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 > Daniel survives > Comments

Daniel survives : Comments

By David Palmer, published 17/4/2012

An 'anonymous' Christian reports on the lion's den.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All
"The first exception when compared to a Christian gathering was the lack of children."

Didn't you know, David? We eat them.

"Did the Atheist Convention address any of these issues?"

No, because they're YOUR issues. If you want to address them, mount your own damn convention.

I'm tempted to say that only a theist could achieve the necessary level of arrogance to attend a conference mounted by people he disagrees with, and then abuse them because they don't share his concerns. But that would be rude and discriminatory, wouldn't it?

Have you got your pound of flesh yet, David, or can we expect a report on the after-party as well?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:04:51 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
Well done, David, on attending and writing so fully beforehand and so soon afterwards. You have addressed a number of issues in a thoughtful way, particularly your reflections about the issues raised by Ayaan Hersi Ali about Muslims leaving their religion and a need for support for that.

As far as the teaching atheism in schools by "atheist" volunteers - I would hope not. I would hope that religion and a lack-of-religion philosophy can one day be taught equally as sub-sets of philosophy about 'humans in society'.

It is significant generalisations to say "atheists are Not morally serious", and that they just "judge their goodness in terms of their support for human rights" based on a conference like that.

Many would strongly disagree that original sin really is a real concept that contaminates or is 'passed on'. Human nature is complex: a psychologist I know says we all individually have aspects of madness - they are serious about that.

The issues of philanthropic interests of atheists and charity warrant wider consideration; it is significant there has not been a long tradition in atheist circles due to a tradition of there being a lack of numbers and lack of collectively, as well as a lack fo financial resources. They would do well to get their act together, though.

Regards.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:27:28 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
Sadly, so predictable.

A doctor goes to a legal convention, and complains they didn't address the spread of typhoid in Fiji. Mr Palmer goes to a meeting of atheists and complains they didn't bring their kids along, like they do at Hillsong.

Nevertheless, a very illuminating article about himself, and his own prejudice.

The observation that stuck out for me like the proverbial sore thumb, was this:

"What Ayaan did was she got the final panel discussion to focus exclusively on the issue of Islam."

This, of course, would be an impossible topic at the "Reason for Faith" meeting, would it not. No wonder it was a "breath of fresh air", it allowed Mr Palmer to rejoice in some personal Mozzie-bashing without the feeling of guilt that would accompany it in a standard "our religion is better than theirs" context.

"Ayaan offered the observation that Muslims leaving Islam are choosing to become Christians, exchanging 'a malign god for a benign god'”

An advertisement for Christianity in an Atheist convention? Classic.

But to be fair, the opening was made by the convention itself, in setting itself up as some form of alternate belief system. A point that Mr Palmer took great joy in exploiting.

"Note that I describe atheism, despite the claims of Atheists to the contrary, as a system of beliefs. What I observed occurring was not all that different from attending church. The speakers, in effect the leaders, the great ones, appeared one after another to teach the assembled congregation, dispensing their pearls of wisdom, reinforcing the central doctrinal tenets of their faith, exhorting for appropriate responses, deigning to answer a question or two."

An own goal, of mammoth proportions.

So it would appear, as I feared from the beginning, that the sum of the entire convention was an opportunity for a bunch of smug self-promoters to slag off religion. And to offer Christian apologists a free kick at their biggest fear, that atheists might just be right after all.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:33:34 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 live in a society today with multiple broken relationships, failed marriages, children being fought over, boys without fathers modelling what it is to grow into manhood. We have unprecedented crime levels so that we lock doors, install alarm systems, drive children to and from school, install cameras on trains and in shopping malls, every public space covered in graffiti.'

David you know that the dogmas of the humanist fed the sinful nature creating these problems. Its no wonder they gave no answers because they have none. As can be seen by the first couple of posters secularist see no problem with breaking marriage vows, feeding on porn or perverted relationship. They are even proud they have created such a society.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:34:59 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
I attended the Global Atheist Convention and found it intellectually stimulating.

The reason we have so many societal problems is that teaching people that God or their priest can and will forgive them sin has proved a failure.

Christopher Hitchens was not being treated at the conference as being a candidate for canonization. There was a talk by Geoffrey Robinson, another brilliant supporter of human rights, highlighting Christopher's efforts to bring common sense and justice to worldwide political and personal behaviour. There was also an excellent short video compilation of Hitch's recorded efforts.

Much was made of freeing young children from indoctrination and providing those children the means to develop their own ethical foundation for their future decision making in all aspects of their life.

As Hitchens wrote in 'Letters to a Young Contrarian',
"I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption.
I would not throw my numberless sins on to a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There is no value in the vicarious gesture anyway.
As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a debt, or even offer to take the debtor’s place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not a assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you didn't commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility.
The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves."
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:07:33 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
Great post. Good to see interaction between Christians and atheists on these issues.

Get on down to the Reason for Faith festival this week, people. Unlike the Global Atheist Convention, it's not purely a massive money spinning venture. Most of the events are free!

Last night I attended one of the first events, a panel discussion on Science and Faith. The turn out was dissappointing IMO, only 150 odd people for a panel that included luminaries such as Graham Oppy and John Pilbrow (who, interestingly had less to say than the younger panel members). It was a fascinating discussion- except for the contributions of Jonathan Meddings, who tried his best to ruin the night by bringing out ridiculous statements like the "We're all atheists" line and implying support for the Christ myth. But overall, a good night, and there's plenty more events coming over the next few days.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:08:00 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
>> 'In the 1960’s we had the cultural revolution which brought with it cohabitation, no fault divorce, freely available abortion ... We live in a society today with multiple broken relationships, failed marriages, children being fought over, boys without fathers modelling what it is to grow into manhood. We have unprecedented crime levels so that we lock doors, install alarm systems, drive children to and from school, install cameras on trains and in shopping malls, every public space covered in graffiti.'

""David you know that the dogmas of the humanist fed the sinful nature creating these problems."" <<

Posted by runner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:34:59 AM

Whose "watch" did that all happen under, allegedly starting in the 1960s??!
Whose the authority to blame??!

I do take issue with being described as one of ""the first couple of posters secularist see no problem with breaking marriage vows, feeding on porn or perverted relationship .. even proud they have created such a society.""

How dishonest. How pious! How "christian". Pls, give us more "christian values"!
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:08:40 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,

You're at it again.

Try and maintain some Christian humility and decency - and desist from attributing immoral vices to those with whom you disagree.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:18:22 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
"Get on down to the Reason for Faith festival this week, people. Unlike the Global Atheist Convention, it's not purely a massive money spinning venture. Most of the events are free!"

Ummm you realise that the richest organisation is the world is the catcholic church right? with an estimated 3 trillion in wealth?

Anyhoo - perhaps some basic business facts would help. Athiesm is a not a business, its an idea, so therefore to hold an event such as the GAC, things must be paid for... the convention centre, the speakers flights and security to protect us from, well, people like you. While i have no idea on the profitability of the event, comparing it to "free" events is blatently misleading.

Religion is, even to the most blinded of supporters, clearly a business. Many religions own companies (such as sanatarium, gloria jeans etc) and some even run their own bank (e.g. uniting church) - so their business model is to get people in at "free" events which may cost small amounts of money up front, but over time, the monetary return is massive from that small percentage of people that donate a portion of wages, or leave their house to the church when the die. And lets not forget the constant lobbying the government for our tax dollars.

While i realise this is off topic from the article itself - such a ludicrous comment should not go uncorrected.
Posted by Ben98, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:27:24 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
One can only laugh wnen David writes this nonsense.

"FAITH based statement derived from the Bible but in ACCORDANCE WITH EVERYDAY REALITY , that whilst our ORIGINAL PARENTS, HISTORICAL ADAM and EVE, were created in the image of god with wonderful potentialities, they FELL INTO SIN, that is, they REBELLED AGAINST God's AUTHORITY in their lives and chose the path of DISOBEDIENCE, what is called ORIGINAL SIN, a CONTAMINATION SPREADING throughout the human race ...."

I have purposely capitalized some key words, all of which have nothing to do with FAITH or Reality with a capital R, and certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of historical event.

In a universe which is billions of years old, and a quantum universe of multiple space-time paradoxes in which the Earth is little more than a speck of dust, when and where did Adam and Eve first appear, and then choose to "fall into sin".

Such language (used by David)is a confession and projection of a very childish, even infantile mind set. And of an essentially dim-witted religious provincialism.

Why does everything have to turn out to be Christian especially as two thirds of the worlds human population are not Christians. And none of the living-breathing-feeling non-humans. Even more so when there are hundreds of known "creation" stories from all times and places times and places. All of which are now our common inheritance in this now instantaneously inter-connected globalized quantum world.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:35:17 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
The repetition, runner does get a tad wearisome… So please be reassured we have read and understood what you've got to offer.

In the hope of something new, I'll repeat my request for you to nominate where and when in human history society functioned and people behaved in ways acceptable to you.

I'm confident that would give us all something to discuss.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:36:27 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
Ben98, were you born in 1998?

Just curious.

{"Ummm you realise that the richest organisation is the world is the catcholic church right? with an estimated 3 trillion in wealth?"}

If true, this is entirely irrelevant to my invitation to the RFF festival.

{"Athiesm is a not a business, its an idea, so therefore to hold an event such as the GAC, things must be paid for... the convention centre, the speakers flights and security to protect us from, well, people like you"}

None of which changes the fact that the festival was costly to attend, and in comparison, people have less barriers to attending the RFF festival. Hence, there's a reason for them to consider going.

{"Religion is, even to the most blinded of supporters, clearly a business."}

Forgive me, I must be a blinded supporter.

You do realise that it is entirely unproductive to make sweeping statements like this, don't you?

Are you talking about the church of scientology or your local Baptist church? Or all of the above?

{"Many religions own companies (such as sanatarium, gloria jeans etc)"}

FYI, Gloria Jeans is owned by a guy who is a member of Hillsong. It is not owned by "a religion" (whatever that means) nor Hillsong church.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 10:54:12 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
Sheesh...Daniel in the Lion's Den - well you will be ensured your safe passage in God's Kingdom never a truer martyr there ever was.

Please...is there no shame or honour left anymore. Some Christians just make this stuff up as they go along. Even Cardinal Pell declared the other day that even atheists go to heaven. When did that happen after all that hellfire and holywater nonsense. We all know there is symbolism in religion but what some Church leaders don't realise that some people actually believe it.

It never ceases to amaze the lengths to which some Christians go in attempting to demonise atheists.

Thankfully most Christians are not like this.

If you are so sure of your own choices why the need to be so divisive?

Same goes for the atheists who think banning religion is a good thing. Why not let each person choose their own path, let's face it humans share more common goals than not, most people do want to do unto others.

And those who for some reason, come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including believers.

There is no time in history, unlike the author wishes to convey, where there were not 'sinful' acts including those periods where Christian dominance meant death and destruction to those who did not conform. Where the Catholic Church not only gave pedophiles immunity by inaction but moved them from one parish to another. Look what happens in countries where Islam dominates. Dominating religious power mongers never work for the good of all only their own causes.

Concentrations of power don't work in free societies. The move to a more universal secular humanist approach is the only way ahead allowing all of us to hold precious our freedoms of belief as long as they cause no harm to others.

I cannot see how some militant Christians or atheists can argue otherwise. It is not all about you.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 11:46:09 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
What is it about Christians that, when someone shouts “bottom of the hole”, they all start digging?

David, this was an Atheists Convention. There are some 34,000 registered religions on the planet and what is it you contribute? You to try to turn atheism into another religion.

Is there something so difficult about irony that makes it impossible for you to observe it?

It really is time for you to leave our medieval values behind and move into the 21st Century.

Start with leaving these behind;

-the divine right of egotistical kings
-the inferiority of women
-the idea that a wise State knows all
-the idea that the individual is always right
-the bitter-sweet addiction, that transforms a doctrine from a mere model into something sacred and worth killing for.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:48:03 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
WmTrevor

'In the hope of something new, I'll repeat my request for you to nominate where and when in human history society functioned and people behaved in ways acceptable to you. '

You ask the wrong question. The good of society is far more important than what I consider acceptable to me. I am far more likely than the atheist to accept human limitations and sin. It is natural for man to sin because he is a sinner. History abounds with wars, immorality, murders, deceit for the religous and non religous alike. One however would be totally blind not to see that societies that value life, promote wholesome relationships and display compassion do far better than those that don't. The dogmas of atheism produce none of this fruit though it pretends otherwise.

On a personal level I don't care if the next door neighbours have orgies every night. On another level I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in a society that does not use pseudo science to justify every evil under the sun. If they are going to commit evil which everyone does to a degree they need to call it evil which is something many fundamentalist atheist are only able to attribute to Christianity. Only fools deny the link between pornography and child abuse/rape, the link between fatherless kids and crime, the link between feminism and family breakdown, the link between Islam and terrorism and yet the best atheist can come up with is worn out dogma.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 1:37:50 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
"In the hope of something new, I'll repeat my request for you to nominate where and when in human history society functioned and people behaved in ways acceptable to you."

