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 > What’s going on at VCAT? > Comments

What’s going on at VCAT? : Comments

By Meredith Doig, published 8/3/2012

Special Religious Instruction offers parents a Sophie's choice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
As I understand it, the current arrangements for religious instruction in schools were enshrined in the 1958 revision of the Education Act and left unchanged in the 2006 Education and Training Reform Act. If this is correct, then I think VCAT will have very limited, if any discretion in the matter.

I might say, although I am not a religios person, that the point of religious instruction is to inculcate in children a belief in God and what we used to call Christian Doctrine. There's not much point calling religious instruction 'indoctrination' as if this is some sort of underhand behaviour. That's its avowed purpose.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Thursday, 8 March 2012 9:04:24 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
…Too succinct and poignantly simple for this audience SV…
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 8 March 2012 9:26:21 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
A start to redress the utterly unchristian situation in Victoria that cynically offers parents only a Sophie's has been made in NSW. Following a successful trial in 2010, schools can now offer an ethics class alternative to non-scripture children. It has been a hard won initiative that is under renewed attack in the form of an upper house (MLC) inquiry into whether the enabling legislation should be repealed. This inquiry was forced on the incumbent Liberal Premier by the MLC, the Rev Fred Nile, whose party has just enough members to give him upper house balance of power. Using an extremely unethical (and unchristian?) tactic, Rev Nile assured the Premier that he would only allow passage of an important but unrelated bill if the Premier gave him one last chance to kill the ethics classes in the form of an inquiry. That inquiry is underway.
In NSW, the ethics classes have been designed and developed by the St James Ethics Centre. They are not taken by the normal classroom teachers but by volunteers properly vetted and trained (by the Centre staff, I think). The classes use the open discussion format that proved so successful in the University of Dundee's trial in Clackmannanshire in Scotland a few years ago. While all religions, and especially the two Sydney Archbishops, virulently opposed the concept of the classes in 2010, and the fundamentalist churches still do, the mainstream churches now seem most concerned by the fact that children who attend scripture classes cannot also attend the ethics classes; they are arguing that the present arrangement actually disadvantages those who attend scripture. This is the flip side of the argument that the parents of non-scripture children have been making for years.
The decision to allow the trial in 2010 was taken by the then Labor government. The incumbent premier, the Liberal Barry O'Farrell, has flip-flopped a bit. It is believed that he personally supports the ethics classes (what reasonable person wouldn't?) but he has to manage an extreme Christian based right wing faction that wants to see them abolished
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 8 March 2012 10:17:59 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
no doubt the good Dr is happy for the children to be exposed to the idiotic faith based evolution religion that leads to all sorts of mental deficiencies. Kids that opt out of this religion will also feel 'unhappily segregated '. I would of thought a Dr would of been smarter than believe that such a complex earth came from nothing and without design. Then again when someone is blinded by such idiotic faith its not surprising.The funniest thing is she is secretary of the 'rationalist society'. Quite hilarous if it was not so sad.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 March 2012 12:10:05 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
no doubt the good Dr is happy for the children to be exposed to the idiotic faith based evolution religion that leads to all sorts of mental deficiencies. Kids that opt out of this religion will also feel 'unhappily segregated '. I would of thought a Dr would of been smarter than believe that such a complex earth came from nothing and without design. Then again when someone is blinded by such idiotic faith its not surprising.The funniest thing is she is secretary of the 'rationalist society'. Quite hilarous if it was not so sad.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 March 2012 12:10:05 PM

Evolution is not a religion, so you make a "category error". Religions involve notions of "the supernatural", while evolution is about what has been fundamental to nature - DNA coding for reproduction, and the proportion of traits in populations changing from generation to generation.

Evolution is not about cosmogenesis (or abiogenesis), either. It is is possible for Evolution and its mechanisms to be viewed as a creator's mechanism, as many do.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 8 March 2012 12:28:58 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
Hey runner, "the idiotic faith based evolution religion that leads to all sorts of mental deficiencies", so what explains your afflictions?

The real story here is that schools are for professionals who come under various codes of conduct.

There is no place for these volunteers, religious or ethical, to come tramping into schools with who-knows-what to be gifted a class of students for an average 45 minutes a week.

