00.

If I really want to listen to anything now, I download the podcasts as the programme times are just terrible. They almost seem designed to prevent anyone listening to the interesting stuff on any subject.

[HunterM]

>>>If I really want to listen to anything now, I download the podcasts as the programme times are just terrible. They almost seem designed to prevent anyone listening to the interesting stuff on any subject.

I would have thought that podcasting allows for greater flexibility in listening times

maybe its just our older generation getting used to different media presentations in delivery

like as in a lot of older folk are used to real time delivery that has been going on for years and years, fifty or more years

I guess creating a balanced approach to science journalism may be a good thing if its genuine and not just for the sake of being being genuine just to appease whoever's in power

I think climate change may have had a hand in that, climate scientists vs corporate greed etc

but I would like to go with real observation, not pressure from rich people and their bank balance feeling threatened by real observation

[OrefZorremn]

I would have thought that podcasting allows for greater flexibility in listening times

That's exactly what Ilago said.

maybe its just our older generation getting used to different media presentations in delivery

Oh, please do patronise us some more.

[CarrieSexy]

>>>If I really want to listen to anything now, I download the podcasts as the programme times are just terrible. They almost seem designed to prevent anyone listening to the interesting stuff on any subject.

I would have thought that podcasting allows for greater flexibility in listening times

maybe its just our older generation getting used to different media presentations in delivery

like as in a lot of older folk are used to real time delivery that has been going on for years and years, fifty or more years

I guess creating a balanced approach to science journalism may be a good thing if its genuine and not just for the sake of being being genuine just to appease whoever's in power

I think climate change may have had a hand in that, climate scientists vs corporate greed etc

but I would like to go with real observation, not pressure from rich people and their bank balance feeling threatened by real observation

Podcasts are great and RN are really good about getting them up quickly.

I think climate science has been subjected to serious pressure from groups with vested interests as have many "environment" related programmes. I think that this ensures less science and more talking heads which is very annoying.

[Eunatis]

>>>Oh, please do patronise us some more.

No, that was not my intention, I'm old myself

I agree with ilago, more science is good.

[tuszit]

>>>I would like to chime in and say that what is being expressed by some in here on this topic concurs with my subjective experience. I detect an over-religious/spiritual emphasis or encapsulated, confabulated discourse in many of the programs"

Bit packaged up or scripted for sweet delivery, but add a few thoughtful pauses and some pretense of meandering spontaneity and who'd know.

[bWn4h8QD]

i sent the addy of this thread to RN for them to read. they thanked me.

[Lolita Palmer]

>>>i sent the addy of this thread to RN for them to read. they thanked me.

They dug deep just for you.

[tinamasak]

I will add to my above comments

I think Australian Media Law should be strengthened to require all Radio and TV Stations, Online Internet sites, and public meetings in churches to be required by Law to give a Government warning that suggests that God may or may not exist as there is No physical Proof of Gods Existence

I also think that Media Law should be strengthened further to improve radio announcers individuals’ behavior like: general rudeness, sexism, racism and improve the emotional intelligence of radio announcers and tv presenters by requiring radio and TV announcers by Law to recognize that they have a responsibility when they are broadcasting to a mass audience and for them to be aware, assess and control their emotional behavior when on air, and to amend media law to include company directors that have been banned to remain off air for the whole duration of their ban

I have no problem with religion or God so long as people are Honest (by Law see below ) about Gods Existence when broadcasting to a mass audience who may or may not reflect the same views as the radio or TV presenters

To make it clear radio and TV presenters have a responsibility when broadcasting to a mass audience and as I see it Media Law as present does not cover the possible Existence of God

Religious people should not feel threatened by this, on a cosmological scale we do not know if God exists or Not, we do not know how the universe came to be in existence

I see a place for religion in society, it’s there to help people, comfort the sick and dying, comfort those who fear the unknown, and religion is there to help those people who want to believe, I have no problem with that

What I do have a problem with, is when the religion and God forced down people’s throats and when God is seen to be as being some absolute entity that exists when there is no real proof of its existence

There is an expression that says politics and religion should not mixed, and in a similar way science and religion should not be mixed, unless its absolutely necessary.

Media Law should create a balance between those to do not believe in God and those who do believe in God, so in this sense The Government and Media Law should indicate an indifference to that, in other words people who are religious need to accept that there are people out there who do not believe in God and those that do and vice versa, and because of that when on air required to indicate that God may or may not exist

So religious people should not feel threatened, it is not my intention to wipe out religion, however I would like to wipe out Scientology as that organization is a fraudulent money pyramid scheme, I think people should be free to believe in God and people should be free not to believe in God and both sides should accept the others right in what to believe.

but what is it when people say something exists as being real when there is No real proof of its existence?

I'm an agnostic but I also like real honesty with real science and real observation but what is in peoples minds is really their own business and I would like to see Media Law reflect that

Radio announcers need to accept that they listeners who are Not religious and those who are

so Deal with it

[anenselog]

Another issue I see with RN is that the people there do not rotate as much as those people rotating on triple J

same for other ABC stations, however, there needs to be an expertise set of people as like on Classic FM who really are required to have an in depth knowledge on classical music, in a similar sense that also applies to RN in the various topics they present

something else to reflect on