I second this! Should be interesting. I've always imagined runner as a grumpy old man with a 'keep off the grass' sign in his front yard.
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 1:43:00 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
Some initial thoughts on your article:

1. There are multiple offences of 'assertions without evidence', including: "We have unprecedented crime levels". The issue of crime is deceptively complex, but I can safely assert that crime levels in western democracies are falling (you can read the abstract to this article http://bit.ly/J4PxrG and do your own research). Unsubstantiated and incorrect claims like this undermine your thesis. What if I, as an atheist, now made the claim that in direct correlation with the falling crime rates, we have seen rising atheism? Surely this is evidence of the power of atheism to reduce crime?! Let me make your argument for you. Correlation does not equal causation, and the factors that influence crime are complex and inter-related and include social, economic, historic, cultural and religion or lack thereof may or may not have an impact.

2. Conflation of the apparent good that belief in a higher power may offer with evidence for god and support for religion. Your story of the religious placebo offered the dying man argued that the religious ritual made him feel better. The logic that believing in god is better than not believing in god because it makes you feel better is essentially Pascal's wager, which has previously been dismissed, although I am happy to argue it again if you wish. It also makes no arguments for the authenticity of said god or religion.

3. Misunderstanding of atheism and consequent misunderstanding of the issue of using public money to support private faith. Atheism is not a belief system - it makes the simple statement that there is no god. So atheists "going into schools to teach atheism" is simply silly. The main issue is the spending of public money to support the teaching of private beliefs. Religions in Australia get significant tax benefits and financial support, including the school chaplaincy program. I will end with a question: without the financial support offered by the taxpayers, both now and historically, do you think religious organisations would be able to work as they do?
Posted by chrisdbarry, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 1:44:16 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 know this is throwing good money after bad but I just have to have one more go at helping you to understand WmTrev's challenge.
Remember that when you cited David Palmer's statement, "IN THE 1960’S (emphases added) we had the cultural revolution which brought with it cohabitation, no fault divorce, freely available abortion ... We live in a society today with multiple broken relationships, failed marriages, children being fought over, boys without fathers modelling what it is to grow into manhood. We have unprecedented crime levels …", you went on to explain to us dummies that, "… the dogmas of the humanist fed the sinful nature CREATING these problems."
Now — please stay with me on this — when you say (as you repeatedly do) that all of these problems have been CREATED by humanists and others in recent times, you are necessarily saying that there was a time when these problems did not exist. Or, as WmTrev put it, a time when "society functioned and people behaved in ways acceptable to you."
All WmTrev is asking you to do, and he's asking you very nicely, is to tell us all when and where that was. Here's a hint: from what David Palmer said, it must have been before the 1960s. Here's another: if you cannot come up with a time and a place when society was the way you think it should be( ie little or no sin), then you'll just have to drop your argument that modern woes have been caused by modern, rational thinking
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 2:09:06 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
Don't look to atheist conventions, they are stuck in Atheism 1.0. They are still consumed with the narrow focus of beliefs/knowledge, rather than morality/values/culture/community. For Atheism 2.0, look to:

For a church-like approach ...
Alain de Botton - Atheism 2.0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

For a complete approach to morality, beyond fashionable liberalism ...
Jonathan Haidt: What is morality and where does it come from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc#t=282s

Regarding the "the big questions" ...
Richard Carrier: Is happiness the Goal of Morality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctfh3O7ofl0

Rehab for former Christians ...
Valerie Tarico: My Ten Commandments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsvVwnjL68s#t=102s

For community building ...
The Harvard Humanist Community Project
http://harvardhumanist.org/about-hcp/

Regarding the decline of the Western World, Jonathan Haidt refers to this in his book The Happiness Hypothesis. From memory, he criticises the nonjudgemental liberal approach to ethics in the West, encouraging us to rediscover a more complete morality of virtues, emotion, and respect for group-norms.

So, while David Palmer has justified criticism of the atheist movement, the seeds of a deeper movement are there for those who look hard enough. Will humanism/atheism actually flower into healthy and moral communities that rival the power of religion? I don't know. But I do know that it will take a different breed of leader than the combative Dawkins types. It will take community organisers, teachers and sages i.e. old-fashioned leaders who speak to the heart as well as the head. It will take humanist preachers.

But don't expect humanism to be a homogeneous movement. Hopefully there will be both conservative and liberal groups. And in the contest of ideas, hopefully the best movement will rise to the top. Did I say "best"? Sorry, I meant "most fulfilling". That is, after all, the purpose of life: to maximise happiness/wellbeing.
Posted by mralstoner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 2:28:56 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
Anywhere where people come together with a common interest or wanting a sense of 'belonging' to a group, they could be accused of being part of a 'faith' or new type of 'religion'. This would be wrong, but it doesn't matter.

Honestly, who really gives a rats anus what these religious guys think about atheism? It's not like explaining it in a careful, reasonable and considered manner is going to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Pericles efforts are a great example of that.

Haven't we all got better things to do than talk to brick walls?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 2:44:15 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
Trav, Hillsong receives 10% of Gloria Jeans profits, and the boss of Gloria Jeans is also the boss of Hillsong!
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 2:51:45 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
mralstoner,

I didn’t follow your links and I certainly did not try to translate your flowery translation of whatever point it was you were trying to make, I equally accept that it may have been either supportive or non-supportive.

The problem is that if you are so smart, why don’t you translate whatever your links provide, into some sort of cogent analysis? Instead you persist in link wars, fighting by proxy, rather like the medieval jousting by nominating your “champion’ to fight your battles for you.

Is your case so weak that you need someone else to be placed in the firing line? Why bother?

If you have a case, make it. If you don’t, go back to whatever non-prescription drugs you are on and try again. I’m mindful of the fact that much of what you provide is from u-tube and could be intended as a form “humor” however, so obtuse is your “drift” that the average OLOer might be skeptical. Over to you and stop being so bl**dy lazy, some original thought would be appropriate.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 3:02:16 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
*None of which changes the fact that the festival was costly to attend, and in comparison, people have less barriers to attending the RFF festival.*

That might well be true, Trav, for the Athiests Association shindig
would have had to be self funding. The religious have a true
advantage when it comes to money. They can sell people the promised
ticket to heaven and cash in on the many bequests and legacies, as
those childless couples leave their real estate to the churches.
The Catholic Church did not become the world's largest owner of
real estate for no reason.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 3:10:05 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
@mralstoner - do you make the affirmation that 'atheist conventions are stuck in Atheism 1.0' from personal knowledge (i.e. did you attend the convention in Melbourne?) If not, perhaps you would do better by simply stating your position without feeling the need to undermine an opposing position (some might suggest a strawman) as your starting point. It undermines what otherwise would have been an interesting and informative comment. Your position is also wrong - if you examined the program for the Global Atheist Convention, you would find a diversity of speakers and topics, many of which touched on the issues of morality/values/culture/community.

One issue with atheism is the lack of consistent philosophy, ideology or defined outcomes, making it easy to attack as incoherent. The first link you provide to the Alain de Botton TED talk is an example of an atheist approach that has divided the atheist community. This is not evidence of a problem with atheism, but evidence of diversity and (hopefully) evidence of the critical thinking applied to each idea on its merit. Of course atheists are not immune to the same weaknesses that plague all humanity, so it could equally be said that some atheists just don't like Alain de Botton. I don't claim to speak on behalf of all atheists.

I enjoyed Allain de Botton's talk immensely and would argue that Sam Harris delivered a similar idea in his lecture at the Global Atheist Convention on Sunday. Harris suggested that we can use some rituals of religion - in this instance meditation instead of prayer. He led 4,000 people in group meditation. I know that many at the convention would disagree with me on this point and the debate will be enlightening.

I think that atheism addresses so many levels (personal, political, moral, cultural...) that diversity of opinion is not only expected, but necessary. Another of de Botton's arguments is that atheism needs to collaborate and brand. I think this consistency would be difficult, but his argument is undeniable, it would advance the cause (whatever that turned out to be). Again, the debate will be enlightening.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 3:49:21 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
Spindoc, sorry I was so "obtuse" for you.

1 - All those links are by PhD qualified experts, or thereabouts. What they have to say, I couldn't say any better. Two of them are TED talks.

2 - I did make an argument right there in the first paragraph, but I guess it was too cryptic, so let me spoon feed you ...

There is a problem with the new atheist movement led by Richard Dawkins. The problems are:

A - There are two fundamental cogs in the human psyche: beliefs and values. Beliefs are the realm of reason/science/facts/knowledge. Values are the realm of emotion/desires/feelings. The new atheism of Dawkins & Co is mainly consumed with the realm of beliefs. They are largely silent on matters of morality, values, culture and community.

B - The Western World is in decline and the humanist movement is not providing any answers. The movement is not building up communities and political parties to become an effective force of change.

As Alain de Botton says in the first video "we have secularised badly ... the secular world is full of holes".

So, in the interests of building a humanist movement that does lead us to a better place, I offered those links as the seeds of a deeper movement. But I'm guessing you're a typical atheist who is stuck in the narrow focus of beliefs/knowledge and has not yet graduated to the real world concerns of morality, culture, community and politics.

I'm happy to expand further. But I suspect your attention is on other-wordly things.
Posted by mralstoner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 3:52:23 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
Chrisdbarry, yes I exaggerated to make a point. Communication is an art, not a science. Atheism is not as black and white as I painted it.

I'm glad that Sam Harris gets into meditation, and his Moral Landscape book is a welcome step in the direction of atheist morality (although a more personal emotional approach would be more productive than his technical/scientific approach to wellbeing which is years away from providing answers).

Yes, diversity of opinion about atheist morality/culture should be encouraged.

I exaggerate because the Western World is in serious decline and the humanist movement is stagnating when it should be building communities and political parties. Time is running out.

But generally your comment is valid.
Posted by mralstoner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 4:13:00 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
Oh, good grief. Another bloody atheist-on-a-mission.

>>...in the interests of building a humanist movement that does lead us to a better place, I offered those links as the seeds of a deeper movement<<

What - apart from the views of that serial self-publicist de Botton - indicates a need for a "humanist movement", mralstoner?

If you need something to "lead you to a better place", may I recommend religion? It is painless, and allows you to be part of a "movement", which is clearly where you desire to be.

Oh, I see. You are making some wild-assed, totally unsubstantiated and - may I say - downright rude, assumptions about your audience.

>>But I'm guessing you're a typical atheist who is stuck in the narrow focus of beliefs/knowledge and has not yet graduated to the real world concerns of morality, culture, community and politics.<<

You sound like a clone of our friend runner, when you berate atheists for not being concerned with "morality, culture, community and politics" It is a generalization that is not only false, but of the most insulting variety.

For your edification, I am atheist. Given that my atheism consists entirely of a lack of belief in God, I count myself entirely "typical". And I have fully "graduated to the real world concerns of morality, culture, community and politics", thank you very much.

Why on earth do you feel it necessary to spruik yet another "movement"? Don't we have enough smug bastards already?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 4:24:40 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
Dear mralstoner, many thanks for the advertorial however, I have to declare that in spite of your;

“But I'm guessing you're a typical atheist who is stuck in the narrow focus of beliefs/knowledge and has not yet graduated to the real world concerns of morality, culture, community and politics”, I am in fact a devout Catholic.

So whilst you declare that you are “happy to expand further”, I have to wonder if you really are?

Since you are concerned that my attention is on “other-worldly things”, I’m happy to submit myself to your interrogation.

Let’s begin with your failure to detect a catholic. Then we might progress to “Beliefs are the realm of reason/science/facts/knowledge” and then we might logically progress to “The Western World is in decline and the humanist movement is not providing any answers”, closely followed by, "we have secularized badly ... the secular world is full of holes". Then we might conclude with a very small collection of “why you don’t get much traction from reality”

I’m always happy to engage with those who profess an interest in reality, so ready when you are!

Not holding my breath!
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 4:42:22 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
Pericles, you seem to put a lot of effort into your "non-mission". Far more than most on OLO. So what's your mission called: Anti Smug Bastards Incorporated? I think we had that revolution in the Sixties.

We already stuck it to the man, dude. And now the world is run by demented valueless radically-individualist liberals who are intent on whistling past the graveyard while the Western World dies in a cultural, demographic, and economic ditch.
Posted by mralstoner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 4:52:05 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
That's already a contradiction, mralstoner, right there:

>>Pericles, you seem to put a lot of effort into your "non-mission". Far more than most on OLO. So what's your mission called: Anti Smug Bastards Incorporated?<<

Mission/non-mission are mutually exclusive, in most societies. And you were right the first time, I am a committed "non-mission" person, which means by definition that I do not have a mission.