We would never tolerate having plonkers from political parties being given such access so students to learn about politics, so why do we tolerate them for religions?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 8 March 2012 3:04:24 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
Here's one for you religionists to hotly deny:

http://www.alternet.org/story/154435/the_religious_right%27s_plot_to_take_control_of_our_public_schools?page=entire
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 8 March 2012 3:05:19 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 no matter how hard you try, any true rationalist knows the evolution myth is based on faith not evidence. Must be hard to have keep the faith when the story keeps changing. The textbooks I had in school are now be very embarassing for evolutionist. Like gw however they know no shame (one of the tennants of evolutionary faith).
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 March 2012 4:51:10 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,
Evolution is verified by the way DNA works, and the manifestations of that.

GOOD ARTICLE, Dr Maureen Doig - it addresses issues of poor choice.
As you said -

>> Religious philosopher Simone Weil recognised as much. In her essay The Needs of the Soul, she argued that people who find themselves in circumstances that “necessitate … obligations incompatible with one another, without being able to offer resistance … [are] made to suffer …”. <<
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 8 March 2012 5:14:43 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, Do you realise that millions of christians around the world accept the mountains of evidence that prove evolution? OT literalists really make a mockery out of christianity, don't you?

I'm glad people are now starting to identify the effective discrimination and isolation that occurs in a state school when a child opts out of RE. Children should not be divided up by religious affiliation, nor should they be identified to the community for further discrimination.
Posted by Toshie5, Thursday, 8 March 2012 5:29:09 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
Toshie5,

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has received complaints of this nature in an endless stream. It has been the apathy of the public that has prevented a proper evaluation of what is going on in public schools with religion. Things are changing rapidly and articles like that by Meredith Doig will alter perceptions eventually.

A secular government should have nothing to do with indoctrination of any ideology into those least able to mentally defend themselves. This includes particular religious views and indeed a non-religious perspective. Religious views based in an archaic understanding of reality should be the most abhorred. Unfortunately this latter grouping is messing with the minds of children in our state schools authorised by the government of the day. Shameful does not adequately cover this situation.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 8 March 2012 5:52:36 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
David you are correct, children must not be brainwashed into any sort of religion until they reach an age when they can make up their own mind "no religion is better than some religion"' not the other way around as quoted in the letter
Adopted children living here from Islamic countries with non Islamic adoptee parents would if they were living in their own country be already studying the Koran, but they now do have the choice of non religion or religion depending on the adoptee parents when they are of an age to make their own choice regarding this issue ( actual case), it really shows how stupid and indoctrinated to all people any religion really is.
It really is like National Service many years ago,being trained to kill people, and winning medals in the process, rather than showing respect and love to all mankind. We only have to look at the selective readings anywhere from the Bible, always the good never the bad,if children are required to learn religion at school then for goodness sake let there be open discussions, the bad readings as well as the good, but I bet this will never happen. After all the Bible is only about love, pigs a...
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 8 March 2012 8:32:32 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
Toshie 5

'OT literalists really make a mockery out of christianity, don't you?'
If you are not an OT literalist your faith is not in the Christ of the new testament.They are one and the same. Your belief that evolution has proof is a joke.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 March 2012 9:42:28 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
even the title ACCESS Ministries should raise concerns on the part of people who accept that religious belief should be free and not associated with school education, nor imposed upon school students. it sounds like a us evangelical television organisation - so often associated with the imposition of religion rather than freedom of religion and from religion.
Posted by jocelynne, Thursday, 8 March 2012 10:44:09 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
>>any true rationalist knows the evolution myth is based on faith not evidence.<<

Epic fail. Evolution is a scientific theory which means it is based on evidence not faith. If scientific theories aren't supported by evidence they get dropped because they are incorrect. The history of science is full of examples of perfectly plausible theories which were dropped because they weren't supported by evidence. That's why neo-Darwinism is the prevailing evolutionary theory rather than other evolutionary theories which fell by the wayside: it is the one which lines up best with the evidence.

Religion works the other way around: it starts with a theory which it assumes to be completely correct and then strenuously ignores all evidence counter to that theory.

>>Must be hard to have keep the faith when the story keeps changing.<<

Although I disagree with your use of the term faith, the fact that the story keeps changing is exactly is what makes scientific theories more credible than religious theories. Science takes account of new evidence: theories are constantly being revised or replaced as new information becomes available. Religion, convinced that it already has the right answer, never changes its tune: a perfect theory needs no revision.

>>The textbooks I had in school are now be very embarassing for evolutionist.<<

Almost certainly: the biology textbooks at the sort of school you must have gone to probably didn't contain many big words, but made up for it with lots of nice pictures of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs around Eden. Possibly with a footnote about a Satanist named Charles Darwin who used black magic to fool intelligent, God-fearing men into believing that their great-great-grandparents were monkeys. What's even more embarrassing is that these sort of textbooks are still being printed.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 8 March 2012 11:32:00 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
It would certainly appear appropriate for ethics classes to be a compulsory inclusion for all students in our nation-wide education system, in both public and private schools, to be taught by professional teachers who could also be teaching history or geography or a language (English or otherwise), or some other formal subject.

