Comments by "June VanDerMark" (@junevandermark952) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

Thanks for honoring free speech. In the Middle East … religion IS the problem … as Jews … Christians … and Muslims … all want to be perceived as being “the chosen few” … that are privileged to live on GOD’S HOLY LAND. When it pertains to nature ... branches of the tree all work together to protect and preserve the tree and the tree's roots … and nature does not designate any land as being holy. Mythical divisive branches of religion caused and still cause humans to fight against each other ... unto death. Those who say they are spiritual and have souls that they hope go "back" to GOD ... never did and still do not believe that their doctrines stem from the same tree. Each personalized group wants to send out the message that they OWN the one and only tree ... that stems from the one and only HOLY GOD ... roots and ALL. Maybe someday we will all become "enlightened" to the realization that religion was imagined into seeming reality by divisive man-created myths … and that myths do not have any roots. “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
1
From my perspective, we have two choices. We can either believe that the universe was created by an entity that designed extreme suffering and extreme penalties to all forms of life as part of its plan ... or, we can believe (as did Stephen Hawking, before he died) that the universe in one form or another always existed and will always exist, no creator involved, and that suffering of all forms of life is natural. I prefer the second choice.
1
@2fast2block You sound like the pope. When the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking
1
@davidbanner6230 LOL
1
The two words "artificial" and "intelligence" are at odds with each other, because if something just happened to be intelligent, it couldn't “be” artificial. The problem is, if humans with devious intentions program harmful information into the computers, and then refuse to shut the electricity that feeds the computers off, of course harm will be the result. To say that computers cause harm, is comparable to saying that books labeled as being holy information from gods cause harm. It's humans that “use” the computers and the books for selfish reasons that causes the harm. Nuclear weapons are not artificially intelligent, but if electrically is engaged by aggressive human nature, those weapons will get the job done that the humans demand of them. Whether it's a stick or a stone, or a spear, or an arrow, or a gun or a computer, or words in books, those inanimate objects are not responsible for what we as humans coerce them to do. I suggest we should stop giving power to the term artificial intelligence and go to the source of what always was the problem, which is, suspicious and devious human nature. We understand that we can't trust others to not cause harm to us, because we are fully aware from the study of history, that others can't trust us to not cause harm to them. And because as individuals, we all suffer from the weakness of tunnel vision, we are so very artificial, we find it impossible to “be” intelligent.
1
The first President of the United States, George Washington, under the question, Party, wrote, Unaffiliated. I suggest that Donald Trump also should have stated Unaffiliated under Party, because he didn’t have any intention whatsoever, of following Republican policies. He wanted to rule supreme with a heavy hand all his own making. The writing was on the wall, when Republicans became terrified of being fired if they dared to state their own opinions that, in turn, disagreed with the opinions of "the Donald." I suggest that had he won another four years, there wouldn’t have been any laws, except the laws that Donald dictated. And the problem is, some Republicans still in office that don't want to lose their jobs, are terrified that if by chance he were to win the next election, they would also be fired if they dared (now) to go against him. It takes brave people to stand up against such a want to be dictator.
1
Thanks for honoring free speech. The United States election was won because of both Democrats and Republicans being perceived as WEAK … compared to Donald Trump. There shouldn’t be any doubt that many Republicans holding high positions in government would have wanted to become President of the United States … yet were terrified to go against the will of Donald Trump for that position. Donald has a way with words and the ability to manipulate that tends to ruin reputations … and he doesn’t care whether the person is a Democrat … or … a Republican … because his aim was and is … to win. During his last presidency … he fired every Republican that he viewed as being a threat to his power … and now that he won again … there isn’t anything to stop him from behaving the same way. Donald dictates … and others follow. Many conscientious Republicans see him as being a threat to the Constitution … and rightfully so. He intends to release the people from prison that attacked the Capitol *at his request (after he lost in 2020) … which means that he doesn’t have any respect for the court system that put those rebels in prison in the first place. And we should keep in mind that the man who shot Donald Trump in the ear was not a Democrat. He was a disgruntled “registered” Republican. Whether Donald (in his own name) will be able to make the United States into a complete dictatorship is yet to be seen … but from my perspective … if he has his way … there won’t “be” any other way.
1
@alexanderangelo7284 If babies are full of sin when they are born, then fetuses are also full of sin. If you are going to focus on the "sin" factor, the fetus is as full of sin, as is the convicted murderer. Religious confusion drove more than a few people into insane asylums, and to suicide, because one can't make sense out of utter nonsense. And by the way, women of the Catholic faith that had abortions, referred to the act of abortion as "making angels." In other words, "You can take your "gift" back god, and enjoy it, as I am too busy with the many kids I already have, and can't feed properly, to take on another one, or more."
1
@alexanderangelo7284 And the "Innocent Project" proved and keeps proving that many people convicted of murder, were later proved by DNA to be innocent of the crimes. Imagine that, for injustice. Here's one for you ... a true story ... Years ago, I read how a man named Lloyd Prevost spent ten years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. The story goes that a Catholic priest who was on his death bed confessed to another priest that he knew the identity of the real murderer but had kept the secret because of the seal of confession. The priest to whom the dying priest confessed tuned in to his own conscience, and went to the law and the innocent man, Lloyd Prevost was at last set free. The fact that the priest confessed the issue to another priest on his own death bed was an indication that harboring that lie “had” weighed very heavy on his conscience. There is something blatantly wrong with a religious system that protects a guilty man, while an innocent man spends ten years incarcerated for a crime he did not commit.