E 'chiaro?

But you are accurate in detecting the subtext, that I do take potshots at smug-bastardry whenever it raises its head on a topic that interests me. (If I did it for everything, I'd have a full-time job on my hands, eh?).

You popped your head over that particular parapet with your categorization of "a typical atheist". Let me remind you of it:

>>But I'm guessing you're a typical atheist who is stuck in the narrow focus of beliefs/knowledge and has not yet graduated to the real world concerns of morality, culture, community and politics.<<

Smug bastard.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 5:07:50 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
Pericles,

"Why on earth do you feel it necessary to spruik yet another "movement"?" "Don't we have enough...(I ((Saltpetre)) choose not to repeat the closing comment here).."

I think you have been a little unkind here, after all we have discussed in other threads the question of RE in schools and the alternative of classes in ethics, codes of conduct, morality, philosophy, integrity, reasoning and rational/critical thinking, conscience and social responsibility, etc - and even the possibility of 'alternative schools'. Some of those discussions certainly smacked of a 'movement' - and I believe for good reason(s).

Surely there is justification here for a reasonable hearing? (Not that these considerations are a matter of either theist or atheist persuasion, nor of Liberalism, but rather of simple humanism.)
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 5:34:08 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
GlenC, you write in some sort of way to think you have trapped me

'Here's another: if you cannot come up with a time and a place when society was the way you think it should be( ie little or no sin), then you'll just have to drop your argument that modern woes have been caused by modern, rational thinking'

Every generation since Adam displays the fruit of mankinds fallen nature. When that nature is fed and immorality encouraged things go downhill.

Man's problem has always been sin. Governments, educators and judges have fed man's pride and lustful nature through what you call 'rational thinking' over many decades. I call it stinking thinking. Again only fools deny that pornography doesn't lead to debauchery and child abuse, feminism to breakdown of families and the championing of homosexuality to perversion.

'Rational ' thinking sees woman killing their babies guilt free, lying as an acceptable part of life and the dogma of moral relativism justifying every evil deed on the planet. The fruit of 'rational ' thinking is obvious to anyone with their eyes open and can breathe. The same people who push this stinking thinking are so full of themselves that they claim human nature is good while displaying daily their Christophobic fixation. No wonder how so many are fooled into Islam with such a moral vacuum from these clowns.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 5:39:38 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
Yo, Saltpetre!,

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift."

(Guess who said that?)
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 5:39:56 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 notice how he puts it so much better than runner.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 5:42:02 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
Answer: - Albert Einstein
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 5:43:16 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,
What do you call your form of thinking and your expression of that thinking?
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 6:52:17 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
I appreciate your more considered responses, runner… and I'm sure you will appreciate they've gained you more replies from other posters than is sometimes the case.

You often mention mankind's fallen nature which always makes me wonder what happened for all those years between Adam and the fourth century CE when Augustine of Hippo thought it up.

But saying, "When that nature is fed and immorality encouraged things go downhill" does imply that society is or was somewhere uphill first. On your point of 'rational thinking' over many decades – what you call 'stinking thinking' – I think you'll find that's been going on since at least Heraclitus in the sixth century BCE.

I'm sorry you're so down on human nature as that would seem not to say much about however it was created.

It's odd to see you say 'so many are fooled into Islam' – I know it's not your cup of tea but I would have thought you'd be pleased 'so many' have at least found God – or is there more than one?

My own observation of humanity is that it's confoundingly and resiliently capable of doing the very best and the very worst to itself.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 7:08:45 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
WmTrevor you write

'You often mention mankind's fallen nature which always makes me wonder what happened for all those years between Adam and the fourth century CE when Augustine of Hippo thought it up.'

no the fallen nature of man is written clearly throughout Scripture.
King David wrote '(Psa 51:5) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Paul wrote

(Rom 5:8) But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
Jesus said
(Luk 18:19) And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? None is good except One, God.

Augustine certainly did not think this one up.

you say

'I'm sorry you're so down on human nature as that would seem not to say much about however it was created.'

It depend on how far we have fallen or diverted from the original creation.

you also say

'My own observation of humanity is that it's confoundingly and resiliently capable of doing the very best and the very worst to itself. '

I totally agree with this observation. That is why I object to the sinful nature being fed and encouraged by secular dogma that brings out the worse (abortion, immorality, greed, lust, blasphemy). When faithfulness, family values and self restraint is encouraged humanity is far more likely to do well.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 12:02:43 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
sounds interesting

did david get an invite?

we Christians are happy to dialogue with Atheists.
In fact, this week...the Reason for Faith Festival in Melbourne, 16-20 April,..run by Christians""

non working xtians?

,""is seeking to change the style and tone
of the conversation to a rational,..reasoned,balanced,
open and honest discussion..between Theists and religious believers""

is that..as a call to charity?
or cast out sinners?

..""on the one hand..and Atheists,agnostics,
and so-called 'free thinkers'..on the other,, around the bigger 'why' questions

questions which Dawkins arrogantly dismissed..on Monday
in his debate with Pell..as 'simply silly'.""

you gotta recall
how saying nice things makes people want to listen

and how anger/insult..arrogance etc
shut ears off

more athiests with honey..[than sugar]
simple poor it over them....then put a stake through the meat ant nest
and let them find a reasoning behind...life...[pain..and living through it]...pain is a thing we all get

relieving pain..is lifes highest calling
ok plus hunger pain....domineering husban/wife..sin/drone
be kind to everyone..

regardless if you see them
in a church sinnergog..or an unconventional center..in mal born

lol

only in malborne
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:20:57 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
Ben98 says Atheism is not a business, its an idea.

Two comments

First, I agree Atheism is an idea which is partly what I meant by saying it was a belief system. We have competing belief systems based on certain premises backed up by knowledge grounded in observations and historical events. Atheism takes its place alongside various religious belief traditions and we have this mix of competing ideologies - Atheism is just the noisiest kid on the block, the question is whether it will grow up into something substantial. Just don't expect us Christians backing down.

Second, Atheism is certainly a business. Those high priests of the movement - Dennett, Dawkins, Harris didn't arrive at the Convention out of the goodness of their hearts. Not only so but the Victorian Government provided a substantial amount of funding for the GAC (which I don't object to, though I wouldn't mind knowing how much), so don't let's get precious about religious bodies receiving Government tax breaks.
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:29:59 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
foyle/quote..""The whole apparatus of absolution..and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral,""

many think this
so its time yet again to refute the lie

of course i cant accept your sin
thats against gods rules

god holds us as sinless[much so called sin..is karmic blowback]

made in ignorance...its forgiven...[as long as your seriously trying to overcome present sin..you are forgiven past sins][but back slide once..you reveal the greater sin

see decieving yourself is one thing
but decieving other..is huge..compounded if the lie..was by ommision..or to trick..into doing a vile

to b e fair tricking other to be nice
is a thing the weak enjoy...while not sinfull of itself
it yet binds ones soul..into the realm of tricksters

"""while the concept of revealed truth
degrades the whole concept..of free intelligence""

i prefer the words freewill/free choice

""by purportedly..relieving us...of the hard task
of working out...ethical principles for ourselves."""

big issues need big minds thinking big
not the small petty things
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:37:40 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
I find it interesting to observe the preponderance of comments from atheists and the anti God (ie anti Christian) crowd. It is always the same, Barney Zwartz blog is another example of the phenomenon.

Leslie Cannold at GAC pointed out the shortcomings of the Atheist effort at lobbying contra GetUp! and ACL and various pitiful pleas were made for funding (and just why were those ticket prices so high - was it the high price tags to secure the overseas Atheist clergy?).

I belong to one of the smaller Christian denominations in Victoria - about 6,000 bottoms on pews/seats on any given Sunday, yet we support 100+ full time persons (OK we don't pay much) in preaching, pastoral care, missionary and caring activities not paid with Government funding or investment income but paid for by the tithing and offerings of those 6,000 (actually more because not everyone is necessarily in church every Sunday). In addition we may have 20-30 additional staff funded at least in part by investment income.

The point I'm making is the Sunday by Sunday Christians are dedicated and seriously committed to their religion and its outworkings. Its one thing for the anti God brigade to post mostly noisy and rude blog entries (mralstoner is a notable exception); its another thing to ask how serious are they, will they dig deep and sacrifice time, intellect and money yo their cause. Will they get beyond the whingeing and whining and their smug, unreflective assertions they they alone follow reason?
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:49:39 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
chrisdbarry (thank you for identifying yourself by your name Chris) asks whether religious organisations will be able to work as they do without the financial support of taxpayers.

As I see it that support comes in a variety of ways:

No council rates on church property provided it it is not being used in commercial activity

charity status brings a financial benefit

religious workers are paid a proportion of salary as a non cash benefit in part in lieu of claiming allowance on the tax return for work related expenses

religious based social care organisations receive public funding

So the answer is without this support religious organisations would definitely need to make adjustments - some churches amalgamated, etc. We would manage, though locally it would be painful.

However the question raised must also be asked of every non religious charity and every sporting club unless you want to argue discrimination specifically against religious bodies which might politically be a hard ask. Regardless removing taxpayer financial support won't kill the church.

Regarding Government funding of religious social institutions, I believe Governments do so on the basis of the quality of care provided by religious based organisations as well as on cost grounds.
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:05:16 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
I say to Daffy Duck that whilst he might find my brief summary of why evil exists in the world as "very childish, even infant mindset... essentially dim-witted provincialism" (thank you Daffy!) it is an understanding with a very long pedigree and I again assert accords with reality which is why it has survived the centuries.

You are perfectly free to express your own understanding of the reality of evil - its causes and extent - why not do that so that we can examine it and see whether we agree with you or not.

The Christian faith is always reasonable contra Dawkins and Co - it deals with 'on the ground' matters concerning how to live with purpose, dignity, grace, and is available to all for consideration.

So over to you Daffy
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:20:03 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
Thanks, runner… I knew we could find something to agree about – and like you I want people to do the very best they can. Individual motives may vary when this happens but when it does it is because the people concerned have chosen to… Whatever the incentive was.

My references about history were based on your comments which always seem to refer to concupiscence – so I think I'm on reasonably solid ground theologically as regarding its concept as a backwards construction to Scripture. But no biggie, we can set that aside for another time.

I'm just off now to reread some posts to see if I'm a whingeing, whining, smug, unreflective, assertive atheist.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:23:43 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
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13337

great minds spin doc/quote""when someone shouts
“bottom of the hole”, they all start digging?""

the link requotes another talking about holes cant be dug up
only down...[i joined that to the pits of hell/karma..rebirth
the route..we ALL used to come here

our way to our reasoning for being

""David,..what is it you contribute?
You to try to turn atheism into another religion.""

lol

""Is there something so difficult,,about irony
that makes it impossible..for you to observe it?""

i so wish to answer
but i trust others to see the irony
of a xtian telling us..re an athiest meeting
and responding!

but now finding the post limits...lol
forced into silence..or partial rebuttal

its ironic

""It really is time;;for you..lol
to leave our medieval values..behind..and move into the 21st Century.""

the irony
lol

""Start with leaving these behind;""

-the divine right""...belongs to usw all
not just a right""of egotistical kings""..priests/do nuthings and dole bludgers

""-the inferiority of women""

you cant free a slave
who loves being enslaved
its a life choice...sure inform them
ask if its by concent..but not all feemails want to be men

ask ya wife..if she would rather be your mother

""-the idea that a wise State knows all""

yes please explain that
[its cause we chose a representative[govt]
to think for us..tell us
what is right/wrong]

take our rights
to diss-abuse others wrongs

""-the idea that the individual is always right""
find ways to let others be right too

""-the bitter-sweet addiction,..that transforms a doctrine
from a mere model into something sacred and worth killing for.""

the god [good]..of all life/living
is not served by ANY death

thus there is no death
read the link
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 9:08:16 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
Quite frankly, I'm surprised he got out of there unscathed. I've heard those atheists are quite amoral and will kill and eat anything that moves if they're hungry.

They must have had the baby sacrifices before he turned up, that's why there were no children.

Either that or they didn't want to torture them by forcing them to listen to Prof. Dawkins talk about evolution.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 9:37:45 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 you write perceptively

'its one thing for the anti God brigade to post mostly noisy and rude blog entries (mralstoner is a notable exception); its another thing to ask how serious are they, will they dig deep and sacrifice time, intellect and money yo their cause'

It is amazing how secularist nearly always want Government to pay for their causes. When it comes to giving from their own pockets it becomes a completely differnet matter. The likes of Gore and other evangelist make American Christian evangelist look like small timers.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 11:15:06 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, always happy to discuss (time permitting). I believe that dialogue and discussion is the best way through these issues and it is imperative of me to behave as I hope others will.

Firstly, thanks for the list of special financial privileges offered to religious organisations.

With regard to substance of your remarks, you make a number of errors in your argument, which I will address.