Such classes should start in Primary School and continue to at least middle High School level, with progressive increase in coverage and complexity. Ethics should include coverage of the nature of the world's religions, as well as the fundamentals of philosophy, anthropology, archeology, biology and sociology - as a broad social studies primer. This may also lead in to an understanding of law, politics, multiculturalism and international relations.

Ethics is after all universal, or should be, and is demonstrably somewhat lacking in portions of our populace, and it is a means to instill self-confidence through development of an understanding of rights and obligations, both of self and others, particularly if there is coverage of protections under law and of avenues for redress of wrongs, discrimination, abuse and unfair treatment.

On a side issue: For the young earth creationists - if so little has changed on the Earth in the 2,000 years since the birth of Jesus, how is it possible for a prior mere 4,000 years to account for all the geological, anthropological and biological changes which have obviously occurred - Grand Canyon, Himalayas, Gondwana's dispersion, fossils in rock (even on top of Everest), coal, oil, and the disappearance of mega-whales, mega-sharks, mega-fauna, dinosaurs? Credible evidence?
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:10:15 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
Yea Tony

'Evolution is a scientific theory which means it is based on evidence not faith '

Like the BIG BANG. What a joke!
Posted by runner, Friday, 9 March 2012 9:10:41 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
Saltpetre, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:10:15 AM

I think the over-arching subject should be philosophy, of which ethics is a subset.

In NSW general religious instruction is included in HSIE - human society and its environment http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/hsie
Posted by McReal, Friday, 9 March 2012 9:51:25 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, Friday, 9 March 2012 9:10:41 AM

You keep making category errors -

the BIG BANG hypothesis is about cosmology;

Evolution is about biology, and is verified by the way DNA works, and the manifestations of that.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 9 March 2012 9:55:07 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
Saltpetre, "Ethics should include coverage of the nature of the world's religions". Why?

There is no fixed link between ethics and religions.

And the problem remains the same, whose 'ethics' are you going to have taught?

The 'ethics' of our economic system? The ethics on display in parliament? Sport ethics? TV ethics, film ethics? World Bank ethics? UN ethics? Russian ethics? USA ethics?

If ethical behaviour is to be taught in schools, then it might be a good idea to redesign our schools so there were encased within an ethical framework, something seriously lacking at the moment, unless coercion and bullying are seen to be ethical elements in our society, which seems to be the case now.

If the state is to impose codes of behaviour, that is the same as ACCESS now.

The state has a responsibility to protect children, for sure, but that does not extend to imposing possibly questionable 'ethics' in place of the current unethical promotion of a single religion by the state.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 March 2012 10:43:50 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 Blue Cross,

What/who's ethics? Universal ethics, ethical behaviour, responsibility, accountability, integrity, tolerance, empathy, compassion, respect for human (and all) life and property, dignity, rationality, right and wrong, human rights, psychology, morality, strength and weakness, wisdom and superstition, corruption and virtue, personal development, impartiality and prejudice, reasoning and irrationality, peace and war, the seven deadly sins, crime and law.

Why an introduction to the world's religions? This is the real world and all people have to come to terms with that. Know your world so that you can better relate to it, better operate within it, and be successful as a responsible human being. To know something of the bases, the beliefs and the rituals involved in the world's main (if not all) religions, offers understanding, tolerance and a capacity to construct a reasoned world view.

Religious and cultural differences are a reality. Though we need to respect that, and to make allowance (where appropriate), we also have a responsibility to respect and to develop understanding of our Australian culture, ethics and law, particularly in regard to the treatment of women, the rights of children, the division of church and state, and the exercise of personal responsibility.

We are not born perfect or knowledgeable, and parental example is not always a reliable guide to responsible citizenship - we need our education system to impart and induce wisdom as well as knowledge, for all our sakes, and for the future of humanity.

Religious instruction is one way to explain and to instill ethical conduct, but it is not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. However, a void, a head in the sand approach, is to abrogate our responsibility to ensure that our education system is comprehensive, constructive and reliable in fostering a responsible and successful citizenry and society.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 9 March 2012 12:54:30 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
Let's get something very clear here, religious instruction is not about teaching anything useful at all and is not the same as an attempt at education about religions, which is nothing at all to do with ethics.

