The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fundamentalist Trojan horse in public school grounds > Comments

Fundamentalist Trojan horse in public school grounds : Comments

By Glen Coulton, published 9/9/2010

Fundamentalist religions succeed in establishing a beachhead in a NSW government high school.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
The funding arrangement may be ill advised, you only have to look at the fundamentalism intrusions into the Texas school system to see that. However the author does no favours to himself with the rabid and unbridled attacking nature of this article. Any person of even moderate persuasion would stop read after the paragraph or two. This article is written to an audience, a radical anti-theologian audience, rather than to a point.
Posted by Arthur N, Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:29:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very well said Glen Coulton.
The legally enforced availability of so called 'scripture' lessons - ie religious progaganda - in our already under-funded public schools is bad enough, but the acceptance of strings attached donations of this kind represents a new low in an already embattled, once proud, public school system. Already as I understand it, the school head-person has had to order the removal of a prominately displayed crucifix. The christian fundamentalist right have been given a stunning victory and yet another publicly funded forum to spread pernicious archaic rubbish by being allowed, in true Jesuit form, access to our children at a time when their brains are not fully formed, and have yet to develop a functional critical faculty. This is no more than government approved child abuse, and is to be condemned by all concientious and informed parents and citizens. By allowing this abominable outcome, the virtually defunct NSW state government is desperately scraping the bottom of the voting barrel and to this end, many unfortunate children at this ill-advised school will carry a load of ignorance and church imposed guilt into and throughout their adult lives.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:57:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
relax guys. As more and more families have been destroyed by any lack of decency promoted by secularism we see a rapid increase (even among god deniers) sending their kids to private schools despite the financial sacrifices they have to make.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 September 2010 11:07:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, why don't you do one?

You knock secularism yet you appear to uphold the fantasy of religion and approve of it being pushed into the minds of innocent, gullible children.

You don't appear to realize that there are many secularists who have a very moral stance, one that doesn't rely on silly promises of life after death to uphold.

Stephen Hawking has just proved that God doesn't exist, that the world and the universe arose out of forces of gravity. Perhaps you should do yourself a favour and investigate this concept rather than promote the existence of a God who creates endless misery for his 'creations' via earthquakes, floods, plagues, droughts, cancer, intellectual and physical disabilities, etc.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Thursday, 9 September 2010 11:31:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ runner, god of you to acknowledge "decency promoted by secularism" - why do you think those families lack it?
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 9 September 2010 11:53:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G

I must say your website is very pretty but also very misleading and deceitful. You know as well as I do that even new agers hearts are full of greed and corruption just like everyone else. You actually need a Saviour just like I do. Look at the violence at many anti war rallies and you will see what is in men's hearts. Stephen Hawkins is one in a long line of men who are absolutely pathetic in the denial of a Creator. No doubt many desperate to confirm their prejudices and dogmas will once again be wetting their pants with excitement with the latest god denying thesis. Thankfully any real truth seeker rather than fable believer will see through this. When pseudo scientist start acting in truth rather trying to confirm their dogma they might get somewhere.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 September 2010 12:00:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You actually need a Saviour just like I do," Runner pontificates.

Sorry, Runner, but I don't need a saviour in my life. And I don't need a god in my life either. And I don't need religion in my life and neither do I need the absolute deceit that all religion peddles.

I gave up believing in Santa when I was very young.

Some people, even in adulthood, can't!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 9 September 2010 1:25:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,
I am secular and an a non theist yet I will back my ethics and decency against any church supporter.

No non theist ever murdered another human being because of the others belief in a different god or religious theory. Non-theists have never forced an inquisition on other people or behaved as one of the leading protestant leaders of old did when he said, "Kill them all, God will know his own."

In about 1630 the Bishop of Bamberg had 900 so called witches executed The Bishop of Wurtzburg despatched about 1200 witches via the stake. The youngest ever victim recorded was 4 years old.

No wonder people are sending their children to church schools.
The SMH reports today that Australia ranks 26th out of 28 in government funding of public or state schools but 4th in government funding of non government (mainly religious) schools.

There are two great evils, blind faith and the indoctrination of children. I subscribe to neither.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 September 2010 1:39:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle your selected passages of history might ease your conscience and justify to yourself your unbelief. The reality is that secularism has shown itself as corrupt as the Catholic church.

Funding has very little to do with parents choosing private schooling and I suspect you know that. It has everything to do with failed secular dogma which leads to more bullying, more drugs, more teen pregnancies, more intolerance. While private schools are by no means exempt from this the rates of these things are considerably lower as shown by the way people vote with their feet and money.

If you think more money improves failed dogma just look at the billions spent on trying to fix aboriginal issues. Time to face the truth and stop being in denial.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 September 2010 2:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G - "Steven Hawking has just proved that God does not exist."