Your first error is to conflate charitable and religious organisations. Whilst religious organisations may do charitable work, it is not a requirement to receive special financial privilege. The only requirement is to be defined as a religion, which in Australia is defined as having a supernatural belief. The advancement of religion is itself defined as a charity. I would argue that this is a bad definition. This definition costs Australian tax payers (at least) half a billion dollars a year, of which there is no account for how much is spent on social services and how much goes to unrelated activities (such as church coffers).

So when you ask "unless you want to argue discrimination specifically against religious bodies" my answer is that discrimination is already happening. Defining religion as a charity is a privilege not offered to other organisations, who must defend their charitable status by actually doing and proving they are doing charitable work. Additionally, belief systems without a supernatural element are not defined as religious, so are not allowed. This has allowed religion to amass enormous wealth, directly attributable to the financial contributions of the taxpayer.

You also conflate secularism and atheism. A secular charity is one that does its work exclusive of any tie to religion. There is no question by the atheist movement that the promotion of non-belief be part of charitable work. There is simply the argument that charities not be used by religions to proselytise and recruit.

I will continue in another post as my word limit is fast approaching...
Posted by chrisdbarry, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 1:46:40 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
...continued

In your previous post, you make the statement: "Its one thing for the anti God brigade to post mostly noisy and rude blog entries; its another thing to ask how serious are they, will they dig deep and sacrifice time, intellect and money yo their cause. Will they get beyond the whingeing and whining and their smug, unreflective assertions they they alone follow reason?"

Leaving aside the ad hominem attack and examining the substance of your assertion, let's examine your claim that without religious organisations, charitable work would suffer due to the lack of support from secularists (using your definition, "atheists"). This is a strawman argument. There are many, many secular charity and not-for-profit organisations in Australia that do good work.
I have worked for some and given to others. I have a friend who has devoted her life to working in difficult and dangerous conditions both in Australia and overseas for secular organisations.

Examples include:
* Oxfam
* Red Cross
* Doctors Without Borders
* UNICEF
* Fred Hollows Foundation
* Save The Children

...this is the tip of the iceberg

Most of these charities receive their funding just as religious organisations do and rely on voluntary contributions from individuals, businesses, government, trusts, community organisations etc. The difference is, as I stated in my previous post, that these charities must defend their charitable status by actually doing and proving they are doing charitable work, rather than just being a religion, which offers charitable status without the requirement to do charitable work.

In addition, re-inserting the (at least) half million dollars of tax payers money that goes to religions into charitable and social work that is judged not by it's religiousness, but by its outcomes, is surely a reasonable position.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 2:08:20 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
chrisdbarry, you may add Careflight, Rural Fire Services and Surf Lifesaving, etc. We should however not forget the hospital, hospice, aged-care/nursing-home and teaching institutions provided by various religious organisations, and generally at best practice standards.

On theology: I have been seeking evidence of the hand of God in the natural world and the cosmos, and I pose a question for a quantum physicist: What compels light to travel at 'C', irrespective of circumstance?

We see evidence of gravity's influence in red-shift and blue-shift - with a beam of light apparently 'determining' to vary its wavelength (hence, frequency) to 'adjust' for gravitational force, so as to maintain the constant 'C'. This 'shift' would indicate a variance in energy (given that the photo-electric effect indicates higher energy at higher frequencies - and vice-versa). Light has no brain, no intellect, so why this compulsion to maintain 'C'? It is a mysterious facet of nature - but from what causation?

I have not found evidence, but there is an implication that red- and blue-shift would also be observed in light emitting from a body moving quickly away (red-), and conversely towards (blue-), the observation point? Again in response to a compulsion to maintain 'C'. Is it so?

Time is also meant to be a constant, yet we hear of space-time curvature, and the effects of gravity. Could it not be that an atomic clock at high altitude or in space simply 'ticks' faster because its components (atoms, molecules, quanta) are able to move more freely? Do atomic clocks then work by registering the rate of emission of photons, or gamma or other radiation? And, could such emissions not be influenced by gravitational or magnetic forces? Ie, does time shift, or the measuring device? Space curvature may be a reality, but does the same hold for space-time?

Many things in nature are mysterious, a source of wonder and beauty, with one of these being the existence and the nature of light - itself so fundamental to life on Earth. Could the saying 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Light' have an additional aspect?
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 5:50:17 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
Hey Trav.... see below...

{"Ben98, were you born in 1998? Just curious."}

Wow - a belittling nasty religious person - thats a change.

{"If true, this is entirely irrelevant to my invitation to the RFF festival. "}

Yes - but it is relevant to your next point, that the RFF is free. Ofcourse its free... the church has been pillaging our wallets for 2000 years! The organiser does not need to cover costs with attendee funds - as it can cover those costs with the huge war chest of funds it has previously accumulated. I get the feeling your well aware that this was the point of the comment, but as per what seems to be your style - your simply choosing to be argumentative and manipulative.

{"None of which changes the fact that the festival was costly to attend, and in comparison, people have less barriers to attending the RFF festival. Hence, there's a reason for them to consider going. "}

Again, it was costly to attend because atheism has not been gathering funds for the last 2000 years and had to cover the costs of this event from the actual attendess. So, your statement that the GAC is a money making exercise is inaccurate - and the comparison you use for "proof" is manipulative.

Continued in next post
Posted by Ben98, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 6:10:01 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
{"Forgive me, I must be a blinded supporter.
You do realise that it is entirely unproductive to make sweeping statements like this, don't you?
Are you talking about the church of scientology or your local Baptist church? Or all of the above?"}

I realise you wont get this, but while it is a sweeping statement - it is also correct. All religions enjoy tax-free status in Australia, for no other reason than they are religious... so how would you like me to seperate them? into ones that have run their business really well and ones that haven't done so well? Perhaps the ones that lobby the government for more funds? Or the ones that have the "one true god", Or how about sorting them by the amount of harm they have caused in the last x years. (ill even let you choose the time period)

"FYI, Gloria Jeans is owned by a guy who is a member of Hillsong. It is not owned by "a religion" (whatever that means) nor Hillsong church."

ok, so a religious organisation forms trusts, in order to hold assets, just like a family trust or an individual, so therefore a religous organisation can own assets (and they own a lot of them) - does that help clear it up for you ? (someone else has already corrected you on hillsong)
Posted by Ben98, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 6:11:06 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
It's a wonder that there was enough room at the centre for all those massive intellects; or indeed, the even larger egos? If one is to follow a belief system then it would be no bad thing if they went back to the original evocations of their particular founding entity.
Jesus apparently said, turn the other cheek. What do those on the so called religious right, like Sarah Palin say? Put the cross hairs on progressive reformers? Jesus talked about the good Samaritan and doing unto others as we have done unto ourselves. Sounds like a good recipe for a truly workable society? Not so in the money grubbing U S of A, where a plan to provide health care for the great unwashed, met stubborn resistance from the moral majority?
The Prophet Mohamed taught the Jihad is solely an internal conflict against our own inner demons, and showed by his living example to believe in peaceful co-existence. Much of what he taught and wrote has been patently perverted, with the sole exception of the sofie movement, whose teachings have patently remained the most constant and original of all the Muslim traditions? Similarly Christianity and Buddhism have been revised edited and updated? Esoteric Christians could have been very easily mistaken for Buddhists? In fact, the born again teaching/reap what you sow and the sins of the fathers will be visited on their children, could apply just as well to reincarnation, as the so called in the flesh resurrection?
All the great religious tradition had founders who regularly practised mind stilling meditation. This was the source of their apparent wisdom and easily accessed by almost anyone, [except very small children and the criminally insane,] if they also would access the same eternal wisdom. It does no harm and many returned soldiers will agree that it can do a lot of good, particularly those suffering from post trauma distress etc. And don't knock something you've never ever tried least we begin to believe/suspect; that for some reason, you can't? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 6:19:29 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 those not wishing to read all of Saltpetre's post, here's the TL;DR.

"The universe is mysterious, therefore, god."
Posted by chrisdbarry, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:34:51 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
There will be any number of posters better qualified to answer your questions, Saltpetre… I find the whole wave and particle aspect of light mysterious. But this is how I was told to think about it:

Just think of light as always emanating at a constant speed and wavelength – a bit like looking at an ocean with all the waves the same height and spacing.

Now adjust your point of view – it is you the observer who is moving towards or away from the source of the waves. If you're moving towards the source (of the light) you hit the top of the evenly spaced waves at a higher frequency. If you're moving away from the source (of the light) you hit the tops of the evenly spaced waves at a lower frequency.

In all circumstances the speed of the waves is constant. Even though it doesn't seem that way to you.

Doesn't stop it being a source of wonder and beauty, though.

Gravity too can be a very weighty subject – but every time you stand up you overcome the gravitational force of the entire earth. But if you step off a cliff the earth will win.

Maybe one of the OLO mathematicians could help with some analogies about quantum physics and the fabric of space and time?

Chrisdbarry, I've always found Saltpetre more nuanced than you seem to be implying – and always open to answers to questions he poses – enquiring rather than proselytising.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:01:04 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
WmTrevor,

Thank you for your considerate and informative response.

chrisdbarry,

Perhaps there are 'more things in heaven and earth'? I most certainly don't have anywhere near all the answers - quite the contrary. Room for questioning remains, for inquiry, revision and evolution of thought and knowledge, in the continuing quest for ultimate truth in all things.

Albert Einstein, a very clear thinker, appears to have postulated that the future welfare of humankind lies in understanding and in respect for all life (my gist of various quotes). I can't argue with that, and Albert did a lot to understand. The quest continues, and for the intuitive mind there's more to life than mere existence.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 9:02:02 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
I've been reading up a bit n this stuff lately - and fascinating it is too.

This is how Brian Greene explains the relativity of space and time:

"....From the well-worn statement that the speed of light is constant, we conclude that "space and time are in the eye f the beholder". Each of us carries our own clock, our own monitor of the passage of time. Each clock is equally precise, yet when we move relative to one another, these clocks do not agree. They fall out of synchronicity, they measure different amounts of elapsed time between two chosen events. The same is true of distance. Each of us carries our own yardstick, our own monitor of distance in space. Each yardstick is equally precise, yet when we move relative to one another, these yardsticks do not agree; they measure different distances between the locations of two specified events. If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant: space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity....When you look at something like a parked car, which from your point of view is stationary - not moving through space, that is - all of its motion is through time. the car, its driver, the street, you, your clothes are all moving through time in perfect synch....But if the car speeds away, some of its motion though time is diverted into motion though space...the speed of the car through time slows down when it diverts me of its motion through time to motion through space..."

and

"...moving at light speed through space leaves no motion for travelling through time! Time stops when travelling at the speed of light through space..."
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 9:03:28 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
WmTrevor, I was probably too quick to dismiss and the time and effort you took to explain was admirable.

Saltpetre, can you explain your final statement please: "The quest continues, and for the intuitive mind there's more to life than mere existence." I want to be clear in your meaning rather than assume.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 11:12:46 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
Ben98, apologies for that snide remark originally- that was out of line.

So far as I can tell, the festival is being run by a committee supported by six different organisations! Do you know which of those 6 organisations is actually paying for the festival and where those 6 organisations are getting their cash from? If not, it's unfair for you to be going on about war chests, is it not? It's a little presumptous of you to talk about the church backing the event with it's "huge war chest of funds".

Besides, my point was to invite people along. Instead of paying $400 or whatever it was to hear some atheists preaching to the choir, why not watch some engaging discussions with various viewpoints?

And yes, my basis for claiming that it was a money making exercise was the cost involved. If not for the organisations running it then most definitely for the authors themselves. I wonder how many books Sam Harris and Dawkins sold?

(To be continued)
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 11:18:32 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
Ben98....

When you say that "All religions enjoy tax-free status in Australia, for no other reason than they are religious" you are begging two questions, in light of your other statements.

1. What's the connection between this statement and your previous comment?

You said that "religion...is clearly a business". I was criticising this. Look through the determinative factors used to determine if something is a business in Australia (example: http://www.ato.gov.au/content/66884.htm) and you will see that churches are not businesses. Churches have a social intent and purpose. You can see this by their core activities- ie: Worship services, preaching, social welfare, community activities. (And yes, I am aware of the current review of the definition of charity and yes, I support stringent regulations on commercial activities by generally non-commercial entities. This may mean extra admin, but I agree that religious organisations shouldn't get a free pass on commercial activities).

Very very very very few people get rich from religious activities. For every Brian Houston or TD Jakes, there are 1000's of local pastors just getting by. The majority of church pastors go through a bachelor's degree or more, and then earn a modest income. Furthermore, most of the time spent running local churches is time spent by volunteers who don't get paid a cent! Like it or not, these are facts.

2. Art and craft organisations, literature appreciation societies, greyhound racing clubs, etc, can all self assess income tax exempt status in Australia. Why should they receive exemption but religious organisations should not?