Your list of 'ethics' is like an omnibus compendium of claptrap, with a few sound offerings there too.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 March 2012 1:05:28 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,

If you can't see that biology points to design you are either blind or deceitful.
Posted by runner, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:21:54 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
runner,

"If you can't see that biology points to design you are either blind or deceitful."

Why would McReal's failure to perceive design in biology be construed as deceitful?
Or could it be that once more you are indulging in your usual habit of denigrating those that dissent from your views?

Christianity doesn't seem to have impacted your ethics in a positive sense.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:42:36 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
Poirot

'Christianity doesn't seem to have impacted your ethics in a positive sense.'

and your moral basis for such judgements?
Posted by runner, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:46:04 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
Poirot

There is no link between Christianity and ethics, so poor runner is adrift in a big ocean of 'faith' and that's enough for him, in his balsa raft of hope.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:52:43 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,

My "moral basis" lies in the question of whether you consider it ethical practice to consistently smear your opponents by ascribing to them base values and characteristics.

TBC, you might have a point because here you were accused of envy and hatred:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3822&page=0#93970

And here you accused me of hatred because I lumped "politicians" together in my criticism. (scroll down - I appear to have given you a hefty serve in response)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4848&page=0#129093

I'm sure if I could be bothered trawling through your posts, there'd be many more instances. It's not the sort of ethical practice I would expect from someone who bangs on about values like you do.
I think you'd find that if you weren't quite so antagonistic in your style and keen to plant an insulting epithet on people that they would be more inclined to give you a fairer hearing.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 9 March 2012 7:20:26 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
> "McReal,
> "If you can't see that biology points to design you are either blind or deceitful."
> Posted by runner, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:21:54 PM <<

Lets not put too fine a point on things, runner. Geometrically, a point has no dimension. But, of course, geometry is, to us, a moot point.

To get to the point, Biology is developed, individually or collectively, from codes at the point of enaction by
1. DNA transcription to complementary RNA which in turn makes a protein sequence by translation; or
2. by DNA replication.

A key point is that Transmission of genetic information in genes, and their allele units, is achieved via complementary base pairing. The bases are surprisingly basic units of *Organic Chemistry*, chained together. They are self-replicating via DNA.

All the functions of DNA depend on interactions with proteins. These protein interactions can be *non-specific* (ie. without design), or the protein can bind specifically to a single DNA sequence. Enzymes can also bind to DNA and of these, the polymerases that copy the DNA base sequence in transcription and DNA replication are particularly important.

We are all made up of billions of cells, each an independent factory of chromosomal DNA, ribosomes, endoplastmic reticulum, and mitochondria. Some of these intracellular organelles were bacteria that became symbiotic and essential to evolution of organisms.

Nothing deceitful in really knowing how things really work, runner. Nothing blind in that.

That's what we want our schools to do: avoid deceit, and open children's eyes and minds.

It would be apporpriate for you to address the other questions ...

Posted by Poirot, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:42:36 PM

> "Why would McReal's failure to perceive design in biology be construed as deceitful?"
> "could it be that once more you are indulging in your usual habit of denigrating those that dissent from your views?"

This isn't about views, it is about truth, runner.
Known, Reasoned, pointed truth.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 9 March 2012 8:45:46 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
McReal

and the first cell evolved from?
Posted by runner, Friday, 9 March 2012 11:46:31 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
Oh, runner. I’ve already answered that fallacious, God-of-the-Gaps question so many times with the so far plausible explanation. But like with every other one of your repetitively debunked arguments, you just keep coming back with the same old responses as if nothing had been said.

You fundies are unbelievable.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 10 March 2012 12:53:16 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,
there have been tens of thousands of organic chemicals interacting in a myriad of ways for billions of years; multiple cells would have come and gone in that time, the same way millions of animal and plant species have.

Some have been found, in Australia last year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/21/fossil-microbes-western-australia
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:43:44 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
McReal and AJ again confirm their faith. Not surprising. Again they fail to be honest that it is faith.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 10 March 2012 9:51:38 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,

"..they fail to be honest." ?

You can't help yourself, can you.

(shakes head)
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 10 March 2012 10:18:09 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 Blue Cross,

"There is no link between Christianity and ethics, .."

No link? Between Ethics and Christianity, or between Ethics and any of the world's religions?

So, you hate and detest religion, all religion - fine; but you appear to be also against any instruction in Ethics in our education system?