Hawking did not prove that God does not exist. It impossible to do so. He has a scientific theory like many others and he has weighed into the debate about the existence of God, which is always welcomed. You can have theories and reasons for the existence or non-existence of God, but to declare that someone has proved it is just getting a little excited.

Glen's article, like Arthur N commented, is written to an audience and is a bore. Just look at the pedantic list of suggestions as to how the new building should be used. And read the titles of Glen's other articles. He obviously has a chip on his shoulder about the teaching of religion in schools.

When you teach, you teach with a philosophy one way or the other. A Christian philosophy is as good as anything else and much better than many other ways of teaching. You are kidding yourself if you think that a secular approach is free from all shackles of prejudice.

We all have dogmas, no matter what our background is, and Glen's dogmas are fairly obvious.
Posted by ink blot, Thursday, 9 September 2010 2:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all have our dogmas: some of them are based on demonstrable facts and some aren't. Guess which group Christianity falls into.

As for the existence of the traditionalist Christian God, that can easily be disproved to the highest standards required by any court of law or scientific laboratory in this country. If anyone wants to insist on a higher standard, then it's up to them to explain why.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 9 September 2010 3:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This realy is further proof that Queensland and NSW are increasingly very different from the rest of the country. Can the rest of us ceed from these guys. Look at the last election the only people who counted were thoses in the two northern feedlots.

Religion is a private matter and has no place in public school.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 9 September 2010 3:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,
The present behaviour of the clergy bishops is not much better than in history. The leopard hasn't changed its spots. The child abuse disclosures and the opposition to ethics classes are two examples of unethical behaviour.

Why does the Anglican Archbishop and the Roman Catholic Cardinal of Sydney oppose the ethics classes? Is it because they do not want children to think clearly for themselves?

Another example of unethical behaviour is the advertising by the church schools to attract students , most of which is misleading, and which is probably only possible because the schools are flush with overpayments of government funds.

In NSW, public school students going on to University perform about 5% better than non government students with the same entry score.

You didn't answer my claim of two gross evils. Is that because your ethics allow you to support both?
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 September 2010 3:09:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J you obviously didn't read my post properly.

I did not say there was a scientific explanation for the existence of God (although there are centuries of solid philosophy and rational thought which many people these days chose not to turn to).

I said that there is no scientific proof for the argument that God does not exist.

True athiesm would argue that God does not exist and it is humourous from a believer's perspective, to see ignorant people get excited when a scientist posits an argument against the existence of God, saying "So and so has just proven that God does not exist."

It's great to have a debate - one hopes we will come closer to the truth with more argument and discussion. And it is those who want to shut down discussion by arguing that a debate is over and one side has 'won' who are clearly the less confident with their stance.
Posted by ink blot, Thursday, 9 September 2010 3:30:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And will we do anything to stop the fundamentalist state-worship that is compulsorily taught to all students for 10 years?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 September 2010 3:57:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ink Blot
Either I didn't make the point very well or you missed it. I'm not opposed to teaching children about religion in schools, public or private. On the contrary. What I'm opposed to is forcing children, or even encouraging them, to go beyond just knowing about and actually start believing in religious articles of faith for which there is no good evidence.

But my post was not even about whether religious articles of faith were credible. It was about the danger of allowing a religion — any religion — a material presence in a schooling system that is supposed to be secular. And if you think that secular means anti-religion, please check its meaning before responding. A secular education system is simply one that is independent of any religious influence. All I'm asking is how can a secular education system continue to be seen to be secular if it accepts resources from a religious organisation.
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:10:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Diverse Dan Daily"

Christian terrorists assail secularist temples of education. God

forbid cried Christian supporters. God is dead cried secularists.

Then we win cried the Christians!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny

It was the Christians that conquered the Aboriginals; we have every right to be here.

And further, If you don’t get onboard and fight for the Christian cause now, the consequences may be more uncomfortable than the inconvenience of scripture classes in a school room.

Have a little think about it!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:34:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why We Need Fundamentalist Christianity:

Fundamentalists Christians are the necessary evil in a Global war of fundamentalism. They must be cultivated not eliminated. They must be controlled not controlling. Used for the war, and allowed to recruit;

Allowing fundamentalists into secular schools is actually a controlling mechanism: A political necessity in the global war of fundamental terror. A recruiting tool for society not themselves.

Under the historic circumstances of the moment, promotion and cultivation of fundamentalist Christian ideals are a socially useful tool. Try some lateral thinking! Obviously our politicians have considered the cause, Re: George Bush, John Howard and now DET NSW.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 9 September 2010 11:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glen, you are right - a school should be consistent. And if it makes out to be completely secular, then it should not accept religious donations. Agreed.