It is hard to avoid David Palmer's comment here- unless you're intent on specifically discriminating AGAINST religion, what argument can you mount here?
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 11:19:11 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
Trav, You tease us by saying that Benn98 twice begged the question and then not telling us the questions he begged. What were they?
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:02:36 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
>>Trav, You tease us by saying that Benn98 twice begged the question and then not telling us the questions he begged. What were they?<<

I don't think Trav knows what question begging actually means. It isn't common knowledge: they usually don't teach philosophy at school. Although I see no reason why it couldn't be made available as an elective for senior high school students. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking 'begs the question' means 'raises the question'.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 19 April 2012 9:01:20 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
athiestic beliefs
have feet of clay

STOP LYING TO KIDS*
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

isnt there a little dani-EL
in us all?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13502&page=0

just like allways
they got no fact

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#210411

get revealed
and run away

the THEO-ry..of godless evolution of new genus
is fraud*..live with it..it aint worth dying over[or insulting the great good..sustaining all living..our every breath

dare to lok at the proofs
we KNOW god dun it

we can prove science didnt do it
we know even today..science has a THEOry
but no proof..[sure it hides behind plenty of science

BUT the main premise..of non life
lol
evolving into life is lie

and further that snmall'evolutions'[sports/mutations]
CANNOT mutate out of its family genus

thus like the good books say
kids like their parents

sheep bred shep tares breed tares
sure sheep/goat..*kids look alinke
but the groan up..[at harvest are as disimular as tares from wheat

but if you got solf the evolving santa rabbhit lies
you think you got proof

lol
but any science rests on the feet of clay

GENUS..dont evolve..exta[out of genus]
dogs breed dogs..cat's breed cats
LIVE WITH IT

darwin wrote..evolution of SPECIES*
not evolution out of genus!

he knew one was true
the theory of evolution of genus*..the lie
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 19 April 2012 9:22:54 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
Thank you Chris for your civil, considered response. You make a number of good points. I have as number of responses.

On the issue of taxpayer funded concessions to religious bodies (funded to a degree by the religious taxpayers themselves) there is an historical element at play here that goes back to the early days of settlement when Governments made land grants to church bodies and presumably other institutions as well. The church I attend received such a land grant and on it established a church and school. Later in the 1870’s like most Protestant schools, the school was transferred to the Victorian Government on the basis that the Government could better develop and fund the school. As part of that transaction there was the agreement for religious education classes to be held on a weekly basis, this agreement now being attacked by atheists. In the case of my church the school remains next door as the local primary school.

So there is a historical basis to the kinds of support that churches and all other religious bodies receive.

I feel confident the Atheism being a non theistic belief system could if it was so minded agitate for and receive funding for its own institutions – witness how last weekend’s GAC was able to secure substantial Victorian Government funding, something I might add they weren’t too up front about during the Convention.

Charities of course are currently under review. Religious bodies no doubt along with all other charities have been arguing their continued status. However should all the tax payer assistance (or part) be withdrawn the churches will adjust – maybe some closures (my own denomination has quite a concentration of churches in the inner east, some well attended but others not). Some closures would mean a reduction in number of clergy which would be OK. On the other hand some local churches would feel freer to engage in commercial enterprise using their property knowing that they were going to pay rates and taxes anyway
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:05:54 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
What I do know is the church will survive and could even benefit from such changes, so I don’t entirely disagree with you. Let’s face it the early church had no property which did not hurt it. The church in China has grown rapidly in recent decades, mostly outside the state sanctioned churches, without Government support - rather the reverse. Estimates of Christians in China range up to 200 million with 80 million the most widely currently accepted estimate.

You make a point about a number of non religious charities, but you miss my point – I’m saying Churches because of their Biblical/Christian understanding of God, neighbour and the world in which we live are continuously starting new charities – thus in my own denomination we have 10, 12 years ago started a new charity to build an orphanage for orphans of AIDS parents and associated school in Malawi. It is truly amazing how our people have responded to that challenge. My question is, ‘what are Atheists doing on the basis of their Atheistic principles and my suspicion is that this kind of activity wouldn’t concern them”.

You have quoted a number of charitable NGO’s to me but the ones you quote are not as far as I know Atheist inspired, they are secular organisations, in which people of Religious faith, no faith and presumably Atheistic belief are able, because of the nature of the work, to work together. By the way the Red Cross started as a Christian organisation which is true of a large number of established charities no longer seen as specifically Christian.

You are plain wrong to conflate secular and Atheist – this was a sleight of hand on your part. In the secular space, e.g. in the functioning of the State the religious and non religious are found jostling together, staking out ground, whilst working as much as possible together.
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:11:56 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
One area where the jostling has always been intense has been the education of children. While most Protestant schools were absorbed into the State school system in the 1870’s the Catholics did not relinquish any of theirs. From the 1970’s on, the balance in the State school system between competing ideological forces began to shift decisively against the values of Christian parents with the result that, at great cost in terms of time, money and commitment, they began building independent Christian schools which are now educating a significant proportion of children across Australia. Some Christian parents have gone even further into home schooling. The result is the State School system is stagnating not because of lack of funding but for ideological reasons. A growing proportion of Australian parents prefer independent and faith based schools. Arguably, the anti religious faith, specifically anti Christian mindset that came to dominate in the education system from the 1970’s on, has only achieved a spectacular own goal.

I find it incredibly ironic, the law of unintended consequences, that the current push by Atheists to remove religious education from State Schools, if successful, will only increase the drift away from the State system. In the church I attend, only one family that I know of has their children in State based education, the rest of the children (and we have a lot of them) are in independent or Christian schools or are being home schooled.
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:14:53 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, at least it will keep them out of our universities.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:24:56 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
One last post for today: mralstoner, “says the Western World is in serious decline and the humanist movement is stagnating when it should be building communities and political parties. Time is running out”.

This fits with my charge that Atheism is not morally serious – this was never clearer than when observing the wildly cheering audience on Friday night at the Convention responding to a bunch dirty minded juvenile comedians whose every fifth word was ‘f...ing’ (OK Ben Elton was clever, considered, Mikey Robins ordinary whilst Jim Jeffries was gross IMO). How serious is that? “Caused them to think”, said one of the great ones, the following day. Sure, no further than their genitals. (My comment doesn’t extend to the presenters Kylie Sturgess or Lawrence Leung who were excellent with good natured clean humour from Lawrence)

This is the way I see it. The Atheists had their Convention and now they all go to their individual homes, saying, “well that’s over for another 2 years” and console themselves by writing pathetic anti religion entries on websites, or looking for the next offering from their puffed up Atheist clergy. There was nothing at the Convention to build an ongoing visible community to do specific good and noble deeds, just the stroking of the egos of the clergy, who no doubt took away all that adulation in a warm glow with a fat wallet of money in the pocket. The Western World is in serious decline and Atheism is part of that dying, but we in the Church don’t mean to die because we care so much about the Christian Gospel and what it means to the lives of ordinary people. We will adapt to our circumstances as we have always done through the centuries without whingeing, or being all that too fussed by the presence of Atheism because at the end of the day Atheism does nothing to help people make a success of their lives as citizens, members of families and the like.
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:28:25 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
Thanks David for your courage to sum of the predictable. Keep spreading the good news mate. You have certainly have displayed courage and seen yet again what the pathetic alternative is. The moral void created by secularism will just gravitate people like Anders and Mulsims to extremism. Maybe the flood of children to schools with at least some morals might give us a glimmer of hope. I have met many young brave kids who reject the secularist religion despite being bombarded by their dogmas. They can see clearly through the vileness of such a religion that masquerades as an angel of light.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:51:11 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,

Re your quote from Brian Greene: "..From the well-worn statement that the speed of light is constant, we conclude that "space and time are in the eye f the beholder".

This would seems to suggest (per: 'well-worn statement') that the speed of light may in fact vary from a constant 'C'. "In the eye of the beholder" suggests either an 'illusion' (optical?) or a fault in our measuring equipment?

Greene plays what appears to be a neat slight of hand here: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant: space and time do behave this way." Space and time Do behave this way? And how can he demonstrate a proof for this explanation? I have not seen others suggesting that light may only 'appear' to travel at 'C' - but rather have stated clearly that light always travels at 'C'.

This would appear to conflict with a potential theory/explanation (from my 'reading') that 'red-shift' in a beam of light escaping a high-gravity object suggests that the expenditure of part of the beam's energy (to overcome gravity) causes the beam to extend its wavelength, and hence reduce its frequency, but thereby maintaining a transit speed of 'C'. Similarly, that same beam of light would be expected to reduce its wavelength, and hence increase its frequency, when approaching an attractive gravitational force - again to maintain a constant 'C'.

My original question(s) re light speed and space-time are yet to be adequately answered, and I'm still waiting for a quantum physicist's response.

My inquiry re 'the Way the Truth and the Light' may hinge on that response.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:33:09 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
chrisdbarry,

Re my statement: "The quest continues, and for the intuitive mind there's more to life than mere existence."

The intuitive and seeking mind of Albert Einstein revolutionised human understanding in physics, mechanics and mathematics, but he also made some intuitive observations of the human condition, which, coming from the greatest mind of our time, warrant deep consideration. Albert was not satisfied with mere existence, but was also 'human', and was troubled by the future of nuclear weapons and the future of humanity. If Albert stated that the future of humanity lies in compassion, understanding and respect for All Life, we should take heed.

The challenge, the quest, is the achievement of harmony and respect - the next 'evolution' of civilisation - rather than pure and divorced 'science' for its own sake. Can spirituality play a part in this, the ultimate quest? The jury is still deliberating.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:34:35 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
>> "I find it incredibly ironic, the law of unintended consequences, that the current push by Atheists to remove religious education from State Schools, if successful, will only increase the drift away from the State system. In the church I attend, only one family that I know of has their children in State based education, the rest of the children (and we have a lot of them) are in independent or Christian schools or are being home schooled."
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:14:53 PM

That seems to be quite contradictory, David. If many church-attending families are already out of the state system, there cannot be an increased drift away. Besides, is half to one hour per week all that significant?

Moreover, if many or most religious families are already out of the state system, then the state system ought to be able to ditch religious education without much of a ripple.

There is no law of unintended consequences - it is a simple proposition ... for anthropology?? sociology??

I take issue with your "not morally-serious" assertion. A few comedians do not reflect atheist-associated human dimensions. I could go on ab out a number of things, but don't feel it would be appreciated.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:40:49 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
salty is right/quote..""I have not seen others..suggesting that light may only 'appear' to travel at 'C'...*but rather have stated clearly that light*always travels at 'C'.""

i agree..the emmission speed/rate..of photons
must be regarded as a constant..[or else all that light years away stuff becomes nonsense]

""This would appear to conflict
with a potential theory/explanation...that 'red-shift'
in a beam of light""[photon stream]

""escaping a high-gravity object..suggests that the expenditure of part of the beam's energy..(to overcome gravity)..causes the beam to extend its wavelength,""

wooo there
not so fast

photons dont have much weight
''to overrcome gravity'? is missdirection
what of horisontal light beam..they dont bend..[by lol gravity]

""and hence reduce its frequency,""

ahhh now we are nearing another certainty
the frequency of the wave..of individual photons
is determinate by its cause[light bulbs releasing photons[light]
at the same rate as a wood fire...BUT

the quality of the light is different
cause light..isnt just a release of photons
but many other shorter/slower..vibrations..recombine..into 'the light'

to explain..that light beam..refracted..from a plane
scatters the sepperate light parts...but did each vibrational wave
travel at the same speed[who knows?]]

who knew..""but thereby maintaining
a transit speed of 'C'.''

the next bit isnt logical
so skip them

""My original question(s)re light speed and space-time
are yet to be adequately answered,..and I'm still waiting for a quantum physicist's response.""

yeah lol
good luck with that
how much money you offering them?

""My inquiry re..'the Way,,the Truth and the Light'
may hinge on that response""

why?

how does light go the same 'speed'
in both a vacume and in a gravitational vortex..
that may bend the light..but not stop...*all the light is revealing..*of the light

light to love
light sustains life to live
that via living in the light..enjoin the light to sustain life

that light..via logic
lead life to love
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 19 April 2012 2:05:44 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
Tony/Glen

Actually Tony I do know of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

I was using the phrase colloquially to mean raising a question. Many people use the term that way, so criticising someone for it is just being a nit picking grammar nerd. You aren't one of those, are you? :-)
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 19 April 2012 2:44:46 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
I suspect you may be largely correct in your summation, David Palmer.

>>This is the way I see it. The Atheists had their Convention and now they all go to their individual homes, saying, “well that’s over for another 2 years” and console themselves by writing pathetic anti religion entries on websites, or looking for the next offering from their puffed up Atheist clergy.<<

In all aspects bar one, very important, exception.