So, you assimilated your understanding and personal application of Ethics from? Parents? Mentor? Resident Philosopher? DNA/osmosis? School of hard knocks? Trial and error? We all have to learn from somewhere. Not all are fortunate enough to have 'solid citizens' as parents for a role model. (Are the majority of parents without some bias, some weakness, fetish, prejudice? And what of the progeny of dysfunctional households?) Can we have a vibrant and stable society without the maintenance of a high level of ethical standards? From whence?

Not prejudiced, intolerant or closed-minded are we by any chance, not just a little bit against 'love your neighbour as yourself', or willing to give the benefit of doubt - and what's your view of 'You shall not ...?

Your alternative suggestion is?
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 10 March 2012 3:47:31 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
For our Runner

"He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour, but a man of understanding holdeth his peace."
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 10 March 2012 4:23:46 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
Saltpetre, whilst I favour ethics being taught in school there is always the problem that those same bias's and personal failings could easily apply to those teaching ethics.

A subtle difference in the presentation of curriculum material could distort the way key lessons are taught.

Also ethics don't seem to be so universal in the real world that it will be easy to achieve much. What for some is highly unethical for others is standard fare.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 10 March 2012 4:46:06 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,

When Creationists agree, universally mind you, that the origins of the Earth, the Universe, and 'Life' go way back beyond 6,000 years, then, and only then, will any of their ideas be considered seriously.

Belief in God is one thing, but reliance on a book, any book, to deny the evidence of one's eyes, to deny all scientific evidence of ageing and of Earth's natural history, can only be considered a seriously flawed interpretation of that book. (And, worse still, detracts and distracts almost criminally from the 'real' message of that book and the associated Gospels. Such a shame, to place 'the message' in question by clinging to a patently flawed interpretation.)

Is it any wonder that there is such growing resistance to RI and ACCESS, when the real potential benefits are so sorely overshadowed by a continuing focus on flights of fantasy attributed so patently erroneously to the Word? Credibility is the essence of truth, and credible-deniability is the foundation of doubt.

Still, RI in schools has to be on the way out. Ethics and sound stewardship are really what's needed (though some would even dispute this). There has now to be a focus on community values and character building - the best way we can manage.

Enlightenment must be a personal journey, and with terrorism, prejudice and intolerance being induced by manipulated mis-application of texts in some quarters, RI of any kind can now only be viewed with suspicion. Humanity needs a new and improved path to wisdom.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 10 March 2012 5:14:31 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
What IS going on at VCAT? As far as I can see it backs everything that local councils and most people are against,costing councils thousands of dollars in legal costs - 'developments', pokies, liquor outlets . .
Posted by ozideas, Saturday, 10 March 2012 6:31:36 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
Saltpetre

You write

'When Creationists agree, universally mind you, that the origins of the Earth, the Universe, and 'Life' go way back beyond 6,000 years, then, and only then, will any of their ideas be considered seriously. '

No when evolutionist who have changed their story multitudes of times stop pretending their theories are based on science they might gain more credibility. They fail at the most basic tests of science and continue maligning others with their dogma. At least most Creationist are honest enough to state that it takes faith to believe that God created the world. Evolutionist lie knowing that it takes more faith for a non designer to produce something obviously designed.

btw I know of no R E classes that speak of 7 day creation. Personally I would be more concerned with the idiotic belief system of a Professor of Geology I spoke to who was convinced we are evolving into gods. And this is a man with a phd. I think a post hole digger has more of a clue.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 10 March 2012 7:15:17 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,

Why do you say that evolutionists "lie"?

Why do you attribute the vice of "lying" to people who support the theory of evolution?
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 10 March 2012 7:27:44 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
Poirot

I have often said evolutionist either lie or are deceived. Why? Because they know that their various (and ever changing) explanations of beginnings takes faith. They know they can't prove it scientifically. Many non God believing scientist have acknowledged that fact over the years. Like gw however they claim the science is settled (until the next contradiction). If they stuck to the fact they interpret things through Darwinian eyes and dogma they would be a lot more credible.

The majority of people support evolution ( at least in the Western world) because you will fail science unless you go along with the dogmas. Many have verified this fact. I shave spoken to many geologist who learn the system of estimating the earth's age to pass at uni but don't believe it is based on fact. In other words they play the little game and throw away their brains in order to get the big tick.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:01:25 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
Perhaps we should teach Atheism in all schools then perhaps the world will be a much better place to live in than it is at present, with all the many religions wanting every one to be part of their religion.
Atheist people are not donning expensive long dresses to parade around in, telling people they cannot have blood transfusions, females to have their faces covered up except for the eyes, and the list goes on and on.
All Atheists I know are loving, caring, volunteering people etc, we are now not creating wars like religions, your God is not the true God but mine is and so on, join us, be with us, no thanks.
Lets hope the children who opt out of so called religious instruction, which it really is, will not be victimised, but they will, isn't that what religion is all about
Posted by Ojnab, Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:09:46 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
runner,

I've never heard a scientist say "the science is settled". I have, however, heard them say that the science is never settled.