It's just that, in making that point, there is a stance that it is possible to be completely secular. Now there are many different definitions for 'secular'. It would be naive to pretend that there is just one; that it is a simple concept. Even in a religious realm, the word secular is used to describe those lay members of the faith that are not of the monastic or 'religious' orders.

We live in a time where some believe that it is possible to be fully secular in the sense of 'free of religion' and that this is a good thing. I think that is misleading and far too 'idealistic.' It treats religion as a disease that needs to be cleaned out of people.

Religion offers so much and indeed, the great majority of the population of the world is religious. It is unhealthy and a little pedantic to intend to 'sanitise' children from religion. It deprives them of something that can be a great help to them now, and perhaps more importantly, later in life.

In that vein I thought your guidelines for use of the building were pedantic. However, if this is a school where parents are deliberately sending their children so that they will have no contact with any religion, then I can see how the school may have an issue on its hands.

Some adults are certainly disenchanted with religion. This is understandable given perhaps their own experience or that of others. Unfortunate experiences are the fault of individuals who have made mistakes, not the religion itself. So often we blame the song, not the singer.

Religious-based ethics is often based itelf on time-tested philosophy and the great minds in the churches throughout history have contributed to the body of knowledge that we now teach our children. It would be a shame to deprive them of that, thinking all the while that we are doing them a favour.
Posted by ink blot, Friday, 10 September 2010 6:49:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ink Blot
Sorry to have been off the air all day. Fridays are wall to wall recorder teaching/playing. I think we very nearly understand one another. Would it help to close the remaining gap if I said I'd be delighted for children to be told about what the great thinkers have said, both religious and non-religious, provided that they are not then forced/enjoined to believe any of it for which there is no compelling and reproducible evidence. And yes, I guess I mean evidence of a standard that would persuade a scientist that a theory was strong enough to be regarded as a principle. I can't prove that there isn’t a god; the other guy can't prove that there is. What I worry about is when the other guy nevertheless says to children that they must believe that there is, and to us that we must behave as if there were a god and in accordance with the other guy's superior knowledge about what that god demands of us. What I think of as a secular society is one whose rules and conventions are uninfluenced by mores that have nothing going for them except some religious organisation's faith-based beliefs.
Posted by GlenC, Friday, 10 September 2010 5:56:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fantastic Article Glen, I quite agree.
If we are supposed to be a secular nation this action is a blight on our reputation (not to mention our education)!

When I was a kid, scripture lessons were a waste of time- I would sooner have been doing my homework (and actually achieving something important) than be spoken down to by a bunch of reformed druggies who "saw the light". I say this as someone who has never even handled an illicit drug, and conducted myself to behaviour that would shame most Christians even after they 'found God'- let alone before.

Also
Everyone stop feeding the troll (Runner).
He insists that "Morality" only exists in Jesus Christ and cannot possibly, in any shape or form exist outside it. There's no point trying to point out anything contradictory because he will shrug it off.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 11 September 2010 10:00:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glen

I think we do agree - in a secular school there's no point teaching people to believe in a particular religion. However, there should be a 'healthy' attitude towards religion- a worldwide phenomenon that brings hope and fulfilment to many people who otherwise find no meaning in life. It's not an outdated disease to be avoided at all costs.

I went to a school where religion was taught, but more important for me were lessons on philosophy, not religious-based, but inevitably led me to conclude that my religous convictions were sound. I think that if an honest look at the history of philosophy was taught, (and Christian philosophy has contributed much to that) then non-believers could make their own minds up and people with religious convictions would either confirm them or quesiton/scrutinise them further.

I'd still argue that it's very hard to be completely 'secular'. Teaching straight empirical sciences is not the objective panacea it's made out to be. What about metaphysical sciences such as anthropology that are somewhat unproven empirically but are sound theory-based subjects. Psychology is a bit of a mix of science and a behavioural-based study right? So we need to be open to teach these things, in some way, to children. How do children learn about virtues? How do we instruct them to treat other people etc? In what context do we teach them about love and feelings? Often, a religious perspective is very instructive here.

What is essential is an open attitude. However, all teachers have their 'dogmas' as earlier stated. As we are all human with our own peculiar experiences, we all find it hard to teach without imposing our own prejudices on people. And from a Christian's perspective, I see much anti-religious sentiment that is unfairly passed on to younger generations. What churches have to offer is valuable to many and the many need to be given the opportunity to learn about them in a non-prejudiced way.

However, in a secular school, if one religion is favoured over others, that would indeed be prejudiced and I do agree with your main argument.
Posted by ink blot, Sunday, 12 September 2010 9:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Problem inkblot is that most religions contain some rather abhorrent teachings, and the greater function of a school is to encourage independent thought- which would require teaching the good and the bad, or else start instigating a process of coerced agreement as to what is 'great' because the system policy says so.