1
@tpower1912 I'm sure you won't relate, but having been raised in a Christian culture, and then after years of confusion, finally leaving all indoctrinations pertaining to souls and spirits and afterlives behind as baffle gas, I do relate to the following words. "Christianity is very much to blame for this; the notion that salvation is free and may be attained by the idlest, the dullest, the stupidest is understandably very popular with persons who may be so described." Robertson Davies, man of letters, letter, 18, November 1984, For Your Eye Alone: Letters, 1976-1995 (1999).
1
@alexanderangelo7284 Sorry. I misunderstood.
1
Jews, in ancient times, were the cause of antisemitism. Back when Jews and devotees of all other religions believed in many gods, there wasn't any reason to fight over the subject of salvation, because all devotees of all religions were united in the idea that they all had gods that would reward them with salvation and eternal bliss. When the Jews invented the story that there was only one god in existence, and that they were the chosen few by that one god, that was when the wars over religion began. Every religious group that followed, such as Catholics, Muslims, and Protestants lusted to be favorites of that one supposed god, as they did not, and would not believe that the one god in existence would favor only the Jews. How unfortunate, that by creating that one god dogma, the Jews brought the envy and hatred of others back to their selves, which resulted in the word antisemitism. I suggest we should all understand that it was not the modern Jews that created that one god dogma, and that they are not in any way responsible for what took place in the mentalities of those Jews that lived back in ancient times. Another tragedy is, that the one god dogma continues all these centuries later, to keep dividing devotees into right fighters over whose souls will be saved and whose souls will be shunned by that one god for eternity.
1
When you judge a woman who has an abortion as being a sinner, are you sinning? "Judge not, lest ye be judged," is another scripture, that in turn, most devotees choose to ignore.
1
Is your harsh judgment of women who have abortions, "wrong in every way?" After all, your supposed good book states ... "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Are you going to con-veniently ignore that scribble in your buy-bull?
1
The word "sin" implies that a it's a god that believes abortion is a sin, when actually, it's you. By using your bible as a weapon against women who have abortions, you avoided another scripture in your bible that states, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Maybe for judging women who have abortions as being sinners, YOU became the sinner, that according to your own bible, states "JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED." In other words, if you want to point fingers ... point them at your self!
1
@hexl702too5 I'm 82 years of age, never had an abortion, but I studied ... not the bible. I studied the many different reasons women have abortions, and I empathized with the women. When people are in religion, and believe that a god exists that is offended by abortion, those people are bound to see the subject in black and white terms. They believe they are following a god's will, and nothing can move them to see the situation any other way. That is common practice with the evangelicals in the United States.
1
@hexl702too5 Religion is full of such double-talk. For example ... Christian theologians teach that Jesus was born perfect to a family of Jews that practiced only Judaism. So, within theology, if that statement is true, it's only common sense that the Christian religion should not even exist. And on the other hand, if Jesus was not born perfect, then he shouldn't have been on earth as a teacher of perfect morals. Those stories were all based on bunkology.
1
@hexl702too5 A Christian informed me that we are all wretched sinners, and that Christians are blessed because of being saved from punishment by Jesus. I replied that if he really believed he was a wretched sinner, he shouldn't be using an intermediator on whom to dump his sins, but rather he should just accept that he is one of us, and be willing to take the eternal punishment from the creator that he is certain is just treatment concerning other evil sinners. He didn't respond.
1
@hexl702too5 I understand that, and I am also using the word "sin" in another context, to make my point.
1
@hexl702too5 If we had been taught that humans don't have souls, that would the end of religion. Without the word "soul," there couldn't be any religion. All stories are based on what the soul is thinking, and what the soul is doing, and where the soul came from, and where the soul is going after death of the physical body. Fortunes have been made by theologians who taught that the soul is a gift from God, and that women must never have abortions, because abortions offend God's gift to humanity. Evolution of the soul is a huge seller in religion. It means that your soul is ever upgrading and will hopefully soon make the grade of God's "entire" approval of enlightenment and salvation … or … that in the afterlife something horrible could happen to your soul. If you remove the word "soul" from religion, you will not have anything but ground zero.
1
@hexl702too5 I have never heard of an Atheist smashing and burning down abortion clinics, or murdering a doctor that performed abortions. Have you? James Kopp, the fanatic Catholic that killed Doctor Barnett Slepian, went to prison because of his belief that a god existed that was offended by women having abortions. Had James not been taught that he was serving a holy god, he might have been spared that life sentence in prison. Religious fanaticism causes one tragedy after another.
1
@hexl702too5 Yes, we have a pro-choice President, which means that he goes against the pope and the Catholic teaching that abortion is offensive to the supposed god. Yet the pope honored him with communion. Neither one of them are being faithful to their own religious teachings, which should tell us that even they no longer believe what they were taught is literal truth from a god. Donald Trump was pro-choice before he ran for office of President, and needed all those evangelical votes, and then he had the nerve to say that women that have abortions should be punished. At least Joe Biden didn't pretend to be anti-abortion to win votes. And for that, I respect him. .
1