Saying someone is deceived is a long way from accusing them of lying. We all have our own ways of making sense of our condition, and though it's often frustrating to get our message across, to ascribe base motives and behaviours on that count is unfair.

When all is said and done, we could all probably do with a reminder occasionally (myself included) to treat our opponents in debate with a little more respect.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:18:34 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
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/eye-burrowing-worms-national-t.html

So runner, who created the loa loa or African eyeworm, which
burrows through childrens eyeballs?
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:37:17 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,

I agree the scientific methods for determining age - particularly of fossils and rocks supposedly millions of years old - is a very complex business, and I gave up trying to understand it. Still, maybe it's no more of a stretch than the work being done on sub-atomic particles with the 'particle accelerator', or on quantum physics, quarks, black-holes and supernovas? I am not a scientist, but I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy going on to keep scientists employed on 'pies in the sky'. 'You can fool some of the people ...'

So much science is verifiable and widely accepted - like Newton's Laws or radioactivity and the atomic bomb, viruses and vaccines - just where does one reasonably draw the line between truth and conjecture?

If we cannot have reasonable faith in science and mathematics (on which so much of science is based), what then do we believe? Are we really communicating on the internet, or is this too just an illusion?

The physical world has many signs of great age and of many past civilisations, of early flora and fauna, of cataclysm and of climate change, even of the migration of tectonic plates and the dispersion of a former supercontinent of Gondwana. For anyone to think that the world is just how God created it some 6,000 years ago (our time), well after the last ice-age, well after much human migration over long-lost land bridges and sea-ice bridges, is to refute human migration and human adaptation to new and changed climates. If that's not a stretch, then I don't know what is.

Evolution may indeed be by 'design', but it is nonetheless real and is exemplified by both the abundance of, and the identifiable relationships between, species - past, present and future.

When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit they made a choice, they defied God's wishes and chose to explore the real world, warts and all. It is a pity some now choose to live only in the garden and fail to see the wonders beyond.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 11 March 2012 12:19:05 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
We either agree on the realities of the world, as outlined over many years in various literature, and incorporated fairly uniformly in school curriculums world-wide, or we live in a disparate chaotic mixture of various competing doctrines.

I agree with Saltpetre, Sunday, 11 March 2012 12:19:05 AM

The mechanisms of DNA are real, whether
i. by self-perpetuating organo-chemistry alone, or
ii. by self-perpetuating organo-chemistry by design.
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 11 March 2012 7:48:57 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
It is the astonishing self righteousness and intellectual arrogance of atheist secularists that is the real danger.

Very rarely do these 'experts' display any philosophical acumen, preferring to trade heavily on words like 'indoctrination' , as if teaching could occur apart from some body of doctrine, analogous to students discovering the periodic table from scratch; 'choice' as if this didn't imply choice FOR some end; and 'democratic' as if that were an absolute good like it was in 1933;'values' the vacuous organisational buzz word par excellence - a veritable polytheism of the things, Platonic entities that initiates like Dr Doig select for us, from their gnostic/privileged epistemelogical vantage point.

One of these gnostics advertised on the Rationalist Australia blog is the physicist Krauss and his book 'Universe from Nothing' - a philosophically inept project to redefine nothing as really something!

Leaving aside that the nothing in “why something and not the absence or negation of all things” is not some reality but an object existing only in the intellect by our negating all things, Krauss' argument defines “nothing” as the absence of particles, energy, or space, which means that being is particles, energy and space; i.e. to exist is to be material, or at least physical. But that is just garden-variety Materialism assumed from the start. As a challenge to theism, therefore, all Krauss’s argument amounts to is “if you assume materialism, there are no non material entities, like God.”
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 11 March 2012 1:13:05 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
And if being is particles, energy, and space, that is, that materialism is true, then isn’t it Materialism that gets refuted when we notice that things must come to be from nothing? Either particles, energy and space are all being, or they are not. If they are not, Krauss is wrong that things come from nothing; but if they are, then Materialism is not an adequate account of all that is causal of physical things, that is, the Materialist world (or physical world) is not causally closed, which usually counts as a refutation of Materialism or Physicalism.