The downside is that Australia will never have the balls to implement a system that doesn't treat its content with rose-colored glasses (outside history- in certain circumstances) for fear of lawsuits.
As it is, atheists and gays will be sitting around listening to how various ideologies (that perceive them to be soulless abominations and deviants) are so wonderful.

Also, a problem to consider is that religion also brings a lot of grief to the world- including through the very same people who themselves gained fulfillment and hope themselves.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:14:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ink blot,

<<Religion offers so much and indeed, the great majority of the population of the world is religious.>>

Well, yes, but the great majority of the world’s population are also from relatively uneducated regions too.

<<[Sanitizing children from religion] deprives them of something that can be a great help to them now, and perhaps more importantly, later in life.>>

Personally, I don’t think teaching children to believe that it’s okay to believe in something so mentally and emotionally consuming and altering without any evidence - or in some situations, in that face of evidence to the contrary - is ever helpful.

Our beliefs inform our actions and so having our beliefs as close to the truth as possible is important. Sure, religious beliefs can bring solace, just as the belief that you’ve won the lottery is can too. But if one behaves as though they’d won when they haven’t, then that can have negative effects.

<<Unfortunate experiences are the fault of individuals who have made mistakes, not the religion itself.>>

If religion was a measureable, demonstrable, verifiable and necessary part of reality rather than a faith-based assertion that consisted of nothing more than a string of unfounded claims and promises that have been both inadvertently and deliberately set up to have the ability to influence the decisions people make and the things that they do, then you may have had a point.

If a child falls out of a tree it’s not the tree’s fault. This is the line of reasoning you were perusing, but a tree is a demonstrable, necessary and unavoidable aspect of reality that doesn’t exist to tempt children to climb it, and - unlike the religions of the world - if every tree disappeared, we’d have a serious problem. Trees are not man-made concepts that have been constructed to be as effective as possible in tempting children up into their branches.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Wienburg

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<Religious-based ethics is often based itelf on time-tested philosophy and the great minds in the churches throughout history have contributed to the body of knowledge that we now teach our children. It would be a shame to deprive them of that...>>

The disregarding of religion doesn’t mean removing ethics, nor was religion necessary for the acquisition of any of the knowledge we now have.

<<...religion- a worldwide phenomenon that brings hope and fulfilment to many people who otherwise find no meaning in life.>>

Faith - a worldwide phenomenon in which those who hold it mistake hope and fulfilment for knowledge.

<<It's not an outdated disease to be avoided at all costs.>>

I’m no expert on most of the religions, but Christianity most certainly is.

Christianity acts like a virus, tearing down its adherents, and the vulnerable, by convincing them that they are worthless wretches, but then builds them back up again, only with itself at the centre of what makes its host feel good again.

Religions need to take something that we enjoy and that we’re most certainly going to do - such as eating or sex - then makes us feel guilty about it so that the religion is relied upon in order to feel the grace and redemption that it’s offering when we inevitable commit the act in which it convinces us is wrong in many situations.

<<...more important for me were lessons on philosophy, not religious-based, but inevitably led me to conclude that my religous convictions were sound.>>

Considering that a conviction is an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence, I find this an odd thing to say. But I’d be curious as to what was learned in these lessons that I missed as a Christian, since the main reason I stopped believing was because of a total lack of any sound reasoning at all.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:27:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<I think that if an honest look at the history of philosophy was taught, (and Christian philosophy has contributed much to that) then non-believers could make their own minds up and people with religious convictions would either confirm them or quesiton/scrutinise them further.>>

Sounds very plausible if you ignore the fact that (according to the Abrahamic religions anyway) god is obliged to make his existence as clear as day in the first place.

What about a complete lack of evidence is inadequate when determining the truth about religious claims?

What about the history of philosophy would be so compelling if a “more honest approach” were taken, and how is the current approach less honest?

Actually, this reminds me of the poor reasoning I used as a Christian (and that is still used by all Christians), in which I mistook the good deeds done in the name of Christianity to be proof that god existed; all the while ignoring the bad deeds which - if I wanted to be consistent and follow the same logic - should have disproved god at the same time.

<<...we need to be open to teach [metaphysical sciences such as anthropology and psychology], in some way, to children. How do children learn about virtues? How do we instruct them to treat other people etc? In what context do we teach them about love and feelings?>>

Using the same third party mechanisms that allow modern day Christians to distinguish between the good and the bad in their holy books.