You say "the Atheists", as if the folk who attended this jamboree were actually representative of atheism. Let me assure you, they are not. You observed an unappealing fragment of the atheist population, who choose to define their atheism by taking juvenile potshots at religion in general, and targeting Islam in particular. In a way, not at all unlike the Southern Baptists, taking the Mickey out of Catholics and mumbling to themselves about the evil Muslims.

But as I pointed out to you before you went, you were looking for something that isn't there.

>>There was nothing at the Convention to build an ongoing visible community to do specific good and noble deeds<<

Atheism isn't a "community".

It is a simple, uncomplicated lack of belief in a deity. People who happen to be atheists do set up charities, of course - although I notice that you pigeonhole such people as "secular" - but they don't do it because they are atheists, they do it because they are people. Citizens. Families. Organizations.

And here you go again:

>>Atheism does nothing to help people make a success of their lives as citizen<<

That is because it is not a religion, or a self-help manual, or a community separate from other communities.

I know, when 4,000 of them get together for a weekend, it is tempting to give them that label, so that you can take a few free kicks and feel good about yourself. But take heart - Hillsong entertains 20,000 every Sunday. And their annual conference is a hundred dollars cheaper.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 19 April 2012 3:18:03 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
>>I was using the phrase colloquially to mean raising a question. Many people use the term that way, so criticising someone for it is just being a nit picking grammar nerd.<<

Who was criticising you? You're right that a lot of people do use the term that way: most of them don't know any better. But there is already a perfectly good phrase which means raising a question: raising a question. I could tell what you meant from the context but by using the most appropriate phrase you can avoid any risk of confusing anybody and communicate your ideas as effectively and efficiently as possible. A valuable lesson which seems to have escaped poor one under god.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 19 April 2012 3:24:52 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
Pericles, although I agree with most of what you write, you do yourself no favours by making the statement:

'You say "the Atheists", as if the folk who attended this jamboree were actually representative of atheism. Let me assure you, they are not. You observed an unappealing fragment of the atheist population, who choose to define their atheism by taking juvenile potshots at religion in general, and targeting Islam in particular. In a way, not at all unlike the Southern Baptists, taking the Mickey out of Catholics and mumbling to themselves about the evil Muslims.'

You then go on to make the correct statement that atheism isn't a community, it is simply an 'uncomplicated lack of belief in a deity'.

Please don't deign to take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of a community that doesn't exist
Posted by chrisdbarry, Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:35:31 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
Not sure of your point, chrisdbarry.

>>Please don't deign to take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of a community that doesn't exist<<

I have never suggested that I speak for anyone else except myself, and certainly not that I in any way speak on behalf of other atheists. These folk do just that, which is what hacks me off.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:58:37 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
Pericles, you say that the people that attended the conference were not representative of atheism, whilst also contending that atheism has no community. You're right on the latter claim and confused on the former.

You seem to make assumptions about the people at the conference without any knowledge about them. You are misinformed if you conclude that the event was attended by people who "choose to define their atheism by taking juvenile potshots at religion in general, and targeting Islam in particular". I was there - here's what I experienced. People from all walks of life and many backgrounds. People in their teens and people in their 80s. Men and women. People from many cultures and countries.

I can also only guess you don't know what the topics of discussion were. The topics were broad and diverse. Science, society, philosophy, personal... The approach was diverse. Serious, lighthearted, humorous, somber...

Some of the attendees may define their atheism as you claim, but your blanket statement cannot be made to define either the attendees or the conference.

If you wish to make a statement about your position, great, but don't claim you speak for "real atheists". As you note, there's no such thing.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:58:25 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
Jeez, chrisdbarry, how many more times do I need to say it?

>>If you wish to make a statement about your position, great, but don't claim you speak for "real atheists"<<

Read my lips.

>>I have never suggested that I speak for anyone else except myself, and certainly not that I in any way speak on behalf of other atheists. These folk do just that, which is what hacks me off.<<

It would have been more honest if the conference had been titled "New Atheists Convention". So when my Christian friends ask, why such animosity, why such derision, why such ridicule passed off as "humour", I can explain that it is just a new sect, made up of a bunch of self-righteous activists.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 21 April 2012 8:59:01 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 would have been more honest if the conference had been titled "New Atheists Convention". So when my Christian friends ask, why such animosity, why such derision, why such ridicule passed off as "humour", I can explain that it is just a new sect, made up of a bunch of self-righteous activists.<<

Just what atheists need to prove that they are more rational, mature etc. than the theists: a few good old fashioned schisms.

It starts with people like Pericles arbitrarily categorising atheists as New Atheists or proper atheists depending on whether he agrees with their opinions: it ends with all out war with bloodthirsty sea otters.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 21 April 2012 9:28:45 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
Pericles, you were obviously not in attendance and again mis-characterise an event you didn't attend and draw a false conclusion. This is called a strawman.

I will repeat that the topics of discussion and the people in attendance were diverse. Whilst activism was certainly discussed, so was philosophy, society, physics...

You should read up on the history of atheism - the so called "new atheists" are by no means the first to suggest that privilege of religion is questionable only to be met with shock at the mere suggestion.

If you cannot defend your own position in a way that makes your Christian friends feel comfortable, perhaps you should address your own situation rather than make false claims about something you know little about.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Saturday, 21 April 2012 2:39:30 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
Poirot and WmTrevor,

I must apologize for my response on 19 April regarding the speed of light and space-time. I guess I have been looking for something simple, something my tiny brain could get to terms with. No such luck, no simple answers. It is a puzzlement, and reading about Prof. Brian Greene, WMAP, Cosmic Background Radiation and string theory leaves me looking at the ground and just being thankful I'm here at all.

Thank you for your input and your kind forbearance. I am going to crawl back into my hole, look up at the stars in wonder, and meditate on just how small and insignificant I really am. (Whilst also continuing to marvel at the wealth of knowledge some have accumulated, and at their spectacular mental prowess.)

I guess it was always a stupid idea of mine that maybe, just maybe, the odd behaviour of light might somehow indicate the possibility of 'outside' intervention, or at least a magical 'design' feature defying randomness. I shall continue to hold life and the universe in awe, but will try to avoid looking for any more 'fairies' in the 'garden'. (Lest I may actually spot one.)

With religion playing a part in so much turmoil in the world, past and present, there is little hope of any new 'messiah' being taken seriously, no matter how enlightened, and it becomes increasingly questionable when, if ever, humankind will attain true humility.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 21 April 2012 3:07:18 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
salty/quote..""I guess it was always..a stupid idea of mine that maybe,..*just maybe,..the odd behaviour of light..*might somehow indicate the possibility of 'outside' intervention,""

it does[at its simplest level...think of a spark
caused by striking a flint with steel

all light has a cause
no matter how far..the cause seems constant

even the darkest patches of sky..ARE FILLED with light

unseen light[dark matter when moving
light photons...reflecting light bands of colour..when diflected at just the right angle[darn i wish i had the words to explain what im being shown

matter is light..[like a ball of lightening]
which is energy looping up upon itself..so the ball lightening[matter]..loops up upon itself[looped light;captured centrifical forces..in random order

further comes the orbit attound the atom
its going in a figure 8[arround one pole..then the other]'at different distances from the center..as more unite in their orbits
[and get heavier]

""or at least a magical 'design' feature
defying randomness.""

there are
everything must have a cause
evberry action has an equal and oppisite reaction

light is unseen
yet reveals what is there to be seen

just think..we stand loking at a picture
your eyes..recieving the colours
and mine recieving mny image

LOOK how the light from the picture..crossed
on the way to your eyes..with the colours on the way to mine

yet we bothsee it perfectly
thanks to 3 receptors..who generate
chemical like messengers sent allong the nerves..to end up upside down...

...*in thousands of bits within our brain
yet..*one true picture..*in our minds

its amasing how we see that in our mind
by what we expect to see

first people couldnt concieve in their minds..sail;ing ships
they really couldnt see..nuthin on the sea

light..is the result of a cause
that releases,...individual bits..in event waves
no doudt event defines the lights qualities...[but its all vibration]

ie waves

high vibration
lower vibration
and everything in between

its all...
['..8=E]

just different vibes of 'the light*
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 21 April 2012 3:55:44 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
I'll accept it, Saltpetre but it isn't necessary… I was just hoping that someone better qualified would answer your specific questions.

In a nutshell – light is a constant and is not affected by gravity. Photons IF they have any mass at all have a mass AT LEAST 100 million, million, million times less than an electron. But the kicker is that gravity distorts the fabric of space itself. From slightly warped in the case of the first observational proofs of this during a solar eclipse, through to totally warped back on itself as in a black hole singularity.

This from NASA may help, http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html

You might enjoy checking out the BBCs podcast archive for 'In Our Time', the science programs are surprisingly comprehensible (except the one on Macromolecules – I'm still scratching my head). Then for a change of pace you can dip into the ones on religion or philosophy or history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iots/all

Enjoy...
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 21 April 2012 4:45:50 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's not my classification, Tony Lavis.

>>It starts with people like Pericles arbitrarily categorising atheists as New Atheists<<

It is a term that has been in common usage for a while. Even Wikipedia has heard of it.

"New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of 21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that 'religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises'"

That sounds remarkably like the conventioneers to me, as self-described in an earlier article by David Nicholls.

"...ordinary citizens are balking at being a part of its support base, whether that is by taxation breaks or the unseemly indoctrination of young people in government schools. Religion has attempted to keep women as a second class, it denies homosexuals equality, it prevents effective sex-education for the young, it encourages a them and us mentality, it would like to control women's fertility, it is against stem-cell research, it prevents the vast population who wants the ability to end it all if the pain is unbearable, and some of it is in total denial about evolution and would teach that to children."

So it has nothing to do with my categorization - they are self-confessed New Atheists. As they happily explain:

"Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs. It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance"

http://newatheists.org/

You are probably right in your conclusion, though.

>>it ends with all out war with bloodthirsty sea otters<<

http://myths-made-real.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/creature-feature-sea-otter.html

They certainly look ready to rumble. Watch out.

And chrisdbarry, you misunderstand completely.

>>If you cannot defend your own position in a way that makes your Christian friends feel comfortable...<<

It is not my position I am forced to defend, it is yours.

The blunt-instrument approach, under the banner "educate the uneducated". All thanks to the gathering of your sect under the umbrella term "Global Atheist Convention".
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 21 April 2012 6:05:00 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
Saltpetre,

More from Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos)

"Einstein realised that gravity and accelerated motion are two sides of the same coin....that the force one feels from gravity and the force one feels from acceleration are one and the same. They are equivalent...[and]...since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, if you feel gravity's influence, you must be accelerating.
...Einstein was able to invoke the equivalence principle to profound effect. Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, Einstein understood that gravity itself must be nothing but warps and curves in the fabric of spacetime. Of equal importance, since general relativity specifies the detailed mechanism by which gravity works, it provides a mathematical framework for determining how fast it transmits its influence. The speed of transmission comes down to the question of how fast the shape of space can change in time. That is, how quickly can warps and ripples...race from place to place through space. He found that warps and ripples - gravity, that is - do not travel from place to place instantaneously, as they do in Newtonian calculations of gravity. Instead they travel at exactly the speed of light...fully in keeping with the speed limit set by relativity...."
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 21 April 2012 7:34:14 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
Saltpetre,

On the subject of motion through time and space - from Greene:

"Special relativity declares a similar law for all motion: 'the combined speed of any object's motion through space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light.'

When the parked car you were looking at speeds away, what really happens is that some of its light-speed motion is diverted from motion through time into motion through space...Moreover the maximum speed through space is reached when all light-speed motion through time is fully diverted into light-speed motion through space - one way of understanding why it is impossible to go through space faster than the speed of light.......the effects of special relativity are most pronounced when speeds (through space) are a significant fraction of light speed. But the unfamiliar, complementary nature of motion through space and time always applies. The lesser the speed, the smaller the deviation from prerelativity physics--from common sense, that is - but the deviation is still there, to be sure....In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating flew state-of-the-art cesium-beam atomic clocks around the world on a commercial Pan Am jet. When they compared the clocks flown on the plane with identical clocks left stationary on the ground, they found that less time had elapsed on the moving clocks. The difference was tiny--a few hundred billionths of a second--but it was precisely in accord with Einstein's discoveries..."
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 21 April 2012 7:56:36 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
Pericles, tell me out of this section that you quote, which bits are inaccurate?

"...ordinary citizens are balking at being a part of its support base, whether that is by taxation breaks or the unseemly indoctrination of young people in government schools. Religion has attempted to keep women as a second class, it denies homosexuals equality, it prevents effective sex-education for the young, it encourages a them and us mentality, it would like to control women's fertility, it is against stem-cell research, it prevents the vast population who wants the ability to end it all if the pain is unbearable, and some of it is in total denial about evolution and would teach that to children."
Posted by chrisdbarry, Saturday, 21 April 2012 11:34:47 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
>>It's not my classification<<

>>It is a term that has been in common usage for a while.<<

One which you're only too happy to adopt. Labelling people New Atheists or True Atheists or Orthodox Atheists or Atheists of the First Definitely Not a Church of Definitely Not a Saint Pericles seems silly and needlessly divisive: it's only going to help foster intolerance. How is that a good thing? But I see you're happy to run with the idea. That strikes me as the action of a man is spoiling for a schism.