And more, even granting materialism, the evolutionary argument against naturalism/materialism (EAAN) deals a devastating blow to the articles of the rationalist faith ( that Darwinian evolution produces reliable cognitive faculties) the author wants substituted for Christian theism.

So it is upon this incoherence, this 'nothing' that Dr Doig presumes to launch the souls of vulnerable children?

Would it be fair for parents to simply respond “On your bike Ms. Doig. Please take your unwarranted faith in rationalism, groundless trust in fasionable secularism, do some philosophy http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html and exercise 'choice' on your own children'? We prefer a true democracy and give votes to our ancestors and the yet to be born.”

"Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:"
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 11 March 2012 1:16:24 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
Martin Ibn Warriq,

There is the possibility of infinity, which none of us can understand. It may be the way things are. Stuff may or may not have existed for infinity if infinity is even the correct term. But who really cares? My atheism doesn’t depend on the answer to this question.

Children should not be threatened or promised anything for accepting or rejecting the infinite idea and don’t look now, but they are not.

The problem atheists are more concerned with is the gigantic leap religionists take from a first cause argument to gentle Jesus, or Allah, or Zeus. The second part of that problem is the state being involved with inflicting this nonsensical leap into the minds of children backed up by supernatural threats and promises, none of which have any evidence in support.

These threats and promises work on the immature minds of children and the evidence for that is abounding.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 11 March 2012 1:57:19 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
What can be said for such sheer anti-intellectualism? And you and your kind want to be taken seriously as contributors to debates about education policy?

You've just admitted that you're prepared to follow Big Bang cosmology and the cosmological argument to the necessity of a transcendent cause of all that is - a cause astonishingly powerful, and creatively intelligent, something more like a mind and therefore personal than anything else we know -completely contradicting atheism. It establishing the background ontology of the traditional monotheisms. And you say "who cares"?

Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable. How can we investigate any part of any order of Knowledge, and stop short of that which enters into every order? All true principles run over with it, all phenomena converge to it; it is truly the First and the Last. And you say it doesn't affect your atheism? change the probability of a Revelation from this 'first cause'?

I wish I could say this is atypical of the thought of fashionable atheism, it brings me no comfort that such vapidity is given any respectability at all. It marks a very dangerous decline in the quality of our religious discourse. The best advise for you, and people like Dr Dois is to remain silent, go away and do the necessary thought and come back when you have the capacity to positively and constructively engage in such weighty matters.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 11 March 2012 3:27:33 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
Martin Ibn Warriq,

Probably better if you dismounted from your high horse for a moment and answered the comments I posed instead of jumping on anything to satisfy your own self-righteousness. In typical religious style you weave and twist away from what is important to humanity so you don’t have to face uncomfortable reality.

Yes, you want religious discourse as long as it waffles about nothing. As soon as the waffle is removed religion is hopeless and really has nothing of importance to say.

That is the danger of religious indoctrination and you are a fine example of it.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 11 March 2012 3:44:40 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
Martin Ibn Warriq,

Sprouting about anti-intellectualising matters not a jot if you are not going to use the rigour of intellectual process and you are not.

Here is how it is done. All parts of a problem are put on the table and answers sought. Here are a glaringly obvious few for you to start with. You must have missed them in your rage when replying. Never mind, I’ll try again.

The established existence of a first cause god does not change the nature of the universe so who cares. This statement still stands.

Rationally document the tremendous leap from an alleged supernatural first cause to any of the gods purported to exist.

What evidence do you have that validates one, some or all of 34,000 religion and 4,000 gods invented by humans?

The very fact that there are so many brings into question human reliability to be honest about this. What precautions have you taken to make sure that your version is correct and all others wrong?

Those who flew the planes into buildings considered their version to be correct as do others who bomb abortion clinics.

It is more the case, than it is not, that a person takes on the religion of cultural upbringing or circumstantial situations. Should this be factored in? If not, why not?

Teaching children that they are going to be tortured forever in hell is one way to influence belief in woo even though there is no evidence for that idea. Is that ethical?

Martin, before one starts accusing people of being anti-intellectual, one must understand what that means.

I expect rational answers not mired in strawman statements or our interchange is finished.

The 2012 Global Atheist Convention takes most of my time but I will look in occasionally.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 11 March 2012 4:43:13 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
David,

Respectfully, if there is a creed that needs scrutinising it is your own, you've just admitted that theism makes no difference to atheism. Your global atheist confreres would be interested to learn that! Though perhaps they are closet theists too?