<<Often, a religious perspective is very instructive here.>>

Instructive? Yes;
Helpful? Only if you ignore the bad bits;
Uniquely so in either respect? No, there is nothing here that religion offers that can’t be accomplished via secular means.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:27:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<...all teachers have their 'dogmas' as earlier stated. As we are all human with our own peculiar experiences, we all find it hard to teach without imposing our own prejudices on people.>>

There’s a big difference between ‘prejudices’ and ‘dogmas’.

Prejudices are opinions formed in advance based on past experiences. Dogmas are codes of belief that are considered to be authoritative.

The key word being “authoritative”.

Uncomfortable with the fact that there are some out there who are freethinkers, not bound by the same intellectually shackles as they are, theists are often quick to apply the term “dogma” loosely in the hope that they can downplay the absurdity and irrationality of conforming to a dogma.

To equate prejudice with dogma is wrong and misleading.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:27:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ

You seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder. You have been a Christian in the past and I can only assume for you it was not a good experience.

Christianity is not a disease, and if we can't agree on that one, then I don't think we are going to get very far on the other points.

People behaving badly is no evidence that there is not a God - it is evidence that men and women have free will. If they behave well, it is for a reason; if they behave badly it is also for a reason. We need to look deeper into the motivations for people's behaviour, but you can't turn your eye away from the fact that many of the greatest people that lived were deeply religious people. It is far too one-sided to focus solely on those that are not good ambassadors for faith.

It is totally ignorant, prejudiced and offensive for you to say that the majority of the world is religious because "the great majority of the world’s population are also from relatively uneducated regions too"

You must live in a shell.
Posted by ink blot, Monday, 13 September 2010 7:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I attended a public High School from years 7 to 12. I was then, and am now a Christian. I appreciated being able to attend Scripture classes. It was my choice.

It would appear that many of you posting would like to prevent myself and others exercising our choice because of your personal bitterness. Why should those who rage against God deny the rights of those who know and love God? That doesn't seem fair or reasonable to me.
Posted by AussieTim, Monday, 13 September 2010 8:33:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ink blot,

You’re probably right about the chip on my shoulder. I have a chip on my shoulder about anything that creates more problems than it solves. But I’m happy to acknowledge any shoulder chips since - as I believe my reasoning has demonstrated here - it doesn’t cloud my vision, nor does it take anything away from the points that I’ve made.

<<You have been a Christian in the past and I can only assume for you it was not a good experience.>>

Actually, it was an amazing time of my life. There is nothing more elating than being convinced that an eternity of heavenly bliss awaits you.

The only negatives are the things that I can now see in retrospect, such as not doing all I could have to ensure that there was some truth to my beliefs; opting for what made me feel good rather what was more likely.

<<Christianity is not a disease, and if we can't agree on that one, then I don't think we are going to get very far on the other points.>>

Could you give some reasoning for your claim? I presented a very strong case as to why Christianity is very much like a disease. We’ll never be able to come to any agreement if you’re only every going to assert otherwise without providing any justification for what you’re arguing.

<<People behaving badly is no evidence that there is not a God...>>

I agree. I only used that line of reasoning to demonstrate why the opposite (that good deeds done in the name of god is proof of his existence) is fallacious.

<<[People behaving badly] is evidence that men and women have free will.>>

But we don’t have free will - not if god exists.

An omnipotent and all-seeing god would know in advance exactly what was going to happen. Therefore, everything that has happened and that will happen; everything we do, was already predetermined and so we never really had any free will to begin with.

According to Christian theology, nothing happens that isn’t a part of god’s will.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:29:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

Therefore, god had already determined what we were going to do in advance.

That’s not free will.

<<If they behave well, it is for a reason; if they behave badly it is also for a reason. We need to look deeper into the motivations for people's behaviour, but you can't turn your eye away from the fact that many of the greatest people that lived were deeply religious people.>>

I’m not sure which part of what I said gave you the impression that I had. I’m also not sure what the relevance of the fact that they were deeply religious is.

Many of the greatest people that lived also lived in superstitious times where religious belief was the norm.

<<It is far too one-sided to focus solely on those that are not good ambassadors for faith.>>

I wholeheartedly agree. This is why I focus on all believers; even the average moderate since they unwittingly provide cover for the extremists who find legitimacy in their passive support.

<<It is totally ignorant, prejudiced and offensive for you to say that the majority of the world is religious because "the great majority of the world’s population are also from relatively uneducated regions too">>

I’m sorry that you were offended by that, especially since you seem like a very nice person. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it needed to be mentioned in order to hold your point up into a more accurate light.

How is my mentioning of this ignorant? On the contrary, I would say that holding your putting your point into context shows the very opposite of ignorance.

<<You must live in a shell.>>

Could you explain why you think this? Personally, I think I’ve demonstrated a very detailed understanding of religion.