>>You are probably right in your conclusion, though.<<

I am definitely right for I have seen the future: it was on South Park. I can therefore say with complete certainty that fostering schisms amongst the atheist community is a very bad idea.

>>tell me out of this section that you quote, which bits are inaccurate?<<

This bit:

>>Religion has attempted to keep women as a second class, it denies homosexuals equality, it prevents effective sex-education for the young, it encourages a them and us mentality, it would like to control women's fertility, it is against stem-cell research, it prevents the vast population who wants the ability to end it all if the pain is unbearable<<

I'm a theist: I'm pretty sure my faith hasn't done any of those things let alone try. It should read more like this:

Some religion has attempted to keep women as a second class, some religion denies homosexuals equality, some religion prevents effective sex-education for the young, some religion encourages a them and us mentality, some religion would like to control women's fertility, some religion is against stem-cell research, some religion prevents the vast population who wants the ability to end it all if the pain is unbearable.

Some religion does not. Many religious people are tolerant, open-minded and liberal in their philosophies. Some atheists are not. It seems to me that religion doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with being a narrow-minded dick. Chris: are you sure you're really against religion? Maybe you're just against narrow-minded dickery.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 22 April 2012 12:25:09 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
it just sounds so counter-intuative..[pureoh]

quote/..""if you feel gravity's influence,
you must be accelerating.""

and that is cause that is wrong
its not 'you'..accelorating..but the electons etc orbiting arround the atom...[each acting by a centrifical force]..much like a unicycle[time quadrillians[if not googliians of atoms..making up you[or any thing!

weight it trilions of centrifical forces
from the bits orbiting the atom

these bits...may lead to the string theory
[that i combined with the ball lightening factoid]

""...Einstein was able to invoke..the equivalence principle to profound effect""

thanks[will look into that''principle'.]
''Since gravity..and acceleration are equivalent,""

it still sounds wrong
there has to be a better word

""Einstein understood that gravity itself.must be nothing but warps and curves in the fabric of spacetime.""

i try to visualise words as i read
spacetime..is an absurdity[it cant be conmstant..thus has no place in science as definitive anything[lert alone a measure of space or time

""Of equal importance""

why?

""since general relativity..specifies the detailed mechanism
by which gravity works,it provides a mathematical framework for determining..how fast it transmits its influence.""

oh dear its getting complicate
are you refering to air soil/vacume..'resistance factors..
frictions..atominc omnipolar..perpetual motion's of electrons/neutrons etc?

.. The speed of transmission""

of what..[generally relitive..;gravity?]
comes down,,to the question of how fast..the shape of space can change..""[what space//air pace..mud space..vacume space]

what is
''the shape..of space..[lol]..in time.''?

say a ball falling..[or a feather falling
it falls by moving through*..whatever..till it cant fall*..no more

think like a nuke melt down
or liquifacation...[osmosis like affect..its a main life principle]

""That is,..how quickly can warps/ripples...
race from place to place..through space.""

the waves..of whatever..was displaced
slapping back..to where they were

[intresting point]..at atomic level..
each sepperate molicule..rotates..within its place..
bumping into its others..a knock-on affect..of action/reaction..

as that displaced
seeks to resume..its rightfull place..[as spsce]

?""He found..that warps/ripples=gravity""

waves?
see waves..isnt any prime'cause'..

its affect..[re-action..[of a motion/type..
that determins..the re-action..affect

""gravities warps/ripples..do not travel..from place to place instantaneously,..as they do..in Newtonian calculations..of gravity.""

Instead..they travel..at exactly the speed of light...fully in keeping..with the speed limit..set by relativity...."

im suss..on them last two statements
but said..too/much..allready

what proof?
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 22 April 2012 7:30:38 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
OUG,

I'm not a scientist, which is why I was quoting Brian Greene from his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

Regarding acceleration and our conscious experience of the equivalence between gravity and acceleration. In the book he gives the example of moving in a car. Ordinarily we aren't aware that we are hurtling through space and time on our planet - because we are accelerating at a "constant" speed. If, for instance, you are travelling in a car at a constant speed there would no noticeable feeling of acceleration if you couldn't look out the window and notice the objects you are passing - yet if you speed up, slow down or turn a corner, you feel the impact of the change in acceleration. turning a corner you feel the effect in being pressed to one side - speeding up, you are pressed back in your seat.

Regarding gravity travelling at the speed of light. Greene uses the analogy about what would happen if suddenly the moon was to disappear: - "...Newton's law predicts that the water would start to recede from high tide because of the loss of the moon's gravitational pull, about a second and a half 'before you saw the moon disappear from the sky'...instantaneously....Yet, since it takes light a second and a half to travel the quarter million miles between the moon and the earth, you wouldn't immediately see that the moon had disappeared. For a second and a half it would seem that the tides were receding from a moon that was still shining...." Einstein's theory found that if [for example] the moon disappeared, "...the tides would recede a second and a half later, at exactly the same moment we'd see that the moon had vanished...."
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 22 April 2012 9:17:20 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
'...schisms among the atheist community.' Now we are a formal community?

There are already schisms because atheists are human beings first and are not a homogenous group in the same way Christians cannot agree and the result is thousands of different denominations.

Do some atheists really feel it is necessary to go around pushing atheism just because they simply don't have a belief in the supernatural.

I dont' speak for atheism and certainly don't perceive atheists as a part of a community separate from any other community. Haven't we all had enough of proselytising?

Sure why not have atheist gatherings of the like-minded but what is the purpose of 'officialising' it with government grants and formal conventions. You are of course free to do so and I suppose given the governments largesse in funding religion why NOT the atheists.

It seems contradictory though given secularists have argued to keep personal beliefs private and for the home, and rally against undue influence on governments.

Theists and non-theists alike cannot have it both ways in arguing for bans against interference from governments but then wishing, by contrast, to have undue influence on governments.

Given that is one of the biggest criticisms of theism coming from the Atheist Foundation it seems hypocritical to then mirror that behaviour or sense of entitlement.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 22 April 2012 10:18:51 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
pureoh/quote''..or turn a corner,..you feel the impact..
of the change in acceleration...you feel the effect""

impact?
affect?

its a law...that a mass in motion seeks to continue..on its line
untill an equal or oppisite force stops it..

[usually,,by some form of friction]
or,,*containment[like ball lightening/matter]...
or missdirection like a force that pushes[resists]..its forward motion..enough to force a partial change of imputus
""in being pressed to one side
you are pressed back in your seat.""

action/reaction
the force is affecting your body mass motion

""Regarding gravity
travelling at the speed of light.""

thats pure bull

gravity..is an affect of the light
mass is 'containment'..of the light

""you saw the moon disappear..from the sky'...instantaneously....""

but its mass must still have its affect

think like a darkmoon
its trickery

wordspin

not science theory?

""Yet,since it takes light a second and a half
to travel the quarter million miles between the moon and the earth, you wouldn't immediately see...that the moon had disappeared.""

but you know its affect
mass is still there[cause mass is subject to FRICTIONS

...." Einstein's theory found..that if[for example]
the moon disappeared,"...

MASS CANT "DISAPPEAR"
YET ITS LIGHT REFRACTION CAN

but NOT its MASS[E=mc2]
E=mass[entraped light]

think..""the tides would recede a second and a half later,
at exactly the same moment..we'd see that the moon had vanished...."

wait twenty8..days following a full moon..[0]
lol
[.]

test HIS theory*
gravity aint light
its an affect[quality]..of the light

E=el
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 22 April 2012 11:05:07 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
Pelican, I would go along with the point you make - if people with a secular or atheist outlook were not copping the rough end of the pineapple. They have been getting that from pushy proseltysing religions for generations, and the push is not subsiding. I doubt if Dawkins et al would be making a peep about the pulpit if aggressive religion was not running down his genes.
Posted by colinsett, Sunday, 22 April 2012 11:13:34 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
OUG,

Obviously by "impact" I meant the effect or experience of force upon one's body.

The examples I cited from the book were meant to aid a layman's understanding. The example was "if the moon was suddenly removed from its orbit of the earth - ie, not there anymore". If it's no longer there, then its mass ceases to have an effect.


Obviously you consider yourself, on this and other scientific issues, way ahead of "science".

Take it up with Brian Greene - or Einstein ("Forgive me, Newton."), when you catch up with him.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 22 April 2012 11:20:30 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
Tony, I am both an atheist AND against narrow minded dickery.

I cannot prove there is no god, but on the weight of evidence and my intellectual commitment to truth I believe there is no god, so I classify as an atheist. As an atheist, I live my life as if this is it - my one shot to live a good life, my one shot to make the world a better place, my one shot to make my family and friends happy, my one shot to try to live up to my potential, my one shot to leave something behind - a memory perhaps, but maybe something more substantial...

Personal belief in a god or gods is way down at the bottom of what I care about (some classify this as deism). I am happy to debate the topic on an intellectual/philosophical basis, but the answers are beyond debate.

Theism on the other hand is at the top of my list. The reason it is at the top of my list is that religion plays politics. Religion intrudes into my life by a) claiming superior knowledge of how life should be lived and b) attempting to force me to live according to these standards. As soon as religion moves from the personal to the political it becomes fair game for rebuttal and defence. The moment religion enters politics, it opens itself up to broad scrutiny and it must be prepared for this to take place. If not happy, the answer is simple.

There are a spectrum of issues in this political sphere, which vary in importance. My personal top 3 are:
1. Religions intruding into my child's education - school chaplaincy program.
2. Religions receiving financial benefits drawn from public taxation simply for being a religion.
3. Religion playing any formal part in federal or state politics. e.g. saying prayer before parliament.

I feel that my position is pretty mild and fair minded and I am happy to discuss it further.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Sunday, 22 April 2012 6:03:34 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
Pericles, you are mistaken in believing that the Global Atheist Convention, the Atheist Foundation of Australia (who ran it) or its attendees claim any sort of "one true atheist" position. I have provided significant evidence in my previous posts for this, however here's some more.

Here's the "Aims" section from the AFA:
* To encourage and to provide a means of expression for informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues.
* To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people.
* To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people.
* To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith so as to enable people to take responsibility for the full development of their potential as human beings.
* To promote atheism.

None of this in any way claims to be the "true" or "only" atheism. You are claiming a strawman position and have continued to claim it against all evidence to the contrary. If the newatheists.org which you linked to had put the convention on, your position would be strong, but to link to a completely separate organisation/website is, as I said, simply creating a strawman.

If you wish to debate the actual position or aims of the AFA or the convention, I would be happy to have that debate.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Sunday, 22 April 2012 6:16:53 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
im sorry pureo
but the moon cant sim ply disappear
so any 'science'...that relies on an impossability
well just cant happen

anyone who says it can
need explain..not me

its not about 'clever'
but what is possable

and moons dont 'disappear'

i know like others
believing other trickey bits ...
laughingly caled science..that may hurt

but i thought we were at least able to discuss it logicly

i know
silly me

moons vanish all the time
heck half the world will melt with global scamming

watc out
the birdflue..smoking kills [when used as intended]..lol
but booze sugar/pills kill far more..than deaths ATTRIBUTABLE to smokers..

but its a free choice
believe moons disappear
that wont affect my surity thats just not going to happen

sure the cheese would be worth millions
but..[man cant even bproove it landed on the moon

the vision we saw was faked
dick cheeney admitted that..on an sbs docco

i believe him
i disbelieve moon dissapearing

so sue me

lol

we are an opinion site
its my opinion..decievers use [abuse],..
the intent/meaning/values..of the true science's

how about the man on the moon
he will be peeved..[where did his moon go?]

half backed theories..wont even melt the cheese
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 22 April 2012 9:26:10 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
silly me will try to explain
imagine..your in a sphere..one kilometer in diamater

holding a pebble..the size of your thumb[in its center
the thum size pebble..is the same proportions..as an atom..
and its electrons[much smaller than the atom...[mere sparks]in size..orbit within that 1 kilometer sphere[surrounding the atom]

now cool the atom..the electrons..fall closer to the atom
heat will move the sphere of tyhe electrons/neutrons etc..further

now imagine..holding an atom..[say air molicules
squeze them in twice..the atmosphere presure,,

and the orbiting electrons etc..begin to interfere..with each other
forcing electrons..into a lower orbital plane[this is what presure..in containment is

kep pumping in more atoms/more lowerr orbits..evenbtually achieve a change of state[gas..into liquid[but release the presure..the orbits return to their 'gas state'

but why bother
science says its chaotic loose electroons ,making 'the' pressure
and thats what the grownps stil felieve[lies told to kids]

i recall why people frustrate me

i proove to them wood coal etc cant burn
only gas burns..[heat wood it releases gas
at no stage does wood/coal solids burn..

but near most gasses
even metalic gas..[all but inert gasses]can be made to burn
but too much info from a retard [me]..to take any of it serious
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 22 April 2012 9:43:39 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
OUG,

"but the moon can't sim ply disappear"

Well, der....