FWIW, as an act of charity for perhaps the two other readers who are as profoundly confused or unable to use google. I'll give a few search terms.

Textual science – reliability of New Testament
Textual science Christian v Islamic scripture
Difference between Christian and Islamic revelation
Meaning of the word counterfeit, preparatio evangelica, true myth
Historicity of Resurrection
Historical v mythological religions
Intellectual humility, rational justification, fideism
Cultural contingency of religious belief inc. atheism and genetic fallacy
Doctrine of Hell and God's omnibenevolence

That's a beginning.

Though I'd like to think it would help, I don't think I'll look in occasionally.

Hoping you have a great impact at your conference,

Sincerely,

-M
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 11 March 2012 10:02:54 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
Martin Ibn Warriq,

I will assume you are being intentionally obfuscatory. If I’m wrong about this, the only other choice is you have poor comprehension.

Failure to answer the questions I posed indicates the former. (sigh)

Here are some more.

What is my “creed”?

Is it my “creed” or is it some creed pertinent to all atheists?

Please enunciate clearly what the “creed” contains. A link to its written form would be good.

I pointed out that the existence of a first cause god would not change the nature of the universe. If the universe is not changed then that is deism and not theism. You know this but still have to contort the language to suit your own ends.

And what are those ends?

Well, that is made abundantly clear by your list of theistic interpretations of reality or better put, unreality. Very telling and what is more so is that placed at the bottom of the list is the main reason you adhere so incoherently to your religion.

Yes, it is the common factor that fifty or so years of being an atheist and being in the AFA for a very long time has conclusively shown me to be true. It is the fear of an imagined hell and the ability of humans to use mental gymnastics to prevent ever ending up there. It is the religious version of the Stockholm-Syndrome.

What is so terrible about this is the dread is so great that sacrificing the minds of children to the same mental terror is promoted with impunity.

And don’t worry about the 2012 Global Atheist Convention coming up this April; it will be a magnificent experience for those with open minds. I do mean open minds that are not so open that brains drop out.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 12 March 2012 8:36:54 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
> "Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable." <
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 11 March 2012 3:27:33 PM

That is a word salad; a meaningless mix of words
Posted by McReal, Monday, 12 March 2012 12:40:39 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
Well, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

<<Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable.>>

Mmmm… quite.

Reminds me of Rockwell Automation’s Retro Encabulator… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuhYd9L_d7w
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 12 March 2012 2:44:31 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
David,

I'm sorry, but you appear to have shot yourself in the foot, with an apparent admission of the existence of God - as illuminated in the following. (Of course it's probably unintentional, but reads of admission, of capitulation - or do you really mean to admit that God could exist, as a first cause?)

Martin Ibn Warriq posted:(Post P9, 3:27:33PM Sunday 11 March):
<Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable.>

To which you countered: (Post P9, 4:43:13PM Sunday 11 March):
"The established existence of a first cause god does not change the nature of the universe so who cares."

And Then You Posted:(Post P9, 8:36:54AM Monday 12 March):
"I pointed out that the existence of a first cause god would not change the nature of the universe."

The latter post may be an attempt to undo the significance of the earlier ('would not' against 'does not'), but is still not an outright repudiation. This is a strange position for an avowed Atheist?

But of course you are very wrong in any event, for the 'established existence' of God as a first cause would indeed change everything - and you would have to be extraordinarily stubborn and bigoted to conclude otherwise.

Martin Ibn Warriq, you opened: (Post P8, 1:13;05PM Sunday 11 March):
"It is the astonishing self righteousness and intellectual arrogance of atheist secularists that is the real danger."

On reading the rest of your posts on this thread, it strikes me that your opening salvo bears striking resemblance to 'calling the kettle black' - leaving open the question of what is/are "the real danger(s)" on both sides of the argument.

Mind you, I tend to agree with your proposition that the existence of God as a first cause would have impact on all things, and all thinking. All the same, it behoves one to be Christian about the possibilities, to empathise and be tolerant. Enlightenment is an inner journey after all, and humility a virtue.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 12 March 2012 2:50:33 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
Saltpetre,

I’m not going to go into an exercise in semantics but if a first cause god was shown to exist it would have to be by some other mechanism than through the laws of nature which do not show one does.

Therefore, who cares if there is a first cause god or there is a natural cause as it is irrelevant to human affairs? This would be a deist type of god who set the wheels in motion and that is all.

Nothing can be implied from that except that the universe is unfair in both instances.

And no, I don’t think that a first cause god is the highest probability.

The only foot-shooting is in your mind.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 12 March 2012 3:39:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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