It’s not that I haven’t considered your arguments before, or that I am unable to see the other side of the argument; quite the opposite actually. Understanding the arguments - even using them all myself at one point - is what helped me to understand that none of them were sound.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A history lesson: Richard Bourke, Governor of the NSW Colony 1831-1836, apart from introducing civil (rather than military) trails by jury to the colony, attempted to introduce a secular state-funded education system, which would have allowed "scriptural extracts.. to be read daily, and once a week visiting clergy were to give religious instruction to their flocks.." (see http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A010120b.htm?hilite=bourke)
The opposition of the Anglican church in particular, meant this concept was canned - for nearly another half century. The NSW Public Instruction Act of 1880, which had a stormy passage through the colonial legislature, again due to the opposition of churches, established a secular, compulsory, low cost public education system and, significantly, withdrew all government aid to denominational schools (note; aid to religious schools was reinstated much much later).
The public school system then established was similar to that proposed by Bourke in 1836 and allowed teaching of all religious denominations (not just the Anglicans) in public schools within a prescribed period.
Had Governor Richard Bourke got his way, we would never have had a large number of religious schools established in the first place, which now absorb a large amount of taxpayer's money.
The allowing of scripture in public schools was a sop to the religious lobbyists in the first place and ever since. It has a long history, however, and as long as it is inclusive of all religions that are willing to offer a scripture teacher (of which there is a long list), and there is an out (and preferably ethics classes) for those children who do not want scripture, it should be considered acceptable.
However, the last thing we need, particular in view of the large variety of state subsidised religious schools available for those who want them, is to allow further incursions of religion into public schools. I object on the same basis that I would object to McDonalds or Coca Cola sponsoring buildings or equipment in state schools, and in particular given the history of religious opposition to the establishment of the public education system in the first place.
Posted by Johnj, Monday, 13 September 2010 11:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ

Thanks for the response. I take back the shell bit!

Our discussion on the two articles comes down to essentially the same debate. I'd like to talk further about religion and existence of God, as we share a common background of a Christian faith. Your explanation against the wager is interesting, but I think there is a certain 'distrust' of God in your reasoning.

For a Christian, there is only one God. God is a personal God; the God of the Gospels is a Father who is not out to punish, but to welcome back and show mercy. For a Christian considering the existence of God and getting caught up wondering if they are worshipping the wrong God is a bit of a contradiction in terms. A belief in God implies an equal belief that there are no other Gods. (i.e. the first commandment - I the Lord am your God, you shall have no other Gods besides me) This commandment, incidentally, discourages turning other things into 'Gods', such as material possessions, money, our ambitions etc.

The other thing is the free will argument. I seriously think you are mistaken if you hold that human beings do not have free will. Perhaps you mean that for believers in God, free will is not possible? But even then, I would argue that free will is essential for belief in a Christian God. The evidence is clear - that you and I get up out of bed in the morning is free will (it may have outside influences such as having to be at work, or to take kids to school, but ultimately, we can do what we like right? We can sleep in and pretend we are sick if we really want to!)

cont...
Posted by ink blot, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 8:28:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue with your reasoning is this: you say that God sees all and so if he sees what we are doing in 20 years' time, we must be predetermined in our actions. This is a common misconception. God is not in time. Time governs all life in the world. But if created by God, then God is logically outside the world he created. He is outside time. God is eternal (no beginning or end), and eternity can be most simply described as a 'constant instant'. So all times are 'present' to God. He sees everything in an instant.

So, it is not as if God, right now, is watching us acting in 20 years’ time. No, but when we act in 20 years’ time, it will be as ‘present’ to God as right now is ‘present’ to God, as he exists in an eternal instant.

Our actions are not predetermined. It explains why humans often do not act according to our nature. Animals are predictable and act on instinct. But a man can act like an animal (and it can be funny if he acts like a chicken, sad if he acts like a beast and kills / mistreats someone). We can act the way we want, because we have free will. If we didn’t then logically we shouldn’t have to take responsibility for our actions.

OK, I am willing to agree that Christianity is like a ‘disease’ in this way: It can come upon you in some way that is somewhat uninvited; it can be got rid of if you want to get rid of it; it can grow and develop if you let it. I suppose that’s where the analogy fits, although I think analogies simplify things too much. For instance, many diseases can’t be got rid of. Although, in my understanding of religion, the analogy would fit, as even though we may think we have got rid of the ‘disease’ it is always there somewhere, in a latent way. If you allow me, I could propose that maybe this is the case with you!