Greene used the example of aliens making off with the moon, not as part of a scientific theory, but as an absurd point of departure to explain that gravity and light move at the same speed. He also employed Bart Simpson and his skateboard to try and catch up to the speed of light for the same utility, but I'm not thinking that it's something nine year-old boys do that often.

It was not about the bloody moon, it was about the speed of gravity and light.

But you knew that already.

lol yerself mate...
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 22 April 2012 11:19:28 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
I find it a little sad, chrisdbarry, that you cannot grasp such a simple fact.

>>Pericles, you are mistaken in believing that the Global Atheist Convention, the Atheist Foundation of Australia (who ran it) or its attendees claim any sort of "one true atheist" position<<

I do not hold any such belief, and I'm pretty amazed that you continue to misread my posts here with such unerring consistency. In fact, I have stated on any number of occasions that I don't consider there to be any such category as "one true atheist".

What I do object to (how many more times do I have to say it, I wonder) is that other people set themselves up as spokespeople for "Atheism". They do not represent me. I don't particularly care whether as a group they are homogeneous, heterogeneous or simply out for a good time. By trumpeting themselves as the "Global Atheist Conference", they are presenting themselves as a Global movement, pushing the Atheist barrow.

>>You are claiming a strawman position<<

By attributing to me characteristics I do not possess, and then attacking those characteristics, I'd suggest you are a classic example of the strawman argument.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 23 April 2012 4:01:07 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
Pericles, you have simply come to the wrong conclusion when you state that "by trumpeting themselves as the "Global Atheist Conference", they are presenting themselves as a Global movement, pushing the Atheist barrow".

The "Global" bit is the fact that attendees and speakers came from around the globe, no more than that. There are "Global" conferences held around the world on all sorts of topics - health, technology, politics, education, climate... the list is virtually endless. They don't claim that the conference speaks on behalf of the attendees or even claim that the issue (or movement) is global. They simply set up a forum for discussion and information sharing, with speakers from around the world and from different areas of expertise.

Atheism, more than many other groups of topics of interest, is unstructured and has a "broad church" (to borrow the term) and no group could ever claim to speak on behalf of all atheists. That is left up to religions, the Catholic Church being the best example.

You didn't counter my example of your strawman except to claim I had done the same thing. I still contend you presented a strawman by attributing the classification "new atheist" to the conference, which was not used by the conference, then linking to an unassociated website and then attacking that premise. Some of the attendees may have self identified as "new atheists", but this is largely a term imposed to describe a position that has been around since the French Revolution. It is definitely not new.

I am not sure what characteristics I attributed to you, but would be happy to discuss further - I am always looking to improve my logic.
Posted by chrisdbarry, Monday, 23 April 2012 5:14:55 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
>>Tony, I am both an atheist AND against narrow minded dickery.

I cannot prove there is no god, but on the weight of evidence and my intellectual commitment to truth I believe there is no god, so I classify as an atheist. As an atheist, I live my life as if this is it<<

Chris, I am both a theist AND against narrow minded dickery.

I cannot prove there is a god, but on the weight of my intellectual commitment to truth I believe there is a god, so I classify as a theist. But not the sort who believes in an afterlife so I too live my life as if this is it. It seems you have rather a lot in common with us theists: maybe more than you'd care to admit? Maybe we're not such nasty bogey-men after all? Some of us anyway: I can only speak for myself and not the Cardinal Pells or the Archbishop Jensens or the Reverend Niles or the runners of this world. Maybe in time we could learn to be friends.

>>Theism on the other hand is at the top of my list. The reason it is at the top of my list is that religion plays politics. Religion intrudes into my life by a) claiming superior knowledge of how life should be lived and b) attempting to force me to live according to these standards.<<

Speaking of strawmen: your attack on religion and theism as a whole is based on an over-generalization from the dickish behaviour of SOME religions and theists. I take offence at the suggestion that all theists are dicks just because Fred Nile gives you the sh1ts. He gives me the sh1ts too. If it bothers you so much take it up with Fred Nile and stop insulting the rest of us.

If you do wish to continue attacking religion and theism as a whole then you'll need to tighten up your arguments and find a stronger platform than your weak generalizations because your current argument is a bit holey.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 23 April 2012 6:50:34 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
Personally I don't think that theism and also Christianity is a bad thing. I'm not a believer myself, but as long as the views are not too extreme and when it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's totally ok. Especially when you really do what christians should do: Help each other and support each other. This cannot be a bad thing! serenata flowers ( http://www.serenataflowers.com/flowers-by-post ) should be available for everybody. Maybe this would be a way to fight against poverty!
Posted by skyj, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:19:00 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
Tony, I think you may have confused my post with someone else's post.

If not, I am not sure where you get the idea that I think all theists and/or the religious are "bogey men". I've not said it and I don't think it.

If you go back and read my post, you will see I have clearly stated that my main issue is to keep personal belief removed from public affairs. I won't repeat myself, because you can go back and read it. It is you who is making generalisations - I was very specific in the issues I have - there's a list in my previous post. Speaking of strawmen - where have I mentioned Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Jensen (I don't even know who that is) or Reverend Nile?

My attack is not based on the dickish behaviour of some. It is based on very real and actual religious entitlement that I believe should not be present - please go back and read my post and respond to the specific issues that I detailed. I am interested in your response.

On the topic of personal beliefs, I am interested to know what theistic belief system excludes an afterlife?
Posted by chrisdbarry, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 12:39:28 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
poirot/quot...""Greene used the example""

the eg-sample..is not a sample
its an impossability..this teqnique is a constant in science
..it blows your mind..[genericly not specificly]
you then suck up..*the imposs-able..[like genus evolvinmg into new genus

reveal aliens
reveal the speed of gravity
gravity isnt a quality measurable in 'speed'/..

its an affect of mass
not going nowhere[outside its mass]
in fact at the micro level..its heavier smaler particles sinking..pushing up..[by displacement..not alien majic..]..lighter elements

to say that can switch of is criminal[not egsamplke]
cause a sample =the real thing..a lie is a lie..not a sample

""of aliens making off with the moon,""
is like cumming down a chimminy[7 billion times a hight]
it cant ever be an eg-sample..of nuthing[certainly no place in science

here i will explain the imposable
with a lie..a lie alone can make the impossable likely..lol..[get it now]

""not as part of a scientific theory""
of course not..alians is its own theory[lie],

and egsample..of mooning..""but as an absurd point of departure
to explain that gravity and light move at the same speed.""

they arnt
cravity like magnitism..[generally]..cant be switched 'on and off'
[gravity has no on/off..[unlike certain magnets][lol at self]

""He also employed..Bart Simpson""

bart simpson is a cartoon
its used to sell many lies..again its not science sample

""catch up to..the speed of light..for the same utility,""

im asuming catching a truck
will need go faster than the truck?

trucks dont travel over the speed limit
usually well below..the speed of light..

or a bored-scater..
but a scater faster..lol..only in the pictures of fantasy

WELL BELOW the
lol..speed of grrrav-ity..!
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 5:48:55 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
""but I'm not thinking
that it's something..nine year-old boys do..that often.""

i resisted the first bit..
so as to..not muddy the reply

in your opinion..have more.."9 year old pictures..
tried replicating..this means to achieve light seeed?

heck the dude quotes fictions[twice]
bet he has plenty more fictions

note;..sciencde texts
DONT use samples
they present facts

if its not all fact
its all fiction

if facts cant explain science theory
insanity..delusion certainly cant neither

""It was not..*about the bloody moon,
it was about..the speed..of gravity and light""

i googled..""Speed of gravity -Wikipedia,

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

In the context of..!..classical theories*!

of gravitation,..the speed of gravity..is the speed
at which changes..in a gravitational field propagate...

In a more physically correct sense,
the "speed of gravity"..refers to the speed..of a gravitational wave.

The Speed of Gravity
What the Experiments Say

metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

A presentation of evidence..that gravity
must*..[not does]..propagate at a speed..
*substantially faster than the speed of light.

But you knew that already.

lol yerself mate...
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 5:49:36 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
>>If not, I am not sure where you get the idea that I think all theists and/or the religious are "bogey men". I've not said it and I don't think it.<<

No you didn't say bogey-men: I said that. But you did attribute unsavoury characteristics to all theists and religions. You even put theism at the top of your list. So clearly we're not your favourite people even if you wouldn't use the exact phrase bogey-men.

>>Theism on the other hand is at the top of my list. The reason it is at the top of my list is that religion plays politics. Religion intrudes into my life by a) claiming superior knowledge of how life should be lived and b) attempting to force me to live according to these standards.<<

>> I was very specific in the issues I have - there's a list in my previous post. Speaking of strawmen - where have I mentioned Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Jensen (I don't even know who that is) or Reverend Nile?<<

Yes you're very specific in the issues you have: where you are very unspecific is in singling out those elements of society who are responsible for these issues. Which includes IMO dicks like Cardinal Pell, Fred Nile and Archbishop Jensen (the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and a nasty piece of work). You just shoot off broadsides at religion in general. But a lot of us agree with you. If most religious people agree with you doesn't that mean that 'religion' agrees with you?

>>1. Religions intruding into my child's education - school chaplaincy program.
2. Religions receiving financial benefits drawn from public taxation simply for being a religion.
3. Religion playing any formal part in federal or state politics. e.g. saying prayer before parliament.<<

TBC
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 11:49:57 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
1. Well duh. If private schools wish to employ chaplains that's their business. But the state system is supposed to be secular and the taxpayer shouldn't be footing the bill for chaplains in state schools. Especially when they need more funding for basic essentials: textbooks and art supplies and laboratory equipment and so on should come before frivolities like chaplains.
2. Well duh. Scientology gets tax-free status: I rest my case.
3. This one isn't so clear cut. I don't really see the prayer as a formal part of politics - just some of the pomp and show that goes on before they get down to business. I believe there's some nonsense involving a ceremonial mace. It's all just empty symbolism but people like empty symbolism: get rid of the prayer and they'll probably replace it with a smoking ceremony. Mumbling a few words before any debate has started doesn't mean that there are theocratic elements to the Australian parliamentary system.

>>I feel that my position is pretty mild and fair minded<<

I agree. And I think most theists would agree. So is 'religion' really your enemy? Or just a few lone whiny voices in the wilderness demanding special treatment? If that's the case shouldn't you be worrying more about the lone voices - the Pells et. al. - than 'religion'? When was the last time a Buddhist gave you any grief?

>>On the topic of personal beliefs, I am interested to know what theistic belief system excludes an afterlife?<<

I'm not Buddhist and I don't know a lot about Buddhism but I understand they believe in reincarnation. The soul gets recycled but it is a new being every time. I wouldn't really call that an afterlife. So there's one. I am pantheist. Pantheism doesn't include an afterlife either. So there's two. There are probably others.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 11:50:28 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
tony/quote..""When was the last time
a Buddhist..gave you any grief?""

are hari chrishnas buddist?
does a locked temple mean anything?

quote..>>On the topic of personal beliefs, ..I am interested to know what theistic belief system excludes an afterlife?<<

tony reply/quote..""I'm not Buddhist and I don't know a lot about Buddhism but I understand they believe in reincarnation.""

i wil reply later
but for now buddist=born again
a nothingness of nothing

but christ died..in the flesh
he came back..[3] days...he said
'THAT YE SE ME DO..ye will do greater'

he assured a thief on the cross..he would this day BE..in heaven*

jesus refuted judgment day
AND reserction day

yes a few3 chose to come back BUT

""The soul gets recycled""

thats what buddists believe
christ taught..we are spirit PLUS soul
[soul is our life experience[at birth USUALLY..a band new book is opend[this [yyour life story]..is your soul[the devil can buy your soul[BUT YOUR LIFE SPIRIT BELONGS TO GOD

[its funny that the spirit[sustaining our lives[of all living]
is as old as time..but our soul[usually],,brand new

""but it is a new being..every time.
I wouldn't really call..that an afterlife.""

i agree

""I am pantheist.
Pantheism doesn't include an afterlife either.
So there's two...There are probably others...""

probably..but why the queen/pope frefuse to decree the truth
dont see demons eat flesh/drink blood[or beast]

demons hang dead corpses [astral shells ;;of their victims..in hell

heck to get into it you go through a curtain..of just eyeballs[living eyeballs stung like beads..each staring right at ya

to re incarnate..you gotta go via that door
into the lowest pits of the lowest hell
that has a wormhole...back into utro
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 2:07:14 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. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All

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