cont...
Posted by ink blot, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 8:30:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it really pointless to try to speculate about what we do not know? Are unprovable speculations really indistinguishable from that which does not exist? I think again that you are overemphasising the known and underestimating the ‘what might be known in the future’. What do you think inspired the early scientists to make projections about the solar system? Sure there were signs, but much of the ‘knowledge’ they had was nothing like the reality as we now know it. What inspired them to think that there may be other planets? Or other worlds? Other land masses to be discovered? Sometimes it was just instinct, or simply adventure that drove them to discovering it. Certainly, the unknown is not equal to the non-existent. Whether we know something exists or not, does not change the fact of its existence. To deny that is to fall into the man/mind-centric outlook on reality – a major mistake of the enlightenment school

Finally, in terms of people that existed over 2000 years ago, there has never been as much sources from the time and since the time, as with Jesus Christ. The amazing thing about the Christian religion is not that so much has been written, but that most of it is not read, but ignored due to prejudice. What are the 4 gospels if not first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus Christ? They are biographies written at the time. The latest was John, writing at the end of an old life, so perhaps at the end of the first century. Luke’s first chapter lists all the levels of rulers in Palestine at the time, which correlate perfectly with the civic documents of the time. You may as well set out to disprove that Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Julius Caesar did not exist if you are going to argue against the figure of Jesus Christ. A healthy debate needs a good dose of reasonableness as well, don’t you think?
Posted by ink blot, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 8:31:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
inkblot, the gospels do not meet historical standards, literary standards, or literary-standards-in-context-of-the-times as biographies.

There were about 47 Jewish historians of the times, and none had more than a passing reference to the names Chrestians, Chrestos, Chrestus, Jesus, etc, and some of these - such as in Josephus's TF in the Antiquity of [the] Jews - are considered fraudulent additions. Some of those names are more related to slaves, and Jesus was a common name.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 1:11:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal

It's all about what you read isn't it? If you wish to concern yourself with a one-sided account to satisfy your convictions, then you aren't going to learn much.

Have you heard of Julius Africanus? Flavius Josephus - a famous Jewish historian? There are plenty others, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samosata, all with accounts not only about the figure of Jesus Christ, but that he was 'more' than just a man.

Flavius Josephus says it pretty clearly to me:

"About this time appeared Jesus," The detailed quote is in the link you posted.

Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) and Suetonius (A.D. 75-160)the Roman writers talk about Christ, how he stirred up people and was put to death. These were 'pagan' or non-Christian writers, who had no interest in propagating Christianity.

The gospels are historical documents that have received far more critical research than most other texts in history. To discredit them is just not being historically consistent.

I checked out your link. it is interesting that those who are sceptical of the existence of Jesus Christ start around the 18th century, funnily enough around the time of the so-called 'Enlightenment.' If you can't beat religion, just pretend it never happened eh? Don't you think that if there was a serious controversy about whether or not one of the most famous people in history actually ever existed, the argument would have started a little earlier than the 18th century?

The quotes of Earl Doherty are an embarrassment for him - how can he say that the Jesus of Paul's epistles is only a spiritual person, not a human being? There are constant references to Christ's humanity and actions in Paul's writing. He talks about how he died, what he did before he died etc.

It would be history's biggest ever conspiracy, if it was generally accepted that Jesus Christ did not exist, wouldn't it? That the person on whom millions of people have devoted their lives, study, research and even the counting of time and historical references, never existed!

Read widely and have an open mind
Posted by ink blot, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
inkblot, I mentioned Josephus in my brief post, so for you to command me to read widely is quite something. My post also covers the vague mentions and references to the name of Christ, and its vague variations, by Tacticus, Suetonius, and others of the time.

Paul's writings are gnostic-like, and have been credited with appealing to the gentiles, but having to promise a second coming as the messiah he proposed was not believed to be a messiah because they did not die.

The scepticism is only documented after the 1800s because sceptics were burnt at the stake before that!
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 7:45:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ink blot,

<<For a Christian, there is only one God ... who is not out to punish, but to welcome back and show mercy.>>

Yes, “welcome back”, but if we exercise our reasoning and decide that no gods exist, then it’s Hell. That certainly does sound like a god out to punish.

Of course, there are some Christians out there who now believe that Hell is just eternal nothingness, but this isn’t really much better since they still believe that they’ll receive a great reward that others will miss out on.

<<For a Christian considering the existence of God and getting caught up wondering if they are worshipping the wrong God is a bit of a contradiction in terms.>>

Yes, I’m aware of all that. You seem to have missed the point of Pascal’s Wager. It argues that you may as well believe in god since you’ve got nothing to lose (Well, you actually have a lot to lose - yet another problem with it. But that’s another story). Pascal’s Wager is not relevant to the already sincere believers.

<<I seriously think you are mistaken if you hold that human beings do not have free will.>>

Note the qualifier in what I said: “...if god exists”.

<<Perhaps you mean that for believers in God, free will is not possible?>>

What I said was that if a god exists, there is no free will because everything we’ve done and will do was already predetermined in the mind of this god, and since - according to Christian theology anyway - god’s will is always done, then nothing can change. So everything that has happened and that will happen was already ‘set in stone’ from the beginning.

Here’s another reason free will is a problem for Christians...

If I ask you to do something for me, but then warn you that if you say “no”, I’ll lock you up and torture you for the rest of your life, are you exercising free will if you say “yes”?

Sure, you’re given a choice, but it’s not much of a choice now, is it?

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<The evidence is clear - that you and I get up out of bed in the morning is free will...>>

Gods, by their very definition, are all-knowing and all-seeing. So a god would know in advance what was already going to happen. This means that we cannot deviate from what this god foresaw since doing so would mean that this god is not actually a god to begin with.

The only way you’ve responded to this is with wild assertions...

<<God is not in time.>>

How do you know this?

<<...if created by God, then God is logically outside the world he created.>>

Why is this logical? Why can’t god be inside the world he created too? Apparently he was with Jesus, so where have you derived your logic here from?

Please don’t use the author/book analogy either. We are talking about an imaginary being creating an objective reality, not a real-life person creating a fictional story.

<<He is outside time. God is eternal (no beginning or end), and eternity can be most simply described as a 'constant instant'. So all times are 'present' to God. He sees everything in an instant.>>

Again, how do you know this? What method do I have for determining that you’re not just making this stuff up?

<<We can act the way we want, because we have free will. If we didn’t then logically we shouldn’t have to take responsibility for our actions.>>

Precisely, and this is exactly why a god would ultimately be responsible for everything bad in this world - including sending people to hell...

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

<<OK, I am willing to agree that Christianity is like a ‘disease’ in this way...>>

No, I still think my analogy was far more accurate.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:33:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

My analogy described how Christianity actually does what your analogy is describing while acknowledging that fact that the (emotionally) vulnerable are more at risk of being infected.

<<Is it really pointless to try to speculate about what we do not know?>>

No, but you just went one big step further than “speculating” about what you don’t know by making assertions about what god is when you have no way of knowing.

<<Are unprovable speculations really indistinguishable from that which does not exist?>>

No, but I know from experience that when a theist says something along the lines of “beyond the truth that we know” (“not reducible to the physical” is another one), they are deliberately putting their god in an untouchable realm that cannot be proven or disproven; effectively making it indistinguishable from nothing.

<<I think again that you are ... underestimating the ‘what might be known in the future’.>>

There’s a lot we’ll know that we don’t currently know. But experience shows us that the more we learn, the further theists push their god into the realm of the unknowable (what I was referring to), not objective reality.

Like you said earlier, god is outside the world he created, and as long as it appears that he doesn’t exists, that’s where theists will keep him.

<<Finally, in terms of people that existed over 2000 years ago, there has never been as much sources from the time and since the time, as with Jesus Christ.>>

And you don’t think that a god who threatens Hell is obliged to make his existence as clear as day? Doesn’t he want a personal relationship with his creations?

<<The amazing thing about the Christian religion is not that so much has been written, but that most of it is not read, but ignored due to prejudice.>>

No, it’s ignored because none of it is reliable. For example...

<<What are the 4 gospels if not first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus Christ? They are biographies written at the time.>>

No, they are hearsay accounts written decades after the alleged Jesus.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

They were not contemporary accounts written at the time.

McReal made a good point too. It was a bit rich to suggest that he read more widely when you yourself clearly need to. Like I said before, the arguments you’re using are well known, and have been discredited many times.

I’ve been through this several times before on OLO myself... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#165314, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#179068

<<You may as well set out to disprove that Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Julius Caesar did not exist if you are going to argue against the figure of Jesus Christ.>>

Firstly, I’m not out to disprove the existence of Jesus. I’m simply pointing out that there is no credible reason to believe he existed as claimed; secondly, then evidence we have for the others is more plentiful and reliable, and thirdly, I can’t know for sure that that any of the others existed, but there are no extraordinary claims about their lives, so I’m willing to take it at face-value that they did.

If you want to tell me that a progressive rabble-rouser named Jesus developed a bit of a following while getting up the noses of authorities then sure, I’ll take your word for it. But if you’re going to claim that he performed miracles and rose from the dead, then that’s going to take a heck of a lot more evidence than some ancient scribblings from primitive people, I’m afraid.

But ALL this aside, nothing Jesus did was even godlike.

He could have provided us with vital medical information - rather than hindering our progress by perpetuating myths about demon possession - or even just some basic hygiene tips. There’s a lot of helpful information he could have provided us with.

Instead, he confined himself to one small part of the word and wasted valuable time preying to himself and performing petty miracles to relatively small amounts of people.

Anyway, how do you know that the other saviours, from whom the story of Jesus was derived, weren’t actually the son of god? After all, they were around long before him.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy